This is an archive of past discussions about Catholic Church. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Time again to affirm the ancient proper name of the Catholic Church
The Catholic Church's proper name is Catholic Church. According to WP policy this is the name which should be recognized. "Roman" is an appelation forced on the Church by Anglicans for about 450 years, though the Church has never used this name to refer to itself in its authoritative documents except in rare instances to emphasize the importance of the Petrine Ministry. For more information on the application of WP policy on the issue of the Catholic Church's proper name, please see CC vs. RCC. Vaquero10000:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
This hinges on what we mean by "affirm". As has been stated on Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church, the article title should be that conventionally used in English-language scholarship. A quick check of the encyclopedia I have to hand indicates that this is Roman Catholic Church. Thus the title of the page should stay as is.
I believe the article has an obligation to state, unambiguously that the Church defines itself as the Catholic Church. I also believe the article currently does this. Rather than discuss general principles, I believe we should be examining specific wordings so we can improve as necessary.
As far as "proper" goes, this is clearly POV. For the purposes of Wikipedia, those who wish to refer to the Church as "Roman Catholic" have a POV that is equally valid as compared to the Church's. Slacspeak up!05:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you, but there are a number of articles that use the word "proper name" in relation to the "Cathoilc Church". I am not going to be the one to remove that word from other articles due to my current efforts to avoid conflict and edit warring. However, if anyone feels strongly about "proper" being POV, they are welcome to consider its use in other articles. Maybe now is a good time to say "if it isn't broken, don't fix it".--Andrew c19:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
If there is a need for a grammar lesson, I will be glad to oblige. "Proper" has several senses. First, there is the grammatical sense which refers to the name of a person, organization, nation, nationality, religion etc. Second is the legal sense. "Jack" is a proper noun, but is often not the proper name because in English it can be a nickname for "John." In this case, Jack refers to John. Both are proper nouns but only John is a proper name. Third is the sense of etiquette. It may be proper for his friends to call him Jack, but improper for his diploma to read so. If his grandmother hated the nickname Jack it might be good etiquette for his friends to call him John when in her living room. Fourth in this case is the WP policy sense. Proper in this sense is what is determined by WP policy.
Regarding the Catholic Church, there are a variety of proper nouns used for and by the institution: CC, RCC, or simply "the Church." These proper nouns however, are not to be confused with the proper name in the legal sense. The Church has called herself the Catholic Church since at least the early second century. There is no dispute that the Church centered at Rome called herself the Catholic Church up through the 16th Century as the term RCC did not exist at that time. The term "Roman" arose not in any Catholic region or indeed even among Catholics but is a moniker ascribed to the CC by Anglicans to suite their own theological claims. If Catholic Church is the proper name of the Western Church before Henry VIII, and its name changed some time thereafter, there ought to be some official record of this change. Rome is very careful about legal matters. Rome is meticulous by nature, even fanatically meticulous on legal matters. Surely there would be some historical document announcing the change of the Church's name. The onus is on Anglicans not just to argue what the name should be according to their POV, but to demonstrate an historical fact: that the CC Church has changed its name. Unfortunately for the C of E, the Anglican position is historical fiction at worst and wishful thinking at best. Neither Anglican nor any other Church's theology is sufficient grounds for claiming a change in the proper name of the CC.
Looking at the question from the sense of etiquette, we find that the CC has on some rare occasions referred to itself as the RCC but only in diplomatic discourse. This is a matter of etiquette. Diplomacy has its own linguistic rules. Referring to oneself and the other in the terminology of the other is common in polite diplomatic discourse with the understanding that no real concession is made. This explains why there are ample cases of the C of E referring to the CC as the CC and some cases in which the CC refers to itself as the RCC in diplomatic communications with Anglicans, some Lutherans, and very rarely with the Orthocox.
Regarding the WP sense of the proper name of the Catholic Church, please review a thoroughly researched presentation on WP policy applied to the question: CC vs. RCC
By the way, Lacrimosus, you really should review WP naming policies and convensions. Regarding an institutional name that is in dispute, the name by which the entity calls itself is a fact to be reported as the article title, not a mere POV. What others would like the name of the CC to be is a fact to be noted, but WP must use the entity's name for itself. Again, see the above link. Vaquero10005:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
To wrangle here, proper in the second and third senses implies not only a licit use but a valid use. Adjudicating on licit usage is one thing: adjudicating on valid usage is another. The latter is outside the scope of Wikipedia. Slacspeak up!
I agree. It seems to me that the only legitimate criteria would be 1) What the organization officially calls itself, and 2) the most common usage. Both of these favor the use of "Catholic Church". Without a legitimate unbiased claim (such as those two items), any use of "Roman Catholic Church" can only be seen as taking the side of the protestants for no reason whatsoever. 2nd Piston Honda05:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Excellent work, Vaquero100. Since this is Wikipedia, Wikipedia policies should be followed. There shouldn't be any doubt left after such a thorough point-by-point, evidenced-based argumentation that this Wikipedia article should be renamed according to the rules of our encyclopedia: Catholic Church it should be. Marax07:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Whatever about theoretical correctness (and, as far as I can see, the Church has never adopted an official name, though undoubtedly it prefers to refer to itself as the Catholic Church or, except in relation to other Churches, more frequently simply as the Church), I think we should consider carefully the almost unavoidable practical result of changing the title of this article (as opposed to just the name given the Church within the article). Would it not result in repeated insertions and modifications by people who understand "Catholic Church" differently, and who at present must limit exposition of their ideas to the articles Catholic and Catholicism? For that practical reason I am against any change in the title of the article. Lima07:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
If the theoretical issues are basically resolved, then I'd say the practical issues are secondary. These are better addressed by the dedication of the community of Wikipedia editors who are determined to implement reasoned and policy-based consensus. This is what we've been doing against vandalism in the whole of Wikipedia. Lafem09:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with moving the article. In many instances, the RCC refers to itself in full as the "Roman Catholic Church". For example, in the Netherlands, the Church has an official website with the domain name rkk.nl, which stands for Rooms-Katholieke Kerk.
And one more thing, even if the Church refers to itself solely as "The Church", or "The Holy Church", that does not mean this policy should be followed here on Wikipedia. These are clearly POV titles, and so is --in my humble opinion-- "Catholic Church", for there are many churches that claim that name. There can really be only one, non-ambiguous title for this article, and that is "Roman Catholic Church". --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk)10:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I am by no means educated on this subject, but I have read through Vaquero100's very thorough, well researched opinion on this subject (CC vs. RCC), and I have to agree with his view. One counter-argument that I've seen, as expressed above, is that this change would cause ambiguity with other churches that refer to themselves as the "Catholic Church". However, what I haven't seen, and what I myself have not looked into, is what those churches are. I've certainly seen other churches with "Catholic Church" in the name, but as far as I can remember, it's always been preceded by something else, "Liberal Catholic Church", "Anglican Catholic Church", "Old Catholic Church", "Ecumenical Catholic Church", etc. In an admittedly quick review of some of the websites of those churches, I found that in all cases, when referring to themselves, the full name was used. I did not see an instance of simply "Catholic Church". So, I think, in order to help people make a fully informed decision, I'd like to see some more concrete information. So, when the argument is given that other churches refer to themselves simply as "Catholic Church", with no other qualifier either before or after the name, I think it would be helpful to show some examples. And, I think given the time and effort that Vaquero100 put into researching the subject and applying Wikipedia's guidelines to it, it would seem that in order for this change to be denied, someone should at least go through, point-by-point, and have a counter-argument for each. If such a thing can't be made, then clearly the burden of proof has been met, and the change should be allowed. As for the POV issue, I agree that there are two sides to this issue, each with their own POV. So, if the issue comes down to POV, why not go with what the Church uses to refer to itself? While I'm aware that the Church has occasionally used "Roman" in its name, if you actually read all of Vaquero100's article, you'll see a very good reason for why that is. The vast majority of the time, the Church simply uses the name "Catholic Church". My local church (and all the other churches in my area), use "Catholic Church", never "Roman Catholic Church". (I know, that's not reason enough for the name change, since there are undoubtedly regional differences, I'm just trying to add some anecdotal evidence.) Whatever the case, I think more research needs to be done on the side that prefers not to change the article. I haven't seen enough evidence, enough research, to justify denying the change. And, please read all of Vaquero100's article, it is worth the effort. Just my opinion, Kylef8112:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
What Kylef81 says about the non-existence of any other Church/organization that calls itself "the Catholic Church" seems to me irrelevant. The point is that there are people who understand "the Catholic Church" to mean not a Church/organization but a Church/merely theological entity, something more vague and abstract. No other Church/organization refers to itself by the name of "the Catholic Church"; but there are many people, apart from members of what Vaquero and I would call "the Church", who say they are part of the "catholic Church", the "one holy catholic and apostolic Church", of the Creeds that they interpret as expressing their own belief. They will say any attempt to outlaw from an article entitled "Catholic Church" their interpretation of "Catholic Church" violates the Neutral Point of View policy. Since they too share "the dedication of the community of Wikipedia editors" (Lafem), they can and will prevent their idea of what "Catholic Church" means from being excluded from an article that bears this title. Keeping "Roman Catholic Church" as the title of the article avoids this problem. But the body of the article may legitimately employ "Catholic Church" in the sense in which Vaquero and I and ... normally understand it. Lima13:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
A take on the subject from the House of Bishops of the Church of England can be found in May They All Be One, notably Note 4. This explains some of the context - indeed, other Christian bodies like the Liberal Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion do not claim that they alone constitute the Catholic Church, which is why they don't refer to themselves undisambiguated as the 'Catholic Church'; but they do affirm themselves as part of the Catholic Church, and therefore dispute that the church headed by the Pope alone constitutes the Catholic Church, which is why 'Roman Catholic Church' is the term used by the Church in question in its relations with the World Council of Churches and with most (I think; many, at least) other churches.
The most recent vote (which was heavily in favour of the current name) can be found in Archive 3 of this page; debates on the subject can be found in most of the archives. I may return to the topic if this debate looks like it'll actually go to a vote or otherwise be used to establish a concensus, but I and other editors have spent far too much time debating this issue over and over again, so I'd rather not get too involved in another speculative debate which may go nowhere. TSP14:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
TSP, I respect your comments. However, as I see it most of those debates were theological in nature and not based on WP policy. It was only when I really looked at WP policy that I put together the list of arguments at CC vs. RCC. I do have to admit that it is ironic that people will say just about anything to make this issue go away--which it wont. Many have told me to "be patient, organize your arguments and build a new consensus." Now that I have done all those things and even allowed some time for various parties to cool off and take a literal vacation in the real world, my efforts are called a "speculative debate." My interest is accurately reporting on the Catholic Church. I understand that such accuracy makes some uncomfortable, especially when it denies the 450 year effort by the C of E to re-name the Catholic Church to suit its own theological agenda. That's politics. I am not interested in being political, much less politically correct. My dedication is to the accurate presentation of the Catholic Church, warts and all. (Interestingly, the Anglicanism article does a systematic white-wash of its anti-Catholic past ... and gets away with it by constantly reverting all comers. Yet Anglicans have no common decency when it comes to the name of this article and insist that their moniker be forced on the Catholic Church. This is really shameless. Vaquero10023:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, TSP, the theology of one church or even of all other churches is a POV by WP standards. The name of a self-naming entity is a fact to be reported as the name by WP refers to the entity. One church's theology (right or wrong) cannot change another Church's name. If that were the case, I'm sure that you would agree to changing the AC's article name to the Canterburian Anglican Communion.
Lima, there is a further problem with the present article name that you have overlooked. Throughout WP editors will insist that all references to the CC contain "Roman" because it is the name of the article. CC is the name of the Catholic Church but you would not know it from WP where RCC is all over the place. I was once temporarily blocked for removing "Roman" from articles where it clearly did not belong. Again, I was told to build a consensus to change this article's name first, then make the corrections elsewhere. So, your retort to the effect that it is just the article name really solves little.
Furthermore, Lima, if you would read my arguments you would see that there is absolutely no justification for saying that the Church has no real name for itself, but several. The Church is quite systematic in its use of language and it's precision with regard to its name is overwhelming! Vaquero10000:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
So what should we do? Call for another vote? Talk things out on the subpage even more? Call for a RfC or start an arbitration process or start a centralized discussion or something else? The issue is that despite all the policy stuff, wikipedia works on consensus and community, not a juridical regime. The policy itself has built in flexibility. Each disputed name is discussed on a *case by case* basis to avoid dogmatic rulings. It leaves open the option for using names that fail the google test, etc. So sticking to the letter of the policy isn't really acknowledging the community and consensus oriented decission making processes of wikipedia. (This reminds me of the current dispute over at Talk:Jesus concerning era notations AD/CE. They use a system that isn't supported by policy to avoid edit warring.) That said, if we are ready for a next step, whether that be another vote, or some form of arbitration or whatever, I'd say lets get it on. What I want more than anything, is for all editors to simply respect the processes that have already gone on thus far, and respect whatever decision may come from whatever is to come (even if we personally disagree with it).--Andrew c01:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Vaqueros' CC vs. RCC convinced me that Catholic Church is indeed the name supported by the Wikipedia conventions. I don’t like the idea of making exceptions to the guidelines in favor of specific theological POVs. --Leinad ¬ »saudações!02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Vaquero (and perhaps others), what about the practical question: In your proposed article entitled "Catholic Church", would you try accept accounts, perhaps long and elaborate ones, of the general Protestant idea of "Catholic Church" (all believers in Christ, or all the saved, or ...) or that of some Anglicans (all who have apostolic succession of bishops)? If you would not accept them, would you not seem to violate the Neutral Point of View policy? Lima04:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Please consider these seriously:
Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "Wikipedia has developed a body of policies and guidelines which have helped us over the years to work toward our singular common goal... While we try to respect consensus, Wikipedia is not a democracy...a user who acts against the spirit of our written policies may be reprimanded."
Wikipedia:Naming conventions: "This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia...This policy in a nutshell:Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."
Wikipedia:Naming conflict: "This page is a naming conventions guideline for Wikipedia, reflecting how the authors of this encyclopedia address certain issues...This policy should be read in conjunction with Wikipedia:Naming conventions....Following a permanently established objective procedure that does not rely on a fleeting consensus gets around this problem."
As to Lima's question, here is what Wikipedia states:
"Suppose that the people of the fictional country of Maputa oppose the use of the term "Cabindan" as a self-identification by another ethnic group. The Cabindans use the term in a descriptive sense: that is what they call themselves. ... using the term "Cabindans" does not conflict with the NPOV policy. It would be a purely objective description of what the Cabindans call themselves. On the other hand, not using the term because of Maputan objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Maputan POV."
"This should not be read to mean that subjective POVs should never be reflected in an article. If the term "Cabindan" is used in an article, the controversy should be mentioned and if necessary explained, with both sides' case being summarised."
Unless there is a clear rebuttal of Vaquero's use of objective Wikipedia procedure (a possibility which I don't foresee), I suggest we change the title now. Lafem05:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe that clear rebuttal has already been given above by Lima and me. To summarise:
Adjudicating on what is most proper to call the Catholic Church, as opposed to most conventional or most reflective of scholarly use is outside of the scope of Wikipedia.
When we talk about the Catholic Church we are duty-bound to acknowledge and respect the POV of churches and communities that consider themselves part of the catholic church but are out of communion with the Bishop of Rome. It's not a question of some body or other saying "we're not the Catholic Church, they are" (although FWIW some Orthodox bodies would take that view), it's a matter of certain bodies saying we are part of the catholic chuch but the Bishop of Rome disagreeing. If we "properly" name the Catholic Church to exclude these groups we are equating "Catholic" with "in communion with the Bishop of Rome" and thus adopting a contentious POV (albeit one to which I personally subscribe).
I don't believe in any sense that policy supports a change as posited. But even if it did, the practical issues surrounding this case means that is simply a more commonsense option to use "Roman Catholic Church" as the title of this article.
I would also add: This debate to me seems somewhat silly because nowhere and in no sense does the article in any way make the suggestion that "Roman Catholic Church" is the "proper" name of the Church (since I say again that's not the article's job; it is the article's job to state that the Church always has referred to itself as the Catholic Church - and that's what the article does). Let's focus on practicalities and the actual substance of the article. The Church itself makes use of the term Roman, in exactly the way we do: as a useful conventional designator. An argument for change would have much more weight behind it if there were any Church position that the use of the term "Roman Catholic Church" was scandalous. But of course there is no such official view expressed anywhere. Slacspeak up!07:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the above arguments are relevant given the actual Wikipedia policies:
I can’t find WP guidelines mentioning "most reflective of scholarly use" as the criteria; instead it insists in the use of the most commonly used name (i.e. "Catholic Church").
The guidelines are provided exactly to make the decision about the name independent of particular POVs. Where there are more than one POV regarding appropriateness of a name, WP refrains from making a judgment based on subjective criteria.
I don't see how your second point supports your contention - naming the article about this historical and religious entity as the Catholic Churchis making a judgement based on selective critieria - much more so than the alternative.
As for "commonsense" being debatable - if the proposition is debatable, what are the commonsense arguments against it? In a battle where one person is arguing solely on the basis of policy and the other solely on the basis of commonsense, the former should at least come up with some arguments related to commonsense. This also applies to the argument over whether we should use the standard term in scholarship. Is "Catholic Church" really the most common headword that people use when defining religious entities? I don't believe a check of general encyclopedias, dictionaries, and other reference works would back this up. My argument is that Wikipedia should use the article name "Roman Catholic Church" because it is more encyclopedic - I don't see how this goes against policy. Slacspeak up!02:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible that you are confusing the words selective and subjective? ... Anyway, above you wrote that to choose CC is to use selective criteria... I think you are right. The "selective criteria" used by Vaquero100 in his argumentation at CC vs. RCC are wikipedia's own guidelines. And that's exactly the point: according to Wikipedia naming conventions, it doesn't matter if some have POV "X" and others have the POV "Z"... It doesn't matter if it's claimed that one name is "more POV"... what really matter is which name best fits the objective and selective criteria provided by the guidelines. CC vs. RCC presents a very convincing case based on such criteria, while the contentions against the change are mainly based on POV: be it under the guise of "commonsense", "practicability", "respect for the opinion of others", etc.--Leinad ¬ »saudações!05:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Does Lafem not realize that his Wikipedia quotation supports those who, in an article on the "Catholic Church", would want "Catholic Church" to mean something other than "Roman Catholic Church"? - "This should not be read to mean that subjective POVs should never be reflected in an article. If the term Catholic Church (my alteration) is used in an article, the controversy should be mentioned and if necessary explained, with both sides' case being summarised", doubtless with approximately equal weight for the (Roman) Catholic interpretation and for the interpretation(s) by certain other Christians. The policy quoted clearly indicates that, even if Maputans (Roman Catholics) object to the use of the name "Cabindans" (Catholics or Catholic Church) for certain other people, those other people may indeed be called "Cabindans" (Catholics or Catholic Church) in Wikipedia - as well, of course, as vice versa! Lima07:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I cite:
This policy in a nutshell: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity.
This, I believe, leaves no room for a name other than Roman Catholic Church. Despite Vaquero's efforts to prove otherwise, I think there is hardly any Roman Catholic who does not recognise the current article title as a name for their own church.
By the way, I find his efforts to prove his point by making judgmental remarks about the Anglican Church to be quite shameless. If his point is so easily defendable using WP policies, there should be no need for such ad ecclesiam attacks. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk)10:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the opposite - if you walk into a town and ask directions to the "catholic church", no one will point to St.George Episcopal; even here in England a "catholic church" does not mean Anglican. Lostcaesar10:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
That analogy does not work, you're turning my argument around. If you were to ask for directions to the nearest Roman Catholic church, your way of expressing yourself might be considered a bit formal by some, but it will be understood by all, I presume. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk)11:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Except that Catholic Church would be equally understood, so your claim "this leaves no room for a name other than RCC" is false, it leaves room for Catholic Church. Lostcaesar11:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Similarly, if you walk into London and ask directions to the "American embassy", no-one will point to the embassy of Canada or Brazil; but nevertheless Wikipedia does not award the title of "America" solely to the United States of America. That's because, in both cases, the term can be understood in two ways: a general and a specific. If you ask directions to a "catholic church" or an "American embassy", that's pretty clearly a reference to the more specific meaning; the Americas in general have a wide variety of embassies, and the Catholic Church in general has a wide variety of churches. However, if you go to a Canadian and say "do you consider your country to be part of America?", or an Anglican priest and say "Do you consider yourself to be part of the Catholic Church?", they will most likely answer yes. Certainly, "Catholic Church" can be used most confidently if your opinion is that both major meanings are synonymous, but that is simply an opinion, and a controversial one. TSP10:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course, there is no embassy for the Americas', so they are hardly analogous examples. And I have a suspicion that, if I walked up to an Anglican priest on the street and said, “are you Catholic”, he would say no. And if I said, “Father, excuse me but, are you of the Catholic Church”, he would say no – or at the very least add all kinds of qualifiers. The point is, in general use, Catholic means Roman Catholic. That some theologians want to use it differently doesn’t seem so relevant given the context of the above rule. This is not a passionate issue for me, but I felt like stating the obvious - that in general English use, Catholic means "those people with the Pope", to be colloquial. Lostcaesar11:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the case has been made, but we are obviously not all in agreement. It's too soon to say we should change the article title (though I think it makes sense). I would hope that we can continue the discussion, civilly, despite the fact that this discussion has been made many times before and is throughout the talk archives. For those that prefer to keep Roman in the title, what are the issues that most concern you? I know they are referenced above, but for the sake of focussing the discussion, perhaps they can be summarized below. If the issues can be addressed by those that prefer to drop the Roman, then we can move forward in deciding to rename the article. If they can't be addressed, then we need to figure something else out. Kylef8114:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, no consensus has been reached in this regard. Since it has been decided previously that this article should be named Roman Catholic Church, I believe the ones who oppose that title should come forward with their arguments against that very name, and not the other way round! Since it is a name that is sometimes used by the Church itself, I don't think there can be any serious objection, whereas the opposite side has raised valid objections. The Catholic Church is immaterial, I believe, whereas the Roman Catholic Church is a religious institution based in Rome.
There are numerous Christians who hear the Apostles' Creed read out loud, and who do not think of the RCC when the "One, Holy, Catholic Church" is mentioned. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk)15:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I will repeat myself. Since there has been no consensus to change the name of this page back in March/April, and no consensus to change on the Name subpage, and even today, no consensus to change, what exactly should we do? What are the next steps? Vote again? Start a centralized discussion? I feel like this is just one of those things that isn't going to go away. There are always going to be people who feel so strongly about their view that they are going to want to change things. Even if we vote every 6 months, and never get a consensus to change, would that change someones strong personal POV and decide to stop trying to change the name? I'd rather we finally settle on one solution, and focus energies in improving articles instead of arguing over fairly minor/petty things that has no bearing on the actual content of this article, yet wastes so much space on talk (and in the archives).--Andrew c15:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems that previous discussion was made on a POV vs POV basis instead of paying attention to actual WP conventions. So, I don’t think the current discussion should be dismissed, even if the topic was much debated before. --Leinad ¬ »saudações!18:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Vote? Anyone? The discussion obviously can (will) continue ad nauseam. Just for my own use, I started putting together an overview of the various debates that have occurred with respect to CC vs. RCC, just to get a better feel for the arguments on both sides. I even started adding summaries, but soon became overwhelmed at the volume of material. You can see how far I got here: CC-RCC Debate. It's hard to tell if anyone's opinions are changing as a result of the discussion(s). So, we might as well just put it to a vote, and see where things stand. Kylef8121:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
If you think a vote will bring an end to this discussion, you haven't been following it long enough. It's been voted on at least twice before, and the consensus has been every time to leave the article title as it is. TCC(talk)(contribs)21:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that those who are lobbying for a change are obliged to do one of two things: either let it drop, or bring it to a Request for Comment and accept the result. Slacspeak up!01:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I refer you to my post above: if the proposition is debatable, what are the commonsense arguments against it? I don't know what the arguments based on commonsense are for such a change. Slacspeak up!03:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Common sense or no, the only solution is to form a consensus. The last consensus was to make the title be Roman Catholic Church. If you want to overturn that consensus, then either do so by posting a vote here or issuing a RFC so as to broaden the basis on which the consensus is formed. I would contest that validity of any consensus reached by less than 10 voters on the grounds that the consensus is too thin. --Richard03:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm certainly beginning to regret getting involved in this whole debate. But, now that I am, I'd at least like to see it come to some sort of consensus, whatever that might be. Whatever is decided, I for one will support it. After looking over the many, many previous debates, there is no doubting that people have very strong opinions on both sides. Roman limits the article to the Latin Rite. Roman is not the official name. Catholic Church isn't synonymous with any other church. VERSUS Roman refers to the whole church. Roman is an acceptable name. Catholic Church is more than just the Church in communion with Rome. Every POV on one side has a counter POV on the other. So, let's take POV out of this, and look at Wikipedia policies. That's what they are there for, so that we can at least use some objective measures, rather than our subjective opinions on what is correct, or proper, or appropriate, or less offensive, etc. As has been mentioned many times, Vaquero100 has put together just such an application of WP policies for this issue. I have yet to see someone on the other side of the issue put together such an application of the policies. If someone has, I apologize, because I didn't see it. If the current name doesn't follow WP policies, then it should be changed. If it does follow the policies, then it should stay. I just don't understand how we can say to keep it the same when there hasn't been an analysis of keeping the name with regard to WP policies. To sum up, can someone put together a counter argument to Vaquero100's analysis? If they can, I'll vote for keeping the article name the way it is. Until then, I think the WP policies lean towards changing it. Definitely sorry I got involved, and hope that we can eventually refocus on the content of the article.Kylef8104:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
What is the next step? In my view it would be a mistake to let the complaints (agenda) of three or so people redefine an entire article. The fact that a few people don’t like something isn’t a reason to concede to their position. If that were the case, then the article on the holocaust would have to concede to a handful of holocaust deniers. Instead, we should look at the worth of arguments. Personally, I am not passionate about the issue at hand here, in that I don’t mind RCC. But if wikipedia is going to work, then a group in the minority is simply going to have to realize that it is in the minority and incorporate itself accordingly. I think there is a genuine and valued place for the minority position, no doubt, but it is a place of secondary rank. Lostcaesar07:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
How do you know which side is in the minority? Also, I agree with Kyle, "can someone put together a counter argument to Vaquero100's analysis? If they can, I'll vote for keeping the article name the way it is. Until then, I think the WP policies lean towards changing it." 2nd Piston Honda08:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
1. Adjudicating on what is most proper to call the Catholic Church, as opposed to most conventional or most reflective of scholarly use is outside of the scope of Wikipedia.
Vaquero has shown that Wikipedia policy on naming conventions and naming disputes determines what is proper. In Wikipedia, all its policies cover Wikipedia issues. Lafem09:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
2. When we talk about the Catholic Church we are duty-bound to acknowledge and respect the POV of churches and communities that consider themselves part of the catholic church but are out of communion with the Bishop of Rome. It's not a question of some body or other saying "we're not the Catholic Church, they are" (although FWIW some Orthodox bodies would take that view), it's a matter of certain bodies saying we are part of the catholic chuch but the Bishop of Rome disagreeing. If we "properly" name the Catholic Church to exclude these groups we are equating "Catholic" with "in communion with the Bishop of Rome" and thus adopting a contentious POV (albeit one to which I personally subscribe).
3. I don't believe in any sense that policy supports a change as posited. But even if it did, the practical issues surrounding this case means that is simply a more commonsense option to use "Roman Catholic Church" as the title of this article.
A previous discussion post states: "It seems to me that the only legitimate criteria would be 1) What the organization officially calls itself, and 2) the most common usage. Both of these favor the use of "Catholic Church"". Would it be appropriate to have an aritcle entitled "Americans" talking about the inhabitants of the United States of America? By that reasoning, it would be appropriate (especially since the alternatives are terms like "United States-ians" or the slightly preferable "US Americans"). The people of the United States call themselves Americans, and so do many others in the international community, where that is the most common name for people who are natural-born citizens of the United States. Nevertheless, I feel that it would be inappropriate, since there are two continents called "the Americas" and the United States does not cover them. Likewise, "Catholic Church" is a name that has some disadvantages. The addition of the word "Roman" helps address the fact that the word catholic with a lower-case c means universal. While the RCC accepts converts and has a message that is more or less universal to all living humans, it is clearly not "the Universal Chuch". (I apologize if I fail to field the same arguement in the page for United Church of Christ.) Maybe the word "Roman" should be placed in parentheses? --Todemo
"it is clearly not the universal church" lol..who are you to make such a statement? But as for the rest, i knew my two criteria weren't extensive, but never got around to expanding on it. The point i was making was that without legitimate WP-Policy based reasons behind it (such as the use of CC has, as demonstrated by Vaquero100), using RCC can only be seen as WP taking the protestant side of the issue for no reason at all. 2nd Piston Honda04:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
And this is the argument I do not understand. How can using RCC be taking the Protestant side when there are pages like [1], [2], [3], and [4]. All clearly Catholic uses of RCC. The best counter argument I have heard for these uses is that these are just bad Catholics who don't understand the Anglican conspiracy. Seriously, look at the reply to Murcielago [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Roman_Catholic_vs._Catholic_in_intro here] who identifies as "Roman Catholic".--Andrew c13:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
That would be a terrible counterargument, since one of the sites belongs to the RCC in the Netherlands, another to the Vatican! --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk)13:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to have an aritcle entitled "Americans" talking about the inhabitants of the United States of America? Gosh, way to shoot yourself in the foot. Did you know that Americans redirects to United States? Marnanel20:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Move to Catholic Church
I am disappointed that someone deleted my contributions and the contributions of others because they thought they were "redundant". Deleting the comments of others is against the guidelines Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable.
Sure it is. There are enough examples of the Church calling itself Roman Catholic.
It seems to me that this repeated lobby to alter the name of the article (little surprisingly initiated by the same people, over and over again), is inspired by the idea that only the RCC is the body of Christ. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk)11:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it's inspired by the idea that the title shouldn't take a stand on the issue. "Catholic Church" has a legit reasoning for being the title, "Roman Catholic" does not. 2nd Piston Honda19:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It isn't as straight forward as that. When working with different faiths, when addressing non-Catholic audiences in non-internal documents, RCC is often used. Some ahve argued that this is only "diplomatic" language aimed to try and not offend the Prots, but I do not understand how that is a negative argument. Wikipedia is not an internal Catholic document. Furthermore, as noted by 4 links above, there are organizations, local Churches, national Churches, and official documents all coming from Catholics that use RCC. Furthermore, can we not look at other encyclopedias for comparison? What does Encarta, Brittanicia, encyclopedia.com, reference.com, Oxford, Bartleby, etc use? Like I said above, I have only found 2 objections to RCC. 1) A minority POV finds it offensive due to some Anglican conspiracy. 2) It isn't precise because it may exclude the 2% which is the Eastern Rite Churches. If the article is clear about what the topic being covered it, I don't know how much we need to cater to these minority POVs. I feel the benefits of using CC are outweighed by the confusion created by disambiguity and POV conflicts. Others feel differently. I don't see anything really changing, so I'd urge a vote or some sort of way to settle this for another couple months.--Andrew c13:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The solution is to title it: The Catholic Church (or Roman Catholic Church) is...
The Roman Catholic Church uses that name also in the following document found at vatican.va: The Roman Catholic Church and the World Methodist Council. It is clear that there is apparently no objection from within the Church to the name Roman Catholic.
I think it could be helpful if a reference was found (I am sure there are) of the name "Roman Catholic" prior to the creation of the Church of England, just to refute Vaquero's ridiculous claim that that name only came into use because of the Anglican claim to be a Catholic Church itself. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk)15:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Appropriateness of the CC vs. RCC discussion
The various responses to this controversy are truly fascinating. The purpose of the work done so far at CC vs. RCC is to set some parameters to this debate which has often been held on emotional and theological grounds. WP policy are the only legitimate grounds for making an argument here. As Lafem has intelligently pointed out, Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary_topic holds what I believe is the WP solution to this problem which points to the Rome and [Rome (disambiguation)]] articles as a solution.
As said earlier, WP IS "duty bound" to present alternative interpretations for the term, Catholic Church. However, there is an overwhelmingly clear primary meaning of the term which we are "duty bound" to reflect in this article's title.
Since assembling the CC vs. RCC page, several votes on ancillary article names were held. These votes were all posted by Fishhead, the major advocate of the RCC title. When other editors read the CC vs. RCC page enough were convinced so that the CC format incorporated in those articles were all upheld. These are the articles and categories voted upon this summer, all of which retained their CC title format:
As I have been told many times, "Build a consensus." That is the purpose of this present discussion. Building a consensus on a controversial topic requires a good deal of time and discussion. With patience on the part of those who favor CC, a new consensus is in fact forming.
This debate has had various advocates on all sides. Those favoring CC have come and gone, many with tremendous frustration and disillusionment. I am not the first proponent of CC and am far from the last. We are not just 2 or 3 malcontents. The primary advocate of the RCC format has been User:Fishhead64 who brought the most recent votes for article name changes. When those votes failed to change CC articles to RCC, Fishhead dropped out of the discussion and has virtually abandoned his (or her?) daily edits to CC articles.
There is real movement on this issue, opinion is changing. And the CC vs. RCC page continues to grow. (I will add this evening a new section based on the above excellent points by User:Lafem .)
Condemning a discussion strikes me as less than enlightened. Anyone having objections based on WP policies ought to bring them forward rather than damn the discussion. In short, I cannot see that there is anything inappropriate about this present discussion. As long as new objections to CC continue to arise, I will do my best to answer them. Vaquero10000:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I have found the discussion on this issue quite interesting (but not a little frustrating!), and would like to applaud all attempts (such as those by Vaquero100) to ensure that the question of "where should this article be located?" is answered using the framework and procedures of established Wikipedia policies, conventions and guidelines. In the interests of introducing a little more clarity into the discussion, I think it's important to note that this is an instance of, to paraphrase the Wikipedia:Disambiguation page, when a word or phrase is the same natural title of more than one article. In this case, the title is "Catholic Church" and the two topics which would have this as their natural title can be distinguished as:
Catholic Church1: the organisation (Church) consisting of 23 distinct rites all in communion with the Pope in Rome.
Catholic Church2: the entity referred to in the theology of the Anglican Communion consisting of itself, the Catholic Church1 and some other Churches.
The question that needs to be answered now, according to Wikipedia naming practice, is which topic, Catholic Church1 or Catholic Church2 - if either - belongs at the Wikipedia article namespace "Catholic Church"? There are pretty much two options on this: either one is demonstrably the primary topic (or primary meaning - this is again terminology from the Wikipedia:Disambiguation page), in which case that topic is placed at the namespace ("Catholic Church"), and the other is at a suitably disambiguated page name; or neither topic is demonstrably the primary topic and both are placed at disambiguated page names, while the page "Catholic Church" would function as a disambiguation page pointing to both.
So the question before us is: "Is Catholic Church1 demonstrably the primary topic (in the Wikipedia sense) with respect to Catholic Church2?". Having read Vaquero100's essay (which uses criteria set down by Wikipedia to determine what the natural title and primary topic are) and placing my own native speaker intuition to the matter, I would answer "yes".
In order for a consensus to be achieved and the page to be actually moved given the active nature of this naming dispute however, I think those advocating the move need to figure out a way to address the concerns raised by those opposing the move - that an article entitled "Catholic Church" being only about Catholic Church1 may mislead those readers who think of it as referring to Catholic Church2. Ordinary Wikipedia procedure says that this is solved by normal disambiguation methods (a disambiguation link at the top referring to the other use(s)), but I think in this case, and for the sake of achieving a consensus, something more should be done, such as including an explicit note in the text of the article regarding the different usage with the link to the other article. A way this may be done is to include a single brief sentence at the end of the introduction to the article saying something like "The term Catholic Church is also used in the theology of some Protestant faiths to refer to {insert appropriate text}, see below", with the word below wikilinked to a section at the end of the article as a whole perhaps titled "The use of the term Catholic Church in other faiths", which has a summary paragraph about the matter along with a conspicuous link to the main article which deals with this meaning (i.e. the article on Catholic Church2). This may seem like overkill to some editors, but I think it is an essential compromise if a consensus is ever to be achieved on this issue.
As for the process of achieving consensus itself - it may indeed be useful to set up a subpage for the purpose where the discussion can be focussed and the process transparent.
Postscript: do we have an article yet which is dedicated to the topic Catholic Church2? If so, what page name is it currently at, and if not, why not? Thylacoleo03:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
There is already a subpage Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name (after 2 months or so of discussion, no consensus). And we have Catholic, Catholicism and Catholic Church (disambiguation) that all deal to some extent with the multiple meanings of the terms. A side note, there is also the policy: In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative. The issue is that CC is the most commonly used name, however there are disambiguation issues and POV issues with the name. RCC is a common, well=accepted alternative that gets rid of these issues. The only arguments I've seen against RCC is that "Roman" is somehow demeaning because it is part of some Anglican conspiracy, and that it may exclude the 2% of easter rite chruches that are hardly mentioned in even a paragraph in this article as it is. Just some thoughts.--Andrew c03:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is an interesting subpage indeed (and a quite frustrating read), although the last post appears to have been at the end of July, so I get the impression that the discussion has moved on elsewhere (i.e. here). The problem is that "Roman Catholic Church" is also misleading for many readers (possibly to the same extent as "Catholic Church" is misleading for other readers), as it implies the Western rite of the Church but not other rites (i.e. "Roman Catholic" not "Ukrainian Catholic"). While this article may have insufficient detail on all the various rites of the Church, it most definitely is an article about the Catholic Church entire and not just the Roman Catholic part thereof. I happen to be one of those Catholics who is not offended to be referred to as "Roman Catholic", as I do indeed happen to belong to the Western rite, and that is what I take the term to mean. I am aware however that the Catholic Church fulminates against the use of "Roman Catholic" to refer to the entirety of the Church - indeed I would say that with respect to the organisation which is the topic of this article, the name is not only not well-accepted, but is rather well-rejected. In short, what do we do when the natural name of an article ("Catholic Church") is misleading, and the only well-known alternative is also misleading? Relying instead on the regular process of determining the name of a page seems to be the sensible course. Thylacoleo04:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not quite that simple, I'm afraid. It depends on whether one of the two encyclopedic topics that are "competing" for the article name "Catholic Church" can be shown to be the primary topic/primary meaning or not. (See the Wikipedia:Disambiguation page for a discussion of this issue; it says there that the primary meaning is "indicated by a majority of links in existing articles and consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings".) I'm not sure that the topic I have called above Catholic Church1 has yet been agreed upon by all the editors as being the "primary topic" for the term "Catholic Church". From what I've read of recent past discussions, I think almost all have acknowledged that it is the most common usage in English, but this perhaps is not tantamount to acknowledging it as the "primary topic" for the purposes of following Wikipedia naming conventions. At any rate, if it were decided through consensus that neither Catholic Church1nor Catholic Church2 (see my earlier post above if my use of differentiating subscripts causes confusion) is the "primary topic" for Wikipedia purposes, then the guidelines would suggest using disambiguating terms for both topics' article names. This wouldn't necessarily be with parentheses after the title, as it is permissible to use another synonymous term in common use to do this. Under such a scenario, for those editors who consider "Catholic Church1" and "Roman Catholic Church" to be synonymous, then the article name "Roman Catholic Church" would be considered ideal, for other editors (such as myself), who don't consider "Catholic Church1" and "Roman Catholic Church" to be synonyms with respect to the naming of the article about Catholic Church1 (as "Roman Catholic" is usually construed to exclude Catholics of Eastern rites), the use of parenthetical disambiguation would be preferred (I'm struggling to think of an elegant parenthetical disambiguation term for this, though, but at this stage of the discussion, that's a moot point). Thylacoleo07:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Catholic means universal. Thus Catholic Church means Universal Church. Roman Universal Church makes no sense. There are 1 billion Catholics in the world. As long as this article is titled Roman Catholic Church, it will be challenged by someone. Change it now. --WikiCats15:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The first thing we should do is have a vote as to whether we should support the guidelines. Disambiguation: Primary topic clearly states the rule here. We need to vote as to whether we are going to follow it. according to Wikipedia guidelines, the article Roman Catholic Church should be moved to Catholic Church? --WikiCats07:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation as to whether we should follow the guidelines, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Support This is a no brainer. The worst possible decision would be to say that all other churches follow WP naming policies for their articles, but that the CC should be treated differently. This solution undermines WP credibility. I understand that there are lots of people who do not like the CC or even just the name of the CC, but emotion cannot be the measure for an encyclopedia. Otherwise why have guidelines at all? We could just name every article by popular vote. Then we could have article like Them damn Mormons instead of an article name that would correspond to their church more appropriately. (LDS Wike editors, please do not take offense, I am invoking your church as an example of a religious minority which has historically suffered bigotry and is therefore vulnerable to sometimes hostile majorities.) Vaquero10008:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Support following Wikipedia guidelines, but oppose moving article, making it no longer focussed solely on the visible concrete Catholic Church but open to broader/vaguer ideas of what "Catholic Church" means - the guidelines are "not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" (WP:DAB). Lima 09:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Wikipedians who want to remain Wikipedians will all want to follow Wikipedia guideliness; if they disagree with a particular guideline, they will try to change it in the proper place, not by voting generically against Wikipedia guidelines on another page. To my poor mind, the question put in this survey seems truly a no-brainer. Lima09:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Those opposing this move have been asked several times to explain why the guidelines do not apply in this case. They have failed to do so. --WikiCats02:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Objection: The question is being put in a non-neutral way. Surely nobody will vote against following the guidelines, but not everyone will interpret the guidelines as WikiCats interprets them. How about "... as to whether, according to Wikipedia guidelines, the article "Roman Catholic Church" should be moved to "Catholic Church"? Lima04:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with Lima in that there can be a separate vote on the guidelines without having "the vote." The way the Lima poses the question is just a thumbs up or down on the name change--or something confusingly close to that. 129.74.202.12207:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Lima. The real question here is how to interpret the rules. Those who interpret the rules as requiring the page at RCC (and not at CC) probably support "following the rules." Gimmetrow12:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Agree with above. This vote does seem a little silly. Seems like this is just a setup so that we can say "gotcha" later on when people vote against the move. "You said you support following the guidelines and yet you voted against the move, which is clearly supported by the guidelines." Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the point of this vote. So, in an effort to show full involvement, I'll vote to support the guidelines. Kylef8112:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This is not a stunt. Those who propose to move the article have based their proposal firmly on the guidelines. Those that oppose the move have not been able to argue a case based on the guidelines. --WikiCats13:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a stunt. Why not simply vote on the name. What does this accomplish? The policy is so diverse, vague, open to interpretation, and even encourages breaking the rules, that both sides could agree to "follow policy" and we still won't be any further in this discussion. I refuse to vote because I do not see what it will accomplish. Can't we just post a RfC and hold a vote already?--Andrew c17:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
As expected nobody is voting against the Wikipedia guidelines. Perhaps the question should have been: Do the Wikipedia guidelines mean this article should be moved? Lima17:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Despite the present conversation now taking place, User:Andrew_c has seen fit to call for a move of a related article without mentioning it here. He is not required to by any policy, except that of common decency. This is not the first time such maneuvers have been attempted by opponents of the CC proposed name change. For those having an interest in this topic, please follow the above link. Vaquero10007:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a complete lie. The page was moved with a small consensus back in May. Vaq waited till things died down on talk, and moved the page against that consensus, without requesting a move, or going to talk, or gaining consensus or anything. All I wanted was admin help to revert that move. I am not trying to drag the RCC vs. CC debate out on small pages. This is about process. You vote first, move second. If the community supported Vaq's move, then there should have been a vote first. I seriously cannot believe what this has turned into. Look at the page history, look who moved the page without extenting the courtesy of mentioning it here.--Andrew c17:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
My point is about process as well, Andrew c. If you action were motivated by a concern about process, why not alert those with an interest in the question? Why not have a broader participation in the process? This was my error in May. I allowed two pple to force a decision on the broader community which already at that time was turning toward CC instead of RCC. It was an earlier example of your present move. While losing a consensus favorable to their position on the mainpage, quietly make moves on other pages. I should have made an announcement here then as I have done now. Vaquero10017:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
No, what you should have done is not hit the "Move" tab while this discussion was going on. Period. There is no need to drag this debate onto smaller pages. I do not know what "present" move you are refering to. I simply requested an admin to revert your out of process move. End of story. You have misunderstood my intentions.--Andrew c01:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Yet another surreptitious move to add "Roman" without regard to this discussion. It is amazing how these come up during this discussion but are not mentioned here on this page. It seems that if you cannnot win on reason, one must win by trickery. It is interesting that this has now happened twice within a matter of days. These moves give all the more reason to make the change on this page from RCC to CC. Vaquero10017:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
as it is crucial that you know why each side objects to having the title of this article as either RCC or CC.
There are 3 options in this poll:
To have this article at "Catholic Church"
Use Catholic Church (disambiguation) as the main "Catholic Church" article, and have subpages titled "Catholic Church (descriptor here)"
To have this article at "Roman Catholic Church"
Final vote tally: 26, 2, 24
Voting ends 0600 UTC on 8 September 2006 (Voting now ended)
Sign below for the option you are voting for using # followed by your signature, and an optional one-sentence explanation. Please keep all other comments in the Discussion section below - The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2nd Piston Honda
Option 1
Kylef8122:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC) -- Catholic Church is the proper name. Ambiguity, if any, can be addressed via a disambig link at the top and/or a more detailed explanation in terminology section.
Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
Lafem01:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC) -- both policies and guidelines are for the "singular goal of Wikipedia". We should all work together for the good of Wikipedia.
SupportDcheney 14:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC) -- I find it strange that this discussion continues despite the obvious common English usage. -- [Comment: What is the common English usage in scholarly works, such as encyclopedias? (Just a thought.) Lima 07:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)] Answer: Encyclopedias can also be mistaken and reduced to one POV, that is why we have Wikipedia. The Britannica's POV and others who have followed it have been dominating world thinking, that is why we have to break the monopoly of their POV by using objective critera. Lafem10:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Support - although their are other XXXX Catholic Church's, none of them are referred to as "Catholic Church" alone. savidan(talk)(e@) 18:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC) -- [Comment: But there does exist a theological concept that can be referred to by no other name but "Catholic Church" alone. Lima08:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)]
The case for Catholic Church as the name is heavily based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as a careful reading of the current discussion would reveal, But it seems that the arguments for Roman Catholic Church need to rely in many sorts of ancillary reasoning. See a detailed explanation here. --Leinad ¬ »saudações!17:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Support This is a debate about usage, pure and simple. The church itself uses the name Catholic- therefore that is its self definition. That is what should be accepted as the title of wikipedia articles unless it is not recognisable to English language speakers- and it clearly and simply is. We are not arguing here about which church has a right to claim to be Catholic, only which church has the name of Catholic. Robotforaday17:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: The debate on the name for the article isn't just about "What Church (organization) uses the name Catholic?" It also involves the question, "Is anything other than a Church (organization) referred to as "the Catholic Church?" Factually, there is such a thing. It shouldn't be ignored. Lima17:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Lima, as it was stated before, this less known secondary meaning is already covered in pages such as Catholicism and can be easily addressed via a disambig link at the top of this article, etc.. Notice that RCC has its own ambiguity issues, since it appears to exclude Eastern Rite churches that are intrinsic part of the entity described in the article. --Leinad ¬ »saudações!18:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: 1. Exactly what I was saying: you classify the alternative as "secondary" and then consider yourself free to reserve the disputed name and its associated article exclusively for what you classify as primary, though one would think that the other understanding of "Catholic Church" belongs in the article of that same name rather than in an article on, e.g., Catholicism. 2. How does "Roman" exclude Maronite, but include Mozarabic? Até manhã. Lima18:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I used WP conventions to classify the admittedly less known theological sense as secondary. According to WP:DAB the primary meaning is "indicated by a majority of links in existing articles and consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings". --Leinad ¬ »saudações!19:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Good reply to my first question. At least it will be good when and if there is a separate article, even a stub, on the theological concept of "Catholic Church", which at present is not the main subject of any article. Then, but, I submit, not before, the Wikipedia rule can be applied: Ensure that the "(disambiguation)" page links back to an unambiguous page name, perhaps "Catholic Church (Roman Catholic Church)" (?). The unambiguous page name ["Catholic Church (Roman Catholic Church)" ?] should redirect to the primary topic page ("Catholic Church"). This assists future editors (and automated processes). For example, the primary topic Rome has a link at the top to Rome (disambiguation), where there is a link back via Rome, Italy (rather than directly to Rome). So how about you writing the article/stub on the theological concept? Lima04:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Support - The use of "Roman Catholic" in everyday speech is negligible, even Anglo-Catholics use the term "Catholic" for those of us in communion with Rome. That said there is one exception - those Protestants accused fairly or otherwise of using anti-Catholic canards. "But I am a Catholic, I say the creed in church". JASpencer07:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
LostcaesarSupport - I vote here because options 2 and 3 are unacceptable. If we accept option three, then we have to rename “Church of Christ”, since mostly every Christian Church (including the RCC) calls itself the Church of Christ, and we would have to rethink Orthodox Churches, since mostly every Christian Church thinks of itself as representing orthodoxy. Option 2 neglects that in English use Catholic Church generally means the concrete RCC rather than a nebulous inter-denominational theological concept. Lostcaesar07:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. I believe the right name is Catholic Church. This is a fair, valid, and just application of 3 key Wikipedian principles for naming cited in CC vs. RCC: "Catholic Church" is (1) the common usage, (2) the official title, and (3) the self-identifying name. If there are other valid and just claimants to this name, then a disambiguation of the primary type will do justice to this claim. Marax08:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. I came to this page intent on voting in favor of keeping the article where it is (using "Roman"). After doing some research in the Catholic Encyclopedia and reading our Holy Father's first encyclical, I have been dissuaded from this choice. Not only does this appear to be more in line with Wikipedia guidelines, it is also the Traditional teaching of Holy Mother Church, it would seem. In opposition to what some people seem to be arguing (on both sides), when you use the term "Catholic Church," you are referring to all those (and only those) Christians in full communion with the Pope - no one who is not in communion with Rome is thereby swept in. Option 2 would be a travesty for any self-respecting Catholic. --TheTriumvir13:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: What about Option 3? As I have written below, the Church accepts the designation "Roman Catholic" and does not try to force others to use a designation that the others disagree with. What's good enough for the Church is good enough for me. Lima13:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. Catholic Church also should cover the Maronite, Melkite, and other churches in communion with the Pope. Roman Catholic Church should just be used to refer to the entity which follows the Latin Rite. Also, I am not convinced that the statement of an opposing side that they are, or also are, at least part of the true "foo" is unconvincing. If we were to follow that, Al Gore would have to be listed as the 43rd president, which he is not. Badbilltucker13:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment:This is telling the Church it does wrong when it accepts "Roman Catholic Church" as referring to the whole Church - that it "should" do otherwise. I prefer to side with the Church. What's good enough for the Church ... Lima13:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Lima is telling the Church that it is almost always wrong when it refers to itself, as the Church almost always uses the name "Catholic Church." If you truly preferred to side with the Church, you would not disagree with its normal means of referring to itself. -SynKobiety00:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Lima is not telling the Church that it is wrong to refer to itself as simply "the Church" (its normal way of referring to itself) or "the Mystical Body of Christ" or ... Lima is telling SynKobiety that s/he, as a Catholic, is wrong in disagreeing with the Church, which has not outlawed the phrase "Roman Catholic Church", but instead signs documents in which it is called the Roman Catholic Church and occasionally uses that designation itself. Lima03:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment:"This is not a Church matter" - only a statement that the Church is doing what it shouldn't (if Dominick's remark concerns what goes immediately before). I still prefer to follow the Church's practice. Lima14:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Actually, if you followed the Church's most common usage of self-reference, you almost always refer to it as "The Church". Just do a word search of "church" vs. "Catholic" in Catechism of the Catholic Church.--Andrew c00:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. As a Maronite Catholic I object to calling the Catholic Church the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church consists of a number of rites, of which the Roman rite is only one (but the predominant one). Thebike22:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Curious this idea of Archola's, that being an Old Catholic means accepting (instead of rejecting) the teaching of the First Vatican Council and the authority of twentieth-century Popes! Lima07:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Sorry, I must have been confused. I thought you just said "Here is a Catholic who objects to...and even the First Vatican Council!" If, on the other hand, you do accept Vatican I...then I was wrong. I apologize. Arch O. LaGrigoryDeepdelver07:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: It is I who must apologize to Archola, whose misunderstanding was due to ambiguity in what I wrote. "Here is" was not a reference to myself but to Thebike. Lima07:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment:The linked article defines the Maronites as an Eastern Rite church in full communion with the Holy See. I guess now we must ask: are the Eastern Rite churches Roman Catholic, or is it just the Latin Rite churches? (I smell another debate coming on...) Arch O. LaGrigoryDeepdelver08:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I haven't read the above documents, but I would like to point out that the maronites are stongly united with the papacy, we just do things slightly differently, we have a different mass etc... The term Roman, infront of Catholic Church excludes us as well as the Melkites etc...
Comment: Well, you can read them now at the links I have given. In the encyclical, search for "Roman Catholic Church". The words come at the start of the First Vatican Council link. And while you are at it, why not look up also Pius XI's encyclical Divini Illius Magistri? Lima08:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. To put it slightly more succinctly than my numerous posts here: “Catholic Church” is both the most common name in English, and reasonably unambiguous when used in ordinary English to refer to the subject of this article; Wikipedia conventions and guidelines related to naming articles explicitly exclude the use of any arguments disputing the right of an entity to be called by a particular name in such matters. (Sorry it took so long to vote, but I needed to read all the archived discussions and confirm the Google tests myself first.) Thylacoleo02:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. It says in the article that Catholic Church is the correct name. Either remove that in the article or change the name of the article to Catholic Church.--Nino Gonzales09:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (late vote, not counted)
Support. This option could be an acceptable compromise position that lets the two meanings of "catholic church" (theological concept and existing Church in communion with the Pope) have equal priority. However, a satisfactory solution would require a judicious selection of the "descriptor" for each case. Chonak16:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Both meanings should not be given the same priority if one of them can be seen as the "primary meaning". According to WP:DAB the primary meaning is "indicated by a majority of links in existing articles and consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings". --Leinad ¬ »saudações!16:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Object - I voted for option 1, and although option 3 would be reasonable, this option is undesirable for every single page involved. Parenthetical disambiguation should never be used if there are other options. savidan(talk)(e@)18:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. "Catholic Church" is an ambiguous title. It seems like there are other churches that claim to be 'the' catholic church-- in which case Wikipedia shouldn't just pick one over another. "Roman Catholic" is very common usage in the English-speaking world, used by members of the religion themselves even if it's not their 'most official' name. Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, and Encarta all use "Roman Catholic Church" as their article title. It seems like the name change is trying to make a religious point, rather than just improving the encyclopedia. --Alecmconroy16:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment "Catholic Church" is considerably greater common usage in the English-speaking world, used by members of the religions whose POV is being used to oppose the move. It has been stated plainly by many here that opposing the change is being done to make a religious point rather than to maintain the quality of this encyclopedia. -SynKobiety23:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
which is official policy because Roman Catholic Church is the name that most English speakers would recognize. Most English speakers view "Catholic" as an abbreviation for "Roman Catholic", making RCC the correct full name and CC only an abbreviation. Additionally, Wikipedia titling restrictions can't have a title distingushing "catholic Church" from "Catholic Church", and there is an ambiguity between those terms. Additionally, this is the title that has been chosen in all prior discussion on the topic, which should have been prominantly linked above before this straw poll began. GRBerry02:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment In contrast to your opinion, surveys of usage show that "Catholic Church" is much more commonly used to refer to the Church in this article. -SynKobiety05:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. 'Catholic Church' is almost the definition of ambiguity. Bastin 09:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment. According to the Unabridged Oxford Dictionary of the English Language, Catholic Church is uncontroversially used to refer to the church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. -SynKobiety05:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, when most people in the West say "Catholic Church" they mean the Church of Rome; but that is not necessarily indicative of what the rest of the world thinks. Roman Catholic Church is unambiguous and easy; maybe there should be a Catholic Church disambig page as well, but RCC should be the name of this page. Batmanand | Talk15:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Further expansion of my answer per post on my talk page (thanks for that by the way): If you say to a native English speaker "Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church", they will probably both be equally useful, as the native speaker will in all likelihood know what church you are refering to. However, there is a clear ambiguity if you said "CC" to an ESL or EFL (English as a second or foreign language) speaker of English; only RCC remains unambiguous. Thus, for the sake of clarity, I still suggest RCC. Batmanand | Talk12:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment I believe that you are incorrect when you say that ESL speakers would find CC to be ambiguous. In the U.S., most ESLs have Spanish as their primary language. In Spanish, this church is Catolico, and not Catolico romano. Therefore, to most ESLs CC is more clear. -SynKobiety05:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Just some anecdotal clarification, as a Catholic ESL Spanish speaker, growing up, I was taught that I was católico apostólico romano. Either way, the church is Catolica in Spanish, not Catolico. Murcielago04:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. As I have said in the past, mostly on the Name subpage, a compromise for both extremes is needed. Please see my longer comment below.--Andrew c15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. Firstly, I believe the points I have made in this discussion are good ones but have been largely ignored because they don't confirm to (someone's interpretation of) the policy; secondly, I believe (as the number of people signing their name here attests) that there will never be consensus for moving the article to anything other than this, its most common-sense, useful, non-convoluted title; thirdly because I object to the whole idea of a poll in order to settle this question, since it is in no way definitive. Slacspeak up!00:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. There are churches which call themselves "Christian Church", but we don't put them at Christian Church, we use that for what most people call it and put those denominations at Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) or whatever; if the RCC chooses to believe that it's the whole of the one, holy and catholic apostolic church then that's their business, but it's a violation of NPOV to take their side. Marnanel03:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment. This is a good point and a relevant example, but doesn't quite parallel the situation with "Catholic Church", as in common English usage the term "Christian Church" is unlikely to be understood as referring to the particular denomination Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), but rather in the generic sense. In such cases Wikipedia policies recommend disambiguation of the sort found in that article. Thylacoleo05:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I believe the last part of your considerations reflects a common misunderstanding regarding how the NPOV policy is to be applied to article names. To be short, WP:NCON says that, when two groups have opposing POV's about the adequacy of the name of one of them, we should accept the name that the group uses to describe itself. Please look *here* and *here* for further explanation. --Leinad ¬ »saudações!06:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment. But are there really no other churches that claim to be Catholic? I'm no expert, but "Catholic" seems to indicate there are several different churches claiming to be the one universal 'Catholic' church. If that's the case, I don't see how we NPOVly give any one of them the title of Catholic Church. --Alecmconroy10:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment. WP conventions allow "POV names" as a description of how a given entity calls itself. For example: there's a little congregation calling itself the "True Catholic Church". Of course, many regard this name as POV and may show concern about it in the same way you just expressed concern about how NPOV would be the name "Catholic Church" (In fact, the same contention about many churches claiming to be the "one universal 'Catholic' church" can be equally applied for both names). Yet, Wikipedia policies allow the article about that church to retain its "POV name" because it is simply describing the name used by the congregation. --Leinad ¬ »saudações!15:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. The Churches of Holy Orthodoxy also consider themselves to constitute the 'Catholic Church'. To call the Church of Rome the Catholic Church is to take Roman POV over Orthodox POV, and is therefore unacceptable on Wikipedia. (Cf. the fact that the Orthodox Church is given the article title 'Eastern Orthodox Church'.)Maxim66215:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment The Catholic Church also consider itself to constitute the 'Orthodox Church'. To call the "Churches of Holy Orthodoxy" the Orthodox Church is to take Orthodox POV over Catholic POV, but is evidently acceptable on Wikipedia. -SynKobiety06:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Well, actually, you may notice that the Wikipedia article on Holy Orthodoxy is not in fact entitled Churches of Holy Orthodoxy but Eastern Orthodox Church, which is a deliberate attempt to avoid any POV issues. Oh but that the disgruntled Roman Catholic agitators seeking to rename the article on 'Roman Catholic Church' as 'Catholic Church' would follow the 'Eastern' (sic) Orthodox example... Maxim66201:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
(Maxim662... The reason you felt the need to come back here hours after the end of the vote and offend everyone that happens to disagree with you in this naming issue is beyond my imagination.--Leinad ¬ »saudações!03:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC))
I apologise and didn't realise it was after the end of the vote. This is not the easiest talk-page to find one's way around. I didn't find the comment to which I was responding particularly constructive, as I don't believe speaking of the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Moscow, et al in terms of the qualifier 'Holy Orthodoxy' is anti-Catholic POV, since I thought that the Roman Magisterium recognises the holiness and Orthodoxy of these Churches. My comments were intended with an irony provoked by the comment to which I was responding - which in fact supported my point - and were not intended to upset the fraternal charity that has existed between our Churches in recent years following the Pope's apology for the Fourth Crusade. With all best wishes, Maxim66217:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment. According to WP:NCON, to deny the name Catholic Church for the reason given in the above vote (vote 08) is a misinterpretation of the NPOV policy. A direct adaptation of the "textbook example" given in the guideline is: "Using the term "Catholic Church" does not conflict with the NPOV policy. It would be a purely objective description of what the Catholic Church call itself. On the other hand, not using the term because of Orthodox objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Orthodox POV". --Leinad ¬ »saudações!15:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment. But Leinad, if Orthodox (or someone else) also claims the name "Catholic Church", then all your arguments in this discussion could just as easily prove that we must take the Orthodox church page and rename it "Catholic Church", if that's what they call themselves. For example-- "to deny renaming the Orthodox article "Catholic Church" does not conflict with the NPOV policy. It would be a purely objective description of what the Orthodox Church calls itself. On the other hand, not using the term because of Roman Catholic objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Roman Catholic POV". See my point? Since we can't do both, the only fair thing to do would be to keep the unambiguous titles. --Alecmconroy18:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I think the scenario you just described is very unlikely to happen. If one day another notable institution start calling itself by the exact name that the Catholic Church has always used, we’ll have to apply WP disambiguation procedures to deal with it. Right now, while many denominations claim to be both Catholic and Apostolic, only one of them (the one described here) calls itself simply by "Catholic Church". Much of the opposition for CC seems to happen because we are confusing self-identifying name issues with POV issues. --Leinad ¬ »saudações!17:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment. The simple point is that what is needed for the title of an article is a non-controversial, NPOV title which (1) neutrally and rigidly designates the subject-matter of the article; which (2) is accepted by the groups which constitute the subject-matters of the articles themselves; and which (3) is a normal, widely-recognised way of speaking about the groups in the English language. There is no confusion, offense or obscurantism if we speak of the Church of Rome as the 'Roman Catholic Church', or the Churches of Holy Orthodoxy as the 'Eastern Orthodox Church'. To positively object to entitling the article on the Church of Rome the 'Roman Catholic Church' seems to me aggressive and unnecessary. The benefits of making such a change (i.e. appeasing the foibles of certain Roman Catholics) appear far outweighed by the demerits of imposing an NPOV title which, taken by itself is ambiguous and contentious. Best, Maxim66218:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment The point is that this whole discussion is not about the "Church of Rome", but is about a larger entity which includes the Church of Rome. -SynKobiety00:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
CommentAu contraire, it is an established usage in the English language to refer to the Roman Catholic Church as a whole as the 'Church of Rome'. Nothing polemical is intended. It remains the case that to rename the article 'Roman Catholic Church' as 'Catholic Church' is needless and confrontational.Maxim66201:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Strong support. This issue has been done to death, the consensus has always been to have the article here. It is unambiguous, not considered offensive by any meaningful number of Roman Catholics, and only appears to be a problem to a small group of activists, if the evidence of this Talk page in recent months is anything to go by. For most readers and editors the fact that the main article is at Roman Catholic Church is not in the least bit surprising or problematic - in other words, it is a non-problem and a non-solution (i.e. leave well alone) is indicated. Guy16:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. I find the arguments for change not sufficiently convincing. The Church accepts the designation "Roman Catholic" and does not try to force others to use a designation that the others disagree with. What's good enough for the Church is good enough for me.Lima09:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support. The current name is the best descriptor for the article. Although "Catholic Church" may be used widely both by Catholics and the media, the title "Roman Catholic Church" conveys the meaning most specifically. Option 1 would lead to far too many problems of meaning and Option 2 is too obscure. The best answer is to leave it as is. Jpe|ob04:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Strong Support for leaving the article named Roman Catholic Church for all of the above reasons. Since Wikipedia is about accurate definition, it should remain as it is.--Drboisclair09:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Strong support: the Pope is not head of the "Catholic Church," but of a specific religious denomination that needs to have a specific article about it particularly. The claimed primacy and infallibility of the Bishop of Rome is what defines that denomination. "Roman" should stay. - Smerdis of Tlön15:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Strong support. Wikipedia should not make the assertion, which is inherently controversial, that the Roman Communion is the (i.e. the only) Catholic Church. Most Christian denominations claim to be both Catholic and Apostolic; several do so in their names. Septentrionalis16:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Please, read the current discussion more carefully and you'll see that the proposed move has nothing to do with making such assertion. I believe you are confusing self-identifying-name issues with POV issues. One important point is that WP guidelines are clear when it recommends that the choice of an article's name should always be descriptive (in the sense of describing how the institution calls itself), and never prescriptive (in the sense of arguing about how POV such name is). While many denominations claim to be both Catholic and Apostolic, only one of them calls itself simply by "Catholic Church". --Leinad ¬ »saudações!17:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This uncivil comment (I have read all sides of the discussion, thank you) misrepresents my position, Wikipedia policy, and the facts. The supporters of Option 1 may very well be concerned only about fairness within the Roman Communion, especially to the various sorts of Uniate. (Note that I employ this term as English usage, not in an effort at "correctness".) Their proposed name is nevertheless both controversial and offensive to Orthodox, Anglican, and most Protestant Christians; and I therefore strongly oppose it. Septentrionalis17:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm really (really) sorry my comment sounded uncivil. I assumed that you hadn't read my previous comments about WP guidelines. That said, I fail to see how WP:NCON#Dealing with self-identifying terms can be interpreted as not contradicting your statement that CC can't be used because other groups would take offence in it. --Leinad ¬ »saudações!18:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you; please do not assume that editors would agree with your arguments if only they had read them. You quote a guideline. In this case it conflicts with both the general guideline to use English (and the tendency of English usage is plain); and the policy that WP should express itself neutrally, which is non-negotiable. In this case the non-neutrality is deeply and widely offensive, which makes things worse. Septentrionalis19:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
So you conceded that your reasoning does appear be contradicted by a Wikipedia guideline. A WP guideline that was specifically developed to explain how to correctly apply the Neutral Point of View policy in the situation at hand (conflicts regarding names in articles). Ok... If, as you said, I am "misinterpreting WP policies and the facts", it is good to know that I have good company in that supposed mistake. I’m still trying to figure out what are you trying to say by citing "use English". I saw no conflict between it and the naming conflict guideline. Moreover, all "google tests" made until now seems to indicate that the use of Catholic Church (alone) is more common in English than the use of RCC. --Leinad ¬ »saudações!23:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment It has been written several times on this page that this move should not be made because it would be "offensive" to various other groups of Christians. This is not only irrelevant to Wikipedia policy and guidelines, but the fact that members of those groups commonly use "Catholic Church" in this way indicates that the claim of offensiveness is false. I can see why it was assumed that Septentrionalis had not read the entire discussion, as he thinks that the guidelines conflict with the policy. It is NPOV to apply [WP:NCON]] even though the result is seen to align with a particular POV - that is what it says in WP:NCON. It is a violation of the NPOV when you refuse to follow an objective procedure in choosing an article name. WP:NCON is such an objective procedure. -SynKobiety00:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. For the reasons above; no reason to restate them. This change is both unnecessary and inaccurate. --Rekleov18:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Support. I am perfectly happy calling myself Roman Catholic, and think the usage should confuse or offend no one, while I understand both the confusion and the possible offense that can occur with just Catholic. In terms of usage, I think both Catholic and Roman Catholic are common and acceptable self-identifiers. (BTW, the particular parish I go to self-identifies as Roman Catholic rather than Catholic on both its Web page and the sign on the front of the Church.) Sam20:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Strong support. "Other catholic churches" includes nearly all Protestant denominations in describing themselves: see the Apostle's Creed. "Catholic" in this context means, simply, "universal," while the modifier, "Roman" appropriately describes either the rite or the governance, and is widely so used by the Roman Catholic Church itself. The proposed change would enshrine a particular POV in the title. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes and no. It's true that "catholic" (lower-case c) means "universal", but many Protestants (including us Lutherans) use a version of the Apostle's Creed that refers to "the holy Christian Church." There are, however, Catholic (capital-C) groups that have left communion with the Vatican, as I note above. Arch O. LaGrigoryDeepdelver23:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Strong support. To rename this article "Catholic" would endorse the Roman Catholic claim to exclusivity, over against the many other Catholic churches that consider themselves a part of the universal Catholic Church. "Roman Catholic is clear, and more to the point is more NPOV. The proposed change has been hashed over repeatedly and those for change have always been clearly in the minority, so I suspect some internal spamming is being done to raise support. Pollinator00:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Strong support. Roman Catholics are widely known by that name. No need to endorse a single denomination as the Catholic church. --BostonMA01:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
It's important that everybody read WP:NCON#Dealing with self-identifying terms before voting! Many of the votes here seem to come from a misconception about how the NPOV policy is to be applied in naming disputes. I’m actually quite tired for trying to point to this problem over and over. Thanks for your attention. --Leinad ¬ »saudações!01:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Although NCON deals with conflicts over the name of an article, the section that is cited above deals with self-identifying terms within an article. It is entirely correct that members of the Roman Catholic Church self-identify as "Catholic". The article may (and probably should) mention this fact. I hope no-one disputes this. However it does not follow, at least as far as I can tell, that we must use a self-identified term as the name of the article. Especially so, since many of the same people self-identify, at various times, as both "Roman Catholic" and simply "Catholic". --BostonMA02:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The comment by BostonMA is valid in noting that the section cited above deals more directly with self-identifying terms within an article. But the main reasoning presented in the link is repeated many times during the text, being reflected in quotations like: "Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage." Here is the section of the guideline dealing directly with "How to make a choice among controversial names". One good example of title that could be considered offensive by some, but is protected by the NPOV policy as reflected in this guideline is the article about a small congregation that calls itself the "True Catholic Church". --Leinad»saudações!03:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Let's put this another way-- if we moved this article to Catholic Church, would you be open to having that new page talk about all the other claimants to the term "Catholic" and devote large amounts of space to discussing them? Because that's the issue here-- if we move to Catholic Church, then this page can't just be about the Roman Catholic Church anymore-- it has to be about ALL the Catholic Churches. And since I think the Roman Catholic Church is certainly notable enough to have a page devoted just to it (duh), we probably should leave it where it is. Moving it it to Catholic Church (Roman Catholic) would be fine too, but I think it's more confusing than it's worth. --Alecmconroy05:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I see your point. But I don’t think things would work quite in the way you mentioned. From my interpretation of WP policies, any ambiguity problems with the title Catholic Church seem easily workable by following the standard procedures under WP:DAB#Primary_topic. All that, it seems to me, can be done with minimal disruption of the text of the RCC/CC article. --Leinad ¬ »saudações!05:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
That is, the article that would represent the other interpretation of "Catholic Church" (even though, as it were, it's the same interpretation as in this article). Am i wrong in assuming there would have to be a second article if there was a disambig? 2nd Piston Honda19:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, there already is a Catholic Church (disambiguation) page, but I don't see any articles on there that would want to be titled just "Catholic Church" (aside from the RCC link). I think the disambig that we have now works, so really I think the options boil down to either 1 or 3. Kylef8119:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
How can one party object to calling this article "Catholic Church" without also laying claim to (and creating) their own "Catholic Church" article? 2nd Piston Honda19:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I would certainly not buy the pig in the poke of the undefined "descriptor(s)". Which "above discussion" are we expected to read? Everything on this page? The proposed survey is, I think, insufficiently clear. Lima19:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Unless someone is looking forward - a strange idea - to spending/wasting lots more time discussing the "separate issue", how can he vote for Option 2? Option 2 seems an excellent idea in the abstract, but, in practice, do we know whether agreement will ever be reached on a neutral descrptor for an article different from the present one? Surely not: "Catholic Church (as in Creed)", "Catholic Church (all true Christians)", etc. Some might wonder - I don't really believe it myself - whether Option 2 has been inserted to split those not in favour of Option 1. I still think this proposed survey is flawed from the start. Lima09:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ultimately, this poll is on the fate of this article. Either it will be called CC, RCC, or CC(desc). Those are the only logical outcomes. If you don't like option 2 or don't think it would work, then that's not the vote for you. 2nd Piston Honda09:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
How can one party object to calling this article "Catholic Church" without also laying claim to (and creating) their own "Catholic Church" article?2nd Piston Honda 19:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a perfectly intelligent question. There is no other Catholic Church other than a vague theological construct actually called the Branch Theory conceived by Anglican but not universally accepted by them. This theory did not have its own article until recently when I created it. Two of the three Churches covered under the Branch Theory (The Catholic and Orthodox Churches) do not subscribe to it. So, it has not gained much traction. The addition of all credal churches in more recent times is even less convincing as the majority of credal churches do not claim apostolic succession or the 7 sacraments of historical Christianity. The whole issue is a creation manufactured unconvincingly to deny the name of the Catholic Church but without actually proposing a viable alternative entity by the same name. It is really a very specious claim entirely. This explains why there is no other article competing for the name Catholic Church, but rather a disambiguation page pointing to all kinds of other entities which do NOT bear the name. Ridiculous! Vaquero10020:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
You're conflating two things there, I think, Vaquero. The Branch Theory is, indeed, not now part of mainstream Anglican theology; however, a belief that there is such a thing as the Catholic Church, which does not correspond to the Roman Catholic Church, is part of the theology both of the Anglican Communion, and, I would think, any Christian church which affirms "We believe in one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church". Here is the Church of England House of Bishops on the subject:
It will be noticed that where the Encyclical refers to ‘the Catholic Church’, we have attempted to distinguish between the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the Creeds (the Catholic Church) on the one hand, and the church (and particular churches) in full visible communion with the Church of Rome on the other (the Roman Catholic Church). The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ, a theological reality, created by God and participating in his own communion of love. It is not a ‘denomination’ or any other merely terrestrial institution. The marks and identity of this Church remain one of the underlying ecumenical questions. It will not, therefore, surprise anyone that while we are eager to discuss seriously all themes of theological importance, we are not willing to accept in advance any particular interpretation of the points at issue. An example of the ecumenical seriousness of this point may be seen in the Encyclical’s statement that ‘the Catholic Church thus affirms that during the two thousand years of her history she has been preserved in unity’. Our concern that unity should be fully visible makes it difficult for us simply to accept such a statement, as the divisions within the Church are painfully obvious to all.
For this reason, in this paper we continue our usual description of the church in communion with Rome as ‘the Roman Catholic Church’. We are well aware that the Holy See has substantial ecclesiological reasons for preferring an alternative expression. Nevertheless, those reasons are themselves matters of ecumenical discussion. In the meantime, the assertion that ‘the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is – in God’s plan – an essential requisite of full and visible communion’, justifies the description ‘Roman’ and makes it inappropriate for other churches to accept the Roman Catholic Church’s preferred usage.
This seems to be the same reason why the Roman Catholic Church accepts the need to use terms other than "Catholic Church" in its relations with (at least) the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Churches, the Methodist Church, the Orthodox Church, the Syrian Church and the World Council of Churches, and in such documents as jointly-published notes on bible translations. Of course, as has been said, these are not the church's defining documents, and 'Roman Catholic Church' is not the Church's preferred term; but they do at least seem to show that the Church accepts that 'Catholic Church' is a term considered controversial or ambiguous by a great number of people (largely outside Anglicanism), so it would seem bizarre for us to assert otherwise.
In answer to the point 'How can one party object to calling this article "Catholic Church" without also laying claim to (and creating) their own "Catholic Church" article?': the alternative article would be the one(s) currently at 'Catholic', 'Catholicism' or 'One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church' (which are due at least one merge). However, it is not the case that Wikipedia has to pick one 'claimant' to a term and say that that body is entitled to be referred to by that term; in several cases, Wikipedia has decided that it is best for a disputed term not to be used undisambiguated at all, and for the page at that title simply to be a page referring to all the possible meanings. Interesting examples include:
* America, commonly used to refer to both a continent and a nation; so these are referred to as the Americas and the United States respectively; the simple term directs to neither.
* Budweiser, employed as a proper name for two beers, one the largest-selling beer in the world, the other a smaller but older competitor; so these are referred to as Budweiser Budvar and Budweiser (Anheuser-Busch) respectively; the simple term directs to neither.
To believe that 'Catholic Church' is an ambiguous term does not involve believing that "Roman Catholic Church" is not the commonest meaning; it is perfectly normal in Wikipedia for one term to be accepted as the most common meaning of a term, and indeed for the term to redirect there; but nevertheless to avoid using the term undisambiguated because it is not the most unambiguous one possible ("with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity" - WP:NC). That is the current situation here. TSP21:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to cite the complete version of the quotation from WP:NC. It reads:
Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. (Emphasis mine.)
IMO, Catholic Church (CC) has the "reasonable minimum of ambiguity" that is being required. Meanwhile, Roman Catholic Church (RCC) has its own ambiguity issues, since it appears to exclude Eastern Rite churches that are intrinsic part of the entity described in the article. The rest of the quotation (in bold) clearly favors "CC" instead of "RCC". --Leinad ¬ »saudações!22:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
TSP, it appears that after many weeks you still have not read, or at least not understood what is clearly stated at User:Vaquero100/CC vs. RCC. Or, perhaps you have understood it all well enough and are using the common Protestant ploy of just repeating the same objections over and over again hoping that that will get traction. Hoping that an error continuously repeated and asserted becomes a truth in the popular mind is a tactic unworthy of WP standards.
There are no instances of Vatican documents using the formula "Roman Catholic Church" since 1950--and that (Humani Generis) was a case where the "Roman" dimension of the Catholic Church was being emphasised in particular. Anyone familiar with Catholic Church documentation understands that some documents are a matter of diplomacy where it it understood that concessions of coutesy are not authoritative or real concessions, but mere instances of virtual flattery. All of you citations are just such instances and bear no weight in the matter concerning the Church's self identity which WP does by policy respect but in fact disrespects presently by the title of this article.
Please, if you have something new to say that has not been adequately repsonded to, by all means do so! But otherwise, you efforts to force a constant re-hash of the already stated and answered is an obstruction of this due process. Vaquero10023:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I have read your CC vs RCC page, and responded to various parts of it elsewhere; I may get around to going through it point by point. However, I have pointed out elsewhere its most obvious flaw, which is that it is almost entirely based on the Wikipedia:Naming conflict page, which is not, in fact, Wikipedia policy at all; merely a guideline. TSP00:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
#2 is confusing. I don't think anyone has proposed anything like that, and the "both claiments" part is also confusing. I'd say all we need is 1 and 3, but if we must have a third option, why not word it something like "Move Catholic Church (disambiguation) to Catholic church, and have other pages read Catholic Church (descriptor)", but again this is problematic because almost every existing page puts the descriptor not in parentheses, but prefaces the CC with it (such as "Old" or "Roman" or "Polish National" or "One, holy..." etc). --Andrew c01:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I don’t think the fact that it is a guideline and not a policy means that it is not useful or relevant to the question at hand. Vaquero100 has applied the guidelines of the Wikipedia:Naming conflict page to this matter in his essay and the conclusion of this was that these guidelines would prescribe the article name for this topic to be "Catholic Church". I would be quite interested to read in what points TSP believes Vaquero100 has misinterpreted those guidelines, and how such a misinterpretation would affect the conclusion of his essay. I think the thrust of TSP’s argument, though, is that there are other Wikipedia policies, conventions and guidelines relating to the naming of articles which are relevant to this question and also need to be taken into account. I agree.
One such page is Wikipedia:Disambiguation (which also happens to be a "guideline"). In applying the guidelines of this page (which deal with what to do when more than one encyclopedic topic has the same natural title , which is the case here - the two topics being what I have referred to above as Catholic Church1 (the physical Church composed of 23 rites in communion with the Pope in Rome - i.e. the topic of this particular article) and Catholic Church2 (the Anglican theological concept of a spiritual Church composed of the Anglican Communion, the Catholic Church1 and the Eastern Orthodox Churches)), we are asked to identify which competing topic (if either) may be considered the primary topic or primary meaning for the term "Catholic Church". According to that page the primary meaning is "indicated by a majority of links in existing articles and consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meaning". I am satisfied that this is the case for Catholic Church1 with respect to Catholic Church2, but we need to get a "consensus of editors" in order for that to be considered accepted, something we are trying to achieve here. (Note that it is quite unsurprising that Catholic Church1 should turn out to be the primary meaning of "Catholic Church", given that it has already been established following the procedure at the Wikipedia:Naming conflict page that "Catholic Church" (and not "Roman Catholic Church") is the most common name in English usage for the entity Catholic Church1, and that when used in ordinary English, the term "Catholic Church" (without any qualification) overwhelmingly refers to Catholic Church1 (and not to Catholic Church2).)
For me the most pertinent argument against having the topic Catholic Church1 at the article name "Catholic Church", is the one mentioned by Andrew c above: "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative". This is a quote from the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) page, which is also a guideline. What I don’t understand about this argument, though, is what is meant by saying that "having the article named 'Catholic Church' about the topic Catholic Church1 is misleading". Having thought about this a bit, I have come up with three possible ways that an article name may be considered misleading:
1. The article name itself is inherently misleading as it goes against common English language use. Examples of inherently misleading names would be "Black Box" for an object that is actually orange in colour, or "dwarf planet" to refer to a celestial body which is in fact not a type of planet. (The example given on the guideline page of "tidal wave" would also be misleading in this sense, as such a wave is not actually tidal in origin.) Obviously "Catholic Church" is not inherently misleading in this sense, as the entity Catholic Church1 is both a Church and Catholic (including by the definition of Catholic Church2).
2. A second way it could be considered misleading would be if the particular term was found to be sufficiently ambiguous in common English usage between more than one sense and yet one of those ambiguous senses occupied the article name at the expense of the others. This, I suspect, is what objectors to having Catholic Church1 at "Catholic Church" mean when they say that it would be misleading. I fail to understand though how a usage that is found to be sufficiently (and overwhelmingly) unambiguous in ordinary English could be considered misleading in this way. The average English speaking reader of Wikipedia would expect the article entitled "Catholic Church" to be about Catholic Church1 (the average English speaker likely being unaware that the sense Catholic Church2 exists), and can hardly be considered to have been misled if what they find conforms to this expectation.
3. A third possible interpretation of "misleading" here would be if the article name was technically misleading; i.e. the article name technically implies a particular topic which is not the subject of the article. This is not the case here, as using "Catholic Church" to refer to Catholic Church1is technically correct (it is indeed the name of the institution; note that using the term "Catholic Church" to refer to Catholic Church2 is also technically correct, which is in part why this topic is "competing" with Catholic Church1 for the article namespace "Catholic Church"). In contrast the use of "Roman Catholic Church" to refer to Catholic Church1 would be technically misleading, as "Roman Catholic Church" is technically interpreted as meaning only the Western Rite branch of the Catholic Church1, to the exclusion of the various Eastern Rite branches (which are included within the scope of this article as written).
Of course it is entirely possible that there exist ways that “misleading” may be construed other than the three I’ve managed to come up with here, and would welcome any such explanation. Thylacoleo02:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't mean to imply that the Naming Conflict page should be ignored - it is indeed extremely relevant; but, as it is a guideline rather than a policy, it should be interpreted in the light of policy. I would have thought that the sensible way to approach this would be to begin with Wikipedia:Naming conventions - the policy applying to this topic - and build from there, referring to other policies, bringing in guidelines where there is no relevant policy. Vaquero's page instead starts with a guideline, and refers to the policies only in passing. This doesn't make its logic invalid, but does make it incomplete; and means that I don't think it's reasonable to ask that all contrary responses be purely aimed at addressing its points.
As to the alternative definition, as I have said, I don't think that it is fair to characterise the alternative definition of 'Catholic Church' as purely an Anglican concept; a wide range of churches object to the term "Catholic Church" being used purely to refer to that church in communion with Rome, which appears to indicate that they have a concept of the 'Catholic Church' that is broader than this, even if, to avoid confusion and ambiguity, they avoid using the term in that precise form themselves. For example, from the Methodists: "The Methodist Conference ordains ministers (presbyters) and deacons to exercise their ministry in and on behalf of the church catholic"; from the Orthodox: "the Orthodox Church is "catholic" in the fullest meaning of the word"; etc. TSP10:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no alternative definition. Both sides agree that "Catholic Church" describes the whole of the Christian Church founded by Jesus. The disagreement, however, is about who is included in that church. 2nd Piston Honda11:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
If that is the case, it would seem to me to be an obvious breach of the Neutral Point of View policy for Wikipedia to assign the title "Catholic Church" to any one visible entity. My impression was that the case for calling this page "Catholic Church" hinged on the assumption at the term was being used as a proper name ("a word that answers the purpose of showing what thing it is that we are talking about but not of telling anything about it"), not specifically as a claim to be the whole Christian Church founded by Jesus. If to call a body the Catholic Church is to affirm that it is the whole Christian Church founded by Jesus, then the NPOV policy ("All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias") - which is one of Wikipedia's three core content-guiding policies - would seem to require that, while we report that the Roman Catholic Church says that it is the Catholic Church, Wikipedia should not call it such. TSP11:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The claims are dealth with in the respective articles. Here we are discussing a name. The failure to seperate the two has caused all the problems thus far. And if we do not seperate the two, then we would be unable to call Chirch of Christ its name, or Church of God its name, and so on. Lostcaesar11:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, the situations are slightly different, in that 'Catholic Church' is a well-known collocation which is used by other groups, whereas 'Church of God' isn't, to my knowledge. On the other hand, as I think I've said on previous times this has been discussed, I'm actually less concerned about the article title here (which is why I haven't voted either way), and more concerned about uses in other articles of terms like "Catholic", which are more likely to be ambiguous than in the context of an article title, where it's probably true it's not especially ambiguous. I suspect, though, that if this article is moved to "Catholic Church", usage all over Wikipedia will go with it. TSP18:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
It’s important to try and keep in mind what various distinct encyclopedic topics there might be which would naturally have the article name “Catholic Church” in Wikipedia (if it weren’t for naming conflicts). Perhaps I’ve been lax above in only referring to Catholic Church1 (what the Catholic Church calls itself) and Catholic Church2 (what Anglican theology means by “Catholic Church”), influenced by the fact that many editors who preferred this topic at the current article name (“Roman Catholic Church”) were arguing based principally on the ambiguity of the term “Catholic Church” in English, as many native English speakers are Anglican and presumably a portion of those think of “Catholic Church” primarily in the sense of Anglican theology rather than in the sense of Catholic Church1. Obviously, other religious groups besides the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion may use the term “Catholic Church” in their own theology, meaning something different from both Catholic Church1 and Catholic Church2. I would then label these “Catholic Church3” (which is, say, the Eastern Orthodox theological concept of “Catholic Church”) and so on. Assuming we have enough to say about each, in theory, each of these topics could have its own article as each is about a distinct entity, presumably clearly delineated within the theology of each individual Church. The titles such articles would have, in my mind, would be something like Catholic Church (Anglican theology) for Catholic Church2, Catholic Church (Eastern Orthodox theology) for Catholic Church3, and so on. If it were determined that having an individual article for each of these topics was not required, then we could put them all in one article titled, say, Catholic Church (theology), with each allotted to its own subsection (and perhaps deserving of a daughter article if that section was big enough), or perhaps, seeing as such an article would more or less be discussing the various ways the term “Catholic Church” is used in English, it could be called Catholic Church (term) or Catholic Church (terminology). Interestingly, seeing as the Catholic Church1 also (presumably) has something in its theology about what the term “Catholic Church” should be interpreted to mean, there would properly also be a section in such an article to do with that (with, for the sake of argument, the potential for it to be an encyclopedic topic - and hence a full-blown article - distinct from the topic Catholic Church1 by itself). For the sake of completeness and clarity, I’ll label this topic Catholic Church0 (i.e. the concept of “Catholic Church” in the theology of the Catholic Church1; note that the numerical indices are simply labels of convenience, I’m not trying to imply any logical priority in their use).
The point here is that there is a fundamental difference in substance between the topic Catholic Church1, and the topics Catholic Church0, 2, 3, .... The first is an actual physical organisation which calls itself and is predominantly known in English as “Catholic Church”, while the others are theological concepts particular to various Churches (each of which calls itself and is predominantly known in English by some other name, such as “Church of England” or “Eastern Orthodox Church” and so on - although it so happens that in the case of the Catholic Church, this name is phonetically identical). The theological concepts don’t give themselves names, as, being concepts rather than (groups of) people, they can’t. Wikipedia naming conventions specifically call on us to put the article about an organisation (group of people) at the name which that organisation calls itself, despite any claims by other groups (which call themselves by other names) that that name is inappropriate in some way. By putting the topic Catholic Church1 at the article name “Catholic Church”, we are not saying that this is the “correct” meaning of the English term “Catholic Church”, merely that this is the proper name of the organisation Catholic Church1, and it is not POV to say that this is the name of that organisation. If we were to put the topic Catholic Church0, or Catholic Church2 then we would be introducing such a POV (note: nobody has actually suggested we do this, I just mention it to round off the argument).
I realise I haven’t yet responded directly to the practical question of what topic should go at what article name (the subject of this poll), mostly because I don’t think the underlying dispute (regarding the extent of ambiguity of the term “Catholic Church” when used in ordinary English) has been resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. A distillation of my “solution” (and I welcome any modifications or improvements to it!) might be:
The topic Catholic Church1 (the physically existing organisation which is the subject of the current article “Roman Catholic Church”) would be at Catholic Church (with all the appropriate disambiguation links pointing to other uses of the term “Catholic Church” in English).
Either The topics Catholic Church2, Catholic Church3, etc. (about the theological concept of “Catholic Church” in various religions) would be at the pages Catholic Church (XXXan theology); or (if there isn’t sufficient material to warrant each an individual article) these topics would all be sections in the article Catholic Church (theology) (or perhaps Catholic Church (theological concept), if the former might mislead some into thinking it was an article about the theology of the Catholic Church1), with the option of spinning off daughter articles if one of these sections (say, the topic Catholic Church2, about the Anglican concept of “Catholic Church”) merits it.
Alternatively to the above the point, there could be a page titled Catholic Church (term) or Catholic Church (terminology) (although, once again, perhaps the latter should not be preferred as some may misconstrue it to be about the terminology of the Catholic Church1), which discusses the term “Catholic Church” as it is used in the English language, explaining how it can refer to an actual organisation (Catholic Church1) as well as its use in the theologies of various other organisations (with options for daughter articles for each of those uses as well).
Finally, the Catholic Church (disambiguation) can stay where it is as it seems to be doing quite a good job at what it’s supposed to do. Note that this page is usefully kept separate from any other multi-topic page that might be created in the above two points, as it includes not just links to those articles whose natural name would be “Catholic Church”, but also to all those various Churches which have “Catholic Church” in their name, but have natural names which include some qualifier, such as the Old Catholic Church. (Note, that it is actually discouraged to include articles of the latter type at disambiguation pages, seeing as they are already naturally disambiguated, but this injunction is most usually ignored on Wikipedia, which is probably a good thing, provided the list of “other uses” doesn’t go overboard.)
I realise there are already a good many articles at various titles which may already cover the content which would belong to the article names I’ve suggested above, and assuming they are doing a good job of that, I’m not suggesting they get moved - although redirects to them according to a more systematic naming scheme could be made. I actually think it would be quite worthwhile to have a distinct article about the topic Catholic Church2 (i.e. the concept of “Catholic Church” in the Anglican Communion, possibly at the title Catholic Church (Anglican theology)), as it is a reasonably important topic for a number of native English speakers, and currently it seems to be treated in a piecemeal fashion across several articles (such as One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, Catholic, Catholicismnote to editors: this article has a section entitled The term “Catholic Church” which would be relevant should an article called Catholic Church (term) be created in the future and Branch theory (which could perhaps become a subsection of Catholic Church (Anglican theology) if the latter is created)). Thylacoleo02:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm don't think that the situation is anything like that complicated. As far as I can see, there are two meanings of 'Catholic Church':
(a) The whole and undivided church of Christ (the general meaning)
(b) The Roman Catholic Church, which believes itself to constitute the church named in (a) (the specific meaning)
Certainly there are mild differences of opinion across different denominations, but nothing like the sort of entirely different concept which would require entirely separate pages for each church's ideas. As 2ndPistonHonda says, to an extent there really is only one meaning of the term - "the whole church of Christ"; there are merely differences on exactly who is included. The church in communion with the Pope believes itself to constitute this church, so uses the term also as a name for itself. The Orthodox churches also believe themselves to constitute this church, though happen to use a different name. Most other churches believe themselves to be parts of this church, so use the term on occasion to refer to a body including themselves, but do not use it as a name because they do not believe themselves to solely constitute the Catholic Church.
There really isn't the entirely distinct Anglican view of things that various editors have been presenting. Vaquero has on several occasions raised the issue of the 'Branch Theory', and pointed out that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches do not adhere to it; but as far as I can tell no Anglican Church does either. I can't actually find anyone who has done so since the 19th century (and that was someone who eventually became a Roman Catholic). TSP10:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I actually agree that it probably isn't worthwhile to have separate articles on each of the various Churches' theological positions of what the descriptive label "Catholic Church" means, as these interpretations are all no doubt based upon differences in interpretation of what the word "Catholic" means, and thus are interrelated and probably are best treated in a single article (called Catholic Church (theology) or Catholic Church (term), or something like that). I still think, though, there appears to be enough encyclopedic material on the particular Anglican theological concept of "Catholic Church" that a separate article on Catholic Church (Anglican theology) could also be merited.
I think what some posting here seem to be forgetting is that this discussion regarding the name of this article is, and should only be, a discussion about names, and not about claims. A discussion about names can only be based on actual English language usage - we are trying to answer the question "In the English language as it is used by English speakers what is the most common name of the institution/organisation that is the subject of this article?". Once we have answered this question (the answer being "Catholic Church"), we can then ask, for the purposes of Wikipedia article naming, "Is the use of this name as the title of the article appropriate in the context of established Wikipedia naming policies, conventions and guidelines?". We answer this second question by carefully going through Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and establishing whether the name meets such standards as a reasonable minimum of ambiguity in the English language and so on. Once the name is determined to have passed these tests then we can say that Wikipedia policy and guidelines calls for it to be the name used for the article.
Whether the name is considered by some groups to imply a theological claim (a POV), or indeed whether the organisation itself uses the name to try and impute a theological claim (also a POV), is entirely irrelevant. The fact still remains that this is the name used for the organisation/institution in the English language. To put it in a nutshell (and please forgive me for being bold), if we wish to follow established Wikipedia practice, actual English language usage (not theology, history, etc.) is the sole acceptable criterion for determining the name of this article. Thylacoleo02:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Has everyone noticed that Guy, who is a Wikipedia Administrator, has stated that this poll has no force? (See above at end of those voting on Option 1.) Lima16:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned with this Administrator's behavior in this name discussion. I don't agree with the tone of his comments *here* and with his unilateral decision *here*. Off course it can just be a wrong impression, since it's based on instances that may not be representative of his behavior as a whole. --Leinad ¬ »saudações!16:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I suppose the next debate will be whether consensus is needed for a contentious change of an article's title, or whether a majority of even just one will do for making a change meant to hold until a majority of even just one changes it back. (The question will inevitably be raised again, and it is the "aggrieved" who most feel the urge to intervene.) Lima13:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Since No. 23 in the list of supporters of Option 1, is not really in favour of "Catholic Church" (i.e. Option 1), but of "Catholic Church (organization)" (which sounds very like Option 2), I think he should be classified as supporting Option 2, rather than Option 1.
If that is correct, then the results at 0600 UTC today were:
Option 1: 26 (49.06%)
Option 2: 2 (3.77%)
Option 3: 25 (47.17%)
Even if No. 23 is calculated as in favour of Option 1, that only raises the supporters of Option 1 to 27 (50.94%).
I contend that a majority of just one is enought to allow the change... Just kidding, these numbers are almost the definition of no consensus. --Leinad ¬ »saudações!08:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Option 1 discussion
Reading the "policy in a nutshell" cited by WikiCats, I see that:
Catholic Church (CC) - and not Roman Catholic Church (RCC) - is "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize";
The CC alternative meets the required "reasonable minimum of ambiguity"; (RCC has its own ambiguity issues, since it appears to exclude Eastern Rite churches that are intrinsic part of the entity described in the article);
CC, more that RCC, makes linking to the article "easy and second nature".
Based on the points above, my opinion is that the official WP:NAME policy favors CC as the best name for this article. Moreover, the essay "CC vs. RCC" has shown that the objective guidelines for resolving naming conflicts in Wikipedia also favor CC over RCC. Finally, the discussion by user Thylacoleo regarding "Wikipedia:Disambiguation" reinforces this view. Overall, WP policies and guidelines clearly lean towards Catholic Church as the proper name of this article.
Comment: Would the majority of English speakers recognize "Catholic Church" more easily than "Roman Catholic Church"? Lima08:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Another answer: Wikipedia specifies how to answer this: the use of google search in BBC, CNN, etc. BBC used CC 29 times out of 33; CNN used CC 14 out of 17. These media outlets both reflect and create common usage. (Cf. here) - Lafem10:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I just want to note that it is unclear how the statistical analysis of CC vs. RCC use was established. I could not replicate Vaq's findings (as noted on his RCC vs. CC talk page). It is clear that CC is used a bit more than RCC, however, the specific context of each usage has not been examined, and my numbers were not as overwhelming as Vaq's. (~85% in favor of CC vs. ~55% in favor of CC).--Andrew c18:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe that Vaquero's stats are based on the first page of results. He looked at each page to determine how the terms were used in context. Here are some additional stats based on searches that I just ran:
Interpretation: 57% use "Catholic Church" with no "Roman" qualifier. 68% use "Catholic Church" not preceded by "Roman", but have "Roman" somewhere in the article.
Interpretation: 70% use "Catholic Church" with no "Roman" qualifier. 82% use "Catholic Church" not proceeded by "Roman", but have "Roman" somewhere in the article.
Interpretation: 57% use "Catholic Church" with no "Roman" qualifier. 68% use "Catholic Church" not proceeded by "Roman", but have "Roman" somewhere in the article.
Now, as you said, the actual context of how these words are used in the article has not been analyzed (that would take a significant amount of time). However, I think it does show that a majority (more in some cases, less in others) of references to the "Catholic Church" do not have a "Roman" qualifier. That means that the editors of those publications did not feel the name "Catholic Church" was ambiguous, based on the context of their usage. I think we at Wikipedia can also remove the ambiguity through a proper terminology section and a disambiguation page. Kylef8118:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Lima, i think we can all agree that "Catholic Church" is the more accurate term. However it does have some ambiguity. But the issue here is whether it has a "reasonable minimum of ambiguity", and i think it does, considering its wide (majority) usage to mean the church in union with the Pope. So the bar that supporters of RCC must reach is to prove that CC is so ambiguous that it justifies using an inaccurate title. 2nd Piston Honda23:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Accurate is a peculiar term to use... why do you feel that "Catholic Church" is more accurate than "Roman Catholic Church"? I would actually have thought it's the other way around - "Catholic Church" has, if anything, more issues with 'accuracy' (in that it can be perceived as making a claim - to be the one church of Jesus Christ - which many dispute and which Wikipedia should neither affirm nor deny); and the question is whether it is sufficiently overwhelmingly the most common term to overcome that concern. TSP00:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
More accurate in the sense that it is the official name of the organization, and that the words "Roman Catholic Church" don't accurately describe the subject of this article. 2nd Piston Honda01:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
If one listened to some of the points raised here and elsewhere, one could be left with the impression that the Catholic Church was indisputably and generally accepted to be the only Catholic Church until some Anglican bigots started throwing their point of view around. This is in the first case false, and in the second case irrelevant to Wikipedia as being unverifiable. This removes at a stroke the largest and most potent objection to titling the article "Roman Catholic Church". Slacspeak up!00:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Lacrimosus (Slac), I don't understand why you insist in framing this naming dispute in terms of POV vs POV. You're missing the point. The references to the historical usage of Catholic Church, as well as the references for the usage of RCC as a moniker by others, are presented to show that the Church has always preferred to describe itself by CC over RCC. The objection to titling the article "Roman Catholic Church" has little to do with your analysis and everything to do with WP clear recommendation that the choice of an article's name should always be descriptive (in the sense of describing how the institution calls itself), and never prescriptive (in the sense of arguing about how POV such name is). PS.: Actually, I can't speak in the name of other editors… but that's the way I interpret the arguments you mentioned. --Leinad ¬ »saudações!01:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Option 2 discussion
I'm recommending option 2: that Catholic Church be a disambiguation page with links to:
Catholic Church (Roman): the Christian church that is in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI of Rome
Catholic church (generic): in theology, the Christian church in general, which in various schools of thought may or may not be identified with a particular existing church, ecclesial communion, or community
(Note the use of capitalization for the proper name and the generic concept.)
Personally, I do think that Option 1 is really a better implementation of Wikipedia policy than the rest, but a majority vote for either Option 1 or Option 3 will leave a sizeable faction of editors unhappy and ensure that the conflict goes on.
Option 2 aims to offer a second-best (perhaps merely less bad) solution, tolerable to supporters of Options 1 and 3. It acknowledges that Catholic Church is widely recognized as the proper name of the Church, and acknowledges that there is a generic theological use of the term which may appear in Christian thought within various communions and communities.
As I imagine this, most Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Church links could be replaced by [[Catholic Church (Roman)|Catholic Church]]. References to the generic theological concept could appear as [[Catholic church (generic)|Catholic church]].
"Catholic Church (Roman)" sounds like a Branch-Theory presentation of the situation, or else as an expression that would be parallelled by, for instance, "Catholic Church (Old)". I feel certain it would be judged inadmissible. "Catholic Church (Roman Catholic Church)" might perhaps be acceptable to all. But even that might meet with opposition. Would it? Lima18:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I think "Catholic Church (Roman Catholic Church") would most certainly be met with opposition. Again, the issue is the use of the word "Roman", which is itself ambiguous. Is it intended to refer to the entire Catholic Church? Does it mean just part of the Catholic Church (the Western/Latin rite)? Again, "Roman" would seem to exclude the other rites of the church. If Option 2 were used, I would think it would have to be something like "Catholic Church (organization)" or "Catholic Church (church)", which would seem a little silly. Again, this is why I think Option 1 makes the most sense; it's the most natural name for the article. Then, the disambig page (with the standard link from this article and/or even an expanded notice/terminology section) can explain the other, less common meaning. Kylef8119:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Someone has pointed out that - quite apart from joint ecumenical declarations - a papal encyclical, no less, has used "Roman Catholic Church" to mean the whole Church. Can Kylef81 point to even one Vatican document, even of minor importance, in which "Roman Catholic Church" means Latin Catholic Church? Lima04:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
In my comment above, I did not mean to imply that the Church's use of "Roman" in its communications referred only to the Latin rite. I meant that Roman's usage in general can refer to the Latin rite. But, when I get some more free time, I'll be happy to read through the Church's use of "Roman" and see if I can find an instance of it referring to the Latin rite and not the Church as a whole. However, absent such evidence, I don't believe my argument is rendered any less valid. "Roman" has been used to refer to the Latin rite, which makes RCC an ambiguous and even inappropriate term. Kylef8111:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I think I found an example, however it's still early where I am and I may be mis-interpreting. I'll let someone more educated on the subject be the judge on whether or not this qualifies. See Ex Quo from 1756, paragraph 9. In the first sentence, "Catholic Church" is used. Then, later in the paragraph, "Roman Catholic Church" is used. In that sentence, Greek priests were being referred to and whether or not they are in union with the "Roman" Catholic Church. So, even though "Catholic Church" was used in the beginning of the paragraph, it was found to be necessary to use "Roman" in order to differentiate between Greek and Roman rites. That's my take on it at least, though I certainly could be misunderstanding it. Ex Quo is the first one I looked at. I'll look at the others a little later. Kylef8112:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well done, Kylef81. I never thought there was anything at all official that could be confused with making "Roman Catholic" mean "Latin-Rite". Congratulations. However, the context is that of an Eastern priest's obligation to mention in the Liturgy the Pope and his own bishop, "if he (the bishop) is in union with the Roman Catholic Church", which means either that the bishop is in communion with the whole Catholic Church (and therefore is not a "dissident"), or - if "Roman Catholic Church" is taken to mean the Catholic Church of Rome, i.e. the local Church, the see, the diocese of Rome - that the bishop is in communion with the local Church of Rome. There is no reason whatever for interpreting it as meaning "the Pope together with the Latin-Rite bishops, but not the Eastern-Rite bishops (nor the Ambrosian-Rite bishops, who, though Latin-Rite, are not Roman-Rite), who are in communion with the Pope". I myself tend to interpret the phrase as referring to the local Church or see of Rome. Otherwise, I would be putting it down as another instance of "Roman Catholic Church" being used to refer to the whole Catholic Church. In spite of all this, my congratulations to you are sincere. Lima16:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, Kylef81, well done! I do have to admit that it is not entirely certain what the RCC is in reference to, but it is virtually clear. It could possibly mean the entire Catholic Church, but the typical nomenclature for that would be "Catholic Church." It could mean the diocese of Rome, but the nomenclature for that would be normally be "Roman Church" or "Church of Rome." So, both of those possibilities seem out of place. However, the one group of Christians who regularly DO refer to the Latin Rite as the RCC is the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. Seeing it in the context of the topic matter, it is perfectly reasonable to understand the RCC reference as intending the Western Church. This is especially so when the Eastern Rite Churches see their communion as not only with a singular person (the pope) but as the embodiment of the whole Church, East and West. It is the union of East and West, that is their complimentarity which makes their communion with the Pope particularly meaningful, not only to them but to the Church of the West, also.
These groundless statements by Vaquero, which I have only now noticed, are provoking me to make a response. The diocese of Rome, he says, "would be normally 'Roman Church' or 'Church of Rome'." (Both English phrases would be "Romana Ecclesia" - or, of course, "Ecclesia Romana" - in Latin.) In reality, "Romana Ecclesia", referring to the see of Rome, is often accompanied by adjectives. I cannot tell immediately whether there are instances of even more adjectives attached to it elsewhere, but I know that the Tridentine profession of faith attaches three: "Sanctam (1)catholicam (2) et apostolicam (3) Romanam Ecclesiam omnium ecclesiarum matrem et magistram agnosco". The early but of uncertain date "Decretum Gelasianum seu Ep. decretalis de libris recipiendis et non recipiendis" (Denzinger 350-353) repeatedly has "sancta Romana Ecclesia", and even has, no less than three times, "catholica et apostolica Romana Ecclesia". This was long before the split between West and East. Yet Vaquero says: "It is perfectly reasonable to understand the RCC reference as intending the Western Church. This is especially so when the Eastern Rite Churches ..." But the document is not an Eastern-Rite Church document: it is a papal document, a document of Benedict XIV, whose attitude in the Chinese Rites controversy does not encourage us to imagine he was trying to get into the mind of Eastern Christians when drawing up his document. Indeed a reading of Ex quo primum itself, by which Benedict XIV "approved and commented on the Euchologium (Ritual) of Eastern-rite Christians who had come back into full communion with the Apostolic See,"[5][6] does not encourage us to imagine he was adopting any viewpoint other than a Roman one. Besides, part 23 of the document speaks of commemorating "the patriarch and bishop, provided that they are in union with the Roman Church" (i.e. Church of Rome), just as part 9, quoted by Kylef81, speaks of "bishop or archbishop if he is in union with the Roman Catholic Church" (i.e. Catholic Church of Rome). Part 66 also speaks, in the English translation, twice of "union with the Roman Church" and once of "union with the Church of Rome." The Latin text is not on the Internet, which only has English and Italian translations. Lima16:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Lima. Again, like I said, it was early when I read that, so my interpretation could certainly be wrong. But I agree with you that it does show some ambiguity: does it mean the entire Church or the local Church in Rome? And now my uneducated analysis of the other Papal Encyclicals:
Rappresentanti in Terra: It also has a single instance of "Roman Catholic Church" (more accurately, it uses "Holy Roman Catholic Church"), in paragraph 54. In that instance, it is actually quoting something written by Cardinal Silvio Antoniano (Dell 'educaz. crist., lib. 1, c. 43). So, since it's a quote, I'm not sure it would really be an endorsement for the use of RCC. Also, I don't know what the context of the larger work is, and whether or not a certain distinction was trying to be made by not simply using "Catholic Church".
In Hac Tanta: Two references. The first (paragraph 18) and second (paragraph 22) are quotes from Boniface. So, same issue as above.
Magnae Nobis Once again, it's a quote. This time (paragraph 7), from the book Supplicationum. Again, I cannot tell if the quoted text is meant to imply the entire Church or just some portion or just some particular diocese/see. Ambiguity of RCC is again an issue here.
Humani Generis: Paragraph 27 contains the reference. In this case, the section is referring to an encyclical letter (Cfr. Litt. Enc. Mystici Corporis Christi, A.A.S., vol. XXXV, p. 193 sq.). I don't know if RCC is used in that paragraph because that's how it was referenced in the letter, or if it was truly intended to mean the entire Catholic Church. I just don't know.
So, there you go, all five Papal Encyclicals that contained "Roman Catholic Church", out of over 400 total. Kylef8119:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, Kylef81, thank you for getting into this texual analysis. I had intended to look into it further way back in June or July, but never did. Here is my take which is very similar to yours:
Rappresentanti in Terra: This is not a case of a direct quote. The Cardinal refered to is writing in the period of the Rennaissance. I do not know the original text, but it is unlikely that it had the form "RCC" as that form was unknown as a name for the CC until the 16th Century. Still it does occur in the 1919 text in question. So where does this come from? I suspect it comes from the then most recent Ecumenical Council which opens with this line:
1. The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection.
The Fist Vatican Council was essentially convoked to articulate the centrality of the Petrine Office and to define the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. "Roman" therefore is a matter of emphasis to demonstrate this dimension of the Church ancient and modern. How this fits in with the immediate context is anyone's guess.
In Hac Tanta: the second mention in paragraph 22 is essentially the same as the first in paragraph 18, which quotes St. Bonaface
18. Thus, advanced in years and worn out by his work, he spoke of himself very humbly: "I am the least and the worst of the representatives which the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church sent to preach the Gospel.Ó[15] But he held this Roman mission in high esteem and he enjoyed calling himself "the German representative of the Holy Roman Church." He wanted to be the devoted servant of the popes, and their humble and obedient disciple.
Boniface is describing his being personally sent by the Pope to the Germans (see: Boniface#First_Mission_to_Frisia}. I think it is clear that he is speaking of the Church of Rome here, and in particular of the pope. "Roman," "Catholic" and "Apostolic" are qualities of the Church of Rome, "Catholic" and "Apostolic" in particular refering to qualities of the Roman Pontiff's authority which comes from the Apostle Peter and is universal in its application. As a direct quote, I do not think this gets us very far.
Therefore they set forth their wishes in a little book (called Supplicationum) to which the Papal signature is applied: "The afore-said petitioners, who are truly members of the orthodox faith and live under obedience to the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and intend so to live and die, etc." These words agree with others which are added in provisional and conditional form, namely...
In this immediate context, it is clear that the "Holy Roman Catholic Church" is a reference to Church of Rome as the obedience mentioned is not to the Church in general but specifically to the Pope by virtue of his authority manifested in his signature. In this case as above, the terms "Holy, Roman Catholic" are qualities of papal authority specifically. (Generally with the exception of the creeds themselves, the term "Apostolic" is almost always a reference to the "Apostolic See," that is, the Diocese of Rome.
27. Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith.
This is a case of an indirect quote. The formula used in Mistici Corporis, para 12.[7] is the same as above in Vatican I: "One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church." Why would Humani Generis paraphrase rather than quote this? One can only guess. But this well-known Encyclical is all about the perogative of Rome to define the faith and the duty of theologians to represent the faith accurately according to Rome's definitions. Again, the general context is the specific qualities of the Holy See which are essential to the nature of the Catholic Church.
To put a finish on this, the five known instances of the term "Roman Catholic Church" out of more than 400 authoritative Vatican documents spanning nearly 250 years break down as follows:
Case 1: Magnae Nobis, 1748: Clear reference to the See of Rome, not to the Church as a whole.
Case 2: Ex Quo, 1756: RCC is arguably are reference to the Western Church, but possibly a reference to the See of Rome, and least likely that it refers to the entire Church.
Case 3: In Haec Tanta, 1919: Seems to be a reference to the whole Catholic Church, without any other explaination.
Case 4: Representanti Tierra, 1929: Seems to be a reference to the whole Catholic Church, with only speculative explanations.
Case 5: Humani Generis, 1950: Reference to the whole Catholic Church in the context of emphasin s othe essential role of the Petrine Office.
Therefore only two references out of the five cases of RCC occuring among 400 documents cannot be explained either as a reference to the Holy See or a matter of emphasis on the importance of the See of Rome... not very convincing for someone arguing that RCC is just as much an official name of the Catholic Church as CC. Vaquero10022:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
If I understand Vaquero correctly, he says that none of the documents mentioned use "Roman Catholic Church" to mean the Latin Church. I agree. Lima04:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
However, Vaquero seems to suggest that "Roman Catholic" is by no means as "official" a name as "Catholic" for the Church we are discussing. I can think of no passage where the Church officially declared "Catholic" to be its name: "Catholic" seems rather to be just one name or description that it uses, one that is its preferential name in relations with other Churches, but not the name or description by which it most frequently refers to itself in internal documents. On the other hand, I can think of one document where the Church does officially declare "Roman" to be a name for it: Leo XIII's 22 January 1899 letter to the Archbishop of Baltimore. In English translation this says: "The true church is one, as by unity of doctrine, so by unity of government, and she is catholic also. Since God has placed the center and foundation of unity in the chair of Blessed Peter, she is rightly called the Roman Church." (Yes, in the passage, the Pope does use the name or description "catholic" for the Church; but "Roman" is what he declares to be a rightly used name for the Church universal, including Eastern-Rite, Ambrosian-Rite and other "Roman" Catholics who are just as much members of the "one" and "true" Church as Catholics that use the Roman Rite.)
Of course "Roman" has in fact been used (and can be used again) as a name for the Church as a whole, a name no less official than "Catholic". Excuse me if I don't go to the trouble of searching for websites with English translations of Pius IX's allocution Singulari quidem of 9 December 1854, in which he declared it an article of faith that nobody can be saved outside the "apostolic Roman Church" ("Tenendum quippe ex fide est, extra apostolicam Romanam Ecclesiam salvum fieri neminem posse") or the Holy Office's letter of 16 September 1864 to the English Bishops, which describes the so-called Branch Theory - a theory that, as someone has here pointed out to Vaquero, was never adopted as Anglican doctrine, even though some individual nineteenth-century Anglicans proposed it - as supposing that "the Roman Church extended and spread throughout the world" (a phrase equivalent to "the Roman Catholic Church") was just one of three branches of the true Church of Christ, and that the other two had, "in parity with the Roman Church, 'one Lord, one faith and one baptism'" ("Tota enim in eo est, ut supponat veram Jesu Christi Ecclesiam constare partim ex Romana Ecclesia per universum orbem diffusa et propagata, partim vero ex schismate photiano et ex anglicana haeresi, quibus aeque ac Ecclesiae Romanae 'unus sit Dominus, una fides et unum baptisma' (cf. Eph 4, 5)"). Lima08:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Option 3 discussion
GRBerry, "Catholic Church" is an abbreviation? Haven't seen that argument before. Would you mind pointing to a declaration made by the Catholic Church stating that the full name is "Roman Catholic Church"? Yes, they've used RCC in a very limited number of official communications, but the vast majority have used "Catholic Church". If RCC is the official, full name, why would they choose not to use it in the majority of communications? Why isn't the Catechism of the Catholic Church called the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. You think they "abbreviated" it to save space? Seems odd. And, I think reasonable people can disagree on what "most English speakers" would recognize. I would argue that most English speakers would recognize Catholic Church, not RCC. I've asked several people about this since the issue started (some Methodists, Baptists, and a few Mormons). They all know the church that I go to as "Catholic Church". When I asked them if they knew what "Roman Catholic Church" meant, they thought it must be some different kind of church. Certainly not a statistically valid poll, but I think it does show that "most" people I know don't recognize RCC as the official name, or even know what it means. RCC is ambiguous. Cathoic Church is not. Kylef8102:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I think what GRBerry is referring to is what is known in linguistics as “ellipsis”(warning: this article mostly discusses the use of an ellipsis - three dots - in written language, rather than the more common usage of ellipsis in spoken language) - the omission of a word or words in normal speech which the listener can be reasonably expected to infer. The phenomenon is part of the natural tendency in speech to only say as much as is necessary to get your message across. In this case, consider the average speaker of English, who is unaware that “Catholic Church” has any senses other than Catholic Church1, but is also unaware that the Catholic Church1 is composed of numerous different Rites (i.e. the speaker hasn’t heard of “Ukrainian Catholics” and so on). This speaker will hear the terms “Catholic Church” (most often) and “Roman Catholic Church” (less often), and assume they must always refer to the same thing (Catholic Church1), since (in this speaker’s knowledge of the world) there is nothing else that they could refer to. Seeing as in most cases when two terms are interchangeable (cf. “United States of America” and “United States”), this is a normal result of ellipsis, and the longer term is usually considered the “more formal/correct/official” version, our speaker will apply this intuition to the distribution of “Catholic Church”/”Roman Catholic Church” and assume that “Catholic Church” is an elliptical version of the “more formal/correct/official” version “Roman Catholic Church”. This then leads the speaker into thinking that “Roman Catholic Church” (despite being encountered less often) is more “formal” or “official” than the more common term “Catholic Church”. If the said average speaker of English goes on to read this article on Wikipedia, then the name of the article and the introductory sentence will misleadingly “confirm” his conclusion, and he won’t discover that it is actually the other way around until he gets to the section “Terminology”. Thylacoleo07:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Looking at some of the web searches Vaquero uses in his essay, this can often be seen at work. As he states Roman does not appear to be used all that often as a qulaifier, but when it isn't there is normally some more subtle disambiguation going on from the context in which it is used, Cardinal X of the Catholic Church said Y, for example, the use of Cardinal immediately gives us sufficient context. I note also that for the 22 Dicoesan homepages for Catholic Dicoeses in England and Wales, 8 of them specifically refer to themself as the Roman Catholic Diocese of X on the main homepage, a similar number admittedly use just Catholic Diocese of X, whilst the remainder just use Diocese of X without any qualification (and there's one dead site). Of course this is doubtless due to lingering English anti-Catholicism... David Underdown12:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The Dioceses you mention are part of the western Latin Rite. In this specific instance, the modifier "Roman" is accurate: it simply points to the fact that the diocese is from the Western Rite side of the CC. The same is not true for this article, which aims to describe the whole entity, not just the Western / Latin Rite. --Leinad ¬ »saudações!18:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Does Leinad-Z seriously think these dioceses meant to identify themselves specifically as part of the Western/Latin Rite and not simply as belonging to the whole Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome? Lima18:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm showing why, in the specific case of these dioceses, the modifier is not problematic... while for the present article it is problematic indeed. --Leinad ¬ »saudações!18:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
There are some people who think it is a matter of grave theological importance to either remove the word "Roman" from all of wikipedia, or to add the word "Roman" in front of every single instance of CC. Both of these extremes are unacceptable, and the epitomy of POV pushing. In the spirt of compromise, and disambiguity, and name recognition, and POV issues, I support the previous compromise, and propose no new changes. The title of the article is RCC. There will be a disambig page pointing to other "Catholic" notions. There will be a place in the article that briefly comments on RCC vs CC (without giving undue weight to minority views). CC will stay a redirect to RCC. Wikipedia can use the phrase CC in articles, but the first instance should be a wikilink to RCC. It isn't perfect, but I cannot imagine another compromise that would still allow both RCC and CC. Its a slippery slope, and removing "Roman" from this article's title will lead to erasing that word (which pleases some people, but again is only representative of a minority POV). Look at what other encyclopdias and dictionaries use. As I have said, both RCC and CC have issues, and neither is perfect, but I think we should keep what we've had for a good while now. As a side note, I think it is sickening how much energy has gone into debating one word, when the content of this article is being ignored. When is this article going to be brought up to FA status? How are we ever going to progress if we can't get past one silly word. Both names are used, both names are fairly easily recognized, both have disambiguity and theological POV issues. I just look at what other encyclopedias use, what I feel is the lesser of two 'evils' and less ambiguous, and what the church itself uses when addressing non-Catholic audiences in diplomatic relations. Wikipedia is not an internal Catholic document. While not perfect, adding "Roman" only helps clarify what is meant. (some people think that there is no need for clarity, but we wouldn't be having this debate if that were the case, and other feel that "Roman" is a slur, but that's hard to accept when it has been shown that individual catholics, churches, national churches, and diplomatic vatican documents all have used RCC.)--Andrew c15:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Andrew c, what you propose as the existing compromise is utterly unworkable. It only serves to satisfy the Anglican POV. Here's why: Throughout WP, editors are free to write RCC throughout the texts of articles. If anyone comes along and changes RCC to CC, they have no standing. If someone writes CC in an artilce and it gets changed to RCC, it cannot be reverted because the CC position has no standing. In short, the title of this artilce controls every mention of the Catholic Church on WP. This is no compromise at all. If you still think it is a compromise, then yet again you demonstrate that your claim to impartiality is doubtful. Vaquero10018:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll repeat what I said: The title of the article is RCC. There will be a disambig page pointing to other "Catholic" notions. There will be a place in the article that briefly comments on RCC vs CC (without giving undue weight to minority views). CC will stay a redirect to RCC. Wikipedia can use the phrase CC in articles, but the first instance should be a wikilink to RCC. It isn't perfect, but I cannot imagine another compromise that would still allow both RCC and CC. Each article would only have one instance of RCC. After the first RCC, CC would be allowed as many times as necessary. Having CC redirect to RCC, and allowing such a wide usage of CC is the compromise. I said clearly that having the word Roman required before every instance of CC is one extreme POV, and the other extreme POV is removing the word Roman completely. A compromise is something that both sides have to give. Do you have any other suggestions for compromise? We could do the other way around? Have CC be the first instance in an article, and then have every other instance of CC be prefaced with "Roman" (no, that wouldn't work).--Andrew c19:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Just because you said it is "okay" to use CC in other articles after the first reference means nothing. This is a proposed compromise to get the Catholics to just shut up and go away. The problem is that there is nothing binding about what we say on this talk page save changing the name of the article. As long as this article is RCC then it is acceptible for Anglicans to run around (as they have been doing all over the place) and inserting "Roman". I was blocked for a day because I was removing "Roman." Now tell me with a straight face that what you propose is anything but ludicrous! Vaquero10022:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I asked you specifically if you had another compromise suggestion, and I guess by your response, your answer is "No". Anything short of the removal of every single instance of "Roman" is unacceptable to you? I stand by my proposal. But like you said, we need a way to make this more than just words. What I proposed on another page is (after this discussion) starting a centralized discussion to create a naming convention policy for catholic related articles. We could establish rules such as RCC has to be used as the first wikilink, but isn't required after the first use (and the R word should only be used if contextually necessary). We could also specifically state that adding or removing the word "Roman" just to push a POV is against policy (however, contextual necessity is a different story). Articles that use only CC in their title must mention the Eastern Rite view, and possibly other applicable views. If a topic isn't applicable to the eastern rite, RCC must be used. etc. Anyway, these are just ideas. My main point is that I don't want to see this debate move on to every subpage, and have the title and usage of RCC vs. CC dependent on the number of people who bother to vote in a particular week. Getting a working policy is going to be hard work, but I feel worth it to prevent name change chaos on every single page (because really, arguing over one word on so many different pages for so many months is not helping the content of any article. really now, when is this article going to get up to FA status?)--Andrew c23:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
IN large part I agree, but I fear you may be wasting your time with Vaquero. He has announced his mission to Right Great Wrongs and will be satisfied wiht nothing less than unqualified adoption of his preferred nomaenclature. Guy23:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I wonder how people would feel in regard to using something like Catholic Church (organization) in the title as part of a compromise... Strictly speaking I think it is a less problematic term, since it addresses the main complaints of ambiguity in both CC and RCC. It's not a very elegant solution, but may be the best chance for "peace" in this page and related articles. --Leinad ¬ »saudações!00:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
That is an interesting solution. I agree that it isn't very elegant, but it wouldn't be the first time something slightly ackward arose out of compromise (namely the BC/E solution at Jesus). I'd be willing to seriously consider this as an alternative working compromise, if others agreed as well (but then what would we do with all the RCC vs. CC debates on all the subpages and categories etc.) I'd like closure on this current debate, but I'd also like a working policy for the lofty purpose of trying to end these sorts of discussion in the future, so editors can focus their time and energy on improving articles, instead of arguing over the word "Roman".--Andrew c01:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Leinad's suggestion for (organization) in Option 2 is reasonable. I'd like to see more votes for 2, but the original deadline for the vote has passed, so unless there has been an extension, it may be too late. Chonak07:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Possible disclaimer
I see nothing wrong with this result being the outcome of this discussion. I wouldn't consider it a "compromise" in the technical sense of the word, however, as such an outcome would be the natural result of the failure of the the English language use of the term "Catholic Church" to refer to the organisation that is the subject of this article with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity. I happen to believe that those tests recommended by Wikipedia to resolve such a question have shown that "Catholic Church" in this use does indeed have a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, and thus doesn't require further disambiguation.
I can see the concern that those like Andrew c have in regards to any result achieved here affecting other articles (both article names and article content) to do with the Catholic Church. To try and prevent this, I would suggest that if and when a decision is made here it is announced (at the top of this talk page) with disclaimers of the following type (these are written assuming a move of this article to "Catholic Church", but can be reworded for any result):
1."Catholic Church" is the most commonly used name in the English language for the subject of this article.
2.The use of "Catholic Church" in English to refer to the subject of this article meets the Wikipedia standard of a reasonable minimum of ambiguity.
If you wish to discuss the naming of this article on this talk page further, first familiarise yourself with the discussions that led to the current consensus and the Wikipedia policies and guidelines mentioned above. If you wish to argue for moving the name of this article, please ensure your arguments are based firmly on relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
The naming of this article is explicitly not intended to imply that any other articles relating to the Catholic Church should be renamed. If you wish to rename other related articles, you must use proper Wikipedia procedures. Arguments for renaming related articles should be based on Wikipedia naming policies and guidelines as they apply to that particular article. The naming of this article should not be relied upon as a precedent or justification for the renaming of any other articles. Do not rename any articles related to the Catholic Church or Catholicism without first achieving a consensus to do so.
Similarly, the naming of this article does not imply that either the use of the term "Roman Catholic Church" to refer to the subject of this article is discouraged or that the use of "Catholic Church" is preferred in the text of articles. It is up to the discretion of the editors of those articles as to which term is appropriate to use in context, keeping in mind that a Wikipedia article should aim to inform its readers as fully as possible. Do not change any instances of the terms "Roman Catholic Church" or "Catholic Church" in any Wikipedia article without a clear rationale and the consent of the editors of that article.
This is probably a bit too wordy, and can be made more precise, but I think you get my drift. I envisage such a notice would also have links in the appropriate places to direct readers to the previous discussions related to this article name, as well as to procedures for changing article names and seeking a consensus. Of course, it would be worthwhile if, after this particular discussion is over, we can develop some generalised principles of article naming for related articles - but I think it's important to separate the result of this particular article naming dispute from other articles. Thylacoleo03:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
That would certainly make me a lot happier. A feature of this debate has been attempts (probably from both sides) to spread their preferred term across Wikipedia, including at places like Catholic Evangelical where one term is clearly ambiguous. I'm not actually that concerned about where this article ends up - in any case both terms will point to this page - but I am concerned about ambiguity and possible POV in use of "Catholic Church", and especially of "Catholic" and "Catholicism", in other pages, particularly ones relating to other churches which consider themselves Catholic but are not in communion with the Pope.
As I've said before, I find there to be much more potential ambiguity in "Catholic" and "Catholicism" than in "Catholic Church"; it may be the case that a Google or Yahoo search for 'Catholic Church' brings up overwhelmingly Roman Catholic hits; but a Google search for "Catholicism" brings up the Anglican group "Affirming Catholicism" before you even get past the first page. TSP11:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I like the amount of thought you have given this, and I seriously support efforts to curtail unilateral movements across other pages after the results of this 'poll'. However, the way things have turned, it looks like we may end up with another 'no consensus' bit. That said, everything, except points 1 and 2, are very strong and I'd support something along those lines being put into a naming convention. Maybe the best thing isn't to establish a policy, but instead to look at each topic individually (like it would be silly to call an article that included Anglican and Eastern views "Roman"), while pointing editors towards previous decisions, and forbidding name changing without discussion and reason/consensus. I'm torn, so I need to think this over for a bit, but seriously, great suggestions.--Andrew c22:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. Andrew c, I agree with what you say about points 1 and 2 - they would of course not be part of such a “declaration” if the article was left at “Roman Catholic Church” or moved to “Catholic Church (organization)” or the like (as unlikely as that seems), seeing as both such outcomes would be affirmations that either one or both of these points were deemed to be factually incorrect. I included them there to clarify what the basis of the argument for the move is, and in the hope that it would prompt people who object to the move to address these points of fact directly, rather than rely on off-topic arguments such as who has the theological right to refer to themselves as the Catholic Church.
I agree with TSP that while the English term “Catholic Church” probably meets Wikipedia standards of a reasonable minimum of ambiguity (with respect to referring to the Church which is the subject of this article), the same probably cannot be said for the words “Catholic” or especially “Catholicism”. What happens to those articles is obviously a separate issue to what happens to this one, but I think that the existence of an article entitled “Catholicism” which specifically dealt with the broader theological sense, would be an appropriate counterbalance to an article entitled “Catholic Church” which dealt with the narrower institutional sense of this article (prompted partly by the intuition that if a reader wanted to learn specifically about the subject of this article they are far more likely to type the term “Catholic Church” into the search bar than “Catholicism”). Having thought quite a bit about the wider picture of how these related topics are best treated on Wikipedia (in light of a name change with this article), I have also somewhat modified my thoughts in light of the points TSP made (far) above to an earlier post of mine. I think perhaps that the disambiguation page Catholic Church (disambiguation) could be profitably moved to the title Catholic Church (term), where it could properly be expanded into a full article about the term “Catholic Church” in the various senses it has in English, including subsections entitled, say, “Use of the term in theology” (which discusses all the theological claims regarding what a/the “Catholic Church” is) and “Use of the term in the name of particular Churches” (which mentions all the Churches which have “Catholic Church” as all or part of their name in English and why). I won’t go into further detail about other pages here, but am actually quite keen to do so at the appropriate place once the current debate is settled. Thylacoleo00:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
There is little disagreement that this issue is loaded. Entangled in this debate are the fears about the effect of the outcome; Will "Roman" be applied everywhere or will it be applied nowhere? If Wikipedia is to reflect usage, then neither the everywhere nor the nowhere result is appropriate. As it has been pointed out, the entirety of the Church does not call itself "Roman", but there are some dioceses and individual parishes that do. Could we not in Wikipedia use "Roman" for those parts of the Church that identify themselves that way and not use "Roman" for those parts that do not? Doing so would give consistency with the approach at Church of Christ. As for the article addressing the catholic church in the creed, doesn't it already exist at One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church? -SynKobiety04:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, in the interests of trying to make it a little less loaded, I've created the following mock-up for the kind of disclaimer statement that might be appropriate - I would put it at the top of the page probably above the Wikiproject:Catholicism box. Most of it is just a condensed version of what I've written above, however the text that I've put after the mention of the policy pages is a paraphrase of the statement at Wikipedia:Naming conflict which says: "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." As I've never tried to create such a box before, and it could probably do with some beautifying, please feel free to edit it mercilessly.
Name of this article ("Catholic Church" version)
The naming of this article "Catholic Church" was agreed upon after several months of discussion and careful consideration and application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines relating to naming articles (specifically WP:NC, WP:NC(CN), WP:NCON and WP:DAB). Be aware that Wikipedia does not assert that the entity that is the subject of this article has any right to use the name "Catholic Church"; we merely note the fact that they do use that name.
The choice of name for this article is explicitly not intended to imply that any other Wikipedia articles related to the Catholic Church or Catholicism should be renamed. Do not rename any articles related to the Catholic Church or Catholicism without first achieving a consensus to do so.
The name of this article is not intended to imply that either the term "Roman Catholic Church" is discouraged or the term "Catholic Church" is preferred in Wikipedia articles. Do not change any instances of the terms "Roman Catholic Church" or "Catholic Church" in any Wikipedia article without a clear rationale and the consent of the editors of that article.
I fail to see why User:JzG thinks I'm arguing that this discussion should be archived before the end of voting - I don't. I have to assume he has read all my posts, so I would be fascinated to see how he has come to construe it that way. Thylacoleo07:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I have adjusted the wording at the beginning of the disclaimer mock-up above to clarify its purpose - which is to try to prevent the outcome of this discussion (if it should result in a name change to "Catholic Church") being used as a precedent for wider changes in other articles. This is to specifically address the concerns of those who feel that making such a change will lead to further disruption elsewhere. Note that the Wikipedia policies and guidelines related to naming articles need to be applied to each article on the basis of how they apply to each particular article. If the outcome of this discussion does not lead to this article being renamed, the above disclaimer mock-up would need to be substantially revised to reflect that before it could be adopted. Thylacoleo22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the disclaimer needs much adjustment if the outcome is no-consensus. Remove the specifics that favor the name CC, and that should just about do it. Regardless of the outcome, I think it is important to note that the name of this article shouldn't be used as presedent on other articles, and that changing the names of other articles without discussion is to be discouraged.--Andrew c23:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Well the second and third dot-points wouldn't need to be changed (except for reversing the words "discouraged" and "preferred" in the third dot-point). But the first one would have major problems if the article remained at "Roman Catholic Church". One point is that it would be somewhat misleading to include a paraphrase from the Wikipedia:Naming conflict page, when a reader of that page could be easily forgiven for concluding that part of the reasoning used against having this article at "Catholic Church" (that doing so would support the POV claim that this particular Church is the Catholic Church in the broader theological sense) is apparently contrary to those guidelines. Perhaps something from the WP:NPOV page would be less confusing? Thylacoleo00:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how others are interpreting the current events, but I do think the disclaimer needs some important adjustments if the outcome of this poll is "no-consensus". To begin with, in such scenario it would be false to affirm that the name Roman Catholic Church "was agreed upon". I hope we can all agree on that. --Leinad ¬ »saudações!01:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Totally, I was picturing something like "The name of the church in question has been the matter of numerous heated discussions. Wikipedia accepts the usage of both "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" and does not endorse one or the other. The results of these numerous debates and polls have been unable to persuade enough people on either side to consider supporting one name more than the other. Because this is such a contentious issue, it is strongly recommended to not edit articles for the sole purpose of adding or removing the word "Roman" from the church's title. In situations where conflicts arise, consensus and community support must be gained BEFORE altering the name used in an article. The name of the main article is not to be used as presedent for naming other articles, thus forcing an examination of each article on an individual basis.". Of course, worded better, spelled better, more concise, and incorporating text from Thylacoleo's proposal. Just my 2 cents.--Andrew c02:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, Andrew c, I've tried to incorporate your ideas into a second disclaimer mock-up for the case that this page remains at "Roman Catholic Church". How does this sound?:
Name of this article (“Roman Catholic Church” version)
The name of this article is a matter of long-standing contention, upon which editors of this article have failed to agree. Please familiarise yourself with the reasons for this disagreement and relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as WP:NPOV, WP:NC, WP:NC(CN), WP:NCON and WP:DAB, before posting on this matter on this talk page. Wikipedia accepts that both "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are widely used to refer to the subject of this article and does not take a position on which is considered more theologically “correct”.
The current name of this article should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other Wikipedia articles. In particular, do not rename any articles related to the Catholic Church or Catholicism without first achieving a consensus to do so.
The current name of this article is not intended to imply that either the term "Roman Catholic Church" is preferred or the term "Catholic Church" is discouraged in the text of Wikipedia articles. Do not change any instances of the terms "Roman Catholic Church" or "Catholic Church" in any Wikipedia article without a clear context-based rationale and the consent of the editors of that article.
The text is good, but there is some redundancy in it. One thing we can do is to take only the first phrase of the second paragraph and merge it in the third paragraph. Or maybe we can get rid of the second paragraph altogether. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 07:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Just noticed that one paragraph is dealing with article names and the other with names inside articles. So they are not redundant. --Leinad ¬ »saudações!07:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Looking good. I personally feel arguing over 1 word has taken up way too much time in the past, and is hindering editors from actually working on content (as I have said before, why isn't this article a FA yet?) I support this 'disclaimer' because it discourages edit wars and name changing for the sake of name changing. I wouldn't mind a final piece in it saying something like "Instead of debating whether to include or exclude the word "Roman", consider other ways you can contribute to the actual content of the articles in question". But I wouldn't want my personal POV on this matter to get to infused in the disclaimer. Anyway, I'd be willing to see if we couldn't introduce this text eventually into the naming convention guidelines.--Andrew c13:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I did a "personal version" of the above disclaimer. It is a work in progress, but if anyone wants to check it, see here: User:Leinad-Z/RCC Disclaimer. Maybe we could use that subpage to collectively improve a disclaimer until it is ready for "release". If there is interest in it, please let me know. Of course, one can easily create another user subpage to do it also. --Leinad ¬ »saudações!01:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think your rearrangement makes it flow more logically. I'm not certain though about that last sentence you've added - I approve of the sentiment but perhaps the wording might be improved somehow. "Rather than debating whether to include or exclude the word "Roman", please consider other ways you can improve the quality of an article."? And perhaps place it in a new paragraph (seeing as it doesn't immediately follow from what goes on before). But, all in all, it's a good improvement. Thylacoleo03:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I just made a "newer version" of the disclaimer with more rearrangements and incorporating a last phrase very similar to the one suggested. I also tried some style improvements. For example, the word "article" was (and still is) repeated many times in the text, so I changed it to yhe term "page" in some instances… The newer box is also less wordy. --Leinad ¬ »saudações!07:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The newer version seems fine to me too (well, except for your spelling "-ize" instead of "-ise", but that's just me I suppose); I think it's almost time to release it into the "wild", so to speak. I'd like to get someone who voted for "Roman Catholic Church" to concur as well, though (Andrew c, any thoughts?). (I've added the closing syntax to the second box on your subpage, although it still hasn't fixed the nesting problem.) Thylacoleo02:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
WikiCats (talk • contribs) has gone around and personally messaged every single member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism informing them of this vote. Since voting "ends" in less than 24 hours, I would propose leaving voting open for another week, if we get a flood of people coming in from that wikiproject. (or we can close it early at no consensus. ha!) I also don't know what to think of an editor personally involved in a discussion closing the discussion at a 60% 'consensus' over at Talk:Sacraments of the Catholic Church, but WikiCats could be an admin, and there may be bigger issues that I'm not aware of, so I'll let it be. I'm just a little upset that Vaq did a move out of process and then tried to accuse me of some sort of wrong doing by simply listing a requested move to revert Vaq's actions.--Andrew c13:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
There's no doubt that this is a very emotive issue. People from WikiProject Catholicism regularly get asked to participate in votes and this is our primary article. Andrew also called for persons from WikiProject Catholicism to review this debate. If there is any dispute about how Sacraments of the Catholic Church was closed I am open to it. Stick with it. --WikiCats15:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
So voting supposedly ended 7 hours ago? No one responded to my suggestion to keep voting open longer, and now I retract that and would support closing the vote. The totals so far are 29-1-25 (however, one of the option #1s was conditional, and that user voted for option 3 as first preference). By my calculations, option 1 received 50.9%, option 2 received 1.8%, and option 3 received 45.5%. I'd say that is no consensus, but of course I voted and have interest in the discussion so I wouldn't dare close and call it myself. I think all we can really do now is move on to discussing the disclaimer/naming guideline?--Andrew c13:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I noticed 2nd Piston Honda final vote tally. For some reason one vote (Nino Gonzales) was excluded due to being late, however User:Túrelio was also 1 hour 13 minutes past the deadline. Also, the final vote tally included two votes from TCC, one of which was a qualified support. I'm not sure if there were restrictions about voting twice, or how this should be counted. Just nit picking because I'm neurotic about these things, not because I think it will effect the final outcome or anything.--Andrew c16:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
If Vaquero is from the Western Rite part of the CC, the description seems accurate. The same is not true for this article, which aims to describe the whole entity, not just the Western Rite. --Leinad ¬ »saudações!15:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Very true. The Catholic Church is an entity which is made up of many distinct 'churches' (small c) united and in communion with the Pope of the Church of Rome. I belong to the Church of Denver (i.e. the Archdiocese of Denver) which is a Western Rite jurisdiction, or Roman Catholic jurisdiction. A Maronite or a Ruthenian who goes to a Maronite or Ruthenian parish (which is still Catholic) living in the same city as I would not belong to the same jurisdiction (i.e. would not belong to the Church - or Archdiocese of Denver) but would fall under a bishop probably not even physically located in Denver.(This unsigned comment was added by User:Rchamberlain in the revision 04:15, 7 September 2006.)
You really shouldn't abuse the process by advertising it to those with vested interests. Nor, should you, think that following the official policy on name moves is in any way 'surreptitious'. And, finally, you shouldn't call me an Anglican when I'm clearly not one. Bastin 14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
To announce the move proposal here is the right thing to do, since it's closely related with the current discussion in this page. However, I think the language and tone of the announcement should be more neutral. --Leinad ¬ »saudações!15:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
If anyone is being hostile, look in the mirror. Please assume good faith, and stop throwing the "A" word around.--Andrew c16:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Vaquero, you moved it to Catholicism in Great Britain, presumably as part of your declared agenda to remove Roman from the titles of RC articles as stated on your user page. You should have made this clear. The original move to this location was a copy and paste move which screwed up the article history. I am fixing that now. Guy09:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
»saudações! 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Support Basically, I think we should follow the guidelines. --WikiCats 02:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
»saudações! 22:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)