Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church/Archive 3

Request for links to sources to support "usually"

Note: the following discussion resulted in no sources brought forth to support "usually" or to deny use of article text "official name". NancyHeise ^talk 03:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Nor has Nancy stated that the use of the name "Roman Catholic Church" and other names by Pius XI, Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, etc. is anything but official. Surely she doesn't think that one or other of these other names is more usual than the name "Catholic Church". Defteri (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Defteri responded to my statement above (where I said most editors can not support the opposing side because no sources support that side) by offering this non WP:RS source [1]. I read the article but could not find any mention of this author discussing the official name of the Church. He uses both Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Church in his arguments but the subject matter is not about the Church's name. Further, the actual book from where this excerpt was taken is reproduced here [2] and the author never uses the term "Roman Catholic" just "Catholic Church" for the same excerpt. Defteri also puts into quotation marks a statement made by Pope Pius XII in an original Church document that we can not use as a reference based on WP:OR. Defteri also fails to mention that the Pope, when making the statement was discussing what "others say" when he used the term "Roman Catholic" in that same original document. This is not a WP:RS that we can use for support for the term "usually refers to itself as Catholic Church". The only reliable sources we have support only "Roman Catholic Church, officially called Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church which titles itself Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church which, in its official documents calls itself Catholic Church" Please offer a list of links to WP:RS sources that meet the requirements of WP:Reliable source examples if we are going to continue to suggest that there are other official names used by the Church. I would also ask that the opposing parties actually read those Wikipedia policies because weblogs, blogs, .com and .org sites, such as Defteri's new source, are not considered WP:RS or WP:reliable source examples. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 21:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. There simply aren't reliable sources to support any other official name. Catholic Church is the name used by the Church in all its official documents and pronouncements bar a minute number of special instances. "Usually", besides being imprecise (is the name used 51% of the time or 98%?), weakens the crux of the explanation that "Catholic Church" is the proper name of the Church. The fact that "Roman Catholic Church" is used first, and in the title, strongly implies that this is the proper name, and makes it necessary to have a strong simple statement of the proper name, not over-limited with qualifications. As far as any formulation containing the terms "calls itself" or "terms itself", I would maintain my strong objection to these, since they imply that entitlement to the name is dubious; (eg: America, which in official documents terms itself the United States.) I suggested "The RCC - in official usage the CC -" since this covers both documents and pronouncements. Any minor exceptions people are concerned with, should be addressed in the notes. The problem with "The Roman Catholic Church which (usually) uses the name 'Catholic Church' in official contexts", is that by over-qualification, it again unwittingly implies that the proper name is RCC, and that "Catholic Church" is just used in certain contexts. That would be misleading as "Catholic Church" is used in the vast majority of contexts by Catholics (and others) across the world. Xandar 22:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, you state this above "bar a minute number of special instances." Do you or anyone else have even one link to offer that meets WP:RS where the Church uses the term Roman Catholic Church in its official documents as the official name for the whole Church, not the Diocese of Rome or Roman rite? NancyHeise ^talk 22:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the couple of Original Research primary sources that some people have dug up, such as the specialist ARCIC documents. Similarly a few older documents have been unearthed bearing other formulations such as "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church," the meaning of which is imprecise, but these are both rare and not current, and there are certainly no WP:RS sources that give these as the official name of the Church. Xandar 23:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

And ARCIC is a separate organization. NancyHeise ^talk 23:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Some people persist in claiming that the use of the name "Roman Catholic Church" by Pius XI, Pius XII, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, etc. isn't official. They also refuse to acknowledge that the names by which in its official documents the Church refers to itself are not limited to "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church". Defteri (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been repeatedly asked for wiki-verifiable secondary sources for claims trhat the Catholic Church uses other official names, but you have failed to do so. Xandar 11:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

For me, the Church's own declaration, in a wiki-verifiable document of an ecumenical council, that the Church we are talking about (the Church that is governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him) "is called the Holy (Catholic Apostolic) Roman Church" in two other official documents of its own (one a profession of faith, the other a dogmatic declaration by another ecumenical council) is proof enough that "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are not the only names that it officially treats as its own. Defteri (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, we are not allowed to use primary documents of religious sources (See WP:Reliable source examples under the subsection religious sources) Nor are we allowed to use the opinions of those who are not considered experts in the subject matter like the only sources Gimmetrow has produced, one by a Lutheran and the other by another non-Catholic Church expert whose book was reviewed by a scholarly journal that states it contains inaccuracies with regards to the various religions it covers. We can not be asked to support article text for which there are absolutely no reliable references to cite. Therefore we can not use the word "usually" because all of our reliable sources say otherwise. NancyHeise ^talk 01:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you've completely misunderstood that section of WP:Reliable source examples, which is an essay anyway. But that's fine. By same standards you have argued, please provide the exact source upon which you presume to base, without interpretation or original research, that the church is "officially known as the Catholic Church". Since Whitehead [3] never uses the phrase "officially known", that source is out. Gimmetrow 02:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, I will answer your question when you provide one source to support your position. Also, you never answered Shell's question to your opening statement where she wanted to know why you were calling it a "claimed" consensus supporting "official name" when the actual links I provided her show it to be an "actual" consensus. NancyHeise ^talk 02:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Many sources have been provided, Nancy, but you've rejected them. Remember the position of the bishop at Vatican I which was accepted by explicit vote at Vatican I? But that's beside the point. You have defended a disputed line - the lead line of all things - in the article for months now. If you want the text to remain in the article, WP:Verifiability policy says: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." it is your job to defend it adequately - which you have failed to do. But since you prefer to play games about reliable sources, fine. You brought up peer reviews. Whitehead seems like he's made a name in popular apologetics. Does Whitehead have any relevant credentials? Does he have a canonical doctorate in canon law or sacred theology? Even a licentiate? Does he even have a relevant secular PhD, like in religious history? Has his view on this specific topic ever been published in a peer reviewed academic journal? I'm wondering. Gimmetrow 02:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be very easy for you to prove me wrong about you not having any sources if you could just provide a link to that discussion. You have not provided a link because the opposite scenario actually happened. That is why there are no sources to support your position. I now provide you with your desired list of wordings that support use of article text "official name" as well as the final consensus vote that considered all of your non-sources and my actual ones:, listed below: NancyHeise ^talk 02:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Results of this section resulted in zero sources provided by Gimmetrow or others. NancyHeise ^talk 02:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

See preceeding response. "Many sources have been provided, Nancy, but you've rejected them..." Gimmetrow 04:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

list and links to WP:RS and WP:consensus that support article text "official name" repeated from above

Sources and consensus that support article text "official name" with links to actual sources and final consensus vote that also considered all of Gimmetrows non-sources.

• 1)Academic American Encyclopedia that states the Church "Claimed as its title" (see entire quote and source info here [4] to supplement all the others who argue the exact same point using various terms such as
• 2)the exact article wording "official name" (Madrid) [5] ,
• 3)"proper name" and "legislating in the name of the Church they called in official documents" (Whitehead) [6],
• 4)"the name of this institution was and is Catholic Church" (Belloc) [7].
• 5)McClintock [8] whose exact words from this site are reproduced here: "The name may be found in a number of Roman Catholic writers, and is generally used in the constitution of those states in which the Roman Catholic Church is recognized as one of the recognized or tolerated State churches. It is, however, not the official name used by the authorities of the Church who rather dislike it, and substitute for it the name 'Catholic' or 'Holy Catholic' Church. The name 'Roman Church' is applied, in the language of the Church, to the Church or diocese of the Bishop of Rome." which is the same argument made by all five sources that you persist in denying to appreciate even though all of them meet the standards set by WP:RS and WP:Reliable source examples as well as meeting WP:Consensus on use of the term "official":
• Final consensus vote on use of "official name in article text - [9] which Gimmetrow persists in denying even though he does not have a new consensus or new info that meets WP:RS. Also, Gimmetrow never answered Shell's question to his opening statement where she wanted to know why he was calling it a "claimed" consensus supporting "official name" when the actual links I provided her show it to be an "actual" consensus. Gimmetrow, please provide sources to support your position that meet Wikipedia's pillar WP:RS and please let the rest of us know why you persist in denying consensus when you have zero sources. NancyHeise ^talk 02:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

We've been through this all before. 1) Irrelevant. It's not about official name. 2) Madrid has no relevant expertise in the topic and the book itself is popular apologetics - if you accept that then you should accept Protestant apologetics pieces 3) Not about official name. It's strictly speaking a reliable source only for Whitehead's view on the proper name of the church. 4) Said by the way, not directly about this specific topic. 5) This says "RCC is not the official name", but it does not in fact say that CC is the exclusive official name.

Therefore, the sources do not support the text you have defended. Gimmetrow 02:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Madrid is a notable expert on "Catholic stuff" as per Wikipedia's reliable sources noticeboard [10]. We can't be expected to toss reliable sources just because you dont like them, you have no links to sources that dispute ours, you have no consensus and you have no Wikipedia rules that support your position without sources that meet WP:RS. NancyHeise ^talk 03:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:V, which is policy, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Madrid is the only source you've provided that says anything related to the specific topic at hand, and he says it without any sources or references for us to check. Has Madrid's view on this topic ever been published in peer reviewed academic journals? Does he have any canonical doctorates, or even a relevant secular doctorate? If not, then he's just another popular apologetics writer, and I wonder how you can then reject Protestant apologetics pieces? How do you reject the views of cardinals? How do you reject the view voted at Vatican I? How can you reject the statement actually expressed in the document of Vatican II? Were all these issues addressed in your alleged "consensus"? Do you really think there is a consensus now, given that multiple editors object to the wording of the lead sentence? Gimmetrow 03:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: WP:V - I did not add or restore material, I had a panel of 15 established editors examine all my sources and they all agreed that all of the sources supported article text "official name". Where is your consensus? Why cant you provide links to your supposed sources? Further WP:Reliable source examples under subsection (Religious sources) does not allow us to use sources who are not "recognized experts" in the subject matter and both of yours were disqualified as clear non-experts, one with a bad review in a scholarly journal and the other a clear WP:fringe view of Catholic Church subjects unsupported by any secondary source. Madrid is not considered a "relgious source". He is a notable expert on "Catholic stuff" that I am allowed to use. NancyHeise ^talk 03:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Madrid is a non-scholarly writer with (apparently) no relevant credentials, whose writing has no sources or references to check. If he were presenting a routine view (like, there are seven sacraments) which we knew could easily be sourced to any reputable theologian (ie, with a canonical doctorate), it wouldn't be an issue. But it's not, and I'm sure you know it. Multiple contrary sources have been provided, and still you point to a past vote in which only two options were presented, as if that resolves anything. Gimmetrow 03:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Brittanica agrees with Madrid's wording see the definition of Catholic here: [11] where it states: "The Church of Rome alone, officially and in popular parlance, is the Catholic Church". Gimmetrow, do you really need any more references to support "officially"? Everytime I go looking, I find more references to support the term. NancyHeise ^talk 05:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course the Church of Rome is officially and in popular parlance known as the Catholic Church. But is this the only name by which it is officially known? What Gimmetrow right denies is that there is any evidence that the Church has ever selected a particular name is its one official name. There are several names of which it makes official use and that can thus be called official names. "Catholic Church" is just one of them.

(Unimportant question: Is it possible that your source for this quotation is really this, which seems to be a wiki, allowing changes by casual editors? In any case, the quotation should not be given as from the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It is only a quotation that claims to be from an out-of-date edition of almost exactly a century ago. The actual Encyclopaedia Britannica article on the Roman Catholic Church does not call it by the short name "Catholic Church" even once.) Defteri (talk) 05:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Defteri, I provided a link to my source which is on googlebooks, not a Wiki, all you had to do was click on it to answer your own question. Here is the link again, [12]. This is the seventh reference we have now that supports "official name" and if you read it you will see that it answers all your other questions too. Encyclopedia Brittanica is a very "mainstream view" publication, a very respected source and it supports our article text. I don't see how you can continue to argue the matter anymore especially when you have produced zero sources that support your theory that the Church has more than one official name. NancyHeise ^talk 20:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)