Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Mediation Outcome

Overview

This was a multiparty mediation filed on January 19, 2009 by NancyHeise and signed by 19 participants, of which 17 have been active. The mediation was accepted by the Mediation Committee on January 27 and Shell Kinney agreed to mediate on February 10. Due to off-wiki commitments, Shell withdrew from the mediation; Sunray took over as mediator on March 4, 2009.

The mediation centered on the first part of the lead sentence of the Roman Catholic Church article: "The Roman Catholic Church, officially known as the Catholic Church..." At issue was the use of the word "officially" and also the significance and relative importance of the two names. Other issues in dispute pertained to the explanatory note for the two names and the use of sources in the note. Participants reviewed several alternative proposals for the wording of the lead sentence.

Research by participants determined that the name the "Catholic Church" was the most common name and also the name most commonly used by the church, when referring to itself. There was a rough consensus in favor of changing the first part of the lead sentence and much thought and discussion went into rewording the lead. It was agreed to re-draft the explanatory note to accompany this wording. This called into question the name of the article. Participants were guided by WP policy and guidelines on naming.

Relevant policy and guidelines on naming

The policy on naming conventions states: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity..." [1].

The following convention applies: "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article..." [2]

The section of the policy on Controversial names specifically refers to Roman Catholic Church vs. Catholic Church [3] and refers one to the guideline on naming conflicts. The guideline states: "Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles." [4]

The guideline sets the following standards for making a choice among controversial names:

• "If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and one or more English-language equivalents exists, use the most common English-language name."

A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or self-identifying usage:

• "Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources)
• Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
• Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)."

Findings

• Google searches show that "Catholic Church" is the most common of the two names used on the Vatican website.
• The name "Catholic Church", rather than "Roman Catholic Church", is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents. It appears in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is also the term that Pope Paul VI used when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council (see "Explanatory note").
• "Roman Catholic Church" is used primarily for communications with other churches.

Action plan

1. Change lead sentence

The lead sentence will be modified to read as follows:

"The Catholic Church also known as the Roman Catholic Church...^{Note 1}

2. Add new explanatory note

The note will be modified to the following:

"There is some ambiguity about the title "Catholic Church", since the Church is not the only institution to claim catholicity. The Church is referred to and refers to itself in various ways, in part depending upon circumstance. The Greek word καθολικός (katholikos), from which we get "Catholic", means "universal". It was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early second century. After the East-West Schism, the Western Church took the name "Catholic", while the Eastern Church took the name "Orthodox". Following the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the church in communion with the Bishop of Rome used the name "Catholic" to distinguish itself from the various Protestant churches.

The name "Catholic Church", rather than "Roman Catholic Church", is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents. It appears in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is also the term that Pope Paul VI used when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council. Especially in English-speaking countries, the Church is regularly referred to as the "Roman" Catholic Church; occasionally, it refers to itself in the same way. At times, this can help distinguish the Church from other churches that also claim catholicity. Hence this has been the title used in some documents involving ecumenical relations. However, the name "Roman Catholic Church" is disliked by many Catholics as a label applied to them by Protestants to suggest that theirs is only one of several catholic Churches, and to imply that Catholic allegiance to the Pope renders them in some way untrustworthy. Within the Church, the name "Roman Church," in the strictest sense, refers to the Diocese of Rome."

3. Rename the article

In light of the fact that "Catholic Church" is not only the most common name, but the name most commonly used by the Church to describe itself, it is the consensus of participants to rename the article "Catholic Church."

Consultation process

This summary and action plan are posted to the article talk page for community consultation. Shell Kinney and I will be facilitating the discussion, which will close at 12:00 noon, UTC, on June 26, 2009. The participants in the mediation welcome discussion regarding the action plan. Sunray (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This plan and its discussion has been moved to a subpage to avoid disrupting other on-going discussions. As issues are discussed and resolved, they will be archived or collapsed. Shell ^babelfish 17:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Per Carlaude's request, I have moved the page to a more descriptive title. Shell ^babelfish 20:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Section archives: Archive 1, Archive 2

Change "Eastern Orthodox Church" to "Orthodox Church"?

Just an inquiry if I may, if the Orthodox is known among it's adherents as the Orthodox Church rather than Eastern Orthodox, would it not be fitting to change it's article name? Sure Oriental Orthodox also claim this title, however I don't think they use it as widely so as to differentiate themselves from their Chalcedonian brethren. I know that this isn't a discussion on changing "Eastern Orthodox" to "Orthodox", but would this change from "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church" be grounds for changing "Eastern Orthodox" to "Orthodox"? (or even "Orthodox Christianity"). I am not at all offended by the change from RCC to Catholic, as I always grew up with it being called "Catholic" not necesarrily "Roman Catholic". It is a claim of validity, however so is the term Orthodox... Both churches actually claim the term catholic, however Orthodox apply it in small-c terms as to avoid association with Rome. They claim catholicity as found in the Creed itself. (One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church). However we Orthodox do not claim catholicity in terms of the large C as I stated before. Sorry if I have drug on unnecessarily, but thanks for your patience... --OrthoArchitectDU (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, many of the sources shown above, use "Catholic Church" (not only "catholic Church") to refer to the (eastern) Orthdox Church. (You can also find this here, on the website of an "Orthodox Research Institute".) Cody7777777 (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ortho, what is at stake is for institutions to call themselves by their title of choice on Wikipedia. I would only disagree with you in the manner in which you "spoke" it above. This action would not be a basis for another similar action, rather the same policies would apply to every article on Wikipedia as they apply to this article. That may sound like I am splitting hairs, but I think context is important here and that context is naming policy an fairly applying it to all articles in a similar manner. Does that make sense to you? --^StormRider 03:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense, you are only saying that the rules would just have to be applied to Orthodoxy and all other articles as well. I understand that this isn't like a (sorry for my poor analogy) Supreme Court decision which is to be "the law" and used for all subsequent like-cases. The rules are already set and just need to be applied.OrthoArchitectDU (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Christians of the Eastern Churches call themselves Orthodox. This description comes to us from the fifth century and has two meanings which are closely related. The first definition is “true teaching.” The Orthodox Church believes that she has maintained and handed down the Christian faith, free from error and distortion, from the days of the Apostles. The second definition, which is actually the more preferred, is “true praise.” To bless, praise, and glorify God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the fundamental purpose of the Church. All her activities, even her doctrinal formulations, are directed toward this goal.

Occasionally, the word Catholic is also used to describe the Orthodox Church. This description, dating back to the second century, is embodied in the Nicene Creed, which acknowledges One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. From the Orthodox perspective, Catholic means that the Church is universal and also that she includes persons of all races and cultures. It also affirms that the Church has preserved the fullness of the Christian faith. It is not unusual for titles such as Greek, Russian, and Antiochian to be used in describing Orthodox Churches. These appellations refer to the cultural or national roots of a particular parish, diocese, or archdiocese. [5]

That is just a little clip from the GOA's website on the terms Orthodox and Catholic for the Eastern Orthodox Church.OrthoArchitectDU (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I want you to know that Richard McBrien's, The Church, a scholarly source with notes and bibliography written by an expert in the subject, a WP:RS that meets the highest qualifications of WP:Reliable source examples, says that the the name of the Eastern Orthodox, the one they claimed as their title is "Holy Orthodox Church". NancyHeise ^talk 13:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The (eastern) Orthodox Church uses more official titles, for example, another one among them is "Orthodox Catholic Church" (even the "Encyclopedia Britannica" recognizes this as one of her titles). Although, it is not really necessary, I would like to also add a statement made by Alexei Khomiakov "The Orthodox Eastern Church is the whole of the Catholic Church now living upon earth—The titles "Orthodox" and "Eastern" merely temporary" (I'm sorry if anyone feels offended by his statement).Cody7777777 (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Like we've mentioned before. The title would be "Orthodox Catholic Church" which isn't the same as just calling it "Catholic Church". Every other church that uses catholic in their official title, uses additional words to distinguish them from this church and other churches. I don't think people will be confuses as to which church is being discussed here. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

But this Church has more titles than one. And Cody has shown that the Church has called itself the Catholic Church precisely when distinguishing itself from those who had fallen away from it. Soidi (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The RCC also used "Roman Catholic" when distinguishing itself from other Churches using the same title ("Catholic Church"), this can be checked on the Vatican's website "Catholic Church (Roman Catholic)" and the Orthodox Church" (this was shown earlier here), in my opinion, a similar disambiguation in brackets could be used on wiki as well (it could be more descriptive like "Catholic Church (in communion with Rome)"). Cody7777777 (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What official document of the Holy Orthodox Church makes the claim that "Catholic Church" is the claimed title of that organization? Your sources make a theological claim not unlike the Anglican Church and others. Your source [6] is a dot com web page. I can make a dot com web page that says I am the king of England. Theological claims are not the issue of this conversation. Also, what peer reviewed scholarly source says this is the official title of that organization? Our scholarly sources say it "claimed as its title" Holy Orthodox Church. The Google test confirms this as well. I would think that if the official name of the ORthodox Church were Catholic Church, then they might have that name on their web site somewhere but what we really find is Orthodox Church,the same name that is on the sign outside the Orthodox Church in my own city. This argument is really unconvincing. No English speaking person thinks of the Orthodox Church when someone asks them where is the Catholic Church. In all my searching for sources on the name Catholic Church both before and after this mediation, I have never come across even one that said it is the name of the Orthodox Church. NancyHeise ^talk 18:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning it was a "dot com web page" (I haven't observed that), I hope you will find this more acceptable. The sources shown earlier (many which were written by clerics) didn't made only theological claims about the catholicity of the (E)OC, they also used the title "Catholic Church" (not only "catholic Church") to refer to the (E)OC. There is no proof that "Holy Orthodox Church" is the only title of the (E)OC (the article from Britannica also proves this). I could also ask why the Vatican felt the need to use "Catholic Church (Roman Catholic)" and the Orthodox Church" if the (E)OC would've used only the title "Holy Orthodox Church". To find titles of an organization, we need to search their "legal" documents, for the (E)OC, the Canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils are among its most important documents[7][8], the title "Catholic Church" (not just "catholic Church") is used there many times (only the Seventh Ecumenical Council uses the term "orthodox Church" a few times (the texts of the "Ecumenical Councils" can be found here). Another important document for the (E)OC, the "Confession of the Orthodox Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem" also uses only "Catholic Church", (it does not even use the title "Orthodox Church"). Also, Saint Raphael of Brooklyn, has explicitly stated (around the year 1914), that for the "Church of the East", "Catholic" is used as a name (so it is not just the descriptive term "catholic"). (Also, they don't really need to have the title "Catholic Church" on all of their websites, since the (E)OC has multiple titles, "Catholic Church" usually appears in its most important documents.) I have not seen any evidence that the (E)OC has ever officially renounced the title "Catholic Church" (it has no reason to do that). Cody7777777 (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Cody. You are simply re-posting the same stuff you have previously posted. The documents you post are hundreds of years old, and in the case of the texts of Ecumenical Councils, are largely referring to the undivided church. None of them state that now the orthodox Church uses as its identifying name, the "Catholic Church." It doesn't. Xandar 00:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The canons (which can be considered as "legal contexts") of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils, which use the title "Catholic Church", are used today by multiple Churches (even if they don't show this often). There were also more recent sources written by orthodox clerics and there was also the website of an Orthodox Research Institute shown using the title "Catholic Church" (not only the descriptive term "catholic Church) for the (E)OC, since you do not want them posted again, please check them again in earlier posts. Also, it doesn't matter that these documents are older, since they are considered important for the (E)OC today (also, the RCC as far as I know, has rejected the "Quinsext Council of Trullo", while it is accepted today by the (E)OC, although it probably doesn't matter too much). I have not seen any real evidence that the (E)OC no longer claims the title "Catholic Church" today (especially since it uses today canons which use the title "Catholic Church"), that can be rather an assumption. Also, Wikipedia cannot deny the right of the RCC, of the (E)OC or of anyone else to use the Canons of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils today, that would be subjective criteria. Cody7777777 (talk) 11:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

In documents that are still valid for the Church, it is called the Catholic Church. Has anyone actually denied this? It is not the name that the Church stresses most, but it is a name that the Church claims exclusively as its own. Soidi (talk) 05:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy states that we can use tertiary sources as guides to see what scholarly consensus is like. There are no encyclopedias that say "See Holy Orthodox Church" at the "Catholic Church" entry. Encyclopedia Americana lists Catholic Church at "Catholic Church" and it is talking about the Roman Catholic Church, not the Holy Orthodox Church which is listed at Orthodox Church. I would think that if what Cody is alluding to is correct, then we would see Holy Orthodox Church listed under the heading Catholic Church in at least some encylclopedias but that is not the case because that is not their name, "claimed as their title" - according to the experts like Richard McBrien in his scholarly work The Church. NancyHeise ^talk 03:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, not all of the encyclopedias have a "Neutral Point of View" rule (or other specific rules). I don't think I ever suggested that "Catholic Church" should be used as an article title for the (E)OC, the (E)OC uses multiple titles, "Catholic Church" usually appears in its most important documents. In cases when multiple entities use the same title, the WP naming policy states "A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names.". Also, I haven't seen sources which explicitly claim that the only title claimed by the (E)OC is "Holy Orthodox Church" (and I believe it was shown above that the (E)OC also claims the title "Catholic Church"), or that the RCC is the only Church claiming the title "Catholic Church". There are also other encyclopedias (such as "Britannica") which lists the article about the RCC, at "Roman Catholic Church", but since that title has some problems, in my opinion, a disambiguation in brackets should be given in the title, like "Catholic Church (in communion with Rome)" (or a different description in brackets, could be given if suggested). Cody7777777 (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am NancyHeise (using her daughter's account that she never uses because I am at the library and do not want to compromise my password on my Wikipedia account) and I just want to offer some help from the library concerning this discussion:

• The Columbia History of Western Philosophy by Richard Popkin (1999 Columbia University Press) persistently distinguishes between "Catholics" and "Protestants". When speaking of Catholics they are referring to the members of the Roman Catholic Church, see page 282.
• The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity by John McManners (1990 Oxford University Press) distinguishes between "Catholics" (referring to Roman Catholics), "Protestants", and "Eastern Orthodox" (referring to Holy Orthodox Church) see page 274.
• The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (1997 Oxford University Press) distinguishes Roman Catholic Church members as "To be in complete communion with the Church of rome is to belong to the Catholic Church." and adds "However, the addition of 'Roman' has become more common during recent decades of ecumenism, not least in recognition of the status of uniate Churches and of other uses of the world 'Catholic'; 'Roman Catholic' is therefore used in this article and throughout the Dictionary." page 821
• The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church definition of "Catholic" does not mention that this term is applied to Eastern Orthodox Church as a name, it does say that it is the name. It says it was a name applied to the undivided church but after the schism the western Church referred to itself as Catholic and the eastern Church as Orthodox. It also says that since the Reformation, Roman Catholics have come to use it exclusively of themselves. In present day usage it distinguished those Christians from Protestants. page 305
• HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism lists on page 242 the definition of Catholic Church as this: "is the worldwide Church that recognizes the Bishop of Rome, the pope, as "the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity of the bishops and of the mutitude of the faithful (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, n. 23)." This clearly is referring to the official Church Constitution that also uses the same term "Catholic Church" with zero mention of "Roman Catholic Church".
• I think these extremely scholary sources make clear that no one is going to confuse the article name "Catholic Church" with either the Eastern Orthodox Church or other churches that claim "catholicity". None of them uses the name "Catholic Church" as either an official title nor a common title as these sources indicate. So far, the argument on this page has provided no sources that meet WP:RS or WP:reliable source examples to substantiate the ambiguity claim for the proposed article name change and we now have many that support it. StacyyW (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting what the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions says about RCC having become more common during recent decades of ecumenism, and its decision that "Roman Catholic" should "therefore" be used throughout the Dictionary.

The Library's copy of the ODCC must not be of the latest (2005) edition. In that edition the entry on the word "Catholic" is on page 308.

"The official Church Constitution" is a misleading term. The document in question is only one of the documents (hundreds of which are published during a single pontificate) that are called "constitutions" in the ecclesiastical (and original) sense of this term (as explained in the articles constitution and apostolic constitution). In the modern sense, only one "constitution" is in force at any one time, not hundreds.

The document in question states explicitly that the Church calls itself the Holy Roman Church and the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church. Soidi (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Dogmatic Constitution on the Church is referring to Lumen Gentium which uses the term Catholic Church - per the note, it is referring to paragraph 23 see [9]. Catholic Church is used throughout the documents of Vatican II, including this one. Soidi, either you are intentionally distorting the facts here or you are uneducated about this issue. NancyHeise ^talk 03:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Get someone to translate for you the following statement in Lumen gentium: "Dicitur Sancta (catholica apostolica) Romana Ecclesia : in Prof. fidei Trid., 1. c. et Concil. Vat. I, Sess. III, Const. dogm. de fide cath.: Denz. 1782 (3001)." Or if it is hard to get someone to translate Latin for you, you can surely find someone who can tell you the meaning of the translations into French [On dit " Sancta (catholica apostolica) Romana Ecclesia ": dans Prof. fidei Trid., 1. c., et dans Conc. Vat. I, Sess. III, Const. dogm. de fide cath.: Denz. 1782 (3001)] or German [Die Formel "Sancta (catholica apostolica) Romana Ecclesia" findet sich in Professio fidei Tridentina, a. a. O. und in Conc. Vat. I, Sess. III., Const. dogm. de fide cath.: Denz. 1782 (3001)] or Italian (È detta “Santa (cattolica apostolica) Romana Chiesa” nella Prof. fidei Trid., l.c. [nota prec.] e nel CONC. VAT. I, Cost. Dogm. sulla fede cattolica Dei Filius: Dz 1782 (3001) [Collantes 3.018]) or Portuguese [Diz-se «Igreja santa (católica, apostólica) romana» em: Prof. fidei Trid., 1. c., e Conc. Vat. I, Const. dogm. de fide cath.: Denz. 1782 (3001)]. Soidi (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Soidi, I directly linked the primary document on the Vatican Website cited by a scholarly source that notes the use of Catholic Church in the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church. Please stop misleading the discussion. I don't need to translate anything because English Wikipedia asks us to use English sources. Vatican makes it easy for us by giving us the English translation of these documents. "Roman Catholic Church" is not in there. NancyHeise ^talk 04:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Nancy, you linked to the page on the Vatican Website that gives an English translation of the document - whether a translation counts as a "primary" document is a question we can leave aside - and that page includes the statement: "Dicitur Sancta (catholica apostolica) Romana Ecclesia : in Prof. fidei Trid., 1. c. et Concil. Vat. I, Sess. III, Const. dogm. de fide cath.: Denz. 1782 (3001)." It chose to leave that statement in Latin, but it is on the page. Soidi (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please, stop with the childish games. Nancy, Wikipedia prefers English sources to foreign-language sources where available but doesn't require or ask us to use English sources only. Soidi, just translate the text without playing games. If my very rusty Latin serves me correctly, the Latin text says "It is called the Holy (catholic apostolic) Roman Church in Prof. fidei Trid. (presumably the Tridentine Confession of Faith) and the Vatican Council I, Session III, Dogmatic constitution of the catholic faith." --Richard (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Catholic Church ambiguous?

There is no Wikipedia policy that says that, among the preferred names of a self-identifying entity, Wikipedia must choose the one that it most frequently uses, even if this name is ambiguous. "Catholic Church", an ambiguous term, is not the only self-identifying name used by the Church. Another is the unambiguous "Roman Catholic Church". ... As indicated in the source that Xandar cites, Wikipedia should merely continue, as now, to note the fact that the Church does use the name "Roman Catholic Church". Soidi (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I want to know how "Catholic Church" as a name could be ambiguous? We have so many sources that say this is the name the Church "claimed as its title". These sources all use the same wording "claimed as its title". Are there any other churches in the world who have "claimed as their title" "The Catholic Church"? Our research indicates there are no others but we will be happy to explore other sources if you can present them here. These are the sources that say the Church "claimed as its title" "Catholic Church". We used the McBrien source as a reference in the new note with his quote.

• The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism
• The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church
• The Oxford English Dictionary
• Academic American Encyclopedia
• The Church by Richard McBrien NancyHeise ^talk 15:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, in response to your remark that you cannot find the phrase "the name used by the Church to describe itself", see above:

3. Rename the article

In light of the fact that "Catholic Church" is not only the most common name, but the name used by the Church to describe itself, it is the consensus of participants to rename the article "Catholic Church." Soidi (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"Catholic Church" is an ambiguous term. Otherwise there would be no disambiguation page about it. Soidi (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Soidi,

• The Catholic Church is the name most commonly used by the Church to describe itself (overwhelmingly, as the google search indicates), it is also the name that indisputable scholarly consensus says that it "claimed as its title" see [10].
• Catholic Church - as a name of an actual institution - is not ambiguous because there are no institutions in the world named "Catholic Church" except for the one.
• "catholic church" as a descriptive term applies to many churches who claim "catholicity", this is the reason for a disambiguation page. NancyHeise ^talk 15:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"Catholic Church" may be unambiguous in several contexts, but as the title of an article it is undoubtedly ambiguous. Only the content of the article will disambiguate it. Soidi (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What about re-wording that sentence to say "the name most commonly used by the Church to describe itself"? Sunray (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Do that - and hopefully end the niggling. Those who participated in the mediation should support the agreed result. Xandar 22:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Shell had already made the change, so I think that this issue is resolved. Sunray (talk) 01:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the ambiguity comes from the fact that in english speaking countries the term RCC is used and also because of the catholic vs Catholic debate. However, I believe that the note clearly addresses these concerns, whether or not the summary of the mediation adequately addresses this. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

For a parallel discussion on self-naming in the Trotskyist movement, see [[11]].Haldraper (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This gets more dissatisfying as every day goes by. Arguments are created from whole cloth, new arguments are introduced and none of them hold any weight. The bottom line really appears that some people are offended by the name Catholic Church and therefore the title should not be used. It is anything but ambiguous and everyone knows exactly which church is being discussed. Doctrinal viewpoints do not apply to the conversation of naming an article. While there might be numerous interesting conversations about catholic church versus Catholic Church and which is the true church, etc. They simply have no bearing on the naming of the article. These are exactly the types of conversations that I foresaw when we voted taking it to the CC article page. There are too many uninformed editors who do not understand Wikipedia policies or even the history surrounding this proposal to comment in an intelligent manner. At the end of the day, their comments will be heard, answered, then ignored and the action implemented anyway. Regardless, we will always have people question the name of the Catholic Church based upon emotional motivation. Let's change the name, bite the bullet, and deal with the endless, silly discussions afterwords. I know, it sounds harsh, but it is true none-the-less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storm Rider (talk • contribs) 22:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you StormRider. NancyHeise ^talk 00:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As I have argued all along, the principal problem with the article is not its name but the assertion that "Catholic Church" is the only "official" name. Personally I don't have a major objection to it being renamed to "Catholic Church" so long as that dubious assertion is removed and that the appalling "note" is radically changed. Yes, "Catholic Church" is ambiguous for an article's name but so also are hundreds of other articles' names. It's what we do about the ambiguity that is more at issue. Afterwriting (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The note has been the subject of considerable discussion. If you are unsatisfied with it, would you be willing to propose an alternative with appropriate references? Sunray (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Afterwriting is unsatisfied with the new note, I think he is referring to the old note. Yes, we are going to get rid of that note when the article name gets changed to reflect the name that all WP:reliable sources say that the Church "claimed as its title" and put the name "Roman Catholic Church" in the place it should always have been, listed as an "also known as" instead of the article title that gives Readers the false impression that it is the actual and official name of the Church. NancyHeise ^talk 00:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This proposal includes re-writing the first sentence of the article (without the word "official"), a totally new note, and the name change. See Action Plan. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the title "Catholic Church" for an article is ambiguous, and requires disambiguation for the following reasons:

• The title cannot really make distinction between "Catholic Church" and "catholic Church", because titles are supposed to start with upper-cased characters (so in other words, an article title "Catholic Church" can also refer to "catholic Church").
• As other users said earlier, Wikipedia does not contain information about a single organization, but it is an encyclopedia which contains general information, and the naming policy insists (when referring to self-identifying terms) only on using a common name in English, which is also used as an official title by the organization it describes, it does not specify "most preferred" or "most used".
• Multiple organizations claim "Catholic Church" as an official title, even if they don't use it often (for example all the Churches which accept today the Ecumenical Councils, also accept "Catholic Church" as a title, because that title is used in those documents, and the Ecumenical Councils can be considered as legal contexts). The naming policy, does actually state "A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names" in Wikipedia:Naming conflict (sorry, for my earlier mistake when I claimed that it does not explain what happens when multiple organizations use the same name). Naming a single organization by a name which is used by multiple organizations (regardless how often, since the naming conflict conventions doesn't specify how often), can give the impression that they don't have the same right to use this title, which is not for Wikipedia to decide if they also have the right or not to use that title (since it is considered as subjective criteria, and it would be against Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View" rule, of being impartial). In such cases (when multiple organizations officially claim the same title), I believe it is better to not use that title (without any sort of disambiguation in it) for any of the organizations claiming that title, it should be used only as a redirect to the one which uses it more often (and a disambiguation line given in the article where it redirects). (As I said before, in my opinion disambiguation in titles could also be offered using brackets.) Cody7777777 (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with also creating Catholic Church (disambiguation) and placing the dab link at the top of the article if you think we should. With regards to NPOV, using the objective criteria laid out in WP:NCON avoids using an POV because it uses objective criteria rather than subjective criteria to systematically determine the article name. It would however be POV to make this decision based on other group's claim to the term "Catholic church". The most neutral way to do this is to name it "Catholic Church" as the guideline suggest, then if there are other smaller churches with the word "catholic"in their name, those articles can be accessed through the disambiguation link. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Overlapping names refers to articles titles, not only about making disambiguation pages (so the title should also contain a disambiguation). The RCC is not the only one to use the title "Catholic Church". To say that it is more entitled than others which also use the same title (even if it is less often, since the naming policy does not specify how often), in my opinion is subjective criteria (which is not for Wikipedia to decide). (Regarding the guideline, as far as I see, it does not really support renaming this article to simply "Catholic Church".) Cody7777777 (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding WP:NPOV. I don't see what could be more neutral than call the church by the name it decides to use for itself. No one has even demonstrated that there are other churches that call themselves "the Catholic Church". I would also argue that it would be POV to keep it at Roman Catholic Church because of negative connotations, because it is inaccurate in that it leaves out the eastern Catholic churches, and because the church uses the title infrequently. And I didn't say that the policy suggested a disambiguation page, I'm suggesting that because it seems like a fair was to direct people to other churches with the title "Catholic" in the unlikely event that they had gone to "Catholic Church" looking for a different church. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe there was enough evidence shown above, that the (E)OC also titles itself as "Catholic Church" (not just "catholic Church"). Also, the naming convention claims "Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)", "Ecumenical Councils" (which are accepted today by multiple organizations) use the title "Catholic Church", these documents can be considered as legal contexts. The Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Overlapping_names claims, "A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names.", as far as I see, this means titles should also contain disambiguation when multiple organizations use the same title. (Other users have claimed, that "Roman Catholic Church" is also used in some official contexts (so I'm not sure if it really has negative connotations), but since there are people who find it offensive, that's why I believe disambiguation in brackets could be used, like "Catholic Church (in communion with Rome)".) Cody7777777 (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Cody, What scholarly source that meets WP:Reliable source examples do you have to support your assertion "Multiple organizations claim "Catholic Church" as an official title" ? Please do not post sources that are over 100 years old. We have Richard McBrien's The Church that says EOC "claimed as its title Holy Orthodox Church" and "Catholic Church" was the title claimed by the Western Church after the split. NancyHeise ^talk 13:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Not all the sources shown were more than 100 years old (and I don't think it really matters in such religious contexts, especially many of these older documents are considered very important today by the (E)OC), and they used the title "Catholic Church" (not only "catholic Church") to refer to the (E)OC, which as you explained above is a proper name ("catholic Church" being a descriptive term) and I have not seen any evidence that this title has ever been abandoned by the (E)OC (that can be only an assumption). The book you have cited, does not say that the only name the (E)OC claimed is "Holy Orthodox Church" (and I'm not very sure it can be a very accurate source for the (E)OC). But anyway, the naming policy requests that we check official documents of the respective organization, "Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)", the "Ecumenical Councils" contain canons or laws (which are also considered unchangeable) so they can be considered to represent legal contexts ([12], [13]). The texts of these "Ecumencial Councils" use the name "Catholic Church" many times (the title "Orthodox Church" appears rarely as far as I see), the texts of the councils can be checked at [14],[15]. Obviously, these councils are accepted today by multiple Churches, and for the (eastern) Orthodox Church the first Seven Ecumenical Councils are very important (in fact the Orthodox Church, is sometimes also called the "Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils"). However, since you requested here sources less than 100 years old, I'll post some more recent articles here as well, where the title Catholic Church (not just "catholic Church") is used to refer to the (E)OC, [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. There is also an article here which contains a statement from around the year 1914 (so it is less than 100 years old) made by Saint Raphael of Brooklyn (who has been canonized around the year 2000): "The Church of the East has never from the first been known by any other name than Catholic, nor has she set aside this title in any official document." (I don't think there is really need for more). (I'm sorry, in case you feel offended by the content of some of these websites.) Cody7777777 (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The (E)OC has not changed its name in 100 or 200 or 300 years, and do you seriously think that McBrien imagined that "Holy Orthodox Church" was or is the only title claimed by that Church? Soidi (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Cody. You do not seem to be engaging in dialogue. Just googling uses of the term Catholic or catholicity on Orthodox sites, and posting dozens of the results here is not argument of any sort - let alone convincing argument. Most of the sites you post from are entitled "Orthodox". The first site is "The history of the Orthodox Church"! This does not make your point that the Church is called the Catholic Church. You seem to misunderstand the difference between claiming catholicity - which is what most of these (largely unofficial) sites are about, and the Church using the name Catholic Church as its TITLE. A church may claim to be the catholic Church, the orthodox church, the Church of Christ, the One True Church etc. etc. - but those are not its TITLES. The Catholic Church claims Orthodoxy, so does the Baptist Church - that doesn't mean they name themselves the "Orthodox Church".

Now even if the Orthodox Church did drop the name "Orthodox", and started to us only the name "The Catholic Church", this would STILL not mean that the church subject of this article could not be listed under its title "Catholic Church", it would just require disambiguation links. That is not the case, however. No Orthodox Church TITLES itself "The Catholic Church" as its identifier. However there ARE disambiguation links from the top of the page if anyone should be looking for the Orthodox Church or the Presbyterian Church and types in "Catholic Church" - so I'm not quite sure what you are arguing about. Xandar 00:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The (E)OC is not restricted to a single title, and the sources shown above, used "Catholic Church" (not only the descriptive "catholic Church"), which as Nancy explained above, is used as a name of an institution. Many of the sources shown above contained works made by clerics (priests and bishops), and there was also the website of an "Orthodox Research Institute". Yes, the (E)OC does claim catholicity, but that doesn't mean it doesn't also consider the title "Catholic Church" (which is used in those sources) as its own (in a similar way, the RCC claims both catholicity and the title "Catholic Church") regardless if others like it or not, the fact that others dispute the right of the (E)OC (or of anyone else) to the the title "Catholic Church" is considered subjective criteria as far as I see). Also, the texts of the "Ecumenical Councils" (which are among the most official documents the (E)OC has), use the title "Catholic Church" ("orthodox Church" appears very rarely in them, as far as I see), and it doesn't matter that they are old, their canons are functioning in the (E)OC today. I have not seen any evidence that the (E)OC has ever officially renounced this title (it has no reason to do that). Also, Saint Raphael of Brooklyn, has explicitly stated (around the year 1914), that for the "Church of the East", "Catholic" is used as a name (so it is not just the descriptive term "catholic"). Wikipedia cannot deny the rights of any institution to its titles, the Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Overlapping names states "A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names." (and there are also the rules which Soidi showed from the Wikipedia:NCDAB), so if this article is renamed, a disambiguation (in brackets) should be added to the title "Catholic Church" (like "Catholic Church (in communion with Rome)"), and "Catholic Church" without disambiguation, should only be used as a redirect to this article (not as an article title about one of the Churches which use this title), to avoid causing confusion to people usually looking for this article. (Also, there is no proof that most of the readers of Wikipedia consider that the title "Catholic Church" can refer only to the RCC, in fact it could even offend other readers to see that only a single Church has the rights to use this title, while the rights of other Churches to use this title are ignored (which is subjective criteria to ignore this).) Cody7777777 (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Cody, please provide a link to the documents of the Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church after the East West split that use the name "Catholic Church" as the official name. Also, please read what Academic American Encyclopedia says about the Eastern Orthodox name here [32]. This is repeated by Richard McBrien's The Church, a scholarly work, not WP:OR as well as HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church [33]. What peer reviewed scholarly sources do you have that say the EO claims as its title "Catholic Church"? So far we have not seen this even on that Church's own website or in any scholarly works or original documents after the East West schism - (They were one Church prior to that schism and all ecumenical councils prior to that point - 1204 AD - use the term Catholic Church). NancyHeise ^talk 00:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There were no more "Ecumenical Councils" after the 9th century in the (E)OC, (although sometimes the "Fifth Council of Constantinople from 1341-1351" is considered as the "Ninth Ecumenical Council", but I couldn't find its text). Also, the (E)OC has actually considered that it was the "Western Church" which split from it, so they had no reason to renounce the title "Catholic Church" (and as far as I see, there is no evidence that it has ever officially renounced this title after East-West Schism, it has no reason to do that), whether the (E)OC has the right to use the "Seven Ecumenical Councils" is not for Wiki to decide (it could also be called a theological debate), the Canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils (many of which are considered unchangable) are functioning today in the (E)OC, as it was said earlier the (E)OC is sometimes called "The Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils", since these councils are very important for the (E)OC[34][35]. And there were other important documents, written after the 11th Century which use "Catholic Church" for the (E)OC, such as the "Confession of the Orthodox Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem" or the "Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"", they prove that the (E)OC, has not renounced that title (after the East-West Schism). Cody7777777 (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

These documents make theological claims, they are not the Orthodox Church constitutions which use the name Holy Orthodox Church as our scholarly sources and encyclopedia's suggest. The Catholic Church also claims orthodoxy in some papal letters and theological works but that does not amount to a claimed title for the Church. Do you know how the patriarch's signed their official documents after the schism? Our sources suggest it was with their claimed title, "Holy Orthodox Church". NancyHeise ^talk 13:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

While you are correct that many of them also discussed about doctrines, they also used the title "Catholic Church" (not only the descriptive term "catholic Church") when referring to the (E)OC. There were no other Ecumenical Councils in the (E)OC after the 9th century (the last, being the 8th Ecumenical Council of Constantinople during 879-880, some also consider the hesychast Fifth Council of Constantinople during 1341-1351 as the "Ninth Ecumenical Council", but the first Seven Ecumenical Councils, are considered very important by the (E)OC (Wikipedia cannot deny the right of the (E)OC to them, since it would be subjective criteria), the (E)OC also accepts the "Quinsext Council of Trullo" in 692, which as far as I know it's not recognized by the RCC, it also uses the title "Catholic Church" in its canons, the title "Orthodox Church" does not appear there). The text from the following website underlines "Orthodoxy has always attached great importance to the place of councils in the life of the church. It believes that the council is the chief organ whereby God has chosen to guide His people, and it regards the Catholic Church as essentially a conciliar Church. In the Church there is neither dictatorship, nor individualism, but harmony and unanimity; its members remain free but not isolated, for they are united in love, in faith, and in sacramental communion. In a council, this idea of harmony is and free unanimity can be seen worked out in practice. In a true council no single member arbitrarily imposes his will upon the rest, but each consults with the others, and in this way they all freely achieve a 'common mind'. A council is a living embodiment of the essential nature of the Church (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, p. 15)." The "Confession of the Orthodox Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem", was made after the important Synod of Jerusalem in 1672, it is considered a very important document by the (E)OC today (and while it uses the title "Catholic Church" for the (E)OC, it does not even use the title "Orthodox Church"), the book shown also describes it in the following way "It is the most important Orthodox confession of recent centuries.", the following more recent articles also underline its importance "It is the most authoritative and complete doctrinal deliverance of the modern Greek Church on the contoverted articles.", "There are the writings and Confessions of Faith written by great teachers of the Church during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Examples might include the letter of Mark of Ephesus (1440-1441) to all Orthodox Christians; the correspondence of Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople with the German Reformers (1573-1581); the council of Jerusalem (1672) and the Confession of Faith by Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem (1672), and the writings of St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain, who published the Rudder, a book of great canonical and theological importance (1800).". Regarding the signatures of the Patriarchs or other Bishops on official documents, they don't have to include the the titles "Holy Orthodox Church" or "Catholic Church" in their signatures, for example the "Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns"" doesn't include the titles "Holy Orthodox Church" or "Catholic Church" in the signatures (the Ecumenical Patriarch signed it as "ANTHIMOS, by the Mercy of God, Archbishop of Constantinople, new Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch, a beloved brother in Christ our God, and suppliant."), but the document uses the title "Catholic Church" for the (E)OC. Saint Raphael of Brooklyn also claimed around the year 1914, that the "Church of the East" has never abandoned the title "Catholic" in its official documents. But the (E)OC uses multiple titles, the title "Catholic Church" usually appears in its most important documents, and there is no evidence that the (E)OC has ever officially renounced the title "Catholic Church" (after the East-West Schism which has no fixed date), it has no reason to do that, and I have not seen any sources claiming that "Holy Orthodox Church" is the only title used by the (E)OC. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Cody, that is all interesting enough...but not all that relevant to the issue here. It seems that this is turning into a case of who can take up the most space in the Talk Page. Your lengthy entry above essentially argues that in some documents, with an emphasis on one 200-year-old Encyclical, the EOC has used, in some instances, the term Catholic Church. From there you attempt to frame the question as to whether "'Holy Orthodox Church'" is the only title used by the EOC", or if they have ever "officially renounced the title". That is not what ANYONE has been arguing. The title of this Talk section is "Is Catholic Church Ambiguous." It is not, and it would not be ambiguous to anyone going to, searching for, or coming across this article. I guess that to the extent time travel is theoretically possible, and therefore someone from the pre-East-West Schism period could join our time period and be perplexed by the title of the Wikipedia article... but I think that the Wikipedia policies cited ad nauseum are clear. Regarding the Church that is the subject of this article, Catholic Church is the official, self-described, unambiguous and widely accepted name (rips in the time-space continuum not-withstanding). --anietor (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think I was asked to post such things. I believe this was already said above, there are multiple organizations claiming the title "Catholic Church", regardless if others like it or not. I believe there was enough evidence shown, that the (E)OC also claims the title "Catholic Church" (and there is also this book which doesn't really discuss about doctrines and theology, which uses the tite "Catholic Church" (not only the descriptive "catholic Church") for the (E)OC (as well as the others shown earlier), and as far as I see, there is simply no evidence that the (E)OC has ever officially renounced the title "Catholic Church"). Any Church which accepts today the Ecumenical Councils (it doesn't matter that they are old, since their canons are functioning today) also accepts today the title used there, respectively the title "Catholic Church", since they can be considered legal contexts (since they contain canons), the wiki naming policy requests that we check legal contexts, "Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)". It is not for Wikipedia to decide who has the right to use title "Catholic Church" and who hasn't that right, since that it is considered as "subjective criteria", the wiki article naming policy explains, "A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names.", so in this case, when there are multiple organizations claiming the title "Catholic Church", disambiguation should be given, they could be given in brackets (and I have to say, that I don't understand what's really wrong with "Catholic Church (in communion with Rome)", since it underlines the importance the Bishop of Rome has for the RCC, but maybe I don't understand something). And to avoid confusing people usually searching for this article, we can use "Catholic Church" without any disambiguation as a redirect here (as it is now). (Also, there is no proof that most of the readers of Wikipedia consider that the title "Catholic Church" can refer only to the RCC, in fact it could even offend other readers to see that only a single Church has the rights to use this title, while the rights of other Churches to use this title are ignored (which is subjective criteria to ignore this).) Cody7777777 (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Cody, these types of discussions can often be taken personally and I just need to make sure you don't think anything I say is personal. I guess I am feeling overly sensitive today. Do you have any references that demonstrate that another church not only uses, but prefers to be called the Catholic Church. If you do, you can defend your position, If you do not, then you are creating a problem that does not exist. There is no confusion when someone says the Catholic Church. No one ever says, "now let me see, is that person talking about the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church in Rome?" After all is said in done, with all of the references provided, the only church that prefers and calls itself the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church, the church that represents more than 50% of the Christians in the world. I think you are creating a problem that does not exist. --^StormRider 21:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, there is nothing offensive for me in your post, but I still haven't seen any wiki naming policy, which is speaking about using only the most preferred names (especially when they can be ambiguous), in fact it even says "Be precise when necessary". Cody7777777 (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Storm Rider. Also, your concern, Cody, that "It is not for Wikipedia to decide who has the right to use title 'Catholic Church' and who hasn't that right" is off the mark. Wikipedia is not some regulatory body issuing permits on who can or cannot use different titles. This is a question of what is the most appropriate title for this Wikipedia article. If tomorrow a church were to found itself under the title "New Baptist Church of Christ" or "Reformed Universal Anglican Church of the Midwest", they wouldn't be somehow barred from doing it because Wikipedia has articles on "Baptist" and "Anglican" churches. (My apologies to any New Baptists of Christ or Reformed Universal Anglicans, in case they actually exist!). And it wouldn't even require a modification or disambiguation of the Wikipedia articles unless there was some likelihood of confusion. Here, there is no confusion as to what "Catholic Church" refers to. It is not some sort of regulatory or judicial finding that only this church is entitled to the word "Catholic" over the course of 2000 years of Christianity. It means that this church calls itself the Catholic Church, other people refer to it as the Catholic Church, and there's no confusion about what it means. --anietor (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If they would use the exact same title, maybe they should also have disambiguation, but as you said their titles would be "New Baptist Church of Christ" or "Reformed Universal Anglican Church of the Midwest". There are multiple organizations which use the title "Catholic Church" (this was discussed above) regardless if other organizations like it or not. Wikipedia, must not decide which is the organization which truly has the right to use the title "Catholic Church" and which does not have the right to this title, since that is subjective criteria (this can be checked on the WP:NCON), and it would be against the WP:NPOV rule of being impartial. The wiki naming policy also says "A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names." (since "Wikipedia is not some regulatory body issuing permits on who can or cannot use different titles" it cannot give the impression (or maybe "permission") that only a single organization has the right to use this title). Also, there is no proof that most of the readers of Wikipedia consider that the title "Catholic Church" can refer only to the RCC, in fact it could even offend other readers to see that only a single Church has the rights to use this title, while the rights of other Churches to use this title are ignored (which is subjective criteria to ignore this). (I'm sorry, in case you feel offended by this post, but these things were already repeated.)Cody7777777 (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

We've been into these issues at other points on this page.

• As has already been said, WP policy does not require "proof" that a name can refer only to one organisation. It is about whether an organisation uses the name. No judgements are made, particularly as to "rights" to the use of that name. You keep arguing about "rights " to use the name, or "offense" being taken. However those arguments are specifically rejected by Wikipedia. Re-read "Wikipedia Naming conflict". Wikipedia merely reports the name that is used to self-identify. It doesn't decide whether that name is or is not suitable.
• As has repeatedly been proven; no other significant organisation uses "Catholic Church" as its identifying name. Nor is there any other article entitled Catholic Church. The fact that Catholic Church refers to the church that is the subject of this article is additionally borne out by the fact that "Catholic Church" has automatically redirected to this page for 5 years without any problem arising. Xandar 00:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple organizations using the title "Catholic Church" in the "legal documents" which they use today, I believe this was shown above. Wikipedia of course, cannot deny the right of the RCC to use the title "Catholic Church", but Wiki cannot deny the rights of the (E)OC or any other Churches claiming the same title today either (since it is used in the "legal documents" they use today). It is subjective criteria for Wiki to report that only a single Church truly has the right to use this title and to deny other Churches the right to use this title, it is a against the WP:NPOV rule of being impartial. There is also no proof that all the readers of Wikipedia consider that this title can be used only by the RCC. The Wiki naming policy specifies "A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names." (it refers to the name of entities, not article names, there is also no wiki policy as far as I know, which forces us to have an article titled simply "Catholic Church", especially when it can be ambiguous. But, since there are people who consider that "Roman Catholic Church" has negative connotations, and it's not the "most used" or "most preferred" title used by the RCC (although, as far as I see, the naming policy does not explicitly specify that only the "most used" or the "most preferred" title should be used), I believe a disambiguation should be given in brackets, like "Catholic Church (in communion with Rome)". It should also be noted, that there actually were some minor problems in the past caused by using "Catholic Church" as a redirect to RCC, this can be checked at Talk:Catholic Church, of course I'm not suggesting it should no longer be used as a redirect here, I'm only mentioning that there were some problems. Cody7777777 (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As we have proven already there are no churches that officially or legally title themselves simply "Catholic Church" with no prefix except the Catholic Church, also known as Roman Catholic Church, the one that Encyclopedia Americana lists at Catholic Church with a "See Catholic Church" note at the entry for "Roman Catholic Church". Wikipedia can do the same and this is supported by Wikipedia policy, consensus, and the only scholarly source to speak of the name issue, and non-scholarly sources, Catholic and non-Catholic news media, the Church's own primary documents and Google searches. The name does not appear to be ambiguous except to two Wikipedia editors arguing such on this page. Can you point to any scholarly sources that say what you are saying here? If not, then you need to read the page on WP:OR. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 18:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the wiki naming policy requests that we check "legal contexts" to find official names, "Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)" (I don't think it is WP:OR to follow this wiki guideline), in this case we have the Canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils which are used today by multiple Churches, and they use the title "Catholic Church" (not just the descriptive "catholic Church"). Saint Raphael of Brooklyn, has also stated (around the year 1914), that for the "Church of the East", "Catholic" is used as a name (so it is not just the descriptive term "catholic"). Alexei Khomiakov also stated "The Orthodox Eastern Church is the whole of the Catholic Church now living upon earth—The titles "Orthodox" and "Eastern" merely temporary" (I'm sorry, if anyone feels offended by his statement). I believe there were also shown enough sources (including more recent ones) using the title "Catholic Church" (not only the descriptive "catholic Church") for the (E)OC, please check them in earlier posts (I assumed it was not necessary to post them here). Also, I have not seen yet any source claiming that the RCC is the only one claiming the title "Catholic Church" (in fact, to be honest, I have to say, that this assumption seems like WP:OR). Cody7777777 (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Cody, These are the sources that we have that say Catholic Church is the name of the same institution also known as Roman Catholic Church. Many of them specifically say it is the name the Church claimed as its title after the East West split. They also go into detail about the Orthodox Church saying it claimed "Holy Orthodox Church" as its title. We have more sources saying this than these here see the original mediation page where our sources are listed. The ones below are just the ones that evidence a scholarly consensus because the sources are important tertiary scholarly sources compiled by numerous scholars and peer reviewed.

• Encyclopedia Americana has the entry at Catholic Church not at Roman Catholic Church. If you go to RCC it tells you to see Catholic Church.
• the following sources speak to the name of the Catholic Church and state that it is the name that church has "claimed as its title" (see [36]:
• Academic American Encyclopedia
• HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism
• The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church
• The Oxford English Dictionary
• Richard McBrien's peer reviewed scholarly work, The Church
• Further, the encyclopedias that list at Roman Catholic Church like Encyclopedia Brittanica, do not have any information in their article on the official name of the Church. Encyclopedias like the Catholic Encyclopedia list RCC as a name applied to the Church by those who wish to deny it use of the name Catholic Church for theological reasons. See [37]. See also the Catholic Encyclopedia's repudiation of the Branch theory on this page [38] and its explanation of Catholic on this page [39].
• Many scholarly works on the Catholic Church use only the name Catholic Church in their titles (see bibliography of RCC page) as well as Catholic Encyclopedia old and new.
• Those books and encyclopedias that choose to use the name Roman Catholic Church instead do not equate to a scholarly consensus of the use in academia as the list above indicates. NancyHeise ^talk 00:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I ever said that the RCC does not claim the title "Catholic Church" (however, if I said such a thing, I'm sorry for my mistake, and I am also aware that the title "Roman Catholic Church" has some problems). But, I haven't seen sources which explicitly claim that the RCC is the only Church claiming this title, or that the only title claimed by the (E)OC is "Holy Orthodox Church" (and I believe it was shown above that the (E)OC also claims the title "Catholic Church"). In this case, a disambiguation in brackets should be given in the title, like "Catholic Church (in communion with Rome)". (Regarding the Branch theory, the (E)OC also doesn't accept it.) Cody7777777 (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy states that we can use tertiary sources as guides to see what scholarly consensus is like. There are no encyclopedias that say "See Holy Orthodox Church" at the "Catholic Church" entry. Encyclopedia Americana lists Catholic Church at "Catholic Church" and it is talking about the Roman Catholic Church, not the Holy Orthodox Church which is listed at Orthodox Church. I would think Cody, that if what you are alluding to is correct, then we would see Holy Orthodox Church listed under the heading Catholic Church in at least some encylclopedias but that is not the case because that is not their name, "claimed as their title" - according to the experts like Richard McBrien in his scholarly work The Church and a plethora of tertiary sources listed many times in this mediation for you and Soidi. NancyHeise ^talk 03:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, not all of the encyclopedias have a "Neutral Point of View" rule (or other specific rules). I don't think I ever suggested that "Catholic Church" should be used as an article title for the (E)OC, the (E)OC uses multiple titles, "Catholic Church" usually appears in its most important documents. In cases when multiple entities use the same title, the WP naming policy states "A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names.". Also, I haven't seen sources which explicitly claim that the only title claimed by the (E)OC is "Holy Orthodox Church" (and I believe it was shown above that the (E)OC also claims the title "Catholic Church"), or that the RCC is the only Church claiming the title "Catholic Church". There are also other encyclopedias (such as "Britannica") which lists the article about the RCC, at "Roman Catholic Church", but since that title has some problems, in my opinion, a disambiguation in brackets should be given in the title, like "Catholic Church (in communion with Rome)" (or a different description in brackets, could be given if necessary). Cody7777777 (talk) 10:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see a reference to support your claim "not all of the encyclopedias have a "Neutral Point of View" rule (or other specific rules)". I think the fact that they are created by multiple scholars and peer reviewed with notes and bibliographies make them plainly meet WP:NPOV. I was in the library today to help this conversation along - I found the following:

• The Columbia History of Western Philosophy by Richard Popkin (1999 Columbia University Press) persistently distinguishes between "Catholics" and "Protestants". When speaking of Catholics they are referring to the members of the Roman Catholic Church, see page 282.
• The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity by John McManners (1990 Oxford University Press) distinguishes between "Catholics" (referring to Roman Catholics), "Protestants", and "Eastern Orthodox" (referring to Holy Orthodox Church) see page 274.
• The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (1997 Oxford University Press) distinguishes Roman Catholic Church members as "To be in complete communion with the Church of rome is to belong to the Catholic Church." and adds "However, the addition of 'Roman' has become more common during recent decades of ecumenism, not least in recognition of the status of uniate Churches and of other uses of the world 'Catholic'; 'Roman Catholic' is therefore used in this article and throughout the Dictionary." page 821
• The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church definition of "Catholic" does not mention that this term is applied to Eastern Orthodox Church as a name, it does say that it is the name. It says it was a name applied to the undivided church but after the schism the western Church referred to itself as Catholic and the eastern Church as Orthodox. It also says that since the Reformation, Roman Catholics have come to use it exclusively of themselves. In present day usage it distinguished those Christians from Protestants. page 305
• HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism lists on page 242 the definition of Catholic Church as this: "is the worldwide Church that recognizes the Bishop of Rome, the pope, as "the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity of the bishops and of the mutitude of the faithful (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, n. 23)." This clearly is referring to the official Church Constitution that also uses the same term "Catholic Church" with zero mention of "Roman Catholic Church".
• I think these extremely scholary sources make clear that no one is going to confuse the article name "Catholic Church" with either the Eastern Orthodox Church or other churches that claim "catholicity". None of them uses the name "Catholic Church" as either an official title nor a common title as these sources indicate. So far, the argument on this page has provided no sources that meet WP:RS or WP:reliable source examples to substantiate the ambiguity claim for the proposed article name change and we now have many that support it.NancyHeise ^talk 18:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence as far as I see that those sources have a "Neutral Point of View" rule like Wikipedia. To avoid confusing people usually searching for this article, "Catholic Church" is used as a redirect here (but there is some difference between using it as a redirect or as an article title). There are multiple Churches claiming the title "Catholic Church", I believe it was already shown above. The Canons of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils (which can be considered "legal contexts"), use the title "Catholic Church" (not only the descriptive "catholic Church") and they are used today by multiple Churches (as it was said before, these Canons are very important for the (E)OC today, [40],[41] the (E)OC is sometimes called as "The Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils"). The wiki naming policy requests that we check "legal contexts" ("Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)"). Whether the (E)OC or other Churches have the right to use them, is not for Wikipedia to decide. Another important document for the (E)OC, the "Confession of the Orthodox Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem", also uses the title "Catholic Church" (the title "Orthodox Church" does not even appear there). The "Longer Orthodox Catechism of Saint Philaret of Moscow", also uses the title "Catholic Church" many times. Saint Raphael of Brooklyn (who has been canonized around the year 2000), also stated (around the year 1914) "The Church of the East has never from the first been known by any other name than Catholic, nor has she set aside this title in any official document.", so for the "Church of the East", "Catholic" is used as a name (it is not only the descriptive term "catholic"). Alexei Khomiakov also stated "The Orthodox Eastern Church is the whole of the Catholic Church now living upon earth—The titles "Orthodox" and "Eastern" merely temporary" (I'm sorry, if anyone feels offended by his statement). An article, on the website of an "Orthodox Research Institute" also claims "There is no way in which one can claim to be a Christian except through concrete membership in the Catholic Church" (it uses the title "Catholic Church" to refer to the (E)OC in the article, I'm sorry if anyone feels offended by the statement in this article). The following more recent book also states "the Orthodox Church claims to be the true Church of Christ, the one and only Catholic Church". I believe there were shown enough sources (including more recent ones), which used the title "Catholic Church" (not just the descriptive "catholic Church") for the (E)OC, and which as far as I see, are WP:RS (and many of them were written by orthodox clerics, this means they can be more reliable when referring to the (E)OC), please also check them in earlier posts (I assumed it was not necessary to re-post all of them here). I have not seen any sources which explicitly claim the the (E)OC has officially renounced the title "Catholic Church", it has no reason to do that (the sources you posted probably give that impression, and while they may be reliable sources for the RCC, they don't seem so reliable for the (E)OC), this assumption is rather WP:OR. But, Wikipedia has a "Neutral Point of View" rule of being impartial. Wikipedia cannot deny the rights of the RCC, or of the (E)OC, or of any Church to use the title "Catholic Church", because that is subjective criteria, which is against the WP:NPOV rule of being impartial. The wiki naming policy specifies "A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names."), so a disambiguation in brackets should be given in the title. Cody7777777 (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree Cody, if Catholic Church was the name of the Orthodox Church, this would be evidenced by tertiary sources that would make some kind of commentary about it but they don't. Orthodox Church does not even have Catholic in the sign out in front of their physical structures. Your links go to .com pages that we can not rely upon as WP:RS sources and your one book with a snippet view omits any context for the statement and was published in 1895. Wikipedia asks us to use modern scholarship. If Orthodox Church claimed Catholic Church as its title then why is this not mentioned in any tertiary or scholarly sources modern or not? NancyHeise ^talk 04:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they ignore this because the (E)OC does not use it often, since it has multiple titles (I believe it was shown above that the title "Catholic Church" appears usually in its most important documents). But the fact that others ignore this is not a reason for wiki to ignore it too, especially since it has a WP:NPOV rule. I don't think there is a problem with ".com" pages, WP:RS does not seem to say something about this. The same article, can also be found here. The same article also states "They (it refers to some adventists in the context, I'm sorry if anyone feels offended by this statement) ignorantly suppose that the Roman Catholic Church is the only Catholic Church.", this means the article claims that there are more Churches claiming the title "Catholic Church". The statement of Saint Raphael of Brooklyn (where he stated the for the "Church of the East", "Catholic" is used as a name), can also be found in this book, the same book also states that "both (the RCC and the (E)OC) share the name catholic". The following book also says that the (E)OC claims this title. Alexei Khomiakov, also stated "The Orthodox Eastern Church is the whole of the Catholic Church now living upon earth—The titles "Orthodox" and "Eastern" merely temporary", he was referring to titles, underlining the importance of the title "Catholic Church" for the (E)OC (and it doesn't really matter when he stated that, the wiki policy states that in religious cases "Secondary sources are not necessarily from recent years - or even centuries."). The more recent book by John Meyendorff claims "There is no way in which one can claim to be a Christian except through concrete membership in the Catholic Church" (the book uses the title "Catholic Church" for the (E)OC, I'm sorry if anyone feels offended by the statement in this book), the same book also makes the difference between the title "Catholic Church" and the descriptive "catholic", "Christ alone renders the Catholic Church catholic". There is no evidence, that the (E)OC has ever officially renounced the title "Catholic Church" (this assumption is rather WP:OR), it has no reason to do that (especially since it uses today canons which use the title "Catholic Church"). I believe there were shown enough sources (which are WP:RS for the (E)OC), including more recent ones, which used the title "Catholic Church" for the (E)OC (they can be checked in earlier posts). But, to check the name of the (E)OC, we don't need to rely on tertiary sources, or even secondary sources, we need to check "legal contexts", as the wiki naming policy suggests, "Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)", in this case there are the Canons of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils (used today by the (E)OC and other Churches) which use the title "Catholic Church". In cases when multiple organizations use the same title, the wiki naming policy states "A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names.", so a disambiguation in brackets should be given (like "Catholic Church (in communion with Rome)"). Cody7777777 (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Cody, if you can forge a consensus to rename Eastern Orthodox Church to Catholic Church (in communion with Constantinople), then we should definitely look at renaming Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church (in communion with Rome). However, failing that, your suggestion is likely to gain as much traction here as Catholic Church (in communion with Constantinople) would there.

--Richard (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple Churches which claim the title "Catholic Church". There's no reason to rename Eastern Orthodox Church to "Catholic Church (disambiguation description)", since it doesn't use often the title "Catholic Church", but that doesn't mean it doesn't use it, it appears in many of its important documents. The Canons of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils (which can be considered as "legal contexts" and which are used today by multiple Churches) use the title "Catholic Church" their text can be checked here (the term "orthodox Church" appears only a few times in the Canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council), the Canons of these Ecumenical Councils, are very important today for the (E)OC, the (E)OC is called sometimes as "The Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils". Another important document for the (E)OC, the "Confession of the Orthodox Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem" uses the title "Catholic Church" for the (E)OC many times (in fact, the title "Orthodox Church" does not even appear there), the book shown also describes it in the following way "It is the most important Orthodox confession of recent centuries.", the following more recent articles also underline its importance "It is the most authoritative and complete doctrinal deliverance of the modern Greek Church on the contoverted articles.", the article here also mentions the Patriarch Dositheus as one of the "great teachers of the Church". The "Longer Orthodox Catechism of Saint Philaret of Moscow", also uses the title "Catholic Church" more times than "Orthodox Church" (and it doesn't really matter they are old, they are important today for the (E)OC, and the wiki policy states that in religious cases "Secondary sources are not necessarily from recent years - or even centuries.") It is subjective criteria for Wiki to claim that only a single Church truly has the right to use the title "Catholic Church", and to deny the rights of other Churches to the title "Catholic Church", it is against the WP:NPOV rule of being impartial. The Wiki naming policy specifies what happens when multiple entities use the same title "A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names.". I am aware that the title "Roman Catholic Church" has some problems (like negative connotations, multiple meanings), but a disambiguation in brackets should be used (I assumed "Catholic Church (in communion with Rome)" is not bad, since it underlines the importance the Bishop of Rome has for the RCC, but a different description in brackets could be used). Cody7777777 (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Cody, to answer the question posed in the section title... there is very little ambiguity in the article title. There are few people who would consider any other Church to be the subject of an article titled "Catholic Church" except, perhaps, some hard-liners.

That said, per WP:TITLE, giving the article the title "Catholic Church" does not imply that Wikipedia makes any assertion as to whether the "church in communion with Rome" has the right to that title, exclusive or otherwise. What it does imply is that this is a name that it uses to identify itself officially and that this is the name by which it is most commonly known by in the English-speaking world. There is no ambiguity because there is no other church which identifies itself primarily as "Catholic Church" or is commonly known as such in the English-speaking world.

That said, there is some possible ambiguity based on abstruse theological arguments. These can be easily handled via a hatnote. We could have a hatnote that says "This article discusses the churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome. For other churches which use "Catholic" in their name, see Catholic Church (disambiguation). If you are able to find any article in Wikipedia which should properly be titled "Catholic Church" or "Catholic Church (with a qualifier in parentheses)", then come back and we can continue this discussion.

--Richard (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:TITLE does not seem to explain too much what happens when multiple entities use the same title, the WP:NCON however does state "A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names." (it speaks here about clashes of entities' name, not of article titles). There is also no wiki policy as far as I know, which forces us to have an article titled simply "Catholic Church" (especially since there are multiple Churches which claim this title, and the WP:NPOV rule states to be impartial, and there is also no proof as far as I see, that all of the readers of Wikipedia consider that this title can refer only to the RCC), it should just be used as a redirect here. In my opinion, a disambiguation in brackets should be given in the title. (Regarding other articles which could be titled "Catholic Church (description)" there was also suggested by other users that an article called "Catholic Church (Theological Concept)" could be made.) Cody7777777 (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Nancy mentions above that Americana has the entry at Catholic Church. That seems to be the exception. Britannica, Chambers, Everyman, cambridge, Columbia, Macmillan, Longman & Penguin encyclopaedias all have the entry at either RCC or RCism. Peter jackson (talk) 10:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Process is flawed

Renaming/moving this article should not be implemented because:

1. "Action plan #3 - Rename the article" has not followed the established process for controversial moves, which require community-wide notice at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves. Consensus of editors in this one article is unsufficient when it is of concern to the entire Wikipedia community.
2. The article name has been stable for more than five years, when consensus was reached on May 21, 2004, to change the article name from Catholic to Roman Catholic. As the policy states, if there is no good reason to change it, it should remain.
3. Debating controversial names such as this is unproductive, and does not improve Wikipedia. That is why Roman Catholic Church vs. Catholic Church is cited as a textbook example at WP:NAME#Controversial names.
4. The consultation process for this mediation is flawed, because it is primarily involving editors of this article. However, such a controversial renaming is of much broader concern to the Wikipedia community, as noted above, and most certainly to the entire Christianity project. As such, consultation would be better served at WikiProject Christianity.
5. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church fails to mention that overturning of previous consensus regarding article naming is also at issue.  JGHowes  ^talk 18:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Soidi (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to JGHowes:

1. This is the community consultation.
2. There is good reason to change the article name.
3. Discussion is the basis of collaborative editing and one of the foundations of Wikipedia. The participants in the mediation took note of the policy on controversial names set out in WP:NC and have followed the guidelines (per WP:NCON).
4. The consultation is open to any, and all, members of the WP community.
5. The previous consensus was discussed, at some length, during the mediation. Consensus is not immutable.

If there is more we should be doing, please let us know. Sunray (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

People seem to miss the part that says that the mediation is "voluntary" and "non-binding". This wasn't arbitration which has the right to make decisions, this was simply a mediated dispute between 17 editors who were actively involved on this page. Because it was non-binding, the results of the mediation must be discussed here before being implemented. So this is where you can have your say, anyone can have their say. The whole Wikipedia community is being consulted because this is on the article's talkpage. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

I strongly disagree that posting a major change like this on one article's talk page constitutes a valid Wikipedia-wide community consensus. How many Wikipedians would necessarily have this page watchlisted? I stumbled across it quite by accident and maintain that this should be addressed as a controversial move (see #1, above), which is certainly seen by a lot more editors than here. By the way, the assertions made above that the Catholic church does not officially refer to itself as the Roman Catholic Church are quite erroneous, viz., websites of the Archdiocese of New York and Diocese of St. Petersburg, just the first two I checked a minute ago.  JGHowes  ^talk 20:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A notice of this consultation has been placed on over twenty Christian and other religious WikiProjects with a link to this page. What more would you propose that we do? Sunray (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

JGHowes: The policy you linked to for requesting potentially controversial moves states that the proper procedure is to paste the issue on the article talk page, with a re-direct to the discussion page. Not only has this been done, but additional moves have been made to publicise the discussion, as stated by Sunray above. This proposal has emerged from a six-month long mediation on proposals by Soidi and others to change the lead sentence of the article. Having come to a consensus on a package of changes, inclusding the name change, the issue has been publicly posted here. On your lucky dip of US websites, such points have been raised before. Yes. A few websites in some English-speaking countries, for historical reasons use "Roman Catholic", however we are talking about the name used by the Worldwide Church. If you follow the discussion, and the proposed note you will see that evidence is that the name used on the overwhelmong number of occasions by the Church is Catholic Church. Some of the research is available at this location.

On websites, these are more important. vaticanUK or USA or Australia or Ireland or pakistan or Philippines or hungary or germany or paris or even [42]. Xandar 22:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

We received a letter from the Diocese of Honolulu explaining that their reason for using Roman Catholic on their website was to clarify that theirs was the Roman rite, not Eastern rites. They also said Catholic Church was the name of the Church. This letter is posted on the Roman Catholic Church talk page in one of the last two archives. NancyHeise ^talk 00:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

And it was also pointed out by myself and others that this "letter" that "we received" (sic) made various factual errors - the principal one being the erroneous assertion that the name "Roman Catholic Church" only properly belongs to the church in Rome. An individual priest's ignorant opinion does not make a compelling case. Afterwriting (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what that extremely important priest said. His letter was completely correct and the refs in the present note (the old note) support his claims. Here's the link to his letter [43]. I consulted with user:Raul654 as to whether or not I needed to send it directly to him and he said I could just post it on the talk page so I did. NancyHeise ^talk 02:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And this "extremely important" (whatever that means) priest is - like Whitehead and his ilk in the note - misrepresenting the actual practice of the church in such matters and his letter is, therefore, not "completely correct" but - like Whitehead ignorant and very incorrect. I could produce a letter from other "important" RC priests who would argue otherwise. Afterwriting (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Then do so now please, and find sources to support their POV, I have already done this with my letter and WP:RS sources and they are in agreement. All you have done is tell me they are wrong. What am I supposed to believe? An actual priest with an education and reliable sources that agree with him or an anonymous Wikipedia editor? NancyHeise ^talk 13:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The non-academic Honolulu priest is easily trumped by one qualified as a "well-known Roman canonist", and who wrote: "There can be no doubt that we can speak of the Catholic Church throughout the world as the Roman Catholic Church. This way of speaking since the sixteenth century has become quite common among our theologians, and is found consecrated in the Profession of Faith which converts are bound to make when received into the Church - 'I profess that I believe the Holy Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church to be the only and true Church established on earth by Jesus Christ.' Here the term 'Roman' plainly applies to the whole Church, and not merely to the local Church of Rome, 'the Mother and Mistress of all Churches'. In the schema of the dogmatic constitution of the Church, prepared by the Vatican Council, there is the following canon: 'Si quis dixerit veram Christi Ecclesiam, extra quam nemo salvus esse potest, aliam esse praeter unam sanctam Catholicam et Apostolicam Romanam, A.S.' ..." (Life of Cardinal Vaughan, p. 236-237) Soidi (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That cardinal was an anomaly among cardinals for his opinions on the use of Roman Catholic. See Catholic Encyclopedia's explanation of Roman Catholic here where they consider Cardinal Vaughan's statement and repudiate it. It is in the second to the last paragraph and implies that he was required to use the term "Roman Catholic" by the British government because he was an English Bishop. [44]. (FYI, Catholic Encyclopedia is a very respected peer reviewed scholarly work oft cited per Googleshcolar [45] NancyHeise ^talk 23:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I also want to add that the very important Honolulu priest wrote his letter in 2009, not 1880 something (as Cardinal Vaughan's statement in his book which was taken out of context by Soidi per Catholic Encyclopedia's analysis of the statement here [46]) NancyHeise ^talk 23:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, you are mistaken. Cardinal Vaughan was by no means an anomaly among cardinals for his opinions of the use of RC. Herbert Thurston's article does not repudiate Cardinal Vaughan: it quotes, without demur, Vaughan's statement that "the term Roman Catholic has two meanings; a meaning that we repudiate and a meaning that we accept" (emphasis added). And, as I pointed out above, the Catholic Encyclopedia repeatedly uses the term "Roman Catholic" - and you tell me it is "a very respected peer reviewed scholarly work oft cited by Googlescholar". My quotation from the Life of Cardinal Vaughan was not taken out of context, as you can see if you read the context in which it appeared and where it fits perfectly. Soidi (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't anyone noticed there's now a New Catholic Encyclopedia? Peter jackson (talk) 11:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have access to it and have posted some information in these discussion quoted from that one. It is not online, you have to go to a Catholic library to find it and it is cited about 5 times per Googlescholar. The Old Catholic Encyclopedia is cited over 34 times and is online. That is why we like to quote and link it during these discussions. NancyHeise ^talk 12:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The point I was making was that it's out of date. I have access to the new one here & may feel like spending the time to look some things up. Peter jackson (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Note: church or churches in communion?

Regarding the sentence in the proposed note that reads:

"Following the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the church in communion with the Bishop of Rome used the name "Catholic" to distinguish itself from the various Protestant churches."

Should that be the church in communion or the churches in communion? Should it be plural, to refer to the various particular churches? I think it works either way, although it has a slightly nuanced meaning if pluralized. Any thoughts? --anietor (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The reference says "In the latter case, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome retained the adjective "Catholic", while the churches that broke with the Papacy were called Protestant.". But if you use "churches" you need to completely reword the sentence. Since it has been agreed in mediation, I am reluctant to change it. Do you have a proposed rewording you want to consider? NancyHeise ^talk 19:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

In the context of the quotation, the singular seems useful as indicating that Catholics were much more united than Protestants. Peter jackson (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow's concern

Gimmetrow listed his concerns above stating:

"My primary concerns are with the text. The problem is that people are making the same arguments for the move that are a problem with the text, so I'm concerned that even if the article were moved, it would not actually facilitate improvements in the text. In itself, an article move largely doesn't matter as much as it once did. The article name was formerly contentious (in wiki reasons) because it was used as a precedent for other article names. This use has been disallowed by WP:NAME now for 2.5 years, so right now, even without a page move, the contentious "disambiguations" of, for instance, diocese names can not point to "RCC" as a precedent requiring "Roman Catholic Diocese of Paris" rather than "Catholic Diocese of Paris" or "Diocese of Paris". It also, unfortunately, may mean that even if the article name were changed to CC, the new name also wouldn't be a precedent for changing other articles or categories. Gimmetrow 04:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This was subsequently buried under Soidi's discussion. I would like to address Gimmetrow's concerns in this section please. I am wondering what Wikipedia policy prevents an article from using the name an entity uses for itself because it would affect other articles. I, myself, created Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism and do not plan to change that name to eliminate "Roman" if RCC gets changed to CC. Also, I significantly contributed to the FA Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami with no effort to change the name even though the "official" name of the diocese is "Archdiocese of Miami" - because nobody cares, it has never been raised on the talk page as an issue. (By the way - the Annuario Pontificio lists the "official" names of all diocese's in the world and not one of them has the name "Roman" in front of it except the one in Rome.) Does this issue have anything to do with this article changing its name from RCC to CC? Unless there is a Wikipedia policy on it - I suggest that it not be raised as an issue. NancyHeise ^talk 03:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Not one of the names of dioceses listed in the Annuario Pontificio has the word "Catholic" in it, whether in front or behind. Soidi (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That said, I would like to know what Gimmetrows specific problems are with moving the article to CC and the new note. NancyHeise ^talk 03:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The same problems we've been discussing for months. Selection bias. There are people in the Church who say that RCC is the proper name of the Church. You've seen the sources. Is that view in the note? There are arguments for the priority of either CC or RCC. Some authors go into reasons and come down with one name or the other. McBrien, for instance, an author you initially rejected, talks about the issue of the name in a couple books. His message is that there are these reasons for either CC or RCC, and while he finds the reasons for CC "more persuasive", either is OK. While I think the key point is "there are reasons for either", the note says nothing of this, and his book is only used as a source for one of the reasons for one name, to the exclusion of others. Something about that just isn't right. The note is a note about the names. It should start saying something about the names. Not with a "history" that presents a narrow set of carefully selected (and arguably misleading) facts to the exclusion of other facts. Does it not give you even the slightest bit of pause to know that the bishops at an ecumenical council agreed that RCC is the proper name of the Church? There's a lesson there: the majority of the bishops did agree RCC was the proper name, but because of the concern of the English-speaking bishops, a minority, they agreed to a phrasing that addressed the concerns of the minority. Gimmetrow 06:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I would think that your concerns are covered in the note by the following statement, "The name "Catholic Church", rather than "Roman Catholic Church", is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents." There is no condemnation of RCC, it is acceptable and used, but only an attempt to say CC is "more right". That would seem to fit your statement above where the bishops agreed that CC was more right i.e. there was no longer a minority of concern.

For someone who is a non-Catholic, my concern is that I want to use the term that assures me of the least probability of offense. It seems rather clear that using CC does that, whereas if I use RCC I may offend that minority of people who get a bad taste in their mouth when they hear it. Are people correct in using RCC, yes; however, they are even more correct to use CC. Is this not what the bishops agreed to do? Should we not do the same thing?

How would you make it more clear that RCC is acceptable than what is already written in the note? --^StormRider 07:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I believe they used the phrase "Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church" (may have been some commas somewhere). That is, they didn't drop "Roman" but rather used a phrase that wouldn't be translated to English as "RCC", and that phrase wasn't simply "CC". If this were a note about some theological speculation, say, Limbo, I would expect the lead sentence to be "opinions on the topic varies within the Church", followed by those opinions. If a "history" were included, I would expect some mention of the history of each opinion. If we had a paragraph saying "opinion A was described by important person X in 1400, then saint Y in 1600 and theologian Z in 1800" without a single mention that opinion B was also held by important persons in 1300 and 1500, or any mention of the arguments for opinion B, I would hope most of us would find that presentation somewhat biased by the omission. The issue is mainly the text of the note, remember. One fix I mentioned was to start with the sentence of the first paragraph: " The Church is referred to and refers to itself in various ways, in part depending upon circumstance.", followed by specific examples: "CC appears in the title of the Catechism and ..., etc. RCC is used in ecumenical contexts, etc." Gimmetrow 08:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to the Apostles Creed- We say "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstone35 (talk • contribs)

I presume you mean the Nicene Creed, not the Apostles'. Soidi (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It was in one of the documents of Vatican I, Rockstone. Gimmetrow 17:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow is right. The phrase comes from the first chapter of the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius of the First Vatican Council. The EWTN-hosted translation inserts commas and an "and": "The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church". These are not found in the original Latin text: "Sancta Catholica Apostolica Romana Ecclesia", nor in the translation by Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, who was a participant: "The holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church". Soidi (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Gone through many times before - and of ZERO relevance to the current discussion. HCARC is an obscure largely 19th century usage, and not used these days. We are talking about the Church's usage - and its principal usage now. Xandar 20:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The phrase is repeated (without commas and "and") in Lumen Gentium"", which Xandar considers very relevant. Soidi (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

- ::::::To Gimmetrow and everyone else: Wikipedia wants us to use the most scholarly sources - which we are using - and none of them say that RCC is the name the Church claimed as its title, they say CC is the name it claimed as its title. None of the scholarly sources point to Gimmetrows bishops discussion because what matters is the bishops' final decision, not the discussion leading up to it. If scholars make no mention of this, neither should we. We are not here to present our own views, we are here to put the facts on the page as they appear in the scholarly sources. Our article name change and consensus agreed note do exactly this. NancyHeise ^talk 04:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Vatican I is not the standard the Church Uses, therefore cannot be applied correctly to this article as any standard. Vatican II is the standard. --Rockstone35 (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting assertion, but not relevant to the argument made here. Gimmetrow 05:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been provided a scholarly source which repeat "Gimmetrows bishops discussion". Gimmetrow 13:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The "bishops discussion" was a hundred and forty years ago - and it was finally decided not to use anything that smacked of RCC. And that argument makes no difference to the debate NOW. Since we are talking about current usage. The reference to Holy catholic Apostolic Roman Church in Lumen Gentium is in an indexing footnote - tying in with Vatican 1. If that was the name the Bishops of Vatican II wanted to use for the Church, it would have replaced "Catholic Church" in the Council documents. End of story. Xandar 15:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As Gimmetrow says, the decision of the First Vatican Council was repeated by the Second Vatican Council. Neither Council felt the urge that Xandar feels to limit the names of the Church to just one. The repetition of what the First Council said is in a footnote, but it is there as a statement of fact. It is not an "indexing footnote" indicating the source of the text with which it is associated. Instead it is a separate statement complementing the text so as to prevent one-sided interpretations of the text like Xandar's. 16:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

We just want to "put facts on the page as they appear in scholarly sources", Xandar. Sources lead content, not the other way around. Gimmetrow 16:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, can you suggest what changes would alleviate your concern? Shell ^babelfish 01:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've said so a few times, including in this section. Start the note with "The Church is referred to and refers to itself in various ways, in part depending upon circumstance.", followed by the specific examples: "CC appears in the title of the Catechism and ..., etc. RCC is used in ecumenical contexts, etc." I have regularly objected to the unsourced claim that the term "Catholic Church is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents". (The examples following only show that a particular term is used in a particular document, not that a particular term is used predominantly in all documents the Church has ever produced.) Then follow with the "history" beginning with "The Greek word...", or discuss whether these three "facts" should be upgraded to the main text in historical context. This eliminates the two problem sentences of the note ("There is some ambiguity" and "CC is usually the term"). It would appear Nancy should agree these sentences are problems. [47] Gimmetrow 02:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

We've had the discussion about the note. It took six months. We are now discussing the page move. Gimmetrow's proposed additional change to the note would remove the sentence saying most of the Church's documents use "Catholic Church" as opposed to RCC - which is pretty indisputable. (In fact the "as opposed to RCC" was added at Gimmetrow's insistence.) The examples are there because they were asked for. If we removed the sentence and just had examples, there would have to be more, to get the proper picture across. As far as being unreferenced, the sentence stating that RCC is used in ecumenical affairs is unreferenced. What we have is a compromise wording that uses several types of sources. Xandar 02:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If you don't want to discuss the note, that's your choice. Gimmetrow 03:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

An attempt to get this mediation back on track

Please excuse my absence from this page. In truth, I lost track of its existence and thus it wasn't on my watchlist. That may be just as well as I try to avoid getting too wrapped up in the back and forth discussions, preferring to let those with the strongest opinions hash it out amongst themselves.

I was asked to come take a look by Soidi. My impression is that the discussion does seem to have gone "off the rails" with this dispute about the "Catholic Church being the official name" of the Church. I'm disappointed that this is the case since this question is really part of the core issue being mediated and the current debate seems to have forgotten how the carefully crafted compromise resolved this issue.

Just to make it explicit, the core issue is the relative "officialness" of the names "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church".

Please forgive a short bit of sermonizing. The key to a successful compromise at Wikipedia is for each side to understand not just what they are getting and what they are giving up but for each side to understand and respect what the other side is getting and giving up.

Xandar, NancyHeise et al are getting the name of the article to be changed to "Catholic Church", getting "Catholic Church" to be named first and getting a strong implication that the name of the Church is the "Catholic Church". What they are giving up is any explicit assertion that "Catholic Church" is the official name of the Church.

Soidi, Gimmetrow et al are getting the removal of any explicit assertion that "Catholic Church" is the official name of the Church. They are getting the mention of the fact that the name "Roman Catholic Church", among others, is used to refer to the church in official documents and contexts. They are giving up any explicit assertion that "Roman Catholic Church" is an official name of the Church.

Thus, a critical piece of this compromise is a sort of agnosticism about the "official name" of the Church. We don't say there is one, we don't say there isn't one. If there is one, we certainly don't say what it might be. There is much that we imply but that we don't explicitly say. Is this ideal? No. Is it the currently achievable compromise? Yes. It represents an "agreement to disagree".

I have recently been watching House of Cards. And so, I am moved to say "You may very well believe that the official name of the Church is the 'Catholic Church'. Wikipedia will make no comment at this time."

As I sadi, the key to getting this compromise to work is for each side to understand and respect the concerns of the other side. We have a compromise that we have all agreed to (with the possible exception of Gimmetrow). However, the concern that Soidi has been expressing and not getting adequate acceptace of is that the proposed justification for the name change relies on the assertion that "the official name of the Church is 'the Catholic Church'". Accepting this assertion undoes most of what Soidi et al have been working for. It is tantamount to surrendering the principle that they have been trying to establish from Day 1.

My proposed solution therefore is to move forward with the agreed-upon compromise (title change, revised lead, revised note) but to eschew any assertion as to whether there is any single "official name" of the Church or what it may be. This "failure to assert" must be respected even in the arguments used to support components of the compromise such as the title of the article or the placement of "Catholic Church" first in the lead sentence. The argument for these should be based primarily on the fact that it is the most commonly used name and the most widely recognized name, NOT on the assertion that it is the official name of the Church.

Hope this helps.

--Richard (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Regarding what each side "gets" from the compromise, as a newcomer to this discussion, I couldn't possibly comment. John Carter (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That is what I have been asking for. I have not asked for explicit acknowledgement that RCC, like CC, is an official name of the Church (which it demonstrably is), but only for withdrawal of the (mistaken) assertion that the editors involved in the mediation declared that CC is the official name of the Church. As Richard says, this amounts to declaring the absolute and complete victory of one side in the discussion. This compromise of not insisting that either of these two statements be made explicitly does not require surrender by either side. Soidi (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are we arguing on this page? I thought it was because Soidi and Gimmetrow disagreed with the outcome of the mediation. If that is not the case then lets stop wasting our time and make the agreed changes. Thanks Richard. NancyHeise ^talk 19:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, it doesn't matter how it is or is not summarized. We have an action plan and I thought was had some agreement to that compromise. Richard's summary is accurate, no one is getting exactly what they want, each side is giving up something to reach a workable consensus. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your overview, Richard. Your point about the "official" name is well taken. I think my summary was not sensitive to this point. Unfortunately, the discussion tended to get bogged down with arguments about the name (whether it was the name we would pick for the article or the one and only true name of the church). Obviously there are different perspectives about this. Yet, as Kraftlos has pointed out, what is important here is the action plan. The mediators have maintained consistently that we would adjust the table based on reasonable discussion and consensus. I see a consensus emerging based on Richard's summary. Therefore, I have revised the table in the Section on Wikipedia guidelines, as follows:

Naming criteria per WP:NCON

Criterion	CC	RCC
* Is the name in common usage in English?	Yes	Yes
* Is it the official current name of the subject?	See note1	See note1
* Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves?	See note2	See note2

Notes re: table

1. The name "Catholic Church", rather than "Roman Catholic Church", is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents. It appears in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is also the term that Pope Paul VI used when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council. (From "Explanatory note," above).
2. "CC" is the name usually used by the Church to describe itself. "RCC" is used primarily in inter-faith communications.

With that, perhaps we can move on? Sunray (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm greatly pleased that you have finally recognised the legitimate concerns of both sides this dispute and made the necessary changes to the table. If this had happened much earlier a lot of unecessary conflict and frustration could have been avoided - but it's better late than never and I appreciate it. Afterwriting (talk) 06:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

End of discussion

The discussion has now closed. Have the mediators reached an agreement? --Rockstone35 (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A summary will be posted within the next couple of days. Shell ^babelfish 05:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the heading of this page is proposal, not mediation. Whether or not the mediation that started some time ago between some of those discussing the proposal is now complete, the community can still discuss the proposal. Peter jackson (talk) 10:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been a community consultation that was agreed to as part of the mediation.[48] Peter is quite right, the community can discuss what it wants, when it wants too. It is the consultation that is now completed. Thanks to all who have participated. Sunray (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Summary of consultation

The consultation centered on one key question: Can one church appropriate a name for itself? The discussion on this topic examined other churches' use of the term “catholic.” The related topic of whether the term “Catholic Church” was thereby ambiguous was also discussed. There were lengthy discussions regarding the process of the consultation and the interpretation of WP policy and guidelines on article naming.

There was general agreement on the following:

• The Church most commonly refers to itself as the “Catholic Church.”
• The Church also refers to itself as the “Roman Catholic Church” in some contexts.
• The proposed lead, supported by the explanatory note, adequately reflects this.

A majority of those who commented expressed the view that the proposal is in accordance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines on article naming and indicated their support for it. This, in the view of the mediators supports the consensus of the mediation to rename the article, modify the lead sentence and add a new explanatory note.

We welcome comments on this summary. Is it a fair and accurate overview? Following input (by the end of the day, Tuesday, please), we will proceed with the changes to the article. Shell ^babelfish, Sunray (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

It has not been shown that the "Church most commonly refers to itself as CC". Gimmetrow 16:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

We're aware that there is not complete agreement with all issues, which is why words like "general agreement" and "majority" were used in describing the discussion. Shell ^babelfish 16:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a simple issue of WP:V, which is policy. One of the specific issue of mediation, which was not discussed, was the extent to which a "consensus" based on misunderstanding and error can override policy. This is particularly important given the 100s of man-hours spent providing sources to editors who repeatedly demand "sources", yet consistently claim "sources" were never provided. Gimmetrow 16:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, you did not take part in the development of the explanatory note, but these questions were thoroughly discussed. The topic sentence of the second paragraph summarizes the findings, which are then supported in the next two sentences with four references. Sunray (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The so-called "topic sentence" is not supported by the following statements. A couple specific instances cannot demonstrate a general statement. Am I to understand that you are again refusing and preventing discussion on this point? Gimmetrow 17:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The last thing that anyone can say is that the mediators, or anyone, refused or prevented discussion on any point. The comments here ran the gamut. A significant amount of time was dedicated to all the issues raised, with plenty of time spent on side point, minor disputes and tangential issues. While editors were encouraged to stay on topic, it was always done in the interests of focusing the discussion, and, ultimately, every editor was able to say his/her piece. Gimmetrow, just because your particular "challenges" to other editors were not, in your view, answered to your satisfaction, you were certainly never cut off. Every editor's right to discuss the topics was honored. Unfortunately, you are not willing to honor other editors' rights to disagree with you. Blaming particular moderators, mediators, editors, etc. for having a different position, and disagreeing with consensus, is now just coming across as poor form and sour grapes. --anietor (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Anietor, if I say "Usernames of mediators usually start with S. Sunray starts with S and so does Seddon", is the first sentence supported by the statements which follow? The fix for this issue seems to me so simple that I am flabbergasted to frustration at why it is so difficult to get it fixed. Gimmetrow 18:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason why we couldn't make a change if there is consensus to do so. Sunray (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That's wonderful! Please provide any reasons for objections to the changen so they can be addressed. Gimmetrow 22:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sunray, above you say "you did not take part in the development of the explanatory note". Why do you say this? What, if any, implication do you attach to that sentence? Please explain. Gimmetrow 22:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

As the next sentence says, "these questions were thoroughly discussed." The implication is that you may have missed something. Sunray (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

And what is the implication of that? If you think I've "missed something", then at some point in the time since I've been attempting to get this issue fixed, you could have provided some explanation that went to content. Gimmetrow 04:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Continuing discussion of proposal

I believe one of the key questions can be described in a longer way like "Can an article on Wikipedia about one Church appropriate a title (without disambiguation) only for itself, even if other Churches use this title?". In my opinion, renaming this article to simply "Catholic Church" is not a good idea, and the debates about this could probably continue. The WP:NAME#Controversial names also discourages editors from changing controversial names into other controversial names (it also mentions this debate there), so instead of changing into another controversial name it should be changed into a less controversial name. In my opinion, a title with the form "Catholic Church (descriptive disambiguation)" (I assume other users know better what description in parentheses should be used) is much less controversial. There are multiple Churches claiming this title (and the WP:NPOV states to be impartial), the WP:NCON article naming policy explains that when multiple entities use the same title, a disambiguation should be given ("A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names.", it speaks here about clashes of entities' names, not clashes of article titles). There is also no wiki policy which forces us to have an article titled simply "Catholic Church" (especially when it can be controversial). In my opinion, "Catholic Church" (without disambiguation), should be used just as a redirect here (since, obviously the RCC uses this title more often than others). Cody7777777 (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Cody, you have made these points during the consultation process. Most of those who responded were not persuaded by your arguments. The points you raise here were covered in the sections entitled "Relevant policy and guidelines on naming" and "Findings." Your comment about not changing an article name without good reason has also been discussed at some length, above. As I mentioned in that discussion, the mediation consensus qualifies as a good reason to change the name. The consultation process is now completed, except for discussion of the summary. Unless a majority of the other participants want to re-open the discussion, the matter is concluded. Sunray (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No need to re-open the discussion. As Cody noted, the debate could continue... and I doubt it would ever end! Regarding the summary, I think it accurately and fairly summarizes the consensus reached on this issue, after a particularly long and contentious process of discussion, analysis and review. Nobody claims it to be unanimous, but opposing views were expressed, and it is what it says...a summary, which acknowledges that it is based on general agreement and consensus. --anietor (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say that I would prefer not to reopen this discussion; we should implement this consensus. The fact is, we have heard the dissenting arguments and have not found them persuasive. I think we have a pretty solid consensus here and if we choose to do some more with disambiguation links or spinoff articles I'd be up for discussing that, but this has gone on for over a year, its time to move on and put our efforts elsewhere. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been away for a couple of days and do not have time now to study the above deeply. A question: Is it really OK for so extremely few to change the title of an article, especially a title that has been a matter of dispute for such a long time? The last time the matter was considered, a far greater number had their say. Those who have intervened above are perhaps barely a dozen. Shouldn't we follow to the letter the Wikipedia rules about controversial moves (changes of titles)? Soidi (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In the course of the mediation and this consultation, more than two dozen people have commented. There are some differences between this and the previous discussions (there have been several), as this consultation was the result of a mediation. What have we missed of importance? Sunray (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Why not put the article move up to a straw vote on Talk:Roman Catholic Church with 80% plus !votes in favor being deemed to be a consensus? Based on Sunray's comment immediately above, I expect that we will have at least 20 !voting in favor of the title change. If we have more than 5 objections, then maybe we need to slow down and hash this out on the Talk Page. If, on the other hand, the straw vote is more like 20+ in favor and only one or two against, then I'd call it a consensus and move ahead. --Richard (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, I wonder why I participate in this charade. It is one of the huge shortcomings of a public encyclopedia....the probability for an unending trail of individuals who are incapable of making a decision or wanting to talk an issue to death. Regardless of policy, references, months of discussion, etc. there is an individual's opinion that absolutely must be heard. NOTHING ORIGINAL CAN BE ADDED; IT HAS ALL BEEN SAID. So many editors have yet to grasp the difference between a name (please note I purposely did not use "the" name) and doctrinal beliefs.

Voting is still evil, it has not changed, and it is absolutely the worst form of discussion. Discussion leads to decisions because it demands attention, participation, and it follows logic. It has been demonstrated ad nauseum that Catholic Church is the name preferred by the Catholic Church. There is no ambiguity because no other church refers to itself commonly as the Catholic Church and there is no confusion when the term Catholic Church is used, which church is being discussed. When discussion and logic fail...go to a vote where every editor that has only the briefest of understandings gets a vote. Voting works on some subjects, but it is seldom appropriate for controversial topics such as religion. Religion brings out knee-jerk reactions and thoughtless decisions by far too many people to think that a vote will yield a thoughtful conclusion. Change the name now, explain why it was done and then see what happens. I suspect there will be questions, some may even be vociferously against it, but nothing defeats the policy and how it will have been implemented in this name change. --^StormRider 07:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Polls are usually held at the beginning of a discussion rather than the end. Most importantly, polling is not a substitute for discussion. I think we have had the discussion. In fact, we have had months of discussion. The mediators are moving closure. Sunray (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree, it is time to take action, based on the many months of discussion and, more importantly, based on consensus. There will always be "just one more" extension suggestion for a straw poll, mediation, further discussion, etc. We've gone above and beyond on this one. Time to take the appropriate action. --anietor (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with closing the discussion on this page. I agree that it's unlikely any new points will be brought up via further discussion here or on the Talk Page of the article. It's only a question of whether the consensus of the group watching this page matches the consensus of the group watching the Talk Page of the article rules. It's only a question of procedure. We can act based upon the consensus of the group watching this page and then see if that consensus is different from the consensus of the group watching the Talk Page of the article. My proposal was to test the consensus of the group watching the Talk Page of the article first but, in the end, it doesn't matter. I just thought it would be courteous to ask first before making the move but just moving the article will test that consensus also.

Am I understanding correctly that it is the proposal of the mediators to close the discussion/mediation and implement the agreed-upon compromise without any further discussion either here or on the Talk Page of the article? If so, who will implement the changes?

--Richard (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a subpage of the article talk page. Anyone who frequents the latter page and wanted to join the discussion would have read the note and joined in. We are closing the consultation, but have no influence on discussion—that is up to the individuals involved. However, consensus should be respected by all. As stated, above, the mediators will make the change. Sunray (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the multiple posts here by some individuals, and related acres of discussion, the actual number of objectors to the change have been countable on the fingers of one hand, and many of the arguments they have raised have not been relevant to WP policy in any event. We set a time limit and parameters for the discussion during mediation, and we have met that. Xandar 22:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well put! Also, I agree that WP:VOTINGISEVIL. It's time to be WP:BOLD and implement these changes. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with either making the change now or egaging further discussion on the talk page, but I lean toward the former. Majoreditor (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Closing statement

This has been an arduous, but entirely worthwhile, process for me and I trust it has been beneficial for others as well. I confess to being surprised that we have reached an end, and one that has much to commend it. Participants in the mediation and in the consultation have worked hard to consider different points of view. Not everyone is happy with the outcome, but I think nearly everyone will support it. Each participant may take pride in the fact that, despite the often emotional content, the discussion almost always remained civil. Thank you all. Sunray (talk) 06:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)