Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church/Archive 5

What is the core issue being mediated?

We can not be expected to compromise on any wording here if there are no sources to support Gimmetrows assertions that Catholic Church is not "the" official name. We have already posted many sources including the newest and latest, the Academic American Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Brittanica which both support article text. EB specifically uses the term "officially" see the definition of "Catholic" here [1] where it states "The Church of Rome alone, officially and in popular parlance, is "the Catholic Church". We have consensus vote by numerous editors who considered also changing the name of the aritcle to "Catholic Church" and ultimately rejected it in favor of the present form. I am not in favor of tossing that vote just to make Gimmetrow happy. The result of this mediation should be to see if

• A)Does Gimmetrow have reasonable basis to deny present article text - with sources that support his position? - I think I have clearly shown the answer to that question to be "NO". [2]
• B)Does Gimmetrow have reasonable basis to deny the last consensus vote that decided on use of "Officially"? - I think I have clearly shown the answer to that question to be "NO". [3]NancyHeise ^talk 03:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Religious sources does not outlaw using statements by a church as a reliable source about its own teaching. That would be absurd. On the contrary, it says: "the proceedings of official religious bodies ... can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject." And it says that about the church's viewpoint on some matter other than the church itself! How much more acceptable and authoritative and legitimately cited is a statement by the church about itself!

The official proceedings of the Second Vatican Council explicitly state that the Church is called the Holy (Catholic Apostolic) Roman Church in two other official documents of the Church. That is proof enough that "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are not the only names that the Church officially treats as its own name. This statement alone by the Church outweighs all the opinions of writers that Nancy may cite, especially since some of them, Whitehead in particular, make several clearly unfounded claims. Defteri (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Defteri. You are referring to a footnote in certain versions of the Vatican 2 document that cross-references with a vatican 1 document. Footnotes are not part of the actual document, but references for further understanding and reference. The term you refer to there (Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church,) is an obscure, largely Victorian, usage which is not currently favoured. There are no references saying that this is the official name of the Church. Xandar 16:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "versions" of the document? There is only one document in question. It makes no difference in what part of the document the statement is: it is there in the document. In a dogmatic document of an ecumenical council. This official document makes a statement about what the Church is called, and then gives references to two other documents. The two other documents are also official documents, highly official documents, and they do attribute to the Church the names that the first document mentions. These two other official documents, official in the highest degree, a profession of faith and a dogmatic document of another ecumenical council, do use names other than "Roman Catholic Church" and "Catholic Church" as official designations of the Church. What more can you want? Defteri (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should step back and ask what our decision criteria are for determining the answer to this question: What makes a name of the church "acceptable" and what makes it "official"? Here is an initial list of criteria that have been floated during our discussion...

1. One that has been used for a long time (e.g. since the 4th century)
2. One that has been used in official documents/contexts
3. One that is "currently favoured" (thus excluding names that are not "currently favoured" per Defteri)
4. One that has been stated to be the "proper name" or "the official name" by secondary sources with varying claims to speaking with expert knowledge (but not speaking from a position of official authority)

I would suggest that Defteri'sXandar's argument (#3) about "currently favoured" is not a good one because it suggests that "the official name" of the Church has somehow changed since the Victorian era and I suspect he would find it difficult to back that up with a source. Besides, I doubt he would like the logical implications of that assertion.

I would further suggest that we don't really know what the "official name of the church" is because it's not clear from the sources that this locution (i.e. "official name") is in wide usage by anybody other than the editors of this article. With a few exceptions (e.g. Patrick Madrid), all of our sources require a chain of logic to go from what the source actually says to the conclusion that "the official name of the Church is the 'Catholic Church'". For example, Whitehead says "proper name" but not "official name". This suggests that the name of the church is 'Catholic Church' but the concept of "official name" is not really in wide use.

Thus, I would argue that it is perhaps a Wikipedia neologism in that some Wikipedians think it is important that the church have an official name. (Or, more accurately, those Wikipedians think it is important to use the word "official" to characterize the phrase "Catholic Church")

There certainly are many sources to suggest that "the Catholic Church" is, by far and away, the name that the church prefers. I have not seen a single polemic arguing in favor of any other name.

Maybe the reason that the church has never gone to the effort to establish a formal "official name" is that it has a number of names that it accepts but it singles out "Roman Catholic Church" to dislike and "disprefer" for sectarian reasons that we all know about. After all, you don't see any polemics against the use of "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church" or any of its variants. This locution is unobjectionable because it does not suggest the "Branch Theory" which is the crux of the dislike for "Roman Catholic Church". This is why the bishops at Vatican I supported "Roman" as a proper descriptor for the church. It is only the juxtaposition of "Roman" and "Catholic" together to form "Roman Catholic" that is disliked by Catholics.

Why do we go around and around in circles fighting over a handful of words when it would be far easier for us and far more useful to the reader to just lay out this information for him to understand?

--Richard (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Defteri's argument (#3) about 'currently favoured'"? I have certainly not implied that "'the official name' of the Church has somehow changed since the Victorian era". Did you mean Xandar's argument? Or someone else's?

Yes, sorry...my brain is obviously made of Swiss cheese. --Richard (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

An "official name" is one that is adopted officially, at least in practice. A "one and only official name" is one that has been officially declared to be such. The only way in which a name could merely in practice be a one and only official name would be if no other name were ever used, which is clearly not the case here. Several official names have been adopted officially, including "Catholic Church". No reference has been provided to any official declaration by the Church that any particular name is the one and only official name.

Why do you again say that the Church dislikes "Roman Catholic Church"? The Popes continue to use it. Why do you say that the juxtaposition of "Roman" and "Catholic" to form "Roman Catholic" is disliked by Catholics? Doesn't sound like the Church really dislikes "Roman Catholic" (unless we conclude - I warn that this is irony - that the Popes are not part of the Church instead of being spokesmen for the Church). I fear that these statements are altogether unhelpful and that they only serve to distract from "What is the core issue being mediated?" That is: Is there a "one and only official name" of the Church? Defteri (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeh... I agree with you. After all, it was I who argued on Talk:Roman Catholic Church that there are many websites of RCC churches that use the name "Roman Catholic" without opprobrium. When I said that the church dislikes the phrase "Roman Catholic", I was using shorthand for the fact that many in the church dislike the phrase because its usage could be employed to further sectarian polemic. This dislike is supported by a number of sources. Is it going too far to summarize that into a blanket dislike by the church for the phrase? Yes, it is going too far and thank you for catching me on that. It's just hard to write out every nuance every time. --Richard (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Note to Richard on websites: We have gone over this before - all of our sources state that within the Church, Roman Catholic can refer to "Roman rite" as opposed to one of the Eastern rite churches. In my area, we have other Catholic rites besides Roman, there is a Byzantine rite church a few miles down the street from my Roman rite Catholic Church. Unless you have secondary reliable sources that support that the term is being used for the purpose that supports your personal interpretation, it is original research for you to decide that is what they meant when they chose to use the word Roman on their site. NancyHeise ^talk 20:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment about "other Catholic rites" noted long ago when it was first raised. However, don't we have a source that says that "Roman" specifically means "the diocese of Rome"? On what basis do you assert that these American churches use "Roman Catholic" to mean "Roman rite" and not "Diocese of Rome"? Because the latter would be nonsensical? Of course, it would be. Ahhh, but are you not now engaging in interpretation by selective application of what a source (one that you like) says? Is there a source that says that the use of "Roman Catholic" by American churches specifically is intended to designate "Roman rite"? Or is that your interpretation? Charges of original research cut both ways. --Richard (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Note to Defteri, Wikipedia's pillar policy WP:V would not allow us to use Defteri's logic for the Church's official name because there are no reliable sources that support his original research WP:OR of the original document which does not state X is the Church's official name. However, WP:V does allow us to use the article text that we have consensus to use "officially known as "Catholic Church" because we actually have multiple other sources, both religious and otherwise, including Catholic media stating the same. Encyclopedia Brittanica concurs with this wording (see [4] which is like a rubber stamp of "mainstream view verification". Per Encyclopedia Brittanica "The Church of Rome alone, officially and in popular parlance, is 'the Catholic Church'." There really does not need to be any more discussion about this unless Defteri can provide a source that meets Wikipedia policy to support his view. Richard, you just seem to be going along with whatever Defteri, Soidi and Gimmetrow are saying but you don't come up with any sources either. We are not seeking new wording unless the opposing side can provide reliable sources to support thier view which, so far, they have not. NancyHeise ^talk 20:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Then, why are we having this mediation?

Nancy, you requested the mediation. Perhaps it would be useful for you to make explicit what you hope this process to accomplish since you seem to be derailing attempts to reach a compromise solution which was, in my mind, the objective of the mediation process.

Please answer these questions: What do you hope the process to accomplish, how do you envision it proceeding and what do you see as the role of Shell, the mediator?

If we, as a group, do not have a "meeting of minds" regarding the objectives and process that this mediation will follow, then all this effort is futile.

I suspect that Shell has been away for the weekend and I hope he will return soon because it does now seem that the discussion is breaking down specifically because of your refusal to consider any proposed compromises. Unless he can get it going again, we should abandon it and contemplate proceeding to the next step in dispute resolution. --Richard (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, the Encyclopaedia Britannica does not say what you say it says. The 1911 edition, which is not what is meant today by "the Encyclopaedia Britannica", apparently did say that the Roman Church, and no other, is officially called the Catholic Church. Does anybody deny that the Roman Church is officially called the Catholic Church? I don't. What it did not say is that "Catholic Church" is the one and only official name of the Roman Church. The Church has itself declared officially that it is also called the Holy Roman Church. It has itself declared officially that it is called the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church. So these are just three of the names that are official names of the Church. It has not declared any name to be the one and only official name. How could it, when it has several official names? If you can't accept the Church's own declaration about its names, and at least adopt a neutral expression, what can we do, but go to obligatory dispute resolution, as Richard suggests? Would it be enough to get a decision on whether the Church's own declarations on its doctrine, name etc. can be ignored?

An "official name" is one that is adopted officially, at least in practice. A "one and only official name" is one that has been officially declared to be such. The only way in which a name could merely in practice be a one and only official name would be if no other name were ever used, which is clearly not the case here. Several official names have been adopted officially, including "Catholic Church". No reference has been provided to any official declaration by the Church that any particular name is the one and only official name. Defteri (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Defteri, do you have a WP:RS reliable source to support your personal theory that the Church has more than one official name? I have searched and all my searching results in the addition of more sources that say the opposite. The newest source is "the" Encyclopedia Britannica, their 1911 edition [5] published by a university press and it clearly supports our article text use of the words "officially known as 'Catholic Church'" which is one of the three reasons for this mediation. In response to Richard, the reason for the mediation is outlined on this mediation's project page where we listed the issues to be mediated. Usually in a mediation, the each side has some sort of reliable references to support their assertions but in this case there are no reliable references except those that support the consensus agreed article text that you, Defteri, Soidi and Gimmetrow oppose. None of you can expect us to ditch our agreed wording, which is the exact wording also used by Encyclopedia Brittanica, unless you have some sources to support all of your very strong (but completely unsupported by any references) personal opinions.NancyHeise ^talk 00:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, in spite of what you now claim, I have never opposed saying that "Catholic Church" is an official name of the Church. I have opposed your claim that "Catholic Church" is the official name or, as Defteri says, "the one and only" official name. Do your sources really say that "Catholic Church" is the only name by which the Church is officially known? How many, if any, say more than that "Catholic Church" is an official name. Some few of them also argue or suggest that "Roman Catholic Church" should not be seen as official, but that is not what they are being citing for in your version of the article. The Encyclopaedia Britannica (please spell its name correctly) does not say what you attribute to it. Would you say: "The CIA Factbook states that Yugoslavia is the name of a state in the Balkans"? You could only say that the (for instance) 1971 edition of the CIA Factbook stated this. So you can only say that the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica said that the Roman Church was officially known as the Catholic Church. And it is simply ridiculous to claim that even that edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica said that the "Roman Church" was officially and in common parlance known by absolutely no other name but "Catholic Church"! I feel sure also that what Defteri and Gimmetrow, whom you mention along with me, oppose is only the baseless claim that there is just one single official name of the Church. Gimmetrow has long been pointing out what Defteri has stated just above: A "one and only" official name is one that has been officially declared to be such, and no evidence has been produced that any particular name has been declared the one and only official name. So please don't attribute to them also what they have not said and do not say. But even if they did say it, that is irrelevant to the question that I think is being discussed here and now: Does the Church use only one name officially? It is quite obvious that it does use several. Soidi (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree. I would add that the 1911 Encyclopaedia was describing, and deprecating, the situation then existing "on the continent of Europe", and was speaking of official use in civil society, not within the Church itself. Defteri (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)