Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church

This Request for Mediation has been closed. This case was closed by: Sunray (talk) 02:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC).[reply] The reason given for closure was: successful. Parties: If you wish to resume this mediation, please file a new request.

Thank you for your patience while I got up to speed on the older discussions and RfCs. If I understand correctly (if not, please straighten me out :) ), the dispute appears to be limited to the first phrase in the article "The Roman Catholic Church, officially known as the Catholic Church" and whether or not "official" is correctly used. There seem to be quite a few editors involved in this particular discussion, so in order to avoid confusion (and frustration), it would help if everyone could stick to one topic at a time and try to keep things focused. If everyone could give a brief statement of their opinion of how to resolve the dispute (please try to avoid anything personal and stick to content/sourcing issues) we'll see what we can do to sort things out. Thanks again. Shell ^babelfish 04:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a table which lists the options which have been discussed. It is transcluded from this page.

--Richard (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed alternatives

Proposed text	Support	Oppose	Oppose reasons
"Officially known as the Catholic Church"	Xandar, NancyHeise, Marauder40, SynKobiety	Soidi, Gimmetrow, Defteri, Afterwriting	Implies that other churches and Chrisitans are not part of the "universal" Christian church. Implies that there is a single "official name" for the church.
The RCC (in official usage, the Catholic Church)...	Xandar Richardshusr Marauder40	Defteri, SynKobiety, Afterwriting	Supported by Xandar only with dashes, not brackets. Implies that only one name is officially used (Defteri) Implies that RCC in normal in non-official usage (SynKobiety)
The RCC, also known as the Catholic Church,...		Richardshusr Marauder40, SynKobiety	Implies that "Roman Catholic Church" is the real name and "Catholic Church" is an abbreviation, alias or nickname
Roman Catholic Church, which titles itself "Catholic Church"(note 1)".	NancyHeise	Xandar, Marauder40, SynKobiety	Implies that this is a false or presumptuous claim. Implies that RCC is proper and more common.
"which usually calls itself the Catholic Church" "refers to itself as"	Defteri, Richardshusr, Soidi, Secisek, Kraftlos	Xandar, Marauder40, SynKobiety	Implies that this is a false or presumptuous claim. Implies that RCC is proper and more common.
The Catholic Church, sometimes called the Roman Catholic Church,...	SynKobiety		Implies that other churches and Chrisitans are not part of the "universal" Christian church.
"prefers to be called"	Defteri, Richardshusr, Soidi, Secisek, Kraftlos	Marauder40, Xandar, SynKobiety, Afterwriting	Doesn't specify that this is the "proper" name. Implies that RCC is more common and proper.
"strongly prefers to use"	Richardshusr	Marauder40, Xandar, SynKobiety	Doesn't specify that this is the "proper" name. Implies that RCC is more common and proper.
The Roman Catholic Church, which in its official documents usually calls itself the Catholic Church	Defteri, Richardshusr, Soidi, Afterwriting	Marauder40, Xandar, SynKobiety	Implies that this is a false or presumptuous claim. Implies that RCC is more common and that CC is only used in official contexts.
"The Roman Catholic Church, which in its official documents calls itself the 'Catholic Church'"	NancyHeise	Marauder40, Xandar, SynKobiety	Implies that this is a false or presumptuous claim. Implies that RCC is more common and that CC is only used in official contexts.
The Roman Catholic Church - in normal official usage, the Catholic Church	Xandar	Defteri, SynKobiety	What is "normal" and what is "abnormal"? Implies that RCC is more common and that CC is only used in official contexts. Implies that other churches and Chrisitans are not part of the "universal" Christian church.
The Roman Catholic Church, more usually called, both informally and in the Church's official usage, the Catholic Church	Soidi, Defteri, Afterwriting	Xandar, SynKobiety	Long-winded and unencyclopedic. Implies that RCC is more proper in secular contexts.
The Catholic Church (Roman Catholic)	jbmurray	Defteri, SynKobiety	Does not conform with WP:LEAD regarding the article name appearing in the first sentence
The (Roman) Catholic Church	jbmurray	SynKobiety	Ugly
The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church,...	Gimmetrow, Xandar, Richardshusr, Marauder40 jbmurray, SynKobiety, NancyHeise, Majoreditor Kraftlos Mike	Defteri, Soidi	Implies that other churches and Chrisitans are not part of the "universal" Christian church. Is not in strict conformance with WP:LEAD regarding the article name appearing "as early as possible" in the first sentence but comes pretty close. Xandar only supports this providing article name reverts to "Catholic Church". As R, M and SK said above, "also known as" implies that the second name is an alias or nickname. WP:LEAD allows for common sense variations, it states " it should be followed except where common sense warrants an exception."

The guideline on naming conflicts 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).

The tally regarding the article name change to the Catholic Church is as follows:

• Agree: Xandar, Majoreditor, NancyHeise, Marauder, Kraftlos, Richard, Gabr-el, Johnbod, Mike, Str1977, Storm Rider, jbmurray

• Stand aside: Defteri (had said he thought it premature to move towards changing the name without further discussion on the wording of the lead sentence, which we have now done).

• Oppose: Secisek: "oppose any attempt to move the article from its present location which is exactly the other major reference dictionaries and ecyclopedias put it." (I've asked him to clarify these comments). [Soidi was opposed, but in view of the rush of (unreflecting?) approvals preferred not to join the argument. Soidi (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)][reply]

In addition, Gimmetrow, Xandar, Richard, Marauder40, jbmurray, SynKobiety, NancyHeise, Majoreditor, Kraftlos and Mike have declared in favour of changing the lead sentence to "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church,..."

Would other participants who wish to speak about this be willing to do that now, please? Since a name change is favored by many participants, would those opposed please indicate: a) their reasons for not favoring an article name change, and, b) their preferred alternative? Consensus is not unanimity. However, In a consensus process we do want to hear all points of view and attempt to deal with concerns raised. Sunray (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sunray, you are doing an excellent job of mediating, I appreciate your efforts very much. I have notified the editors who have not yet voiced an opinion on the matter asking them to come to this section and vote. I also want to point out to Secisek that Encyclopedia Americana addresses the subject at Catholic Church, not Roman Catholic Church. NancyHeise ^talk 01:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add this diff to the FAC director's personal opinion in the matter of the Church's name here [1] and the official response from the Diocese of Hawaii regarding the Church's name here [2]. NancyHeise ^talk 02:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You asked Fr. Gantley the wrong questions, so his response is not relevant to this discussion. Has the Church ever formally and officially declared or defined that CC is its sole official name to the exclusion of any and all other names? It seems unlikely, or you would have been able to find a source by now. Gimmetrow 12:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Academic American Encyclopedia the Church "claimed as its title" Catholic Church. Gosh Gimmetrow, enough already. NancyHeise ^talk 17:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I agree with the name change and the wording of the sentence provided that Roman Catholic Church redirects to it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, weakly I wonder if this will raise new opposition in terms of the clash with an Anglican or Orthodox view of what the "Catholic Church" is. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see! Then we can engage in another fun mediation! : ) NancyHeise ^talk 03:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I guess my previous opposition to the name change was that in the literal sense, Catholic church just means the universal church. Also because several other churches use the word; but in most common usage it refers to the Church of Rome. I just noticed recently the link to the disambiguation, I think that adequately demonstrates all the other uses of "Catholic church". I don't think there will be any confusion, especially since we also use RCC in the lead. I also think the title "Catholic church" is the obvious interpretation of Wikipedia's naming policy as it is what the church calls itself most the time. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Wikipedia must always first defer to the entity being named and their preference. RCC is an acceptable name the Church uses, but only within a specific context. Its preferred name is Catholic Church. I do expect this will cause the ire of other groups that claim Catholic church as a name of their own, but I also agree with Nancy that we will cross that bridge when we come to it. As an aside, were it simply me, as an outsider to the Church, I would use RCC because it is unambiguous and all understand specifically what church is being identified in the conversation. The Catholic church is often confused with the catholic church. Some will certainly feel this is grasping or even POV; however, it is fundamental doctrine of the Catholic Church that there is one, and only one, Holy and Apostolic Church and God's vicar sits in Rome. I also realize that as an outsider, I use RCC but if I required this article to do so, I would be demanding that Catholics describe their church first from an outsider's viewpoint and then their own, which simply does not make sense and is the very definition of POV. --^StormRider 08:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in substance. The change is correct but I wonder how this will not meet opposition outside of this mediation. (And BTW, sentences like "The Catholic church is often confused with the catholic church" are nonsensical.) Str1977 ^(talk) 08:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition based on sectarian challenges as to to the "right" of the body to use Catholic Church as its name would fail under WP policy. Xandar 10:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that we let sectarians now dictate what other people may calle themselves? What kind of policy is that? WP:SECT? Str1977 ^(talk) 11:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, just the opposite. The policy asserts that Wikipedia should call a group whatever it calls itself even if there is a more common name with some wiggle room as Kraftlos indicates below. --Richard (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason why the naming policy is a bit ambiguous is because it allows for a more common name to take precedent over a less common official name; however in this case, I think its been demonstrated that RCC is not more common. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. There does, however, have to be a concise but well-written footnote explaining the ins and outs of this debate. I've just glanced through the voluminous discussion that's taken place since my last participation in this debate. One thing I don't see is the point that for many Catholics, the term "Roman Catholic" is outright offensive; and in fact, there have been contexts in which it has indeed been used for the purposes of offense. This is an issue that I tried to address in my suggested text for such a footnote (somewhere way up on this page). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I haven't really seen any sources saying this. I've certainly got that impression from other people in this debate. I honestly don't understand why it would be offensive. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose and Reject. "Catholic Church" is a term that can be applied to both a specific church, and any church that follows Apostolic Succession; using it to refer only to a single church, which denies Apostolic Succession in other churches, espouses a non-neutral POV. Bill Ward (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Bill. This page is for participants in the mediation only. If we get consensus here, we will take it to the article talk page. Sunray (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, because I didn't even HEAR that there was a discussion over this until yesterday, my voice doesn't count when I was involved? Ok. Then Mediation is worthless in this regard, as it appears that only certain voices will be heard. Bill Ward (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill, please don't get your feathers ruffled over your exclusion. Think of this discussion as a "committee" whose job it is to propose a name change to the larger body (similar to the process in many decision-making bodies). The current consensus-building process is focused on whether proposing a name change is (1) likely to resolve the current dispute and (2) feasible. You will have your opportunity to express your opinion if and when the name change is proposed on Talk:Roman Catholic Church.

The nature of a mediation is such that it needs to be restricted to those who are identified as parties to the dispute. If we didn't do that, the discussion here would risk becoming a free-for-all melee akin to that of an article talk page. I don't think you were a party to this dispute and, in any event, you were not identified as such so, for now, we would appreciate it if you stay out of the discussion.

--Richard (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill isn't the only editor commenting on this page who was not listed as a party. Gimmetrow 02:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Bill, your assertion is not actually true. In regard to diocesis belong to the (R)CC it is common to talk about e.g. the Catholic Church of Birmingham. But that never occurs with any other denomination following or even claiming Apostolic Succession. In these other cases it is merely used to denote the "one universal church" as mentioned in the creed. And BTW, the (R)CC does not generally deny Apostolic Succession in other churches. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mediation has been going on since January and the people on the list (see project page) were listed there in the initial mediation proposal because of their involvement in this ongoing discussion; people didn't just hop on, they were invited at the begining. By the way, Sunray is the mediator and he runs this discussion. You can follow the discussion, but this mediation is only open to the participants. Like Richard said, there will be another proposal on the article page once we've come to a consensus here. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've been over this. That's why there's a new note in the works and also why there is a Catholic church disambiguation page that's listed at the top of the article. That was also my initial reaction to this rename proposal, but given those two factors, I can't see how this would insert a POV; this is just a matter of Wikipedia's naming policy. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have so many reasons for this vote, you can ask me in person for them, I am not bothered to reiterate basic points stated above. Gabr-el 21:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and Reject. "Catholic Church" implies that all other churches and Chrisitans are not part of the "universal" Christian church; using it to refer only to a single church, espouses a non-neutral POV to Wikipedia! --Carlaude ^(talk) 16:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carlaude is not a participant in this mediation. Sunray (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - It technically is the Universal Christian Church, since all Churches that exist today have broken off from the Catholic Church. Also, the Offical and common name of the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church. --Rockstone35 (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rockstone35 is not a participant in this mediation. Sunray (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A clear, concise note describing the usage of each name by the Church that supports the proposed lead sentence: The Catholic Church also known as the Roman Catholic Church^[1]...

1. Reference to applicable policies and guidelines on naming.
2. A brief overview of how the name "Catholic Church" is used in Church constitution and official documents (e.g., The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Lumen Gentium, the Code of Canon Law)
3. A statement about common usage of the name.
4. One or two secondary sources that support official usage (e.g., Whitehead).
5. A brief statement of when and how the name "Roman Catholic Church" is used in official Church communications (e.g., speeches and ecumenical communications by Popes).
6. Usage outside of the Catholic Church.
7. Secondary sources to support usage.

Does this approach make sense? If so, would someone be willing to produce a draft along the lines described above? Sunray (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(The agreement so far is to change the article name from Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church with the first sentence of the article stating "The Catholic Church, also known as Roman Catholic Church (note 1)..." That note is being discussed immediately below this post.) NancyHeise ^talk 02:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article move would be blatantly POV, can you indicate what purposes are served by Wikipedia naming the church of Rome the Catholic Church— contrary the use of major reference dictionaries and encyclopedias— and contrary any nonRoman Catholic POV?--Carlaude ^(talk) 04:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is some ambiguity about the title "Catholic Church". 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".^[1] It was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early second century.^[2] 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.^[3]

The title "Catholic Church" is usually the term used by the Church in its own documents. For instance, it is the name used by the Pope when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council^[4][5][6] and in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.^[7] 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.^[8] 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.^[9] Within the Church, the name "Roman Church" principally refers to the specific Diocese of Rome.^[10][11]

This is the version of the note that several participants have been working on in the sandbox.[3] We have an emerging consensus on this version, however there are two parts about which some participants have voiced continuing concerns (see below). We welcome the input of all participants on these two parts or any other aspect of the note. Sunray (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "When After the Church split in the eleventh century, 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 following comments from Richard outline his concerns:

I have two concerns with the sentence in question.

First, the church did not split apart on a single date, within a single year or even within a single century. The schism is generally dated as starting in April 1054 but that is a gross oversimplification.

Second, I'm concerned about the word "took" in this sentence...

Took" suggests to me that the "taking" began at a specific point in time (in the case of the current revision, in the twelfth century)

Took" also suggests to me that a specific decision was made to "take" the name; I believe that there was no such explicit formal decision

Perhaps a better replacement text would be

As the church split up beginning in the eleventh century, both the Western church and the Eastern churches laid claim to being "orthodox" and "catholic" while asserting that the other was neither "orthodox" nor "catholic". Nonetheless, the term "Catholic Church" came to be used to designate the Western Church in communion with the bishop of Rome while the term "Orthodox Church" came to be used to designate the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

Some participants do not support this proposed alternative wording. Comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunray (talk • contribs) 20:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that concern. That the Church split in 1054 is an often repeated fallacy but nonetheless a fallacy. I also think that "took" reads a bit awkward as neither the one or the other settled for one term and was less attached to the other. My suggestion would be:

"When the Church split in a Western and an Eastern Church, the term "Catholic" came to be associated with the west while the term "Orthodox" came to be associated with the east."

Str1977 ^(talk) 18:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My response to the above (there is no signature) - I would like to add that the scholarly source supporting the word "took the name Catholic" actually says "claimed as its title". These exact words are used in several scholarly tertiary sources some are listed here [4]. Academic American Encyclopedia also uses the words "claimed as its title". The agreement among so many diverse sources suggests that the Church did make a decision and we do not have sources that support Richards suggested wording on the issue. For these reasons I disagree with Richards suggestion. NancyHeise ^talk 11:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slight correction for Nancy: what the source says is: "claimed for itself the title Catholic Church". For Richard: The Church did split in the eleventh century. At first people didn't realize that the split might last. But the split that even yet has not been healed did begin in the eleventh century and was deepened rather than attenuated in the next centuries. As for your trouble with "took", perhaps it would be enough to change "When the Church split in the eleventh century" to "After the Church split in ..." That will make it easier to understand "took" in accordance with the meaning it has here, i.e. as referring not to a decision made at a specific point in time, but to a practice that can be supposed to have grown gradually. Anything more than that simple change from "When" to "After" (which will avoid giving the impression that on the very day the split began the claim to exclusivity regarding "Catholic" was immediately made) seems to be a quite unnecessary complication. May I formally propose this one-word amendment? Soidi (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with either Nancy's suggestion "claimed as its title" or Soidi's suggestion "claimed for itself the title". Either works, which ever is in the sources. Marauder40 (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Soidi's suggestion to change "When" to "After". I won't quibble about the "eleventh century" bit; I agree with his assertion that the Church split in the eleventh century with consequences that few envisioned at the time.

With that change, I suppose I can accept use of the word "took". As to Nancy's argument for "claimed as its title", I would like to understand if we are going to also say that the Eastern Churches "claimed as their title"? I think a parallel construction such as "Western Church took" and "Eastern Churches took" is better from the perspective of writing style.

--Richard (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upon my first read through I also had a similar reaction as Richard in regards to the term "took" the name. If the references use "claim," I would use it. I have a question and don't have the time to do the research from your references, did the church claim the name or was the name, Catholic Church, retained? I suspect that the Catholic Church had been the name of the church for centuries, but I don't recall from memory a specific reference (it might just be an assumption I have made in the past and retained). Great work to all of you on this proposal...three cheers for a job well done. I can support this proposal even though I have this one question outstanding. --^StormRider 17:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Claim" is problematic as it can be the ultimate weasel word. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no formal way in the one took the name "Catholic", and the other "Orthodox", and thus this statement cannot be verified. It would be like saying that the northern Mediterranean landmass "took the name Europe." Note well that the RCC still cliams to be "orthodox," and the Eastern Orthodox, "catholic." --Carlaude ^(talk) 17:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlaude, the scholarly source supporting the word "took the name Catholic" actually says "claimed as its title". These exact words are used in several scholarly tertiary sources some are listed here [5]. Academic American Encyclopedia also uses the words "claimed as its title". Because so many diverse and highly respected encyclopedias and our scholarly work agree on this exact same wording, I doubt we can reasonable dispute this issue. These are evidence of vast scholarly agreement. NancyHeise ^talk 17:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox never stopped claiming to be catholic/Catholic nor the west orthodox/Orthodox.

But if we cannot reasonablly dispute this issue, why are we not using this exact same wording? --Carlaude ^(talk) 18:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy, please. As I said some hours ago, the "scholarly source" does not use the words "claimed as its title": it has "claimed for itself the title Catholic Church". (Not that it doesn't claim for itself other titles also.) The "scholarly source" is quoted in the footnote to the note, so it is easy to check it.

I think that the fact that the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome does claim for itself the title Catholic Church, and that the Eastern Orthodox Church does claim for itself the title Orthodox Church can indeed be demonstrated with Reliable Sources. For me, that is the same as saying that each of them "took" the name in question. A landmass can't "take" a name, or claim something for itself, but Churches can and do. Soidi (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlaude: The note is not referring to the qualities each church believes that it possesses, namely being catholic or orthodox. Yes. Both claim this. What we're referring to here are the titles that the respective churches took as their identificatory names. Nor does this mean that they did not use these titles before, simply that after the split, the name taken emphasised continuity and the principal element of that continuity that each thought most important. For the western church it was the universality (catholicism), for the Eastern Church, it was the adherence to traditional Apostolic doctrine (orthodoxy). Xandar 20:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds nice. Also sounds like OR. Is there a citation to back up this hypothesis? --Richard (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, this is the first paragraph of the New Advent entry for "Orthodox"...

Orthodox Church The technical name for the body of Christians who use the Byzantine Rite in various languages and are in union with the Patriarch of Constantinople but in schism with the Pope of Rome. The epithet Orthodox (orthodoxos), meaning "right believer", is, naturally, claimed by people of every religion. It is almost exactly a Greek form of the official title of the chief enemies of the Greeks, i.e. the Moslems (mu'min, fidelis). The Monophysite Armenians called themselves ughapar, meaning exactly the same thing. How "Orthodox" became the proper name of the Eastern Church it is difficult to say. It was used at first, long before the schism of Photius, especially in the East, not with any idea of opposition against the West, but rather as the antithesis to the Eastern heretics — Nestorians and Monophysites. Gradually, although of course, both East and West always claimed both names, "Catholic" became the most common name for the original Church in the West, "Orthodox" in the East.

So... as Soidi asserted, both churches used both names before the schism. According to New Advent, nobody is sure how "Orthodox" became the proper name of the Eastern Church. I think we are on safer ground to simply assert that "Catholic" and "Orthodox" became the names of the Western and Eastern Churches respectively without speculating as to how it came about.

And, for Nancy, the above entry suggests a different situation than your interpretation of "claimed for itself the title Catholic Church". New Advent says that "both East and West always claimed both names" and "Catholic" became the most common name for the original Church in the West, "Orthodox" in the East. This lends support to the idea that there is more than one name for the church in communion with the bishop of rome with "Catholic" being the most common name. I don't argue that New Advent is definitively more correct than the source of "claimed for itself the title Catholic Church". I simply claim that two reliable sources may have slightly different views of the truth. --Richard (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, there are so many high ranking sources that say the church "claimed as its title" that it is erroneous for us to eliminate this referenced fact that is found in Catholic sources (like our scholarly reference) as well as non religious sources such as Academic American Encyclopedia and Oxford English Dictionary and Oxford Dictionary of Christianity. These are not websites, these are serious scholarship suggesting vast scholarly agreement. I so not support elimination of "took the name" for this reason. You should not be able to squash this mediated agreed text just because you don't like it. It is solidly referenced. I agree that both churches believe they are orthodox and catholic but the note is about the name only, not beliefs. NancyHeise ^talk 17:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy, I specifically agreed not to hold up the movement of the text out of the sandbox over the word "took" because I see the issue as being somewhat stylistic. From my perspective, "took" is not an unacceptable phrasing but perhaps it is an inferior one. Sunray suggested and I agreed that we would explain my concerns to a larger audience and see what they thought. A couple of editors have indicated that they see the same issues but a couple of swallows does not a summer make and a couple of editors does not a consensus make. What we should do is debate the issue civilly and form a consensus.

As for "claimed as its title", I see that phrase as being a bit on the flowery side. I don't think there was ever a formal claim laid to the title "Catholic" and so the phrase is more a figure of speech than a precise description of what happened. To beat my old drum, "not everything that is sourced is encyclopedic". I think the New Advent narrative is a more accurate description of what happened and I think we would have a better article if we captured the sense of that narrative.

--Richard (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "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.^[1]

If you are including reasons as to why Catholics dislike such a lable— plus entering in a false or misleading Protestant motive to boot— then you have to include the non-RCC Chrisitan reasons for disliking the "Catholic Church" lable. Protestantism does not use "Roman" because they already dislike Rome. Protestantism objects to "Catholic Church" for the very reason the RCC seems to seeks it— because it is a blatant and POV way for RCCatholics to declaire that they are the one "universal" Christian church— which is still the "offical" doctrine of the RCC! --Carlaude ^(talk) 17:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlaude, are you proposing something here? We have referenced the sentences in the note and the fact that many Catholics dislike Roman was one of Gimmetrows main sticking points. Because it exists in several solid sources, we included it in the note although we only use one ref because we only need one. Do you have a suggestion for changing the note? If so, please be more clear and provide references for your wording changes. NancyHeise ^talk 17:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "However, many Catholics dislike the label "Roman Catholic Church" which suggests that theirs is only one of several catholic churches, where as some Protestants take offense to the label "Catholic Church" which suggests that theirs is the entirety of the "universal" Christian church.
• "However, the name "Roman Catholic Church" is disliked by many Catholics.

Thank you for your reply. I will look for references for first option. --Carlaude ^(talk) 18:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy, I see now that your reference quote says nothing about "a label applied to them by Protestants" or "to suggest that theirs is only one of several catholic Churches" or "to imply that... the Pope renders them in some way untrustworthy" or even that it "is disliked by many Catholics". Why are you asking for references if my arbitrations are straightforward, but your arbitrations are— are what— implied somehow?--Carlaude ^(talk) 18:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference (Walsh) states:

A good many Roman Catholics object to the epithet 'Roman'. They do so for a variety of reasons. One is that... calling them Roman rather suggests that there are other, equally valid, kinds of Catholic, such as - and in particular - Anglo Catholic. Another reason why the term is disliked is because it is sometimes used by thos e hostile to Roman Catholicism to suggest that its adherents do not really belong to the nation in which they live, that they are somehow 'foreign'... cannot be loyal citizens of their native land.

This backs up the statements in the note precisely.

The proposed addition stating why some protestants object to Catholic Church is an enlargement of the note - which also seems to extend it in the direction of going off topic. We need to see what others think. The addition would need a reference, and, if accepted, should probably be changed from "some protestants take offense" to "some other christians take offense". Xandar 22:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason why the term is disliked is because it is sometimes used by those hostile to Roman Catholicism to suggest that its adherents do not really belong to the nation in which they live, that they are somehow 'foreign'... cannot be loyal citizens of their native land.

This does backs up some statements in the note more precisely and is something I understand, but since it indices policical rather than theological motives it does not lead me to think it is a "Protestant" thing. It sounds like it will be carried out to a large degree by people that are neither Protestant nor Roman Catholic: nonChristians or perhaps people that marginal "cultural Christians".--Carlaude ^(talk) 07:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• However, many Roman Catholics dislike the label "Roman Catholic Church" which suggests foreign origin and that allegiance to the Pope renders them disloyal citizens of their native land.^[2]

A good many Roman Catholics object to the epithet 'Roman'. They do so for a variety of reasons. One is that... calling them Roman rather suggests that there are other, equally valid, kinds of Catholic, such as - and in particular - Anglo Catholic.

I cannot help but point out that Roman Catholics are objecting here not to the suggestion that Roman Catholics are on par with other Christians— but objecting in principle to the suggestion that Roman Catholics are on par with other Christians. Roman Catholics want to be known as the "Catholic Church" to indicate that they are the most valid or only valid church body. How would it not be for POV for Wikipedia to change their article name to the "Catholic Church"? --Carlaude ^(talk) 07:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• However, many Roman Catholics dislike the label "Roman Catholic Church" as a suggestion that theirs is only one of several equally valid churches; where as other Christians aver that the label "Catholic Church" presumes it is the one uniquely valid church. Some Catholics will also avoid the label "Roman" as a false indicator of foreign allegiance to the Pope and of disloyal citizenship to their native land.^[3]

No comments? So do we have a working consensus on this also? --Carlaude ^talk 06:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Within the Church, the name "Roman Church" principally refers to the specific Diocese of Rome."

While all participants accepted the sentence as being factual, the citations for it were much debated. While we likely have selected the best citations, they are not exact in supporting the wording. Some participants proposed just omitting the sentence from the note, however, others believe that it should be retained. Comments? Sunray (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I supported keeping it because both the old and new Catholic Encyclopedia as well as Whitehead and other Catholic writers include this in their explanations of the meaning of Roman Catholic Church. If we exclude it, we are omitting an important fact with vast agreement among scholars. NancyHeise ^talk 11:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I must disagree with Sunray's summary. One of the participants - and that's me - does not accept the sentence as being factual: I question the expression "principally". This in any case is an Original Research addition, not found in the cited sources, and I have preferred and still prefer to consider the expression "principally" under this more narrowly Wikipedian aspect, rather than discuss whether it is factual or not. The last sentence is also off-topic, since it only speaks about a name for the diocese of Rome, which is not what the article is about, and it omits to state the relevant documentable fact that the term "Roman Church" is also used in reference to the Church as a whole, which is what the article is about. Soidi (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know I haven't been involved in the process of getting the note this far so I apologize to anyone's toes I step on. I agree that this sentence sounds awkward. "Within the Church" IMHO will lead to a "who" tag. I know what you mean but others will think, does that mean office channels or your average person on the street. Also I agree with Soidi, maybe "usually" might be appropriate here. Marauder40 (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Catholic Encyclopedia uses the term: "can refer to" instead of "Within the Church" which is the wording used by Kenneth Whitehead. Both are correct. I don't care which wording is used. NancyHeise ^talk 17:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would drop it as off topic. -- Secisek (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is kept, I would prefer "can refer to" rather than "principally refers to" --Richard (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with either Secisek or Richard. Soidi (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd initially agree that it is a bit off topic, but I think it should be hammered out now so we aren't discussing this six months from now. It probably needs to be mentioned, however I share some of Soidi's concerns here. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 01:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets change it to "can refer to" then and keep it because it is an important part of the name consideration addressed in many of our sources consulted for this project. Eastern Catholics primarily use this term to refer to the Latin Rite Church and I believe they would consider it unwise to omit. NancyHeise ^talk 17:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh oh... now I'm confused. Nancy says "Eastern Catholics primarily use this term to refer to the Latin Rite Church" (by "this term", I am assuming that she means "Roman Church"); however, the sentence in question says "Within the Church, the name "Roman Church" principally refers to the specific Diocese of Rome."

The most common meaning of "Roman Catholic Church" is "the set of dioceses and churches in communion with the bishop of Rome". I understand that some Catholics find this term objectionable because of the Protestant sectarian polemics associated with it.

I also understand that some Eastern Catholics find this term objectionable when applied to them because they reject being characterized as "Roman". My understanding was that some Eastern Catholics prefer to use "Roman Catholic Church" to designate that part of the Catholic Church which uses the Latin Rite. However, the sentence in question states that 'Roman Church' "principally refers to" (or "can refer to") the "specific Diocese of Rome". Thus, the sentence is making a statement about the term "Roman Church" as opposed to "Roman Catholic Church" amd the "Diocese of Rome" as opposed to, for example, the "Diocese of Naples". I don't think anyone is arguing that "Roman Catholic Church" refers to the specific Diocese of Rome (as distinguished from say the Diocese of Naples). Nor do I think anyone is suggesting that Eastern Catholics use "Roman Church" to talk about the specific Diocese of Rome (because I doubt that they have much occasion to talk about that one specific diocese). This is why some editors find the sentence in question to be "off-topic" and I agree. I am confused by Nancy's assertion that Eastern Catholics would "consider it unwise to omit" the sentence in question.

--Richard (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If Eastern Catholics use this term primarily to refer to the Latin Church, then why are we not just saying "Eastern Catholics use this term primarily to refer to the Latin Rite Church" instead?--Carlaude ^(talk) 18:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard and Carlaude. I think the fact that you have not been involved in the last couple of month's discussions on this note means that you are missing the point. A name often used by the Catholic Church in its documents is the "Roman Church" (not Roman Catholic.) In these usages, the term, as our references state, often refers to the Church of the Diocese of Rome. This is an important piece of information, which needs to be here to avoid the confusion that the usage "Roman Church" is synonymous with "Roman Catholic Church" Xandar 21:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xandar. Thank you for the condescension but I don't think we are missing the point. Perhaps you are missing my point which could be succinctly stated as "Not everything that is sourced belongs in Wikipedia and not everything that belongs in Wikipedia belongs at the specific point in the specific article that a particular editor (or group of editors) wants to put it."

The bit about the "Roman Church" as a phrase is sort of a relic from the time when Soidi was banging on the idea that the Catholic Church was sometimes called "Roman". There ensued a debate as to whether the descriptor "Roman" applied only to the specific Diocese of Rome or could sometimes be applied to the entire church. The idea that "Roman" applied only to the Diocese of Rome is mentioned by a number of sources such as Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Whitehead as part of a polemic against the use of the phrase "Roman Catholic Church". It is this very assertion that "Roman" is used only to apply to the Diocese of Rome that makes some editors distrust Whitehead (because he is asserting something that seems to be patently untrue).

This then is the crux of the decision between "applies only", "principally refers to " and "can refer to". The first two phrases suggest that, anytime you see "Roman Church", it either definitely designates or probably designates the Diocese of Rome. The last phrase, "can refer to", makes no assertion as to whether "Roman Church" always refers to, usually refers to or only sometimes refers to the Dioces of Rome.

I confess that I didn't follow every last filip that was written about this topic but my understanding is that "Roman" can be applied as a legitimate descriptor of the entire church but the entire church is almost never called "the Roman Church". My confusion arises from Nancy's introduction of the Eastern Catholics into the debate. As I wrote, I grant that they might not wish to be characterized as "Roman" and that they might wish to use "Roman Catholic" to identify the part of the Catholic Church that uses the Latin-rite mass. However, I am confused as to why they should care that "Roman Church" is used to designate the "Diocese of Rome" and why they should "consider it unwise to omit" the sentence in question.

--Richard (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this really useful text in our article on the Latin Rite in the section titled Relationship with the term "Roman Catholic"....

Certain Catholic^[4] and non-Catholic sources use the term "Roman Catholic" to mean "Latin-Rite Catholic", and the Holy See was known in the eighteenth century to use "Roman Church" to refer to the Latin Church and "Greek Church" to refer to what was then considered a single Oriental Church that included not only Byzantine but also Armenian, Coptic and Syrian Catholics: the 1755 papal encyclical Allatae Sunt said: "The Oriental Church is composed of four rites - Greek, Armenian, Syriac, and Coptic; all these rites are referred to by the single name of the Greek or Oriental Church, just as the name of the Latin or Roman Church signifies the Roman, Ambrosian, and Mozarabic rites, as well as the special rites of different Regular Orders".^[5]

In more recent times this usage is not found in the Church's official documents, which, on the contrary, have sometimes, though rarely, used the term "Roman Catholic Church" to refer to the Church as a whole, what the documents more commonly call the "Catholic Church". This usage is found in the encyclicals Divini illius Magistri and Humani generis and in curial documents such as Notes on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in preaching and catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, I know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source but the text in question appears to be well-sourced and very carefully written. I think the above text points the way to a consensus. I only wish I had seen that text about six months ago.

--Richard (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because this gets rid of the "official" terminology, it should be installed in the article immediately. Nevertheless, it's not perfect. The first paragraph jumps around with ideas, so it seems incoherent, and makes me wonder why each sentence is there. In the second paragraph, "usually" has no basis, and the fifth sentence seems to restrict the third sentence to one meaning. Others have commented on sentence six and seven. Gimmetrow 02:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow, until we have a new consensus, we need to stick to the old consensus. You seem to be in disagreement with the efforts at new consensus. We are all here because of you and Soidi. We are all trying to make you happy. Is that possible? NancyHeise ^talk 17:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow, I can understand your desire to install this note as soon as possible. It has been a long time coming, after all. I am pleased that you see it as progress. I also note that you do see some need for further improvements. Here's my suggestion. We spend a limited amount of time working out the improvements and then we present it, along with the proposed name change on the talk page of the article. After a further period of consultation (hopefully also relatively brief), we implement the name change and the note. The idea is to continue working collaboratively and building consensus. That will increase the level of acceptance within the community. Sunray (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy, you shouldn't be concerned with making me happy, although it would make me happy indirectly if the text were in line with Wikipedia's content policies. Much better than an extended defense to retain a text that consensus appears to support removing. Gimmetrow 21:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah.. Gimmetrow, it appears you haven't been following the discussion over the composition of the Note in the sandbox. I believe that the proposed Note goes together with changed wording for the lead sentence so that it begins with "The Catholic Church or the Roman Catholic Church....". Thus, the Note is not an "extended defense to retain" the text that includes the word "official". Rather, it is a note to explain why the Church is called both the "Catholic Church" and the "Roman Catholic Church", why "Roman Catholic Church" is disliked some Western Catholics and by some Eastern Catholics, etc. And, as long as I'm explaining the proposed strategy, there goes along with all this a proposal to rename this article to Catholic Church. Doing so allows the proposed lead sentence to mention the title of the article first in compliance with WP:LEAD which dictates that the title of the article be mentioned as early in the lead as possible. --Richard (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, nothing has changed in the article. Intent or not, the effect now for months has been the retention of a policy-violating text. Gimmetrow 10:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow, because of you, I have spent many months working with many other editors to come to a new agreement, even though we had consensus and referenced content for the old agreement. Now we have more referenced content and another consensus and you are still not happy. Are you going to keep holding up the RCC page with your personal disagreement? What is your intention here? To push your and only your view onto the page? It seems like that to me the more I have worked with you, you are not respecting consensus or others good faith efforts. You are an obstructionist to this article's advancement by not respecting our work and efforts to make you happy. At some point I hope we don't have to be held hostage to you and can move forward. NancyHeise ^talk 21:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the note violates any policy. Also, I'd encourage you to take a look at the sandbox to see what went into re-designing the note. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kraftlos: the current note, the one that's been in the article for months. Gimmetrow 12:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... but were not going to keep the note that's been in the article for months right? Isn't the plan to use the new one? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see my concerns have been ignored again, and the mediator has said nothing to the partipants who address individuals rather than content. Gimmetrow 12:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have considerable concerns about the way that "The Church" is often being used - both in the article itself and also in the note. Whilst it may be innocently used just as a shorthand for the particular church of the article it also comes across as an assertion of fact that the Roman Catholic Church is "The Church" and that, therefore, other churches are something else. Whilst this is an official Roman Catholic position and would, therefore, be generally acceptable in an official Roman Catholic document or publication, it is not acceptable in a "secular" encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Afterwriting (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from but, I think, when all is taken into account, we should continue to use "the Church" throughout the article. Please note that there is no emphasis placed on "The" as in "The Church". The phrase used throughout except at the beginning of sentences is "the Church". The alternative would be to say "the church" which seems, IMO, to be inferior. It's not as if Catholics would insist that "the Church" refer to the Roman Catholic Church in the Church of England article. Understandably, "the Church" would refer to the Church of England in that article.

While I admit these examples are not exactly analogous, I would point out usage of "the United States" (not the only united states in the world) or "the Soviets" (not the only soviets in the world).

--Richard (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I wasn't actually making any distinctions between use of "The Church" and "the Church" in the article. Without going looking for them at present, however, there do seem to me to be many instances where "the Church" could be peceived as being used in a POV or possibly polemical manner and I suspect that this is actually often the case. Too many articles on Roman Catholic-related issues reek of triumphalism and need considerable rewriting to moderate their tone and also bring them into line with encyclopedia standards of neutrality. Afterwriting (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the context is enough to tell what Church is intended. In an article on the Church of England "the Church" would be taken to mean that Church, unless the context showed that in a particular instance it meant something else. In this article what could be put in its place to avoid the ambiguity you see in it? We can't just say "the Catholic Church" or "the Roman Catholic Church", since we are talking precisely about the name or names for the Church in question. And it would be exceedingly tiresome to speak again and again of "the Church in question", "the Church dealt with in this article", "the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome", etc. Soidi (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm principally concerned by are the instances when "the Church" (RCC) is used when also making reference to other "churches" in ways that might indicate the POV that the RCC is "The Church". In the instances when other churches are also being referred to it is appropriate to avoid this as much as possible. The solution is in the way things are phrased - but it's not at all necessary to ever use the kinds of convoluted phrases you give above. In these instances it is actually appropriate to use "Roman Catholic Church" or "Catholic Church" within articles. Afterwriting (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you would indicate here the instances of "the Church" that you would like changed in the note given above, and what you would put in their place. Thanks. Soidi (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly give this some consideration. I just looked again at the note and this aspect of it definitely requires improved phrasing. Afterwriting (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This issue was raised at MOS during one of the previous FACs for RCC. The decision at MOS was that within an article for any church, you name the Church at the beginning of the article and then refer to it as the Church in the body of the article. Doing so does not imply any POV, it simply distinguishes between the article topic (the actual church you are discussing) and the noun (church) that refers to any church, not just the one you are discussing. If you read the scholarly books on different churches, that is how the matter is treated. Capitalization is not POV, it is proper MOS. NancyHeise ^talk 17:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even we take your view on what the MOS indivates, this note (and likely other parts of the article) use the phase "The Church" with different meanings. And on the very issues non-"Catholics" take issues with.

• There is some ambiguity about the title "Catholic Church". The Church is not the only institution to claim catholicity.

Okay here it is clear "The Church" means the larger RCC, a.k.a. the "Catholic" Church.

• 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".^[6]

Here would still seem to be speaking of the RCC, but it would also be a true statement of the greater Church, a.k.a. the Christian Church.

• It was first used to describe the undivided Church in the early second century.^[7]

Now it uses term "undivided Church" to refer to what is the whole Christian Church but the use of the nonstandard and uncapitalized term "undivided Church" obscures this fact and it can eaily be taken to mean the RCC.

• After the Church split in the eleventh century...

Now it has made the complete shift and is using "the Church" for the either the universal Christian Church or the Great Chalcedonian Church, were as Nancy has said that the "Church" in the article means the RCC. Is Wikipedia now going to claim they are the same thing?

At the least it could be changed to somthing like this. --Carlaude ^(talk) 19:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There is some ambiguity about the title "Catholic Church". 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".^[8] It was first used to describe the undivided Christian Church in the early second century.^[9] After the Christian Church split in the eleventh century, the Western Church took the name "Catholic", while the Eastern Church used 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.^[10]

I don't see any problem with the above change. Xandar 21:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the word "undivided" was not a novelty introduced by Carlaude, I think it should be dealt with separately. Here we should discuss only what Carlaude has changed. His changes were only

"the Christian Church" in place of "the Church" (twice)

"the Eastern Church used the name 'Orthodox'" in place of "the Eastern Church took the name 'Orthodox'".

I'm sorry, but I must say I disagree with the second change. I see no reason to use verbs of quite different overtones for the name taken by the (R)CC and for that taken by the (E)OC. The cited source uses equivalent verbs for both: "The West claimed for itself the title Catholic Church, while the East appropriated the name Holy Orthodox Church." "Used" does not have the sense of a claim to exclusive ownership that is found in "claimed for itself" and "appropriated".

If Carlaude would accept that "took" be restored for the (E)OC also, I think that in the text given at the start of this discussion we can replace "the Church" with "the Christian Church" in the two places that Carlaude pointed out, and consider this matter settled. Soidi (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not accept replacing "the Church" with "the Christian Church". There is no disagreement between either Eastern Orthodox or Catholics or scholars that the Church was one Church before the split. I don't see what is added to the note by specifying Christian Church other than to introduce another possible POV issue that we don't really need more of here. NancyHeise ^talk 21:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no disagreement between either Eastern Orthodox or Catholics ... that the Church was one Church before the splits (plural) and that it was the Christian Church. So what's your objection to "Christian Church"? You are playing into the hands of the editor who objects that the use of "the Church" in this context is intended to promote a point of view. And what do you mean by "the split" (singular)? I suspect you mean the split between "Orthodox and Catholics" in 1054, which was by no means the first split and by no means the first split that persists to our own day. What about the still persisting split of 451? Or the still persisting split of 431? When Ignatius spoke of the "καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία", he was speaking of a (Christian) Church that had not yet undergone these splits. Soidi (talk) 04:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I come to think about it, "After the Christian Church split in the eleventh century..." (which Richard has kept in his new proposal below, and that Nancy surprisingly accepts there) is open to the same objections as "After the Church split ..." It is unnecessary to say more than "After the split in the eleventh century the Western Church took ..." With that bone of contention gone, there remains only the question of the term to use in relation to Ignatius. Soidi (talk) 04:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I recognize that Carlaude's text as more accurate but I fear that it is also more nuanced than your average reader would expect to have to deal with. If we are going to down that road, I should comment that some scholars would argue that there has almost never been an "undivided Christian Church". (Well, OK, maybe it was undivided during the period between the Resurrection and Pentecost) From the point of view of these scholars, the Christian Church was never unified until the First seven Ecumenical Councils and then unity was only achieved by throwing some people out as heretics (e.g. the Arians). By the time you get to Chalcedon, you wind up with the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian churches and so the so-called "undivided Christian Church" is already divided by 451, the year of the Council of Chalcedon. So, to carry Carlaude's approach through, we would have to change the phrase "After the Christian Church split in the eleventh century" to "After the Chalcedonian churches split in the eleventh century". As I said, I think this level of precision is unwarranted in this kind of a note. I'm just illustrating what would happen if we try to get overly precise with when the church was divided and when it wasn't. Maybe the trick is to try and drop the word "undivided" altogether. --Richard (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At first I was going to sat that the only question (per use of the phrase) is if the church was "undivided" back in the 2nd century when Ignatius wrote— not if it was undivided at some later time. I guess there are even some that would claim it was "divided" even then, but in the sense ment, it was not divided; it did not have clear and lasting divitions on doctrine.

But now, I do not think even that matters (if the 2nd century church divided or undivided). We can speak of the "undivided" church today— to mean the whole church— even thou we agree it does have visible divisions. We are just indicating what Ignatius refered to by the "catholic" church, not saying it is without any such visible divisions.

We also could not use the term Chalcedonian church for this since there was no Chalcedon yet. --Carlaude ^(talk) 04:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlaude, you're right in what you write about there not having been any Chalcedonian Churches in the 2nd century. I have made a mess by being unclear in what I wrote earlier. What I meant was something like this...

• There is some ambiguity about the title "Catholic Church". 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".^[11] It was first used to describe the undivided Christian Church in the early second century.^[12] After the Chalcedonian Churches split in the eleventh century, the Western Church took the name "Catholic", while the Eastern Church used the name "Orthodox". Following the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the church in communion with the Bishop of Rome also used the name "Catholic" to distinguish itself from the various Protestant churches.^[13]

The argument here being that the non-Chalcedonian churches had already split off in the 5th century and therefore were not part of the East-West Schism.

--Richard (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Chalcedonian Churches did not split in the East-West Schism. Rather the one Chalcedonian Church split and then became Chalcedonian Churches.
2. "The Chalcedonian Church split in the eleventh century..." is true, and okay but many people do not know what a "Chalcedonian Church" is. However a split in the Chalcedonian Church is also a split in the Christian Church, and thus "the Christian Church split in the eleventh century..." would be true and more clear to many. --Carlaude ^(talk) 05:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need this level of detail? The purpose of the note is to explain the reasons for the name of the Church. The main reason is that the modern day Church calls itself the "Catholic Church" and the convention in naming is that organizations get to name themselves. We have spent considerable time with the wording of the note. I would suggest we fine tune it and move on. Sunray (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the word "undivided", the simplest thing is to omit it. With Carlaude's change of "the Church" to "the Christian Church", it is no longer needed. It was inserted precisely to avoid giving the impression of declaring that the Church that Ignatius wrote about was precisely identifical with the (R)CC. Soidi (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to drop "undivided" and "Chalcedonian" for Christian.--Carlaude ^(talk) 17:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a problem with the use of "Protestant" in the note. The word is almost as problematic as "Catholic" as it also means different things - historically, culturally and theologically. It is especially a problem if it's used to include the Anglican tradition. Whilst it is certainly possible to find the term used with reference to Anglicanism - both by non-Anglicans and Anglicans themselves - it is usual, especially in more recent times, to make distinctions between Anglicanism and Protestantism. This is also now the usual official(ish) Roman Catholic practice. A more useful term, perhaps, would be "reformed churches" although for some people the term "reformed" suggests Calvinism. Your thoughts on this please. Afterwriting (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "Protestant" is entirely acceptable in the phrase, "Following the [[Protestant Reformation|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 church in communion with the Bishop of Rome certainly did and does use "Catholic" to distinguish itself from the various Protestant churches, whether of Lutheran, Calvinist, or other inspiration. The statement is silent on the disputed question of the Protestantness of the Church of England, which under Henry VIII was not Protestant, under Edward VI was Protestant, and under Elizabeth and her successors - in that case Protestantness is in the eye of the beholder. Those who hold that the Church of England was never Protestant are free to take it that the church in communion with the Bishop of Rome used "Catholic" to distinguish itself from the Church of England in the same way that it used the word to distinguish itself from the Eastern Orthodox Church, and so they have no grounds for complaining about the phrase. On the other hand, to use "reformed churches", especially with a lower-case "r", would certainly be a POV expression. Even the somewhat less contentious term "Reformation" (with upper-case "R") is accompanied in the phrase by a wikilink to disambiguate its meaning. Soidi (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you've been trained by Jesuits! But, seriously, why do you consider that "reformed churches" would "certainly be a POV expression". Perhaps there are some kind of cultural differences regarding use of the expression as I cannot at present understand how anyone can consider it to be POV - and *especially* when used with a small "r". I suspect you are an American as the term "reformed" sometimes has connotations in American use that it doesn't in other English speaking countries where it is usually a very neutral term. Afterwriting (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I think "reformed" churches would be a POV expression is that there are much more than a few who claim - even if you and I may disagree with them - that the changes those churches underwent did not really "reform" them, but rather "deformed" them. That is also the reason why people insist on having, in Wikipedia general articles, "Protestant Reformation" rather than just "Reformation", with "Reformation" (unqualified) used in this sense only in contexts where it is clear that it means "what Protestants consider to be a Reformation", and not the Catholic Reformation. If "reformed" were changed to "Reformed", that difficulty would certainly be less strong but, as you yourself have said, the word could then be understood as referring to only a subsection within Protestantism. Soidi (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is not any standard usage for "reformed churches" to mean "Protestant" and not "Reformed" and Protestantism is a much better and more NPOV term for Protestantism. In fact "Reformed" is a more NPOV way to refer to Calvinism. Thus I doubt you can find any encyclopedia that begins an article on "Protestantism" with comments like "also know as 'reformed churches.'" --Carlaude ^(talk) 12:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have greatly missed the point and substance of my original comments which was that "Protestant", like "Catholic", has had various meanings throughout history - so for you to say that "Protestantism is a much better and more NPOV term for Protestantism" (whatever you personally mean by this) is almost as problematic as saying that "Catholicism is a much better and more NPOV term for Catholicism", which, as we all know, can actually mean a variety of things. I also made the point that "reformed" does not equate to "Protestant" but is often used by some as meaning the Calvinist tradition. At no point have I said that "Protestant" and "reformed" mean the same thing - it was actually my point that they aren't. Afterwriting (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afterwriting, what change in wording do you propose for the note? Sunray (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that any change of wording on this issue would achieve consensus judging by the responses so far. Within the context of the note I would suggest that "Reformation churches" is far more preferable and accurate to "Protestant churches" - especially since many ( most? ) churches now commonly referred to as "Protestant" ( such as Methodist churches, for instance ) do not have their historical origins - at least directly - in the Reformation period itself and, therefore, are not the result of separations of Christians from the Roman Catholic Church. Afterwriting (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many/most churches now commonly referred to as "Protestant"— Methodist churches, for instance— do have their historical origins in the Reformation. Saying Methodism lacks historical origins in the Reformation is like saying Russian Orthodoxy (or Methodism) lacks historical origins in Christianity. Methodism came from bod(ies) from the Protestant Reformation. It also only left Church of England from the sense it was still not "reformed" or "Protestant" enopht.--Carlaude ^(talk) 17:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you think many lack historical origins in the Reformation period itself that only seems like a reason to not use the term "reformed" for them, and call them Protestant instead— which is what they are always called.--Carlaude ^(talk) 17:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Methodism, Pentecostalism etc. etc. are irrelevant: the sentence speaks of when the (R)CC began to use the word "Catholic" as a way of distinguishing itself from certain newly arisen Western Churches: "Following the [[Protestant Reformation|Reformation]] in the sixteenth century, the church in communion with the Bishop of Rome used the name ..."; not "Since the [[Protestant Reformation|Reformation]] in the sixteenth century, the church in communion with the Bishop of Rome uses the name ..."

Repetition of the word "Reformation" would not be the best literary style: "Following the Reformation ... to distinguish itself from the Reformation churches." It would have to become something like "... to distinguish itself from the churches that emerged at that time." Is this a solution: to omit, for one editor's sake, the phrase "Protestant churches", while for the sake of at least two other editors not inserting "reformed churches"? Soidi (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the topic of this note is not about the definitions of "Reformed" or "Protestant", so how about dropping both "Reformed" and "Protestant"? Instead, let's try something like

"After the Protestant Reformation, the Church continued to use the term "Catholic" to distinguish those who were in communion with the Bishop of Rome from those who were not."

In fact, the sentence remains true if you substitute "After the East-West Schism" for "After the Protestant Reformation". So we could change the note to read:

"It was first used to describe the undivided Church in the early second century. After the Christian Church split in the eleventh century, the Western Church took the name "Catholic", while the Eastern Church took the name "Orthodox". From that time on, the Church used the name "Catholic" to distinguish those who were in communion with the Bishop of Rome from those who were not."

If you like, we can add the following sentence:

This includes those churches which separated themselves from the Bishop of Rome following the Protestant Reformation.

--Richard (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like this proposal Richard. I think it is an improvement in prose and message conveyed. NancyHeise ^talk 21:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it appropriate to propose a new formula containing the contested terms "the Church" and "undivided", until those matters are cleared up. Soidi (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrases "the Church" and "undivided Church" are not central to my proposal; my proposal is focused on avoiding the words "Protestant" and "Reformed" although I grant that we might need to use the phrase "Protestant Reformation". I am amenable to changing the phrases "the Church" and "undivided Church" per the discussion between Soidi and Carlaude in the section above this one. --Richard (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These proposals are both are fine with me.--Carlaude ^(talk) 07:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly support a rewording of the note along the lines suggested by Richard above. This avoids the problems with how the term "Protestant" ( and "Reformed" / "reformed" ) has been used since the Protestant Reformation ( PR ) - especially when applied to churches which are commonly called "Protestant" but do not in fact have any direct historical connection to the PR. ( And, Carlaude, please note that I wrote "*direct* historical connection" - this does not suggest that these latter churches don't have any kind of historical connection to the PR - but they are neither "Protestant" or "Reformation" churches in the strict sense. ) The term "Protestant" is too often used in an imprecise way to simply mean "non-Roman Catholic" ( whilst ignoring the Orthodox and Oriental churches ). Afterwriting (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that, if editors continue to raise more and more questions, unstead of discussing those already raised, we are doomed to get nowhere. I suggest that, before considering any other matters, we should start with the two interconnected matters indicated in the heading of this section. I propose that It was first used to describe the undivided Church in the early second century. After the Church split in the eleventh century, ... be changed to It was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early second century. After they split in the eleventh century, ...

The (R)CC ("the Church" in this article) believes it is identical with the Christian Church of the early second century, and there should therefore be no valid objection on its part to the use of "the Christian Church" in that regard. The addition of "undivided" raises questions for some, and it is not needed here: Ignatius used the word "catholic" to describe the then existing Christian Church taken as a whole, rather than its local manifestations; he said nothing about "undivided" or "divided", and so the addition of "undivided" may call for a "citation requested" tag. "After they split" avoids questions about what "Church" split in the eleventh century, while the following words, "the Western Church took the name 'Catholic', while the Eastern Church took the name 'Orthodox'" (words that, I suggest, we should not discuss now) indicate clearly who split from each other in the eleventh century (and deepened the split later instead of returning to their previous unity).

If we could get this out of the way first, I think it would enable all to concentrate then on the other questions raised. Soidi (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think most of us are agreed on the suggested wording on this point. Xandar 22:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Soidi. The use of "undivided" in "undivided Church" is unnecessary and imparts little information; worse, as Soidi suggests, some might argue that we don't really know how undivided or divided the early church was (e.g. those who agree with Walter Bauer, Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels). "After they split" is sort of OK but sounds a little stilted. I think it would be OK to say "After the Church split in the eleventh century...". This use of "the Church" still doesn't say which church split and thus may serve deflect any such concerns as Soidi wishes. If that is not acceptable, I would prefer "After it split..." on purely stylistic grounds ("it split" instead of "they split")

--Richard (talk) 01:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "After it split in the eleventh century, ..." is better.--Carlaude ^(talk) 03:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accept "it", if that is what others prefer. But please bear with me, while I make the following remark. Objection has been raised to "the Church" on the grounds that in this article "the Church" means identically the (R)CC. "It" raises the question of what "it" refers to: whether to "the Church" in this sense, or to "the Christian Church", which the reader is free to interpret or not to interpret as identical with the (R)CC (EOC members and others too would call it non-NPOV to have Wikipedia plump for the identity theory). "They" was what I preferred, as being unambiguous. I also considered "After the split in the eleventh century", but at the last moment decided that, although free from the difficulties of "the Church" and "it", "the" was less clear than "they". Would it be best to alter the phrase more radically and write "After the East–West Schism"? Surely nobody can object to that? And we don't need to say "in the eleventh century". It is also a better parallel with the reference to the (Protestant) Reformation. Soidi (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me as far as it goes. There is more to discuss regarding the rest of that sentence but I will wait until we have nailed this part down. --Richard (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that the proposal now is to change from It was first used to describe the undivided Church in the early second century. After the Church split in the eleventh century, ... to It was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early second century. After the [[East–West Schism]], ... Soidi (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we have a working consensus on that. Sunray (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have accordingly inserted the revised text.

Richard has indicated that he wants some change in "the rest of the sentence":

the Western Church took the name "Catholic", while the Eastern Church took the name "Orthodox"

Perhaps that can be settled quickly. Unless, perhaps, it concerns "took". For my part, I think the use of this expression has already been well defended. Soidi (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "took"... nah, I still don't like it but it doesn't bother me enough to be worth making a stink about it. I was going to suggest using the "in communion with the Bishop of Rome" locution to get around using the phrases "Western" and "Eastern" Church. However, I realize that those non-Chalcedonian churches who split off after the Council of Chalcedon were not in communion with the Bishop of Rome but also not in communion with the Eastern bishops either and so I guess the "Western/Catolic" and "Eastern/Orthodox" formulation is the best way to go. Do we even need to mention the non-Chalcedonian churches at all or should we just gloss over the point? --Richard (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider "took" to be a far too precise a term (and therefore actually imprecise) and also inelegant. Would it not be more precise and elegant to say that the Latin / Western church "adopted" - or, preferably, "gradually adopted" - Catholic as its (usual) name and the Greek / Eastern church "adopted" / "gradually adopted" Orthodox as its (usual) name? It was more a process - rather than actual decisions - which finally determined how the churches usually refer to themselves. So I would like to propose "gradually adopted" for the note. Afterwriting (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither "took" nor "adopted" necessarily refers to something that happened in a flash. Is the proposed explicit addition of "gradually" (against which I have nothing per se) important enough for us to reopen discussion on this phrase? I don't think so. We are not seeking a level of elegance or precision that will win us the Nobel Prize for literature. I would make the same remark also about other proposals. Soidi (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlaude suggests that

"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"

be changed to

"However, many Roman Catholics dislike the label "Roman Catholic Church" as a suggestion that theirs is only one of several equally valid churches; conversely other Christians aver that the label "Catholic Church" presumes it is the one uniquely valid church. Some Catholics will also avoid the label "Roman" as a false indicator of foreign allegiance to the Pope and of disloyal citizenship to their native land"

If Carlaude's proposal receives positive support from others, I will withdraw any objection on my part. I certain support his change from passive to active voice at the beginning, and his omission of the unnecessary "by Protestants". However, I think that "where as" (doubtless meant as "whereas") should be changed to "while". I also think that the last part, "Some Catholic will also avoid ..." should simply be omitted. The idea is in the source, but I think it only concerned England and I believe it no longer holds even there. I don't think that any Catholics anywhere now avoid the label for that reason. Accordingly, I think the change should be to:

However, many Roman Catholics dislike the label "Roman Catholic Church" as a suggestion that theirs is only one of several equally valid churches, while other Christians aver that the label "Catholic Church" presumes it is the one uniquely valid church. Soidi (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like Carlaude's proposal. The question of "Whereas" vs. "while" seems to be more stylistic than substantive. I know that in legal documents "whereas" more or less means "because". However, in other contexts, it seems to mean "on the other hand". I would prefer "at the same time" or "conversely" or something along those lines. Perhaps Soidi could explain what he sees the difference to be.

As for "Some Catholics will also avoid...", I think it is clear that the charge of "Romishness" is a derogatory slur that Catholics dislike. The issue of allegiance to a foreign power has clearly been an issue since the Protestant reformation and was an issue in the 1928 and 1960 U.S. Presidential elections (but not really one in the 2004 election). However, it's not clear to me that any of our sources suggest that "Catholics dislike or avoid the label 'Roman'" because of this particular issue regarding allegiance to a foreign power. I agree with Soidi. Let's leave it out unless we wish to introduce discussion of the word "Romish". I think that's getting off topic.

--Richard (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Richard is right about the proper meaning of "whereas": in modern documents I think you would be more likely to find "considering that ..." We should avoid using words in a loose sense. "While" I prefer as less polemic-sounding than "though", "on the contrary", "on the other hand" etc. and as shorter than "at the same time".

"Romishness" and "Romish", as Richard indicates, does not appear in the text and I cannot imagine anyone here wishing to include it as a name for the Church. I doubt that in the US even of 1928 and 1960 allegiance to a foreign power was not suggested if the Church was referred to as "the Catholic Church", but was if it was called "the Roman Catholic Church". I certainly don't think it is a live issue now. Soidi (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by Soidi's comment. The bottom line is that the charges in 1928 and 1960 were about substantive real fears (though perhaps unfounded) that a Catholic President would be subject to the Pope. Kerry's positions were in opposition to the Vatican so nobody raised the issue.

The term "Romish" might still be in use by anti-Catholic polemicists but these have been reduced to a fringe minority and we can deal with the phrase in the article on Anti-Catholicism so we needn't discuss it in this article. --Richard (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the 2004 election shows it to be a nonissue in the US, and sure at least some other places, and may be to far off topic. I support dropping it if there is interest to that effect. Had only included it a more accurate and clear way of saying what was there before. A compromise could also be to have it a footnote to this footnote. --Carlaude ^talk 17:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(For Richard) Let us keep to the proposal and leave discussion of other questions for later. The topic is: the label "Roman Catholic Church" and why many dislike it. The label "Romish" is not the topic and need even not be mentioned. Referring to 1928 and 1960 you spoke of fears "that a Catholic President would be subject to the Pope", not "that a Roman Catholic President would be subject to the Pope". So you have in fact indicated that the label "Roman Catholic" did not then suggest disloyalty any more than the label "Catholic" did. So you support omitting Some Catholics will also avoid the label "Roman" as a false indicator of foreign allegiance to the Pope and of disloyal citizenship to their native land. Carlaude also accepts that this be omitted.

The other part of the proposal (with Carlaude's latest modification) is to change to: However, many Roman Catholics dislike the label "Roman Catholic Church" as a suggestion that theirs is only one of several equally valid churches; conversely other Christians aver that the label "Catholic Church" presumes it is the one uniquely valid church. Do you support this part too? Do others? Soidi (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support Carlaudes proposed change of the sentence. Protestants is an acceptable term used by our scholarly works supporting the sentence. It is not a POV term but a common name for those Christians who belong to certain Christian denominations, the very ones who applied the label "Roman" to the Catholic Church for the reasons stated in the sentence. The other additional information inserted into the original sentence by Carlaude is unsourced. We can only state what our sources say, if Carlaude wants to add information to the sentence, a scholalry reference is required first before it can be considered. NancyHeise ^talk 19:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One part of Carlaude's proposal changes passive voice to active voice (i.e. from "disliked by Catholics" to "Catholics dislike"). This is a good thing, mostly from a stylistic perspective.

The omission of "applied to them by Protestants" is a separate question. Technically, it's not adding to the sentence but deleting from it. However, one could see the omission as "adding to the meaning of the sentence" by broadening the "dislike of the label" to situations where Protestants are not directly involved. Do we believe that Catholics dislike the use of the label only when it is "applied to them by Protestants to suggest...etc"? Or do we believe that the Catholics dislike the use of the label because it COULD be "applied by them by Protestants to suggest...etc". This may seem like splitting hairs but it seems to me that Whitehead is arguing that everybody (including Catholics) should stop using "Roman Catholic" because of the potential for it to be used as part of anti-Catholic Protestant polemic. Thus, the label may originally have been applied by Protestants to have this meaning but those who dislike the label for this reason, dislike it no matter who is applying the label whether it be a Protestant, a Catholic or an atheist.

--Richard (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Nancy, it is "Protestants" that is totally unsourced (and unnecessary even if it was sourced, for the reasons Richard discusses above).

My additions follow directly from the cited text, which User:Zander quoted in "Paragraph 2, sentence 5" above.

Discussing only the Roman Catholic POV... even from "reliable... verifiable" sources is not NPOV, even in a "Catholic" article. Rather, Wikipedia:Describing points of view says "An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all... points of view will... be in accordance with Wikpedia's NPOV policy." --Carlaude ^talk 20:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a compelling reason to include the phrase "by Protestants". While may be able to dig up a relaible source to support, I'd suggest that it's cleaner just to omit it. Majoreditor (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Nancy's objection to many Roman Catholics dislike the label "Roman Catholic Church" as a suggestion that theirs is only one of several equally valid churches is based on the possibility of seeing it as meaning that it is the (R)Cs themselves who interpret it in this way and she wants it made clear that it is others who give it that meaning? I do think that the expression "as a suggestion" could well be improved. Could we all agree on the following as the new text?

However, many Roman Catholics dislike the label "Roman Catholic Church" because it has been used to suggest that theirs is only one of several equally valid churches; conversely other Christians aver that the label "Catholic Church" presumes it is the one uniquely valid church. Soidi (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference (Walsh) says "suggests" as quoted here:

• ... calling them Roman rather suggests that there are other, equally valid, kinds of Catholic...

And Soidi's proposal, "has been used to suggest," says something else, something different that the source cited. The meaning that the term Catholic suggests does not change like the change in use of the label to try to indicate disloyal citizenship.

While I am at it I would like to propose the word "object" over the more obscure and unclear word "aver."

• "However, many Roman Catholics dislike the label "Roman Catholic Church" as a suggestion that theirs is only one of several equally valid churches; conversely other Christians object that the label "Catholic Church" presumes it is the one uniquely valid church." --Carlaude ^talk 12:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No objection on my part. Soidi (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original sentence says:

"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"

This is clear and concise. I could stomach the removal of the word protestants (since orthodox christians sometimes use the same terminology) but don't see the reason for removing the second part of the sentence. Although to make it logically clear I would substitute Rome for the Pope....

"However, the name "Roman Catholic Church" is disliked by many Catholics as a label applied to them by others to suggest that theirs is only one of several catholic Churches, and to imply that Catholic allegiance to Rome renders them in some way untrustworthy"

If we then wished to add a sentence explaining the converse position, it could say:

"Conversely some other Christians object that the label "Catholic Church" carries the presumption that this is the one uniquely valid church."

Xandar 00:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholics Christians also sometimes use the same terminology and the reference (Walsh) does not say anywhere "applied to them by others" --Carlaude ^talk 02:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlaude, are you alleging that Catholics do not feel this way? It seems like you are choking on gnats. --^StormRider 04:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not alleging how Catholics feel. The source cited indites only how some Catholics feel about what the term does indicate.

I am saying that it is better to drop the addition "applied to them by others" from the phrase "...dislike the label 'Roman Catholic Church' because..."

1. because all groups have used the term "Roman Catholic" and
2. because the source says nothing about who (e.g. non-RCs) applies this label to them. (Of course it also fails to say who Roman Catholics feel applies this label to them.)

If you want to allege that Roman Catholics also feel it is coming from non-Catholics, and that non-Catholics using the term is the whole proplem— i.e. that Catholics using the same lable is some how not be the same indication thus the same problem— then you should cite a reliable source for this idea. --Carlaude ^talk 07:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I remind everyone that it is not only "Protestants" but also, of course, the Orthodox (and many Eastern Catholics in a more restricted sense), Old Catholics and Anglicans who more usually use the term "Roman Catholic". None of these traditions should be included in the generic term of "Protestant" which, as I have previously commented on, is too often used in imprecise, inaccurate or contentious ways. Just find a simple and sensible way to avoid the term altogther - it can't really be that difficult. Afterwriting (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help if we divide this section up into three subsections and discuss each of them separately? Soidi (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xandar wants to keep the name "Roman Catholic Church" is disliked by many Catholics as a label applied to them by Protestants ... to imply that Catholic allegiance to Rome renders them in some way untrustworthy = (in Carlaude's more explicit version) Some Catholics will also avoid the label "Roman" as a false indicator of foreign allegiance to the Pope and of disloyal citizenship to their native land. Some of us have concluded that, though this was true in England in the past, it no longer holds, and should be omitted. The source itself, if I remember right, spoke only of the past. Soidi (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with keeping this. This was a serious factor in politics (or perhaps was thought to be) in the US for JFK's election, and no doubt more recently, and the same in the UK - Margaret Thatcher is documented as asking if it was a good idea to remove the ban on Catholics being Lord Chancellor for this reason, which in fact never has been removed. These prejudices, and the fear of them, take a long time to die away - ask any Jew. Note how Tony Blair, whose intention to convert had been rumoured for years, waited (somewhat like Constantine) until after his resignation to do so. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support keeping this as well. In addition to Johnbod's arguments, I would add that most of the arguments against the "Roman" in "Roman Catholic" are based on historical disputes that are slowly fading away. If we fail to discuss old disputes simply because they are old and fading away then we will wind up with an incomplete description of why anybody cares about the difference between "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic". Recall that many of the sources that we found on this topic were from the late 19th/early 20th century. --Richard (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the point of what Johnbod and Richard say. Neither of them says that the name "Roman Catholic Church" is something that makes people think Catholics are untrustworthy. Johnbod certainly says - and perhaps Richard too - that what made people distrust JFK and the candidate for Lord Chancellor was just the fact that they were Catholics. Soidi (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that adding "Roman" to the name helps non-Catholics emphasize the fealty that Catholics owe to the Roman Bishop. A more derogatory epithet is to call Catholics "Romish". The point being made is that there are many denominations... Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc. Denominationalism suggests that Catholics are just another Christian denomination. Drawing attention to the unique feature that Catholics are subject to the authority of a foreign potentate (the Roman Bishop) asserts that this loyalty sets Catholics apart from other denominations who are supposedly more able to separate church from state and thus causes Catholics to divide their loyalties between their country and their church. I would assert that this line of attack is part of why some Catholics have disliked the term "Roman Catholic". This line of attack has faded in the last 50 years (cf. John Kennedy vs. John Kerry) but there remains a bad taste in the mouths of some Catholics who react negatively because some fringe non-Catholic polemicists still repeat this allegation as part of their vitriol. --Richard (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy wants to keep the mention of "Protestants" in 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. Others think that the explicit mention of Protestants (and why not also Eastern Orthodox and those Anglicans who refuse to be called Protestants and are perhaps more likely than outright Protestants to make this suggestion?) is unnecessary, and that it is enough to say: many Roman Catholics dislike the label "Roman Catholic Church" as a suggestion that theirs is only one of several equally valid churches Soidi (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to keep "Protestants" - what EO's may feel on the subject is frankly not emotive for Catholics, now or in the past. The mere suggestion that other churches, including the EOs, are, or are called or regarded as, Catholic is not what RCs dislike. In the case of the EOs it is indeed difficult for even the most ultramontane to deny their Catholicity, I would have thought. "valid" is not a helpful word here, I think. Johnbod (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! Wait a minute! Let's be clear here. Do we have any support for the idea that Protestants as a group use "Roman Catholic" to suggest that the Catholic Church is "only one of several catholic Churches"? I'm not convinced that this is in anybody's ecclesiology except the Anglican Church. Well, maybe the Old Catholic Church and others but are they Protestant? My argument here is that, when Anglicans espouse something like Branch Theory, they are specifically arguing that they are not Protestant but also Catholic. They are arguing that there are four kinds of Christian: Roman Catholic, Anglican Catholic, Orthodox and "the rest" (call them Protestant for now). The Branch Theory dogfight is between Anglicans and (Roman) Catholics. Protestants don't necessarily want to argue that they are a "Catholic" church because they are not arguing that they are a valid church with apostolic succession, they are arguing that apostolic succession and other "Catholic" doctrines are not relevant to validity. (cf. the Five Solas) I suspect that non-Anglican Protestants don't much care about "Roman Catholic" vs. "Catholic".

And so... the proposed sentence makes no sense at all is inaccurate and misleading as currently written. I would suggest that we replace "Protestant" with "Anglicans" or, failing that, "other Christians". ("other Christians" is preferable to "Protestants" because, as previously discussed, "Protestant" is often used as a catch-all for those who are not Catholic or Orthodox and yet some of these are not "Protestant" in the sense of sharing in the tradition of the Protestant Reformation).

--Richard (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Really the Protestants should be linked with "untrustworthy", not "one of several" - "other Christians" would do there. In the English-speaking world, it is the lingering suspicion that Catholics are really agents of the Vatican, Philip II, the European Community or whoever that Catholics find offensive. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coming in as an outsider to this discussion, I would myself prefer the phrase "other Christians" to "Protestants". There is a comparatively small number of individuals who call themselves "Old Catholics" and members of the Independent Catholic Churches. These individuals are dubiously included in the blanket term "Protestant", but they also, at least to the best of my knowledge, use the term "Roman Catholic Church" to describe the church of the Pope of Rome. John Carter (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do we have support for the assertion that the Orthodox prefer "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church"? --Richard (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other Christians seems the more appropriate term. It is "others" where the rub comes from; I don't see any qualification that it is more offensive/hurtful coming from one specific group than another. --^StormRider 16:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we are trying to say a lot (arguably too much) in one sentence. It says that Catholics don't like it when "other Christians" use "Roman Catholic" as part of sectarian polemic. That part is true. It doesn't matter who is engaging in sectarian polemics, Catholics don't like it.

The sentence also says that "other Christians suggest that [the Catholic Church] is only one of several catholic Churches". Well, that's true but mostly it's the Anglicans that argue "only one of several catholic (Catholic) Churches". Some Protestants would argue "only one of many equally valid churches" while other Protestants would simply assert that the Catholic Church is not a valid church at all. Anglicans have the most invested in asserting that the Catholic Church is a valid and catholic church.

It is the conflation of all these ideas into one or two sentences that is creating the inaccuracy and self-contradiction. If we spell out precisely what we mean, we will more easily avoid the trap of accidental synthesis.

--Richard (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Greek Orthodox Churcch does usually say "Roman Catholic", but it certainly does not thereby mean to say that the (R)CC is one of several Catholic Churches. This is an idea of some Anglicans. If any group has to be mentioned, something of which I am not convinced, it should be Anglicans, not Protestants. Soidi (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the thread above, I am fine using "other Christians" instead of "Protestants" even though our cited reference uses the term "Protestants". NancyHeise ^talk 23:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlaude has proposed the addition of conversely other Christians object that the label "Catholic Church" presumes it is the one uniquely valid church. Nancy has issued a challenge to back this up with a source. Soidi (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Participants have been most generous in allowing Carlaude to participate in this discussion, despite the fact that he is not one of the involved parties in this dispute. However, since we are now in the final stages of the mediation, and not all participants are comfortable with his participation, I have asked him to stop. Participants are welcome to continue considering the points he has raised if they wish. Sunray (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be OK with this sentence if we get rid of "other Christians" and emphasize that it is the Anglicans who raise this "Branch Theory" objection rather than the loosely defined "other Christians". I don't think either the Orthodox or the "Protestants" raise this objection.

In fact, I think we would do well to refocus these two sentences on the Anglicans and Branch Theory with an explicit link to Branch Theory.

--Richard (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are concerned about the sensibilities of those who object to being referred to as "Roman Catholics" then I would expect you to also have similar concerns for those who object to being referred to as "Protestants". Afterwriting (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. I think my comments have shown a care to distinguish between Anglicans and Protestants. Note the quotes around "Protestants" in the comment immediately above. I was also going to make an argument about "other Christians" who don't consider themselves Protestant (e.g. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.) However, I dropped that line of argument when I realized that the issue wasn't "Protestant" vs. "other Christians" but really the focus on Anglican use of the term to advance Branch Theory. --Richard (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly Anglicans do seem to have concerns about the how the Catholic Church is referred to. What do others think of Richard's suggestion to refocus the note from "other Christians" to Anglicans and Branch Theory? Sunray (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to stick to what our agreed upon cited references state. It uses the term "Protestants" which is an acceptable term used by scholars to refer to, well, Protestants! If some editors are offended by that term, I am fine using the term "other Christians". NancyHeise ^talk 23:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some Anglicans do not see themselves as Protestants. Sunray (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Carlaude's proposals, good as I think they were, have proved a starting point for several threads of discussion heading in different directions, I strongly feel we should press the restart button and take up the discussion without them. For ease of consultation, I am copying here the text of the note in the form it has already reached. I suggest we should discuss only one part of it at a time. I hope it is true that there is some kind of consensus on the first paragraph. We could first decide whether we do accept it. Only after that should we discuss the second paragraph, one sentence at a time.

I also suggest that we should bear in mind that the text, if it becomes part of the article, will be retouched time and again by other editors, as is normal for Wikipedia articles. Even apart from literary style, there are many minor matters that have been argued over at too great length. If we would only remember the extremely short life expectancy of the exact wording we decide on, we would not insist on our personal preferences on those points. Soidi (talk) 04:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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".^[14] It was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early second century.^[15] 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.^[16]

The title "Catholic Church" is usually the term used by the Church in its own documents. For instance, it is the name used by the Pope when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council^[17][18][19] and in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.^[20] 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.^[21] 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.^[22] Within the Church, the name "Roman Church" principally refers to the specific Diocese of Rome.^[23][24]

• I accept it as it is. Soidi (talk) 04:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• With the reasoning that it will continue to be edited once installed on the page; I would have to agree that this note satisfies my expectations of a well-sourced NPOV statement about the two different names. It's not perfect, but I don't think we can expect perfection. This is a compromise after all. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)
• I will accept it as long as it is made clear that the text is not to be considered sacrosanct due to it's having been "blessed by consensus". Arguments about changing the text should be based upon reliable sources, Wikipedia policies and commonsense reasoning. No more and no less than any other text in Wikipedia. I don't wish to have anything cast in concrete due to my having participated in this consensus. --Richard (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow seems to think that there is a contradiction between the opening phrase, which speaks about ambiguity regarding the phrase "Catholic Church" and the later sentence which speaks of the Church taking the name "Catholic", and that the paragraph is incoherent for that reason. The second sentence was what explained the statement about ambiguity. To make the connection clearer, I have linked the two opening sentence with the causal conjunction "since". I hope nobody minds. That alteration should remove the impression of incoherence. Would Gimmetrow please consider whether that adjustment is sufficient to overcome his feeling that the first paragraph is incoherent and would he withdraw for now his redraft of the second paragraph in a way that incorporates part of the first paragraph? Unless we concentrate on one section at a time, I don't see how we can make any progress towards remedying the present text of the article. Too many of us want a text that will perfectly reflect their personal thinking and their feeling for literary style. Would it not be better to accept an imperfect text and move on? If only we can reach agreement on a passable text of the first paragraph, and put that aside, we might then be able to tackle separately each of the sentences in the second paragraph, in the hope of finding a passable text for each of them in turn. And I think we should leave discussion of the present text of the article until we get to it. The discussion here has turned to preparing this note. It was not what I wanted, I accepted it unwillingly, but it is what we are talking about. Unless we concentrate on the business in hand, the discussion will continue for I don't know how many months. Soidi (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree to the first paragraph. However I do expect a consensus to imply stability in the essence that future significant changes have to be agreed on the talk page. Hopefully another process such as this will not be needed. Xandar 01:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I accidentally bumped into another problem in the first paragraph (see below). The first sentence doesn't appear to be supported anywhere else in the note. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I note that my concerns about the first paragraph have not been addressed. The issues here cannot be fixed with commas. Gimmetrow 12:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The first sentence is "There is some ambiguity about the title "Catholic Church", since the Church is not the only institution to claim catholicity." What is Kraftlos's problem with it? Why does it think it needs to be supported elsewhere in the note? What are Gimmetrow's "concerns" (plural) with the first paragraph? He said earlier that he found it incoherent. In response a change was made consisting in more than the addition of a comma. He hasn't explicitly commented on that change. If objections of this kind about mere wording will continue to be raised after "a working consensus" seemed to have been reached, what hope is there that the mediation effort will ever succeed? Soidi (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Its the part "the Church is not the only institution to claim catholicity" which is not mentioned elsewhere in the note. Its fine for the intro not to have a source as long as the rest of the paragraph backs up what it says, but I don't see this idea anywhere else in the note (I see Gimmetrow didn't include this sentence in his chopped-to-pieces version either). We had something that seemed to back this sentence up in an earlier version of the note (the sentence tied to to ref 16) --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Do we really need to prove that catholicity is claimed also by Anglicans? By Eastern Orthodox? By indeed the majority of Christians, whatever Church or ecclesial community they belong to? Do you want to turn the note into a complete article in its own right? Soidi (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The note in the article is there for a reason. What is that reason? If it is to explain why the article starts with "A also called B", then the note would start with "This goes by various names" and include content like "A is used in X circumstances, which are controversial for reasons P; B is used in circumstances Y, which are controversial for reasons Q." That's basically paragraph 2. So, what is the reason for paragraph 1? It seems at best non-primary, and appears unnecessary. Why does it need to be there? Why does it need to be first? Why does each part need to be there? It would be helpful to discussion if the reason for paragraph 1 were stated clearly, because perhaps we can remove it so the note is less of a "complete article". Gimmetrow 00:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The short answer to your question is that Nancy and Xandar want this material to be included so much that we can make no progress without it. (Their view, of course, is that we can make no progress if someone opposes it.) I agree with you that the first paragraph is unnecessary, but it says nothing false, and so I prefer to let it remain. What actual harm does it do, apart from marking time before getting to the essential point? Soidi (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't find the first sentence objectionable, I just thought it was something we should consider since in the past we had considered expanding on it and someone later down the line might question it. I guess again this comes back to the fact that this wont remain static and after its put in, it will be altered. So I don't mind it as it is. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I seem to be in an awkward position. I find the paragraph incoherent, yet my concerns have been ignored. If I continue discussing them, that will just delay things further. The effect of that delay is that a problem text remains in the article, without changes or still any notice to the reader. So what am I to do? I therefore ask again that either the main sticking point, the main reason this mediation even exists, be swiftly removed from the article or at least tagged with some form of "verification needed". Gimmetrow 15:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gimmetrow, how could the paragraph be made more coherent? Would you be willing to set out a proposal on this? As to your comment that the current lead is problematic: assuming that there are no objections, we could add a line in the current note (in the article) that it is the subject of mediation. Would that alleviate your concerns? Sunray (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues here. For the first, it seems everybody agrees that the word "official" should go - it hasn't been in a draft for ages - but it's still in the article. People said months ago to "wait, we're about to put in the new text". Well, now it's months later. Either remove the word or put in a verification needed tag, as I tried to do long ago but was prevented. For the second issue, the first paragraph jumps around with ideas, so there isn't a simple fix. But to start with: if the topic of the paragraph is "ambiguity about the title Catholic Church", then what is the point of the third sentence? It seems like it would make more sense as the topic sentence of the second paragraph, replacing the unsourced "usually the term used" sentence. Gimmetrow 17:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, a "verification" tag does not give an adequate explanation. What do you think of my suggestion of adding to the note? Sunray (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that idea of mediation was that we'd work out a solution then modify the article. I think its rather intentional that we haven't gone and changed the article. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Rather that change the article, my thought was that we could add a very brief comment to the existing note that it is the subject of mediation. Sunray (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to be optimistic and think we're close to a solution, however it would probably prudent to assume we're going to need some more discussion. Would something like ^{This text is the subject of current mediation (see talkpage)} be acceptable? It would direct people to the other note about the mediation and the set of links there. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an objection to that on the note itself. As far as Gimmetrow's other demands, they appear contradictory. He complains about how long it is taking to get an agreed text, and simultaneously comes in with quite sizeable proposals to change what was negotiated over quite a long period. These do not seem to be the actions of someone who wants the issue settled swiftly - as many of us would like. I am also mystified over quite why Gimmetrow wants references to the history of the word Catholic removed from the note. They help the reader, have been agreed in a lengthy process, and are solidly referenced. I would also add that we are not "agreed" that "official" should go. Those who support it are prepared to forego the word official or its similes as part of an agreed wording rename package. Xandar 02:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original note was kind of clumsy and bordered on POV. This new note refers only to reliable sources (mostly academic). I don't see how this could be any more neutral. I freely admit there is some wording that isn't exactly what I'd like, but I think this is a good compromise and doesn't represent a single POV. There's no reason whatsoever to go back to that old note after all the work that's been put into this new note. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like Gimmetrows suggestions here for a condensed note. I like our compromised note that we have all worked very hard to acheive for months with the mediated help of Sunray. Our note gives Reader the important information that the Western Church "took the name" of Catholic Church - an essential element, an uncompromisable fact that we can not toss out of the note on the name of the Church as Gimmetrow suggests. What purpose is a note on the Church name if we do not include the single most important fact that is repeated by almost every tertiary source on the subject? We have all agreed to change the article name to Catholic Church and begin the sentence as "The Catholic Church, also known as 'Roman Catholic Church' (note 1)...". If we do not have this fact in the note that the Church took that name or "claimed as its title" as the source says, we will have zero ability to defend the article name change. It will invite endless discussions on the talk page that we will then have to defend by placing the sources up again and again on the talk page for all to see. Including them in the note with quotes, eliminates that problem. NancyHeise ^talk 22:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy, we are not discussing changing the article's name. That was not part of the mediation. This mediation is primarily and essentially about the unverified text "officially", which as far as I recall was inserted into the article without discussion and is no longer in any draft version, and yet inexplicably remains in the article. A note hidden within the note which appears only at the bottom of the article is insufficient to alert Reader to an unverified and disputed text which appears as the fifth word of the main article text, and which therefore continues to mislead Reader. It needs to be removed. Gimmetrow 22:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, the entire first sentence and related terminology was the primary issue (as indicated on the mediation page). Issue two was the issue of the word "officially" and we have come to a compromise regarding that. So name change actually relates to to issue one, the word official was pretty much dropped contingent on a properly sourced note. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraftlos (talk) 03:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, with regard to Nancy's false assertion above, I have not agreed to the change of the article's name - or to its opening statement - but I will not oppose it as long as the note adequately addresses the issues concerned. I agree that "officially" in the article should be removed without any further delay as it serves no useful purpose and the case that there is one "official" name ( rather a usual or assumed name - in the true sense of "assumed" ) has not been adequately proved as a fact. I cannot see any valid reason for simply saying "usually called the Catholic Church" - that really is a fact. Afterwriting (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get the feeling that a page move was unanimous, but that we got a tentative agreement to do so pending a proper note (at least I was initially opposed to it, but have been persuaded otherwise). However, I imagine the decision will be revisited. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a vote further up on this mediation here [6] where we unanimously decided to change the article name to "Catholic Church" with a first sentence that states "The Catholic Church, also known as 'Roman Catholic Church' (note 1)...". What we are discussing here is that new (note 1). The reason why we have decided this is because Gimmetrow did not like our current first sentence in the article that uses the word "officially". That word is supported by consensus on the article's talk page as well as by the current note 1. We are all here to try to make Gimmetrow happy by eliminating the word "official" and this effort has resulted in the new decision above to change the article name to the one that is obviously used by the Church itself, the one so many tertiary [7] and scholarly sources (McBrien's 'The Church') say it "claimed as its title". It could be reasonably argued that these sources also support use of the word "officially" in the current text but we want to make Gimmetrow happy so we are here trying to do the impossible. NancyHeise ^talk 18:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We did not "unanimously decide" to change the article name: I for one just went along with what was the majority at that moment in order not to be an obstacle to movement. In any case, we have no authority to "change the article name": that is for the interested Wikipedia community, not for this small group. Soidi (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name change was agreed as part of the package to change the first sentence. The dispute was not particularly over the word "officially" but over the fact being made clear in the first line of the article that Roman Catholic Church is not the proper name of the Church. The name change was agreed to enable the more equivocal statement, "The Catholic Church also known as the Roman Catholic Church" to be agreed. That decision is a basic part of this mediation agreement. If there were attempts to go back on that, it would mean that "officially", "properly" or a synonym would have to remain in the article in order to maintain accuracy. Xandar 19:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Xandar. We also need to make this clear on the talk page when we transfer the new note for consideration. We are not asking them to just consider the new note but the name change as well. NancyHeise ^talk 21:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name change is not part of this mediation, nor was it a part of any agreement. There were multiple objections to that. If now, through some revisionism, you are trying to tie anything to a page move unlikely to be accepted by any wider audience, then we have accomplished nothing of substance here. Gimmetrow 23:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy and Xandar, I really don't appreciate the way that you seem to be continually attempting to manipulate this mediation process for your own purposes. Nancy's comments in response to Gimmetrow are uncivil and unacceptable ( and, yes, I know that saying this is also probably uncivil and unacceptable ). As far as I'm concerned there has not been any agreement to change the article's name and any such change depends on major changes to the present note - and also the removal of the as yet unproved use of "official" in the opening sentence. When it comes to the crunch it seems that Nancy and Xandar want to revert to ideological positions that I, at least, thought the process had finally moved beyond. Afterwriting (talk) 11:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we perhaps arguing about mere hypotheses? Can we agree on the basis that the general body will be presented with a double proposal: a change in the note and a change in the title; and that the general body, of which we will be part, will be free to accept one and reject the other, as also to accept both or to accept neither? This section begun by Gimmetrow has distracted us from working on an agreed text of the note. Until we have an agreed text (one that, though each of us will consider it imperfect, we can nevertheless accept for presentation and later revision) - or until we declare, after months' more effort, that the mediation effort has failed through inability to agree on such a text - movement on the opening phrase of article will not begin. Could we please concentrate on the text of the note? Soidi (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As we seem to have a working consensus on the first paragraph, and in the interests of keeping things moving, could we have comments on the second paragraph? Please indicate below whether you agree, or can live with it (stand aside) or would like changes. Sunray (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that we do it one or a very few sentences (no more) at a time, so as to concentrate the discussion.

I think a fairly large part at the beginning has proved non-controversial, but it would be well to make sure of this before tackling parts that may prove more difficult: The title "Catholic Church" is usually the term used by the Church in its own documents. For instance, it is the name used by the Pope when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council and in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. 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. (This is not a proposal that the last part be omitted; only that discussion of it be left until later. Soidi (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

• There are some aspects that I dislike, but I accept it as it is. Soidi (talk) 04:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "it is the name used by the Pope when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council and in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church." Stylistically, there are ambiguities raised by the phrase "used by the Pope". This ambiguity would be removed if the statement read "it is the name used in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and used by Pope Paul VI when signing the official documents of the Second Vatican Council". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs)
  • This, or something like it, I have already brought up, saying that "the name used by the Pope when signing" was (in the more obvious meaning of this phrase) "Paul"; but other editors gave me no hearing. Is it really worthwhile trying to polish the style to perfection and attempting to remedy every possible ambiguity? Would it not be better to let this pass, in the certainty that, if it does makes its way into the article, sooner or later someone will improve it? Soidi (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm willing to accept "the Pope" instead of "Pope Paul VI". However, my primary point is that the sentence as it is currently written suggests that "it is the name used by the Pope in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church". This is caused by the quirky nature of conjunctions in English which creates ambiguities regarding the subjects and verb objects of a sentence. Did the Pope explicitly pick the title of the Catechism? Is the Catechism his document or one that was written by others and published under his authority? I know this is a picky point which is why I characterized it as a question of style. I raise these now so that no one will argue that every last word and word placement was "blessed by consensus". --Richard (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are a small group, and we ought to reach consensus among ourselves; but our consensus will be of limited value when the matter is thrown open to the general body of editors. Since I was over-optimistic in expecting this part to get through without objection, I think we must narrow discussion to the first portion of it, the portion that Richard wants to improve, and we must exclude for now any discussion of "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". Should we change the reduced text (accompanied by the same footnotes as before) to something like: The name "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. Soidi (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like Richard's suggestion as I think it improves the prose and provides a more correct interpretation. I do not think Soidi's suggestions are an improvement and I do not want to remove the referenced "Especially in English-speaking countries" sentence. NancyHeise ^talk 22:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy, I think Soidi is just saying that we should discuss the first sentence first and the rest of the paragraph afterwards. He isn't AFAIK proposing to delete any sentences at this time. I think the first sentence is relatively easy to deal with. If no one objects to the stylistic change that I proposed, we will be able to move on to discussing the rest of the paragraph in short order. --Richard (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As I've already stated, the first sentence fails verification. Gimmetrow 03:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two sentences are meant to be an introduction. However, we didn't include the sentence that was suggested in the sandbox about other churches claims to catholicity. But didn't we disregard those ideas because they were "off-topic"? I say either we include a sentence about other institutions claims OR just drop the first sentence as Gimmetrow suggests. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gah, was reading the wrong paragraph. The first sentence is an introduction and is supported by the second sentence. It doesn't need a reference. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first sentence is not supported by the second sentence. Gimmetrow 12:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seeing as the second sentence references one of the most important church documents which demonstrates that fact, I'm pretty sure that it is supported. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that I did not make sure that no one would misinterpret my putting aside the last phrase for later consideration (not for exclusion), because of the unexpected objection to the wording that begins the second paragraph of the note. What I suggested for consideration was only this: In response to Richard's objections to the proposed note:

The title "Catholic Church" is usually the term used by the Church in its own documents. For instance, it is the name used by the Pope when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council^[8][9][10] and in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.^[11]

should we change the opening to something like:

The name "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.^[12] It is also the term that Pope Paul VI used when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council.^[13][14][15]

Gimmetrow has now added the objection that no source has been given for the first sentence in this second paragraph, the one that states (in both versions) that the name "Catholic Church" is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents. So two editors have raised objections to what I imagined was uncontroversial! Soidi (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow has specified his objection to the first sentence (The title "Catholic Church" is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents) by saying it is not supported by the second sentence (the sentence that refers to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Pope Paul VI's signature on the Second Vatican Council documents). I agree that it is not supported by the second sentence (though Nancy, following Whitehead, is convinced it is), but this is just one of several logical weaknesses that I have decided to be silent about. The second sentence is, in any case, presented only as an "instance", not as proof of what is stated in the first. Does Gimmetrow really think it worth while insisting on adding a source to the first sentence? Wouldn't it be better to just let it pass, as I do. If Gimmetrow's trouble is his view that "the Church" is the most usual term in the Church's documents (as it is, but this is something that I let pass), would he be satisfied if the first sentence were changed to The title "Catholic Church" rather than "Roman Catholic Church" is usually the term that ... And does he really think it would be worth while insisting on this, when it is likely to stir up opposition from Nancy and Xandar? Soidi (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems likely that any text that comes out of this mediation will be essentially "set in stone" and "blessed by consensus" to the point that further improvements will be impossible, yes. I have long objected that Xandar seems to go beyond comparing CC and RCC to making unsourced statements about all other names of the church. My preferred triage would be to move the one sentence from "draft paragraph 1" to replace the topic sentence of "draft paragraph 2". Another approach would be to clearly put the comparison in the context of two names only ("The title CC is used more frequently than RCC"), but that would make the lack of sourcing fairly evident. Gimmetrow 00:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly with the notion that whatever this small group chooses will be "set in stone" or "blessed by consensus". It will only be a proposal presented for general consideration. Whatever we decide will also show that what a few editors have been claiming to be a text set in stone because of being consecrated by another group's consensus is not eternally inalterable. Soidi (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that notion, too, but it's now been over a year since the disputed text was placed in the article. Gimmetrow 06:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which statements are unsourced? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(To Gimmetrow) Well then, let us get on as soon as possible to what you rightly call the disputed text, by not disputing overmuch the alternative text that we are preparing here, and thus letting it advance to the stage when it will be presented for general consideration by editors who may even reject both texts in favour of something else. Soidi (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence Gimmetrow says is unsupported by the second sentence can be supported by the approved Whitehead reference. It can also be supported by the Catholic Encyclopedia's definition of the term "Catholic" which we have already used as a reference in the article note that exists there right now. This source states that Roman Catholic is a term used "sometimes". See the middle of the fifth paragraph here [8]. However, I do not see why we have to even reference the sentence when it is obvious. We are letting slide the first sentence of the first paragraph with zero reference to support it, I do not think it an unreasonable compromise to do the same for this sentence. (Personal attack removed) NancyHeise ^talk 17:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack noted. Gimmetrow 19:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support Nancy's point that the first sentence here should be treated as the first sentence of the first paragraph, and not made a bone of contention. On the consensus issue, once agreed as consensus on the main talk page, the new form becomes the consensus, and will need further agreement for major changes. Xandar 20:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize the false image that a couple unnamed individuals have presented. It needs to stop immediately. Gimmetrow 00:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator's comment: Civility, please, folks! One of the objectives of mediation is learning new strategies for collaborative editing. We have come a long way, so let's try to take the learning forward. Sunray (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to Gimmetrow for my inability to assume that he is acting in good faith. NancyHeise ^talk 21:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is often helpful to apologize when one can offer a full and unconditional apology. Sunray (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please get back to discussing the proposal that we accept as tolerable though clearly imperfect the following text?

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.^[16] It is also the term that Pope Paul VI used when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council.^[17][18][19] Soidi (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Church is referred to and refers to itself in various ways, in part depending upon circumstance. For instance, "Catholic Church" appears in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.^[20] It is also the term that Pope Paul VI used when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council.^[21][22][23] Gimmetrow 15:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I read it, this suggestion from Gimmetrow proposes that we say nothing about whether "Catholic Church" is the name most commonly used to identify the Church (or for that matter, whether it is the "official" name or even the "preferred" name).

The fact that "Roman Catholic Church" is also used as a name is then presented later in the note. (NB: no comment is made as to whether or not this name is "official" although it is mentioned that occasionally the Church refers to itself this way and so some level of "officialness" is implied.) The first sentence hardly requires support from a citation as it seems to be self-evident. The proposal then continues on by providing cited examples of official uses of "Catholic Church" but gives the reader the impression that the "Catholic Church" is the most common and preferred usage and maybe even "official" since these two examples are the most official documents of the Church. Thus, we avoid the dispute over "officially", "preferred" and "usually" which are difficult to support with unchallenged citations to mutually agreed-upon reliable sources. I can support Gimmetrow's compromise approach. --Richard (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good, though "occasionally" gets across an idea of relative frequency. Gimmetrow 17:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am mistaken, Gimmetrow is starting a renewed discussion on the first paragraph, rewriting it and combining it with a rewritten second paragraph. I don't see how he can imagine that Nancy and Xandar will accept his proposal. We're in for a long haul, or else for an early admission of failure. Soidi (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soidi, I think you're assessment is unduly pessimistic. Gimmetrow's proposed text still mentions "Catholic Church" first and in two official contexts. It then says that "Roman Catholic Church" is "occasionally" used by the Church itself. What it does not say is that "Catholic Church" is the "usual" name used by the Church. I assume this is because he believes that "the Church" is, in fact, the most common locution used. I don't think Xandar and Nancy will object too strenuously when they understand that this is what is behind Gimmetrow's proposal. In essence, we are implying that "the Church" may be at least as frequently used as "the Catholic Church" although "the Catholic Church" is used in two of the most formal and official documents of the Church. The phrase "Roman Catholic Church" is regularly used (especially in English-speaking countries), occasionally by the Church itself. However, there are reasons why Catholics dislike "Roman Catholic", etc. etc.

In summary, I think that we can address Gimmetrow's concern without losing Nancy and Xandar.

--Richard (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for my pessimism is that Gimmetrow would have us cast aside the working consensus that this mediation group had reached on paragraph 1 and have us begin again on a new text of his own composition incorporating some but only some phrases of what was agreed by those who joined in working in the sandbox. I myself have nothing against Gimmetrow's proposed wording, but I would be highly surprised if Nancy and Xandar, who were active in the sandbox, would accept it. I think insistence on a text that will perfectly (or almost) fit one person's tastes and will be bearable for others is an extremely hard to overcome obstacle to progress, when it would be better to accept something that is merely "good enough". Soidi (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of clarification, (as this has been discussed previously), I think that many of us agree that "the Church" is the most common way the Catholic Church refers to itself in internal documents. The point we are trying to decide is the name that the Church uses. I believe that we really only have two candidates for name: CC and RCC. Sunray (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a name. And it's not at all obvious the CC is the second most common name. There are other options besides CC and RCC. Gimmetrow 21:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no grammarian, but, used in this way isn't it a common noun rather than a proper noun? Many churches capitalize the noun when referring to "the Church" in the broadest sense (see "Capitalization" [9])

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it is a properly called a "name." If it is, every church could claim it. Sunray (talk) 22:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be referred to in common conversation, but it is certainly never used as the name of the Catholic Church. In Christianity it is very common to refer to the church as a synonym for the body of Christ; a group of all believers. This may be similar in the Catholic Church, but it will always mean the church headed by the pope. I reject this presentation of usage as a real name and proposing it seems disingenuous. LDS also use "the church", but it is confused as an official name of the LDS Church. --^StormRider 22:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In the first place, the name of the Universal Christian Society presided over by the successors of S. Peter is simply "the Church." No other body is, or ever can be, entitled to that name." (Snell). Gimmetrow 23:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see the point of Gimmetrow's late rewrite of the note. I find the agreed order, with the definition leading to history and then modern usage, far more logical and informative. I think we would need a really good reason to change this order. In addition, the existing wording "The title "Catholic Church" is usually the term used by the Church in its own documents. For instance, it is the name used by the Pope when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council and in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church." is replaced by "The Church is referred to and refers to itself in various ways, in part depending upon circumstance. For instance, "Catholic Church" appears in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.[1] It is also the term that Pope Paul VI used when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council." Gimmetrow's version thus makes the usage "Catholic Church" just an example of one of "various ways" the Church refers to itself - which is misleading and not in line with the sources. As far as the argument about "the church" goes. I think it is silly. The House of Commons is referred to as "the house", that is not its proper name. The Supreme Court is referred to as "the court", Buckingham palace is referreed to as "the palace". These are just shorthands using common nouns to avoid lengthy repetitions. Xandar 23:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(new indent) Attempting to fly "the church" as a name for the CC makes this discussion very weak and discouraging. I have to agree with Xandar's edit above as he succinctly lays out why the proposal is not as effective as that which we were already working with. When we start playing word games, we loose all credibility. --^StormRider 23:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. This mediation centers around a disputed text that is no longer in any proposed note. Given the above responses, this issue has become critically necessary. Ideally, that disputed text would just be removed, but that seems impossible. I am therefore insisting that some tag be placed on the word "official" in the lead of the article. My preference is {{vn}}, but I want something actually in the article and not hidden in an obscure note at the bottom of the page. This disputed text has been in the article for over a year, and is the preferred text of at least one of the participants. It should not continue to mislead Readers. Gimmetrow 00:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I am therefore insisting... " Though you have no entitlement to insist on anything, you are more than welcome to make a request. If that is what you are doing, I would remind you that you made a similar request some time ago. Kraftlos suggested that we place the following tag in the note: "^{This text is the subject of current mediation (see talkpage)}." You did not reply to this proposal. If it would satisfy your concern, I will place it in the article. Sunray (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However you want to say it, Sunray, but a text in the note is insufficient. It must be attached to the word "officially". Gimmetrow 01:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policy does not permit a non-standard editorial commentary in the text. There is already a note, so there is equally no point in affixing further tags to that. If you want that comment added to the note, I'm happy to do that. Sunray (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policy does not permit unverifiable text to remain in the article, either. Either tag the disputed word with something, or remove it. Gimmetrow 01:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This highlights one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia. There is neither a clear consensus to keep the text ("officially") nor a clear consensus to remove it although there seemed to be a nascent consensus to remove it based upon recent discussion about the Note (i.e. the word "officially" was to be removed provided that an acceptably worded Note could be crafted which explained the ambiguity around the word "Catholic").

I suspect that, since there was once a consensus to use the word "officially", a new consensus can be formed to ratify that word if the issue is forced to a conclusion at this time. Gimmetrow, if you push the issue now and force people to !vote, there is the significant possibility that a consensus will form around keeping the word. I would advise you not to force people to take a position as they may not take the position you wish them to take.

Decisions on Wikipedia are made by consensus. There is no higher court of appeal on content disputes. Mediation does not make decisions about content disputes (although it seeks to facilitate communication and compromise to resolve them). WP:ARBCOM will only address content disputes if they are something potentially injurious to the project such as violations of WP:BLP. Otherwise, they limit themselves to issues of misconduct.

Your only hope to resolve this content dispute is participation in discussion with other editors.

Gimmetrow, I understand your impatience with a process that has taken over half a year. However, IMO, we have made significant progress in increasing civility, facilitating substantive discourse and compromise and in coming up with a text that is superior to what we have in the article now. If you try to insist on removing "officially" without forming consensus for replacement text, I believe your untimely insistence could well backfire and you could wind up with a result that is less desirable to you than the one that the rest of us have been moving towards.

Your assertion that the word "officially" is unverifiable does not trump the opinion of other editors that it is verifiable, no matter how much you believe that you are right. The only path out of this impasse is communication, collaboration and compromise.

In order for you to remove the text that you argue is "unverifiable", you have to form a consensus that agrees that it is "unverifiable" and should be removed. In the absence of such a consensus, the best you can hope for is an edit war followed by either page protection or blocking of editors involved in the edit war. This is not the path that we want to go down.

If you will forgive a brief moment of incivility... "Sit down and shut up. Your rocking the boat only increases the possibility of it capsizing."

I (and hopefully others) am happy to get your input and to try and incorporate it into the final compromise. However, impatience and petulance are not welcome and will not get the result that you want.

--Richard (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V says that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." It has been months now since the text has been under very clear dispute, and it has not been supported with evidence. The problem here is that the text existing in the article is the preferred text of at least one of the participants. Those participants therefore have no incentive to do anything, and every incentive to obstruct any further change to the article and any note that may be written. Are we really agreeing that a small number of editors can override basic wikipedia policies of verifiability and neutrality for a year? Remember, we are only on the fifth word of an article with >12000 words; at this rate, this article will take at least 2000 years to get through. Gimmetrow 02:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you may argue if you wish that the "burden of evidence" lies with those who wish to keep the word "officially". However, you miss the fine point that the decision as to whether the "burden of evidence" has been met is decided by consensus. Uh, remember the last time a consensus check was run on this? I think the consensus ran something like 15-2 in favor of "officially". Just because you don't think the "burden of evidence" has been met doesn't mean that it hasn't been met. I would tread carefully if you want to rely on Wikipedia policy because the policy of consensus undergirds the enforcement of most policies unless the issue in question rises to the level of ARBCOM or OFFICE.

Gimmetrow, the "small number of editors" blade cuts both ways. You might wish to consider that, when I joined this merry-go-round last fall, it was to suggest that those calling you and Soidi "trolls" should stop doing that and assume good faith. Remember that I am the one who had to go dig up contribution histories to prove to the others that you and Soidi were, in fact, bona fide long-term editors in good standing. And yet, that nasty T-word keeps cropping up. Don't get on a high horse and consider that Nancy and Xandar are the "small number of editors". Perhaps that locution applies to you more aptly than it does to them. In the opinion of some, it is the small group of editors led by Soidi and Gimmetrow who are obstructionists and overriding basic wikipedia policies, etc. etc. Nothing is to be gained by maligning the other side, especially in your case since the numbers of the last consensus were overwhelmingly in favor of the current status quo.

This is not meant to argue that the opinions of the minority should be ridden over in a roughshod manner. I have worked hard to help ensure that your voices are heard even though I don't care nearly as much about this issue as you and Soidi do. However, the minority should not have the temerity to malign those in the majority as being a "small number of editors". It is a bit "over the top".

You can blather on all you want about Wikipedia policies but, for better or worse, the effective court that decides content disputes such as this convenes at the Talk Page of the article. This mediation is just trying to pull disputants aside and get them to talk through the issues and reasch a compromise in a civil and collaborative way. Are you on board for that project or not?

--Richard (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not missing any "fine point", Richard. I am quite aware of the situation. There are some editors who have certain opinions. They may form a sort of local consensus. It seemed that most of the responses to the RFC did not agree with that local consensus. Gimmetrow 17:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed that most of the responses to the RFC did not agree with that local consensus.

Yeh, I don't know where the consensus is right now as there were over 15 people in the consensus touted by Nancy and Xandar and we only have about 6-8 people involved right now. Every consensus is "local" in some sense because there are hundreds of thousands of active editors and no polling ever gets any significant fraction of that. I'd say if you can get a supermajority of 20 editors, you're doing well. A consensus built on the opinions of less than 10 editors is a little dicey.

As for the responses to the RFC, I'll go back and review that when I have more time. In the meantime, have a good weekend.

--Richard (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If people can dismiss sourced reasons with no more justification than "I think it is silly", then what's the point? Gimmetrow 03:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People can say almost anything they want (within the bounds of civility and non-pointism). Whether other people agree with them is a different issue. I do personally think that arguing for "the Church" as a name is a bit specious but I'm intrigued about what the source says. Look, if a single source was enough to win the day, then we'd have agreed a long time ago that the "official" name of the Church is "the Catholic Church" because there are plenty of sources that make that assertion. Our job in writing an encyclopedia is to avoid mindlessly copying what sources say. Our common sense and personal knowledge does come into play in choosing what is and is not encyclopedic. What makes writing encyclopedic articles challenging is figuring out which sources to use and how to present the information in a logical flow and in an NPOV manner.

Some authors such as Whitehead and Madrid say that the "official name" of the Church is "the Catholic Church". Snell says it is "the Church". If you insist on citing Snell, then we're left with "some sources assert the official name of the Church is 'the Catholic Church'(cite Whitehead and Madrid) while others assert that it is 'the Church'(cite Snell). Is that what is now being proposed? I personally would be unhappy with this solution but I admit that it is a sourced statement. --Richard (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The proposition is silly because it completely avoids context and seeks to parade as a unique fact that stands alone. From a strictly Catholic POV there is no other church except the Catholic Church; all other churches are delinquent children that have rebelled against the One, Holy and Apostolic Church. Within this context alone is "The Church" the name of the Church. HOWEVER, given that the Catholic Church operates in the world at large and has concluded that her children, sister churches, have a right to a name, the use of "the Church" loses its value. Its use with others would demonstrate an extreme disrespect for her sister churches that She acknowledges and embraces (I exclude all of those that neither embraces the other).

This is a game of semantics alone and is played by every church that claims to be the "one true church." This is what makes this type of conversation silly; not for one moment do I believe that each participant is not fully aware of these facts and the importance of context. In fact, this is what I have stated from the very beginning back in the article; it DEPENDS on the context as to which name the Catholic Church. Yes She uses many names, but She chooses to use and the name Catholic Church most. Choking on gnats and swallowing camels. --^StormRider 06:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text as proposed was: "The title "Catholic Church" is usually the term used by the Church in its own documents." Is that really the term "usually" used by the Church in its own documents? I mention "the Church" because that's a term obviously used more often, but there are other terms which are likely to be used more often than CC, so to say simply CC is at least an assertion likely to be challenged. It is in fact an assertion that has been challenged for months. I even gave a way to fix it, but that was ignored, too. So here we have an unsourced, biased, POV text that has been challenged for months, and two people dismissing criticism with nothing more than "it's silly" and "semantics". Fine. We go back to WP:V, which is policy. You have been challenged to support the statement with reliable sources. Do so, or remove the disputed text. Gimmetrow 06:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text as first proposed after work in the sandbox was as you say. What is proposed above for the first part of the second paragraph is different: The name "Catholic Church", rather than "Roman Catholic Church", is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents. Some of us may prefer to drop the discussion on that first part of paragraph 2, and to raise various other questions instead. But I think that the fact of the proposal of this revised wording of the first part of paragraph 2 (which complete avoids the problem associated with whether "the Church" can be considered a "name" for the Church) should not be ignored. Soidi (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soidi, you know that's not a sufficient change. Gimmetrow 13:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, Gimmetrow, that you are simultaneously complaining about the length of time being taken to achieve a new consensus, and then stepping in at a late point to raise new layers of difficulty with a text it has taken months to reach this point on. These approaches are contradictory. At this moment, to my mind, the main person delaying progress to a new consensus seems to be you. Xandar 10:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xandar, how can you say that about issues that have been raised for months without being addressed? Gimmetrow 13:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should step back and review our assumptions and definitions...

I think we need to distinguish between "terms" used to designate the Church and "names" used to designate the Church. The official name of a university local to me is "California State University, East Bay" which the Wikipedia article informs us is informally referred to as Cal State East Bay, CSU East Bay and CSUEB. These are different names for the university, both official and informal. I would bet that there are official communications of CSU East Bay that refer to itself as "the University". That is not a name of the University, that is a term used to refer to the university as a shorthand. This sort of thing happens everywhere.

Now, the Catholic Church is slightly different because it wants to designate itself as "the (one and only legitimate) Church" (cf. Snell). That is one POV. It is not necessarily the mainstream, majority POV. The mainstream, majority POV is that the name of the Church is "the Catholic Church". We should not give undue weight to miniority POVs. We can debate whether or not to mention Snell's POV but we certainly should not present it as the mainstream POV.

So far, the mediation has focused on whether or not "the Roman Catholic Church" is also a name of the Church that is sometimes used in official contexts. After a very exhaustive review of the sources (during which we actually listed all the ones we knew of with quotes), we seem to have concluded that RCC really is used in some official contexts although the proposed text only alludes to this and doesn't explictly make this assertion. NB: Nobody is claiming that the name of the church is "Roman Catholic Church" and that it is not "Catholic Church". Some people do claim that both are proper names of the church. That was the core issue that this mediation was focused on.

I cannot recall any source that says explicitly that "Catholic Church" is more usually used than "Roman Catholic Church" although my own experience and OR based on looking at various sources suggests that it probably is. As a compromise, we could drop "usually" and just say that "Catholic Church" is used in the title of the Catechism and by Paul VI in signing the official documents of the Second Vatican Council. Those assertions imply a lot of official status for the name and, since we don't make similar assertions about any other name, we can just let the reader conclude what he will about what the official name of the Church might be and what name is most commonly used. I can't remember if our note references Whitehead and Madrid but, if it does, those will give the reader ample opportunity to draw the conclusion that "Catholic Church" is the official name of the church if he is so inclined. As a compromise, we don't assert that it is the official name but neither do we deny it nor do we assert that any other name is the official name. In fact, we don't assert that there is any official name. Ultimately, we should present solidly sourced facts as facts and opinions as opinions and let the reader draw his/her own conclusions.

--Richard (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should stay focussed on the main tasks remaining before closing. Are there any more comments on the proposed note? Issues to be resolved? Here are some steps I think are important in closing:

1. Finalize the note. Set a time limit (say by June 1) for final arguments/suggested changes.
2. Prepare a brief summary of the consensus of this mediation (input welcomed for what should be in the summary).
3. Change the lead and add the note to the article.
4. Move the summary to the talk page.

I've consulted with colleagues about the name change. The advice I've received is that, assuming we have consensus, we should make the change and if there is dissent, discuss it then. Sunray (talk) 09:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with this plan. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I too agree. So we need to deal with the second paragraph, include agreed changes to both paragraphs, and set it out in full again. Xandar 10:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, we do need to finalize the second paragraph. As I am going to be separated from my computer in the next 24 hours, would someone be willing to include agreed on changes to both paragraphs and set the current version out in a new section below? Sunray (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I also agree. We should continue to try and address Gimmetrow's concerns but we should not let him hold up the show if he is the lone dissenter. Although true consensus requires unanimity, Wikipedia's interpretation of consensus allows a supermajority to be considered a close approximation. --Richard (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus is usually defined as "general agreement," rather than unanimity. As you suggest, there are practical reasons for this, as seen in Wikipedia, which uses supermajority for some types of decisions. For clarity, I think the WP definition of consensus decision-making works for mediation: "Consensus decision-making is a group decision making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also the resolution or mitigation of minority objections." Sunray (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• What's with this rush to "closure"? The page was dead for ages. No discussion, nothing. Finally the participants get back to this page and start discussing again, and suddenly, with no transparent discussion, there is deadline two days away? I don't think a page move without discussion on the talk page will fly. Gimmetrow 05:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page wasn't dead, most the discussion had moved off onto the note's sandbox. Once the note was drafted it moved back here. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I've been quiet latetly due to off-wiki activities. I've just now caught up in redaing the discussion and agree with Sunray's plan. Majoreditor (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure what Sunray means by "agreed-on changes", but I think that the part-by-part discussion had reached the following modified text, without anything in the second paragraph having yet obtained clear general consent. Soidi (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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".^[1] It was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early second century.^[2] 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.^[3]

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.^[4] It is also the term that Pope Paul VI used when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council.^[5][6][7] 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.^[8] 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.^[9] Within the Church, the name "Roman Church," principally in the strictest sense, refers to the specific Diocese of Rome.^[10][11]

I confess that I missed the discussion by which "rather than "Roman Catholic Church"" was added to the second paragraph. In terms of substance, it's sort of OK but stylistically it sticks out like a sore thumb. Now, I think we all know why some people want it there but, consider the perspective of a reader who is unaware of our discussion: that reader could well scratch his head and ask "well, why are you mentioning "Roman Catholic Church" right here?

If there are those who insist that RCC needs to be mentioned in the first sentence of the second paragraph, I can go along with it. However, I think the sentence is stilted as it stands and the mention of RCC isn't really needed here unless there is a strong desire to assert that CC is used more often RCC. This fact is already implied by the use of the word "occasionally" in the subsequent sentence.

--Richard (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about this for the opening of the second paragraph? In its own documents, the Church usually employs the name "Catholic Church" rather than "Roman Catholic Church", as, for instance, in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Soidi (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal is OK but it doesn't really address the issue that this is the first time that RCC is being mentioned. Seems to me that the sentence "The Church is regularly referred to as the "Roman" Catholic Church, especially in English-speaking countries" would go first and then the above sentence would follow. This is a stylistic point, however, and it is not a show-stopper if other people object. --Richard (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These "rather thans" don't really work Soidi. The ones I've seen so far don't restrict the meaning of the sentence to a comparison of two terms only. Gimmetrow 20:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you refresh our memories how this "rather than Roman Catholic Church" wound up in the text? Who is advocating this and why? Would there be any objection if it were dropped? We seem to be stuck on assertions about "usually" and "x more often than y". Maybe we would get further if we simply describe the name "Catholic Church" and the name "Roman Catholic Church" without trying to compare the two. We have solid sourced statements about each name and challenges to statements that compare or contrast the two. That should suggest that we stick to the solid sourced statements and eschew the statements that are being challenged. --Richard (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Soidi thought the phrase would deal with my objection, but I'm not happy with it. "X is more common than Y" would be a comparison of two, while "X, rather than Y, is usually used" isn't. Best way to handle this is to remove the sentence and replace it with the sentence from the other paragraph that seems out of place there. Gimmetrow 21:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little too cryptic for my little brain to decipher. Perhaps you could construct a version of the Note that you consider acceptable. My hope is that minor tweaks to the current proposal can address your concerns without creating a problem for Nancy and Xandar. --Richard (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had done that. Oh well. Gimmetrow 05:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did. Sorry, I had forgotten about that. It's late here (past 1:30 am) so I won't take this any further this evening. I may not get back to this much over the weekend. Hope everyone has a good weekend. --Richard (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, as long as I'm pointing out stylistic issues: I prefer "The Church is regularly referred to as the "Roman" Catholic Church, especially in English-speaking countries" on the grounds that we should let the reader know what we are trying to say before qualifying it.

If these suggestions are not slam-dunk "no-brainers", I am willing to let them go until a later point in time. --Richard (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; since this is supposed to be discussing CC and RCC it should mention them both up front. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This mediation started primarily over the word "official". Some editors claimed that CC was the official name of the church, but they have been unable to show where the church itself officially says that the official name is CC. Individual opinions were presented, of course, and so were contrary opinions. Part of the problem was that some sources were being suppressed so that only one side was presented. We could have ended up actually presenting the range of opinions academically, much as McBrien and Walsh do in their books. Instead, the draft note says CC is "usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents". (The phrase separated off by commas does not restrict the main sentence.) There are any number of terms used commonly in church documents - commonly enough that CC being the "usual" term shouldn't be taken for granted. There are many "commonly accepted" notions that some take for granted - that Napoleon was very short, or that the coriolis effect determines what direction water rotates down a drain - but I don't think we would take these for granted if challenged; if they were true, they should be easy enough to source, right? Gimmetrow 00:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now a substantive comment... "Within the Church, the name "Roman Church" principally refers to the specific Diocese of Rome." is not supported by the citations attached to it. The first citation is a primary source that uses "Roman Church" to refer to the specific dioces of Rome. It is original research to use that citation (or any number of such uses in primary sources) to infer that all uses of "Roman Church" within the Church refer to the the specific diocese of Rome. The only way around the charge of original research is to find a secondary source that makes the assertion in question. The second citation is a secondary source but it doesn't make the exact assertion that we are making. The second citation says "The Roman Church can be used to refer, not to the Church universal insofar as it possesses a primate who is bishop of Rome, but to the local Church of Rome". The critical difference here is "can be used to refer" as opposed to "principally refers". In fact, our text turns the meaning of the citation on its head. If you read the citation, it is saying "By the way, "Roman Church" can also mean the specific Diocese of Rome". The implication is that this is not the primary meaning but an occasional alternate meaning. Consider this as an existence statement i.e. "There exist uses of "Roman Church" such that the phrase is used to designate the specific Diocese of Rome".

Now, the source that does make the assertion as it stands in the current text is Whitehead. Whitehead says "when the adjective Roman is applied to the Church herself, it refers to the Diocese of Rome!". Consider this as a universal statement i.e. "For all uses of "Roman Church", such uses always designate the specific Diocese of Rome".

We could simply drop the CE citation and add the citation to Whitehead because his quote supports the current text. However, I do not think this is a good solution.

I would change the text to match the CE citation because it is a weaker assertion. One of the underlying issues of this dispute is the sense that Whitehead's assertion was hyperbolic and could be proven false by specific counterexamples (which have been identified and provided).

--Richard (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On this, the combination of references, makes the point that this is the principal use of the term within the Church, as with respect to the College of Cardinals. It is quite an important point, since references to the Roman church in many documents are often misunderstood. The proposed alternative phrasing: "Within the Church, the name "Roman Church" can be used to refer to the specific Diocese of Rome." tends to make it sound as though this is a minority usage. Better would be: "Within the Church, the name "Roman Church" has been used to refer to the specific Diocese of Rome." which is supportable from all the sources. Xandar 00:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"has been used to refer..." is OK with me. --Richard (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And with me. However, I do not see the relevance of the phrase at all: surely it is the "CC"/"RCC" choice alone that is relevant in this context. And I find it strange that anyone would call the use of "RC" with regard to the College of Cardinals the "principal" use of "RC": to my mind the use by Councils of "RC" with reference to the Church as a whole has a better right to be called the "principal" use. Soidi (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"has been used to refer..." is OK with me. --Richard (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And with me. However, I do not see the relevance of the phrase at all: surely it is the "CC"/"RCC" choice alone that is relevant in this context. And I find it strange that anyone would call the use of "RC" with regard to the College of Cardinals the "principal" use of "RC": to my mind the use by Councils of "RC" with reference to the Church as a whole has a better right to be called the "principal" use. Soidi (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the language of Christian antiquity, the name, " Church of Rome," may be taken in either of three acceptations. In the narrowest sense, it means no more than the Church of the Diocese of Rome …”, The Church Review [10] The Catholic encyclopaedic dictionary

ROMAN CHURCH, THE HOLY. i. Strictly, the diocese of Rome, eg, in the expression Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, cardinals being the councillors of the Bishop of Rome and Supreme Pontiff. ii By extension, synonymous with Latin rite and Western church (qq.v.), eg, as on the title-page of the "Graduale Romanum," "Gradual of the Most Holy Roman Church. . . .”.iii. By further extension, the whole Catholic Church as having its head at Rome. This sense is often used in a semi-hostile way by non-Catholics (cf., Roman Catholic). The Catholic encyclopaedic dictionary [11]

“… it is important not to lose sight of the facts that the election of a pope is the election of a bishop of the diocese of Rome, and that the election is still made by those who are either bishops of the Roman province, or, technically at least, dignitaries of the local Roman Church.”, Dublin Review [12]

“As bishop of the Diocese of Rome (the Roman Church), he is the visible head of the entire Church, with all her particular churches and rites.”, The Catholic Answer Book [13]

“To what Church do the foresaid marks and properties belong ? A. To the Roman Church; not simply as Roman, that is, as restricted within the limits of the territory of the diocese of Rome; but as she is the universal Church, which has for its head and supreme pastor the Roman Pontiff.”, A dogmatic catechism, from the Ital., ed. by the Oblate fathers of st. Charles [14]

“The Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church is the administrator of the property and the revenues of the Holy See, and as such is successor both of the Archdeacon of Rome and of the Vicedominus, the former of whom administered the property of the entire Roman Church, i.e. the Diocese of Rome”, The Catholic Encyclopedia, [15]

In the language of Christian antiquity, the name, " Church of Rome," may be taken in either of three acceptations. In the narrowest sense, it means no more than the Church of the Diocese of Rome …”, The Church Review [16]

Perhaps ‘principally’ is the wrong adverb. According to the sources above ‘Strictly’, ‘technically’, ‘simply’ and ‘narrowest sense’ the Church of Roman Church means the Diocese of Rome. MyTuppenceWorth (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woohoo! That was great! Thank you. I knew some of that but not all of it and I had forgotten about its relevance. It was Soidi, after all, who had mounted a campaign last fall to establish that the Church is sometimes called "the Roman church". I never understood why it was important to establish but now it makes sense. There was a point last fall where I tried to establish why the church was called Roman by pointing out that the Pope was the Bishop of Rome but my edit was reverted as inaccurate. It may not have been the best edit but I think it was trying to get at something important and is substantiated largely by the quotes provided by MyTuppenceWorth which spell out the linkage in detail; we should summarize it into a succinct sentence or two with fuller explanation in a note if necessary.

The quotes also explain why some Catholics still insist on "Roman Catholic" despite its negative connotations attached to the phrase by some non-Catholics. None of the above is explained in any detail in the article and it is a crucial linkage to make for the reader.

In retrospect, I now see that my problem with the sentence was that it was taken out of context. It can mean the "Diocese of Rome" but that is only one of the three "acceptances" described above. Incorporating some of the above text in the article would help connect the dots for the reader. --Richard (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the new sources confirm that in its strict or original context "Roman Church" means Church of the Diocese of Rome. If this term is understood by some as meaning the whole Catholic church, this is by sloppy transference. Since the Cardinals of the Roman Church, are also the only cardinals in the entire Catholic Church, and the Missal of the Roman Church is the missal used by all the Catholic Churches of the Western Rite, confusion arises. It is only through these "pipeline" transferences of meaning that the Roman Church can be read (wrongly) as being synonymous with the whole Catholic Church. "Church of Rome" is another case entirely, a phrase that is used less by Catholics than by a certain type of anti-catholic protestant. Xandar 22:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we have a consensus of those who have commented to substitute "in the strictest sense" for "principally" in the last line, so I have made that change. Does that conclude our discussion of the note? Sunray (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I keep checking the RCC talk page to see if this has been posted there for discussion, I can't believe it has gone on this long. I thank Sunray for his/her? excellent navigation of this mediation. You deserve an award. NancyHeise ^talk 02:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have one more request of participants before we finalize the action plan in this case. I have posed the question of consultation to the mediation-list (past and present WP mediators). I pointed out that we had a fairly strong consensus (though not unanimity) between participants on a preferred course of action: reworded lead with note; article name change. I received a wide range of advice from the list, which can be distilled into three options. Would you be willing to indicate your preference for one of these?

Option 1 - Make the changes, if other editors express concerns, discuss them on the article talk page. Because the decision is a result of mediation and the parties have come to a consensus, that carries a fair amount of weight. In most cases other editors will tend respect a mediated consensus. Potential disadvantage: If some of the possible interested parties were not participants in the mediation they may not be inclined to respect the consensus.

Option 2 - Make the change to the lead; consult on the article name change. If there is likely to be a significant objection to the name change, there may be an advantage to discussing it first on the article talk page. Possible disadvantage: Any drive by editor could chime in and it could become unruly.

Option 3 - Before taking action, invite additional editors to consult. There are editors who have taken an interest in the mediation and who have commented previously (Bill Ward, MyTuppenceWorth, Carlaude). Invite them (and possibly others who have edited the RCC article in the past) to comment on our proposal on this page. Incorporate their views, then implement action. Possible disadvantage: This has been a long mediation and participants who have already put considerable effort into it may not have the patience or energy to continue.

Please indicate your preferred option below. Sunray (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2 (there is bound to be significant objection to the name change). Soidi (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2: Although in some respects I would prefer Option 1 it seems to me that there are still some unresolved (or potentially unknown) issues regarding the name change. I consider changing the note more important at present. Although I can accept the proposed name change as long as the note's changes are adequate, other editors not involved in this mediation may not appreciate the process involved in changing the name. Also it seems that most other articles on Roman Catholic-related topics and organisations use "Roman Catholic" in the article's name - so there is an issue on the church's name on Wikipedia beyond this particular article. Afterwriting (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2: The convention to use "Roman Catholic" vs. "Catholic" in article names is the result of a compromise agreement reached on the article's talk page (Talk:Roman Catholic Church) a couple of years ago. Overturning that consensus should be done there. However, to address Afterwriting's concern, there should be a single centralized discussion that covers all RCC articles, not just the main one. We can advertise the discussion at the major RCC pages and then hold a single discussion at one page (maybe a subsidiary page to avoid deluging Talk:Roman Catholic Church with pages and pages of discussion. It might help to have Sunray mediate the discussion if he is willing to sign up for that. --Richard (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 3: Based on subsequent discussion, it appears that it is wiser to bring in the wider community before moving forward. I still prefer Option 2 but there seem to be some Option 1 proponents who would not accept Option 2 and so, in the absence of a consensus, we are left with Option 3. --Richard (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, I would guess that most of the editors who support option #1 would prefer option #2 to option #3. If that's the case, then option #3 may not gain traction. Majoreditor (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1: Would be the simplest way forward, since this is a package agreement. Although I actually thought there was a set procedure for an article name change. Option 2 would require participants here to continue to support the name change in subsequent discussion, and a procedure to ensure that debate was not endless and did not raise irrelevant issues contrary to WP policies. As far as Richard's point is concerned, I do not agree that we introduce the names of other articles into the discussion at this time, since that would massively over-complicate issues, involve an unmanageable number of editors, and make the discussion never-ending. There are hundreds of other articles involved, many of which have their own individual issues and reasons for variance in naming. Many have only be named or renamed "Roman" Catholic, piecemeal. We are discussing the worldwide Catholic Church article, which has specific reasons for the name change. Let's stick to that for now. Xandar 00:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1: This is what consensus agreed in this mediation. Option 2 actually does something NOT agreed here. I do not agree to the changes in the lead sentence and note if the article name is not changed. The entire reason for the problems erupt from an article name (Roman Catholic Church) that is decisively not the name of the Church as scholars and tertiary sources say "claimed as its title". There can not be any real objection to the name change when we have so many sources saying that Catholic Church is the name that the Church has "claimed as its title". NancyHeise ^talk 03:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking to Richards remarks about the article name discussion two years ago, that discussion took place before we discovered a vast scholarly consensus regarding the Church's name "claimed as its title". This scholarly consensus is evidenced by these sources that all state the same fact of the Church's name that it "claimed as its title" the name Catholic Church.

• The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism
• The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church
• The Oxford English Dictionary
• Academic American Encyclopedia
• The Church by Richard McBrien

Article naming guidelines support an article name change for this subject due to this new evidence. What could anyone say in objection? Is there another entity out there that has "claimed as its title" Catholic Church? - No. NancyHeise ^talk 03:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2. As much as I like the concept of Option #1, the broader community needs a chance to weigh in on the name change. Majoreditor (talk) 04:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2. I think the note/lead change are not as controversial as the page move. We can be bold and implement the note immediately, then along with the change, start a RfC on the talkpage. If we have a clear proposal and strong supporting evidence, it shouldn't be hard to get a consensus. It should also be mentioned there that this is the result of a 6-7 month mediation so people don't try to get us to start over on every single point. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also realize that the name change was part of this compromise, but I think it would be close enough for now with "Catholic Church" being first in the lead. I think from a technical standpoint the page should be moved to reflect the lead, but that will be contentious for sure. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1: The consensus was to implement both actions and I see them as interdependent. There is only one group that can define the name of their church and that is the group itself. This is the meaning of the consensus agreement. Will editors complain about the name? I suspect that will happen, but I also think with the references and the fact that it was achieved through mediation it will be accepted. More importantly, implementing Option 1 will assist in moving forward with additional improvements to the article and put this behind us. I tip my hat to those who have been so active and I thank you for your work. Cheers. --^StormRider 05:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see much a difference between option 1 and 2, except that the former waits for a topic to be discussion worthy before making a discussion out of it, where else option 2 seems to make every change to the lead, which is not necessarily controversial, requiring a posting. So for that reason, which is inconvenient, I support Option #1.Gabr-el 05:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2: Only because I can see more harm than good coming from a name change, regardless of what you all have achieved here. At least this way if you get someone complaining, you can say..."we let as many people know...etc". Kudos to all of you for hashing this out and apologies for not being able to participate as much as I intended.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1: there surely will be opposition to the title change. The current title is the result of a talk page compromise but I see no reason to some exclude the title from this mediation. Indeed the several elements of this mediation's result are interdependent. Objections of course may be raised on the talk page. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1: As has already said, the agreed upon note assumes the name is Catholic Church not Roman Catholic church so the title needs to be changed at the same time. Personally I see it as just a POV discussion not to have it at Catholic church since Catholic Church redirects there anyway. Marauder40 (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2, but only under the condition that the note is not "set in stone" and that further changes to the note to address issues will not be prevented. Otherwise, option 3. Gimmetrow 18:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Carlaude has contacted me on my talk page to express some concerns about Option 1. Sunray (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with Carlaude. His comment on your Talk Page was a tad bit more strongly expressed than necessary but the gist of the message is "spot on". A further problem arises because some of the Option 1 proponents insist that the title change occur simultaneously with the lead change. Thus, there is the risk that the consensus for the new lead will start to break down if we don't move forward with Option 1 and go with Option 2 instead. At the moment, there is no consensus for either option. Despite the fact that no one has supported it up to now, Option 3 may actually be the best compromise between options 1 & 2. I am changing my vote to Option 3. If we can get a significant majority (say 60%) of the wider community in favor of the title change, then we should go forward. If more than 60% oppose it, I'm sorry to say we will have to go back to the drawing board. I should comment that none of this should come as a surprise. We knew full well that any proposal to change the title was almost guaranteed to be controversial. What we didn't know is whether the title change would be opposed by 10% or 60%. It's time for us to find out. --Richard (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2 is best. Under no circumstances would I support option 1 - too many intrested editors were not involved here. --Secisek (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1 is best. In option 1, the lead follows the title. The lead does not make sense if the title is not changed, but the Title should also be changed. It is both officially and commonly known as the Catholic Church. --Rockstone35 (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comment, Rockstone. This poll is restricted to parties to this mediation. Sunray (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I must humbly, but forcefully disagree with Carlaude and Richard's position. As a non-Catholic and one who personally prefers to use Roman Catholic, I have concluded that it does not matter what my preference is nor should it matter. What is absolutely clear to me is that the "Catholic Church" is the proper name of this church. It does not matter if every editor on Wikipedia voted that Roman Catholic church is the name to use, it would still be wrong based upon our policies. As I stated above, the group defines itself and no one else and no other position gains primacy in that decision simply because they don't like it, don't approve of it, or feel badly about it. This is one of the major reasons why I voted for Option 1. To not change the title only delays the inevitable and there is nothing to be gained by delaying the decision. --^StormRider 22:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Part of the problem is that the mediation process, if I remember rightly, was only originally established to seek some resolution to issues concerning the article's opening sentence and its even more contentious note. Somewhere along the line certain editors seem to have developed a belief that the article's name was somehow also added to the mediation process on the basis that there was an apparent consensus amongst the current mediation parties concerned that the article's name should also be changed if the opening and note are changed. That there might be a consensus among us on the name issue I won't argue with - but as it isn't part of *this* mediation process any consensus we might have on changing the name has no real authority. Can I suggest that we begin with changing the opening and the note before worrying too much more about the article's name. Give other editors time to 'absorb' these changes and the process of any name change might be less contentious. To oppose changing the opening and note if the name isn't also changed will probably only be self-defeating for those who are most concerned with changing the article's name to "Catholic Church". Afterwriting (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I point out that the editor called Rockstone35 isn't a member of this mediation process and I strongly object to other editors interloping into this process. This editor's comments should be ignored and removed from our discussions. Afterwriting (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I will have to disagree that the name change can't be part of the compromise sought here in mediation, however I think that this needs to be opened up to the broader community, whether we just act boldly and make the changes first or establish an official RfC before making changes. This isn't going to work if we simply ignore the editors outside this mediation process. It would be most efficient if someone would summarize our consensus and perhaps mention some sticking points and why we believe they've been addressed; then list the basic changes and ask for comment. We can shortcut a lot of these recurring discussions on the article if we address them right out and don't ignore other editors that perhaps weren't part of the original debate that brought us here. In essence, this is why I'm opposed to option 1, and would rather see option 2 or 3 so we get as little backlash as possible. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for your considered response. We could certainly propose or suggest a name change - and give our reasons for doing so - if there actually is a consensus among us for this. I believe that it would be very unwise, however, to impose a name change in the hope that other editors would eventually agree with the reasons for this. If we just went ahead and changed the name first I expect this would only cause all manner of unpleasantness. So I strongly advise caution in changing the name along with the opening and the note. I believe that changing the opening and the note first would make any change to the name more possible and more appropriate. Afterwriting (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Option 1 isn't acceptable to a significant number of people here. In view of the fact that a name change is a basic part of the compromise, I would have to say that we should go through the wider consultation process on the name change BEFORE making changes to the lead, so that everything can go through together. The new wording, without the name change is in contravention of WP MOS, and so would not stand up to FAC scrutiny. We do want a fairly stable and final settlement. I think Option 2 wont be acceptable. SO we would have to compromise on Option 3. Xandar 14:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't see any possible advantage to Option 3. It will only make this process even more interminable and also possibly make it open to campaigns by ideologically-driven editors both for and against a name change. I can't see how Option 3 will promote a "stable and final settlement" - only the opposite. Changes to the opening and the note need to be made for important NPOV reasons instead of whatever you mean by "compromise". Only when the opening - and especially the note - are changed to something resembling NPOV would it then be defensible to consider also changing the name. Afterwriting (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of Option 3 would be establish the precedence of Wikipedia policy regarding naming of articles over ideologically-driven editors. If we cannot establish a supermajority of at least 2/3 during Option 3, then we would certainly have problems with Option 1 after the fact. On the other hand, if we do establish a supermajority during Option 3, then we have a firm ground to assert that a consensus believes that Wikipedia policy supports a change in the article name. Unfortunately, except for WP:ARBCOM and WP:OFFICE type decisions, most Wikipedia policies are enforced based on what the consensus interpretation is. Even if you're sure you're right, you are much better off forming a consensus to support you in your glorious correctness. As an admin, I can block editors who revert against consensus as being disruptive. Without a consensus, it's hard to arrive at a justification for blocking an editor with a different opinion from another editor. I would be inclined to protect the page or block both editors. --Richard (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kraftlos, Afterwriting, Xandar and Richard present a line of thinking that I think is important. As Kraftlos points out, we need the acceptance of the wider WP community and Option 1 might reduce our chances of that. Xandar and Afterwriting raise the question of whether Option 2 or 3 would work best. Xandar points out that a key difference is that the way these two options are now worded Option 2 has us making the change to the lead before consulting on the name change. Afterwriting speaks to the need to not drag out the process unduly. Richard stresses the importance of securing and maintaining consensus. How about a forth option:

Option 4 - 1) We summarize the mediation outcome along the following lines: A consensus of participants in this mediation (a supermajority) has arrived at the following proposal: The lead sentence be changed, along with a supporting note and a change of the name of the article to "Catholic Church." 2) We move the summary to the talk page for a consultation period with a fixed end date. 3) We focus the discussion on WP:Naming conventions and WP:Naming conflicts, particularly the objective criteria (specified above).

A properly focused, evidence based discussion would allow for all perspectives to be brought forward but directed towards the intent of meeting the criteria for naming. I would probably ask for an additional mediator to assist to ensure we can keep the discussion on the rails. Would such an approach meet the various concerns raised? Sunray (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me - I support Option 4. Sunray you're a mediation genious! NancyHeise ^talk 17:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also support Option 4. That was my vision of what Option 3 was going to do; perhaps other people interpreted it differently. A close-in end date (say two weeks) would be good. If there is significant opposition, we may have to regroup and rethink but I am hoping that we will have minimal opposition. --Richard (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Option 4 meets my concerns. I think if we stick to discussion around WP naming policy, we should be able to move forward. Xandar 19:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, this seems a rather trivial point in comparison to the previous debating, but since option 4 seems to have good support, and is a good compromise, I throw my weight behind it. Gabr-el 20:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 sounds good to me as a good compromise. Marauder40 (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 - yes; let's move forward. I would indicate a one week time period unless discussion pushes us to two weeks. Strong counsel to be very focused on what is open for discussion in the hopes that this does turn into period of total regurgitation of this entire process. A literal democracy is not an efficient form of government...it is a form of death by discussion and whoever is left standing wins; but that is another topic entirely. --^StormRider 20:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 Works for me!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Óption 4 Looks to be on target! :D Maybe this will all be finished soon! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 At present and in principle I can definitely support this option as an appropriate way forward. Afterwriting (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4 No objection. Soidi (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Option 4. Not my first pick, but it works for me. Majoreditor (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Option 4Johnbod (talk) 18:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I am finished turning cartwheels, I am going to congratulate Sunray on accomplishing the impossible :-) NancyHeise ^talk 01:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Option 4. --Secisek (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With most editors from each of the other options agreeing to Option 4, we have a working consensus! Thank you Nancy for your congratulations. A mediator is nowhere without the collaboration of the participants, though. In this mediation, many people have contributed to getting us this far. The willingness to make alternative proposals, to pitch in and do some of the difficult work of drafting new versions, to stand aside at times, (often only in hope rather than any real conviction that it would help). The most rewarding aspect of this mediation, for me, has been working with intelligent human beings who were prepared to discuss a highly-charged issue with civility and good faith. Many thanks to all.

I will draft a summary of the mediation, get some last comment and then, (ta da) we can move this show to the article talk page. Sunray (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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..." [17].

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..." [18]

The section of the policy on Controversial names specifically refers to Roman Catholic Church vs. Catholic Church [19] 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." [20]

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)."

• 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.

The lead sentence will be modified to read as follows:

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

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".^[1] It was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early second century.^[2] After the East-West Schism, the Western Church took the name "Catholic", while the Eastern Church took the name "Orthodox".^[3] 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.^[3]

The name "Catholic Church", rather than "Roman Catholic Church", is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents.^{[citation needed]} It appears in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.^[4] It is also the term that Pope Paul VI used when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council.^[5][6][7] 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.^[8] 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.^[9] Within the Church, the name "Roman Church," in the strictest sense, refers to the Diocese of Rome.^[10][11]"

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."

Shell has agreed to come back to co-mediate for the next phase on the article talk page. Sunray (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy folks. Since I was already familiar with the issue at hand, I'll be taking a back seat here and helping to keep things on track once they move to a more open forum. I can't tell you how impressed I am by everyone's hard work in finding a resolution to this thorny issue and especially appreciate Sunray having taken on the case when my life interfered with Wikipedia. I look forward to working with all of you again. :) Shell ^babelfish 05:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Errors? Omissions? Things that might be worded differently? Other comments? Sunray (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks like what we have generally agreed to. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry for bringing up difficulties: Google searches don't distinguish between (R)C use and use by others. I imagine that most of the instances of "CC" that Google finds are written by (R)Cs, who are precisely the people who most frequently write about their Church. Saying simply that "CC" is the most common name in "general" use probably gives a quite false impression about general use outside the Church itself. And I don't remember us having "determined" that "CC" is the most common name. Would it be best to face this problem now? Or do we leave it be raised later? Then there is the statement, "The name that the Church uses to refer to itself in constitutional documents is 'Catholic Church' (i.e., The Catechism of the Catholic Church). It is the name used by the pope when signing constitutional documents." The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not a constitutional document. (Besides, why "i.e." rather than "e.g."?) And by no means all the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council could be called "constitutional documents" (for instance, the first two: on the liturgy and on social communications). "CC" is not the only name used in what could be called "constitutional documents", and so the phrase "The name (singular, the only name?) that the Church uses ..." is false. Soidi (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you raised the question of the Google searches. I recall that we used search parameters that said "CC, not RCC, not X...etc. but we should double check that. I do recall that the 35M hits was reduced to about 5M. It might be a good idea to specify the search parameters that were used, as it will come up. I will look for the ones we used. We can always run others. Do we have anyone who has a special talent for searches? As to the wording about constitutional documents. How about going ahead with the changes that you suggest, using strikeout and a different font color? We will be on strongest ground if we stick close to the note, since that was developed by consensus. Sunray (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your comments, I've made a couple of changes in the "Findings" section. I substituted the exact wording of the note regarding the use of the two names. I've also added some detail on the searches we conducted. There are other searches possible. Let me know if you think other changes or additions are needed. Sunray (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to duplicate the general searches referred to previously, so have removed them. Searches of vatican.va show CC more commonly used than RCC. As this is the crux of the matter, perhaps we should leave it at that. Sunray (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I think you have cleared up the problems I mentioned. Do you not fear that others may object to your cutting off the last part of the quotation "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity"? Avoidance of ambiguity is the very reason why "Roman Catholic Church" is the choice of many as a title for an encyclopedia article on the Church. They might even say we are deliberately misrepresenting the facts. Soidi (talk) 04:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that phrase - just so there is no ambiguity :) Sunray (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Under Relevant Policy and guidelines for naming I think we should include the passage from Wikipedia:NCON which states: "Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name."

Xandar 23:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I agree.Majoreditor (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this relevant? What is in question is the article's title, not the name or names used "within articles". Soidi (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that the statement applies to the article title, since if one is referring to an entity in a certain way, the article would logically be titled that way as well, no? Sunray (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't think so. In its section "3 How to make a choice among controversial names", the guideline makes a very clear distinction between "3.1 Article names" and "3.2 Resolving disputed names within articles". The quotation comes from the subsection about "disputed names within articles". Applying it to the distinct subsection on "article names" will seem strange and will be hard to justify. Soidi (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We may be looking at different sections. The text quoted by Xandar comes from Section 4, "Other considerations," rather than Section 3. The heading is: "Types of entities" and the subheading: "Dealing with self-identifying terms." The section sets out general considerations for naming. The paragraph immediately preceding the one quoted by Xandar reads:

• "A city, country, people or person by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk; the man formerly known as Cassius Clay now calls himself Muhammad Ali. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names." (emphasis mine).

This seems like useful direction, don't you think? Sunray (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I am indeed wrong, and so I withdraw my comment, even before making any effort to find out what gave me the wrong idea. Perhaps I am over-tired. Soidi (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It has not been established that the church has any one official or self-identifying name. The church seems to have rather avoided doing this. It uses a number of terms or names to refer to itself, and it's not obvious that CC is the most common of those terms. The first sentence of the (current) second paragraph of the note still makes an unsourced and challenged assertion. If the page move is presented as based on the same sort of assertion it will be all the more disputed. Gimmetrow 18:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that the sentence Gimmetrow refers to is: The name "Catholic Church", rather than "Roman Catholic Church", is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents. Perhaps the Vatican website test is enough to show that, in spite of Gimmetrow's doubts, this statement is Wikipedia-sourceable. On the other hand, there seems to be no Wikipedia rule that the most commonly used self-identifying name, even if ambiguous, must be chosen as the title of the article, when another self-identifying name exists that is less frequent but quite unambiguous. Soidi (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it. The part "rather than RCC" doesn't really restrict the main sentence, and it's not clear to me, even from the vatican site, that CC is "usually" the term the church uses in its own documents. (It wouldn't surprise me if more common terms were equally or more ambiguous than CC, though.) Gimmetrow 19:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, as we have already been through, CC is VASTLY more used than RCC (which is the alternative we are discussing) in Vatican and other Church documents. Xandar 23:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, although we have been through this many times before, you still refuse to modify the sentence in the note to simply say "CC is used more often than RCC". Gimmetrow 00:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, I foresee a problem with the note in that it states "took the name 'Catholic'" when the actual source does not say that. The actual sources states that it took the name "Catholic Church". I would like to see the note use the exact names the source states that both Catholic Church and Holy Orthodox Church actually "took". Otherwise, the note is making an incorrect and unreferenced statement. Also, the note above does not have a reference after that sentence even though it is listed below it in the references section. It should have ref number 3 after it (McBrien's "The Church") fixed it myself NancyHeise ^talk 01:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, both my reservation above and Gimmetrow and Soidi's are things that should be discussed when the move is made. The mediation is over at this point and the information should now be moved to the talk page. Can we all just bring up our gripes on the talk page and let Sunray and Shell move this? I don't see where any of these concerns relate to the move. NancyHeise ^talk 01:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are changes needed for the note, we should make them now. The community consultation will not be the time to tinker further with it. However, I don't see the necessity of making either of the changes proposed. The statement that CC "is usually the term used in its own documents" is supported by the next two sentences. It could be tweaked by changing it to "the name used" instead of "the term used," to clarify the point raised by Gimmetrow. It seems clear, though, that the sentence refers only to those two names, not others. With respect to Nancy's point, the citation clarifies that the note refers to "the Catholic Church" and "the Holy Orthodox Church" so I don't see the need to repeat that. The sentence reads better as it is, IMO (and since the full names are cited, no one can fault us). In short, I think we have picked all the nits we need to. Unless I read strong objections by Friday noon, North American EDT, I will move this over to the article talk page. Sunray (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I agree with Sunray. I think we need to move forward now. Xandar 12:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. NancyHeise ^talk 14:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Apparently we cannot address issues now, but we also cannot address them later. In light of Nancy's continuous demand for "sources" for everything, even the most trivially evident statements, I expect the same standards will be applied to this sentence. It has been previously challenged, and it is not obviously supported by the following sentences. Therefore, please provide sources. Gimmetrow 16:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I must voice objection to Sunray's latest change, his addition of: "The guideline sets out the general rule that editors should use the preferred name of a self-identifying entity (such as a church)". The link given leads, I think, to: "Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles. Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name." This states that objections by others to the legitimacy of a name that the Church itself employs are no reason for refusing to use that name in Wikipedia; it suggests indeed that the Church's self-identifying names should all be used within the article, not just one of them; but it says nothing whatever about which of them to choose for the title. Where does it say that whichever of those self-identifying names the Church prefers must necessarily be the title? What is it that I am missing? Soidi (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it doesn't add anything. One has to read the whole paragraph ("A city, country, people...") to get the context, it seems. To my mind, it means that the name an entity or a person prefers to call itself (Gdańsk, Muhammad Ali) is significant for naming in WP articles. In Ali's case, his birth name was Cassius Clay, but he took a new name, so that is the name we use in the article.

I'm not sure that all that verbiage adds anything more to the objective criterion we've already listed: "Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)." I have no problem removing the recent addition if it is confusing. Sunray (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The parallel with Gdańsk, Muhammad Ali doesn't work. These were cases of choosing one single name to replace a previous one. There is no evidence that the Church has ever adopted a new name in place of a previous name. There is no evidence that it has ever adopted one single name to the exclusion of others.

If what you call the already listed objective criterion, "Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves?", falsely suggests that the Church uses only one name to describe itself, that too should be modified. I, on the contrary, took the answer to the question, "Is it the name used by the subject ...", to be equally positive in the case of several names, in particular the two that are here under discussion, CC and RCC. Soidi (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "preferred name" sentence. Hope that works. Sunray (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But what about the other matter that you have brought to my attention, the question: "Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself?" It seems that, because of the interpretation you (no doubt, rightly) put on it, it ought to be changed to: "Is it a name used by the subject to describe itself?" Soidi (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a direct quote from the guideline so we cannot change it. I've put quotation marks around it for clarity. Sunray (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You got in before I could add this semi-withdrawal: However, the phrase may be a quotation from a policy page, in which the context was that of a country or the like choosing a single name to the exclusion of others, in which case I cannot object to its inclusion, along with a link to the context of the quotation. Soidi (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC) And indeed the word "a" is used in the full quotation: "... (check if it is a self-identifying term)".[reply]

Yes, Soidi, that ambiguity is right there in the guideline. There is some recent discussion at WT:Naming_conflict#About_self-identifying_names and later that you might want to look at, if you haven't. But anyway, if RCC is also "in common usage" and "is a self-identifying name", wouldn't this support an argument, based on the guideline, that RCC is acceptable for page naming too? Gimmetrow 16:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have followed the guideline, IMO. We are proposing to use "the most common name" for the article title and we have recognized that RCC is also used. Sunray (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to article talk page. Sunray (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to be added to the Mediation case, because I strongly believe it should be Catholic Church, and not Roman Catholic Church. --Rockstone35 (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest. The mediation process has concluded and the result of the mediation has been posted to Talk:Roman Catholic Church. Your input is welcome on that page. --Richard (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The action plan presented above was the subject of a two-week consultation on a subpage of the article talk page. The result of the discussion was that the three points of the action plan will be implemented. Thanks to all who participated to make this a successful mediation. Sunray (talk) 06:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]