Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Shell

Based on a look at his recent contributions, it appears that Shell made a single edit yesterday so heshe is currently active although only barely so. Reviewing all hisher edits over the last two months, I note that although heshe makes 5-10 edits almost every day, there are periods where he does not edit for 3-4 days so hisher current absence is not out of the ordinary for himher.

I will comment that on Feb 23, there were 37 edits to this talk page and on Feb 22 there were 67 edits to this talk page.

I wonder if there is a mismatch between the activity level of the mediator and the activity level of the participants in the mediation. I wouldn't expect the mediator to respond to every edit but I think some sort of interaction every 5-10 edits would be about right even if the interaction was nothing more than "Please slow down" or "Stop the sniping".

--Richard (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard, just one comment on this. According to her info page Shell is a she. You might want to change your text around a little so as not to offend her. Don't want to upset our mediator ;) Marauder40 (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanx. I don't usually read user pages. I guess this proves that doing so has some value. --Richard (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm still holding out hope for Shell to return, but it does seem kind of odd that we don't have any input. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I note that Shell has been off-wiki for sometime now and have sent her a query as to her intentions. It is possible that another mediator may have to step in, at least for the time being. I have offered to do that, assuming that there is sufficient will to continue on the part of participants. Sunray (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

New proposal

In view of Nancy's return tomorrow I propose the following as a compromise:

The Roman Catholic Church or, as it is usually called in its official documents and in common parlance, the Catholic Church is ...

with a footnote: Although no document has been cited in which the Church adopts a particular name as official, several writers, including [here cite a few], hold that "Catholic Church" is its only official name.

This keeps in the article the claim that there is a single official name, and that that name is "Catholic Church". And it does not say that the claim is questionable. I hope Nancy will be satisfied with that. I would be satisfied with it also, since it does not present the claim as an unquestionable fact. I trust that Gimmetrow, Richard, Defteri and others would accept it too.

Unless Nancy and Xandar accept it, I fear that no solution is possible. If they continue to insist that the article must state as a universally agreed fact that "Catholic Church" is the one and only name that the Church holds to be official, a claim that several of us find to be clearly false and contrary to fact, I see no possibility of compromise. And objections will be raised against the continued inclusion of that claim in the article. Soidi (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree. It is extremely tiresome that certain editors continue to pursue their personal and apparently fanatical agendas on this issue in spite of all obvious evidence to the contrary. The article is virtually being held to ransome by their unreasonable behaviour. An intelligent and appropriate compromise on the wording is long overdue. Afterwriting (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the first and last sentences of Afterwriting's comment. As for the stuff in between, I would suggest that inflammatory rhetoric does not help move us towards compromise.

I can support Soidi's proposal.

--Richard (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Soidi's proposal is very unencyclopedic language and I think it makes the rest of the page look ridiculous. If Encyclopedia Brittanica and Academic American Encyclopedia agree that the Church has one official name, I see no reason to change current article text in favor of those editors who, for some reason, wish to hide this important documented and referenced fact. I propose that we wait until Shell comes around and let the mediation be mediated instead of what is happening now. Also, I appreciate everyone waiting until I returned, I had to go out of town for a few days, Thank you. NancyHeise ^talk 02:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nancy... just a friendly note...you seem to have it fixed in your head that Britannica is spelled with two "t"s and one "n" when, in fact, it is one "t" and two "n"s. Doing it once could be the result of a typo, doing it three times suggests that you have remembered the spelling erroneously. If it helps, remember that the Encyclopedia Britannica is from Britannia, not from Brittany. Also, remember that the name of the island is Great Britain and not Great Brittain. --Richard (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the description as unencyclopedic of the language of Soidi's proposal, which I support. I also support his comment. Defteri (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree with the tone the proposal (particularly the footnote), but I agree with the direction of his proposal and I think it could be made to work with some editing for POV. Specifically, I think the word "parlance" is a bit obscure and we should try to use a more common word. The footnote doesn't seem to be referencing sources but a specific POV; I think it should be closer to the footnote we had when we started the mediation. We don't need to tell the reader 3-4 times that Catholic Church is the official name; the lead is supposed to introduce the topic, not shape people's perceptions. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the basic trouble with the previous note was that it aimed precisely at shaping people's perceptions in favour of the factuality of the view of writers like Whitehead. We could perhaps omit "Although no document has been cited in which the Church adopts a particular name as official" (although this is clearly factual, and has been repeatedly stressed, especially by Gimmetrow), but we should not go back to how the previous note (which is still in the article) presented opinion as unquestionable fact. I also do not think that Soidi's proposal tells the reader 3-4 times that "Catholic Church" is the official name: it only says once, no more, that some writers uphold this idea. Defteri (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The Roman Catholic Church or, as it is usually called 1. in its official documents and 2. in common parlance, the Catholic Church is

with a footnote: Although no document has been cited in which the Church adopts a particular name as official, 3. several writers, including [here cite a few], hold that "Catholic Church" is its only official name.

Three times. My goal here isn't to push a POV. I want to see a balanced compromise that doesn't give undue weight to this debate. Both names need to be mentioned, and a footnote should just give a brief explanation of the names, using whatever reliable sources that will do the job. I don't think this name issue is as important as we're making it out to be, and like I said this is an introduction to the article, not the naming debate that we've been having over the past few months. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear. The problem is whether "Catholic Church" is in fact the supposed one and only official name (mentioned only once). I think there is no dispute about what is the usual name. Defteri (talk) 10:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's not what I meant. What I mean is that the church is referred to by both names, so we need to have both names there. I don't dispute that "Catholic church" is what the church calls itself, I think that was established a while ago. So like i was saying before, the proposed first sentence is fine if we can simplify it a bit, I think the footnote should read differently. I'm a bit sleep deprived right now, so I wont attempt to propose any wording until I get some rest. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Soidi's suggestion is far too long. However if it could be boiled down to : "The Roman Catholic Church - in normal official usage, the Catholic Church - is ...", it could be getting us toward a text which is clear, brief and conforms with our references. Xandar 20:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So Xandar wants the usage by the Popes, Councils, Bishops Conferences and individual bishops of "Roman Catholic Church" and other names to be classified as "abnormal"? The fact is, as Kraftlos says, that "the church is referred to by both names" and others. More references have now been put forward, sources at least as reliable as Whitehead - in my opinion, much more reliable than Whitehead - that expressly give "Roman Catholic" even as an "official name" of the Church. Xandar and Nancy should not continue to ignore the evidence even in secondary sources, as well as keeping their eyes closed to what is the actual practice of the Church. All the rest of us are asking is that the view that "Catholic Church" is the one and only official name of the Church be put forward as an opinion. It is clear that it isn't the only opinion, not only among the editors involved here, but also in the wider world. Soidi (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Soidi, the "source" you are quoting is rubbish, and is not a reliable source because it is not a scholarly work, but a polemical book written by a fanatical anti-Catholic who thinks the church is the spawn of satan. As I said below, it is like using Mein Kampf as a reliable source on Jewish religious practice. "Roman Catholic Church" is simply not used officially by the world Catholic Church, and your parallel reality in which it is, does not coincide with the reral world. A Church or any other body decideds its own proper name, not groups from outside. I've tried to be constructive with your contribution, but I feel that you have no intention of settling this dispute on any but your own opinion. Xandar 16:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear me! I didn't know that Claud D. Nelson thinks the Catholic Church is the spawn of Satan. Does he truly? Soidi (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment and another source

I have no dog in this fight, though I'm kind of intrigued both that so many do, and that it is apparently so unclear as to what the institution's proper or official name is. For what it's worth, I don't think that the Whitehead source is a good one. And I give you this alternative and this one. But it would be nice to have a really decent source one way or the other. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The first link only takes me to a catalogue page and a possibility of the absolutely useless "snippet view". SO I have no idea of what point is being referred to here. The second book linked to "The Great Divide" is a polemical anti-Catholic work of the worst kind, full of inaccuracies. certainly no sort of source. Xandar 12:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. Here's what the first source says: "To avoid monotony, Catholic with capital 'C' is frequently used throughout the book for Roman Catholic. 'Roman' is used without prejudice, being part of the full official name. All Christians declare themselves catholic when they recite the Apostles' Creed." The book in question is The Vatican Council and All Christians, by Claud D. Nelson, published by Association Press, 1962. But again, I have no dog in this fight. I've just spent more procrastination time than is good for me trying to find sources either way. I find none that I find particularly convincing. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I agree that the Hindman book is not a great source. I'd put it about on a par as the Whitehead one. Both are equally unscholarly. Were they to quote some sources themselves, it would be a different matter. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What's intriguing about the Hindman book is the statement that "By the end of the 16th century...'Roman Catholic Church' ... becomes the legal and official name of the Roman Catholic Church". The question that just screams to be answered is: WHERE? Is Hindman talking about in Britain or across the Continent? Presumably, he's talking about the "legal and official name" of the church in England because, if not, this is a HUGE assertion for us to consider. The issue here is that Whitehead et al argue that "Catholic Church" has always been the name of the church. Most of our arguments have not denied that "Catholic Church" is an official or even, the preferred, name of the church. What we have asserted is that "Roman Catholic Church" has been and remains an official name of the church as well. It seems important to clarify Hindman's statement so as to understand the assertion that he is making. --Richard (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Again, I'm far from saying that Hindman is a great source. Far from it. Really, after spending far too much time on this, what strikes me is how few people even address this issue--and basically no scholars at all, so far as I can see. And Hindman and Whitehead are, as far as I can see, more or less equivalent sources, though they say diametrically opposed things. Neither offers any evidence for their argument that can be checked. Neither are scholarly sources. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(To be fair, though, Hindman's book is at least semi-scholarly... he does footnote some sources, just not, as far as we can see, for this particular assertion. It would be nice to see the content of footnote 45. In this respect, at least, Hindman is in fact a better source than Whitehead, who gives us nothing of the sort.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So it's apparently not okay to include a reference from a "polemical anti-Catholic work of the worst kind, full of inaccuracies" and "certainly no sort of source" but perfectly okay to include comments from Whitehead which is a polemical pro-Roman Catholic work of the worst kind, also full of inacccuracies and also certainly no kind of source. The intellectual integrity of this article cannot be taken seriously while the Whitehead nonsense is included. It is embarrassing. Afterwriting (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The difference between Hindman and Whitehaead, is that on the issue of what the Church calls itself, Whitehead speaks from knowledge as a member and spokesman for the Church, and Hindman speaks as someone with no knowledge of this subject in a scurrilous, error-filled book meant to spread the notion that the Catholic Church is the spawn of Satan! How anyone can broach any equivalence between these works is beyond all belief! No doubt Mein Kampf will soon be quoted on jewish doctrine. Xandar 20:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

JB said: "Really, after spending far too much time on this, what strikes me is how few people even address this issue--and basically no scholars at all, so far as I can see." Yes, that's one of the points I've been saying. There is a section in the CCC called "Names and Images of the Church". It doesn't give any "official name". I've looked up many scholarly commentaries on that section. If the church had an "official name", one might expect reputable commentators to mention it while commenting on the section. So far, none. Likewise, someone has pointed to Lumen Gentium as defining "Catholic Church" as the "official name". Again I looked at a couple commentaries on that section, and none discussed anything about official name. (The Catholic commentators on that section of Lumen Gentium even used "Roman Catholic Church" in their own discussion - including a commentary by Cardinal Ratzinger.) Perhaps the legitimate scholars don't discuss "official name" because there isn't one? Only the church can declare an official name, and we apparently don't have that. What we have instead are people arguing that one name or another is the "official name". Some editors here reject the non-Catholic sources because they are non-Catholic. I don't find them credible as sources because they are propaganda - the same reason I don't find credible the Catholic sources arguing for CC. It's a trap to think that the only possible options for the name of the church are "RCC" and "CC" as if tertium non datur. It's quite possible that the church has no official name, or a different name, and that these propagandists (on both sides) are doing something rather different than a scholarly determination of the "official name" of this church. Remember, in Lumen Gentium, "CC" is used 6 times, "Church of Christ" (5) and "Church of God" (4), but that document uses a different term to refer to the church far more frequently (>100 times). Gimmetrow 20:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The Catholic sources cited are not speaking in the name of the Catholic Church, any more than the other sources are. They are giving their view on the existence and identity of a single official name, as are the other sources. No statement by the Church itself on the existence and identity of a single official name has been cited. Why not stick to the facts, and state simply that certain writers hold that the Church does have a single official name and that that name is "Catholic Church"? That is what I have proposed above. Soidi (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

a suggestion

How about... "The Catholic Church (Roman Catholic) is..." A footnote can then be appended as necessary. (No doubt the wording of the footnote would be up for discussion, but we can cross that bridge when we get to it.)

This avoids the controversy about official uses, self-designation, and so on. And hey, if it's good enough for John Paul II, surely it's good enough for Wikipedia?

Note that the Pope's formulation is in the context of distinguishing this Catholic Church from other Catholic churches, which is presumably the main point here.

Otherwise, both from the discussion above and from now looking all over, I can see no particularly good sources that say anything very conclusive about this issue.

It is clear, however, that not only the Pope, and more generally the Vatican, as well as other Catholic prelates (and there are plenty other examples) are not shy about using the term "Roman Catholic" on occasion.

(I should also say that I would not at all be averse to changing the article title to "Catholic Church (Roman Catholic)." But that is also another discussion, no doubt.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's my suggestion for the footnote:

In English-speaking countries, the Catholic Church is often called the "Roman Catholic" Church, particularly to distinguish it from other churches that also use the title "Catholic," such as the Eastern Catholic Churches. It is in this sense that John Paul II uses the formulation "Catholic Church (Roman Catholic)" that we adopt here. The church is also sometimes more formally called the "Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church." There is some dispute as to whether in fact the church has an "official name," and what that name might be. Kenneth Whitehead, for instance, author of One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, claims that the Church's official title is simply the "Catholic Church." This is also the opinion of many of its congregants, especially in reaction to the fact that at times the adjective "Roman" (and more especially "Romish" or other variations) has been used by non-Catholics with derogatory intent. Other writers, however, such as Claud D. Nelson in The Vatican Council and All Christians, suggest that the institution's official name is indeed the "Roman Catholic" church. In general, if not exclusively, in its official documentation and pronouncements, the church prefers to use the title "Catholic Church."

It's a little long-winded, but I hope it covers most of the bases. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You are on the right track with this suggestion - and thanks for your intelligent consideration of the issue - but it is not correct to either claim or suggest that "Roman Catholic Church" is only an English language usage. It would seem to be much more common in English speaking countries but is not exclusive to them. Afterwriting (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to be corrected, but it struck me that in Spanish one almost never would say "iglesia católica y romana." (Though you would sometimes... The Archbishop of Pamplona does.) I'm not so sure about other languages. But in any case, the text I wrote agrees with what you say: that in English-speaking countries it's often called the "Roman Catholic" church. This is equivalent to your own point that it's "much more common" in such countries. Of course, if it's "often" called the "Roman Catholic" church in French, Russian, or whatever, then we could remove that phrase. But my sense is that it isn't. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the iw links at the article, a surprising (to me) number do use an "RC" type title. But I wonder how many of these are influenced by English WP & reflect actual usage. Johnbod (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not thrilled with "Catholic Church (Roman Catholic)" but I could support it. I prefer "Catholic Church, also known as Roman Catholic Church," but I'll go with jbmurray's suggestion as a compromise. I do like his proposed note. I think it's important to explain to the reader what's going on else he/she will get little benefit from all the "blood, sweat and tears" that have been shed over these few words at the beginning of this article. --Richard (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No. "Catholic Church (Roman Catholic)" is too messy. It gives rise to more questions than it answers. It not only breaks the WP rule of starting with the name in the title, it gives rise to confusion about what exactly is meant. If there was a commonly established church with which it might be confused, known principally say as the "Catholic Church (Orthodox)" there might be some justification, but not otherwise. Even then, that name would have to be the article Title also. The term "Catholic Church (Roman Catholic)" is not used in the 1985 document as a name, let alone the official or peoper name of the Church. It is a term used in an inter-church document to avoid possible confusion and contention. The bracketed addition is there for politeness and clarification, since some delegations would insist that the term "Catholic Church" covered them too. As far as the proposed note is concerned, it tends to overemphasize the "Roman" argument, and the formulation "Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church," is not the one that was favoured by some in the past, but rather "Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church."

(Further to jbmurrays examples of "Roman Catholic" in use. This goes over old ground. A single usage in an Irish Bishop's speech in the US is not official acceptance. Official usage in ireland can be seen here and here. The other link features chiefly Anglican-Catholic committee documentation, which as has been said many times, is a special case usage.) Xandar 20:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This argument Xandar has used before: "Catholic Church" has been used officially; therefore (!) it is the one and only official name. "Catholic Church" is used officially in Ireland, but that doesn't mean that "Roman Catholic Church" is not used officially in Ireland. Xandar quotes a website for the official use of "Catholic Church"; he could have quoted other websites for the official use of "Roman Catholic Church". Take for instance the website of the first (in alphabetical order) of the dioceses: Achonry. It states: "Achonry is a Roman Catholic Diocese". Soidi (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The note suggested by JB would need refining. We don't know what "the church prefers" without a statement from the church - although we know that many members of the church prefer certain things. If we talk about that preference, we should be clear that it's a preference between two terms only, and that doesn't exclude other terms. Finally, saying RCC distinguishes from Eastern Catholic Churches isn't entirely right, although it's true that many Eastern Catholics (at least on the individual level) do use "RCC" to refer to the Latin/Western church. "CC (RC)" is probably meant to distinguish from the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Just throwing this out there, but what if the article were located at Catholic Church (Roman) as if a disambiguation? Gimmetrow 20:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No... I appreciate your looking for a compromise but I think Catholic Church (Roman) is horrid precisely because it opens the door to the suggestion that there could be an article titled Catholic Church (Anglican). Without disputing at this time the Anglican claim to be catholic/Catholic, the problem is that there is no such church called "Anglican Catholic Church" or "Catholic Church (Anglican)". Even the Eastern Catholic Churches don't call themselves "Catholic Church (Eastern)". Sorry but I don't see this as a possible solution because it actually accentuates the issue that is driving this dispute. If we were to rename this article to Catholic Church, we could provide a first-line "hat" caption that suggests that other uses of "Catholic Church" exist. --Richard (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't expect "CC (R)" would work. Moving the article to simple "CC" would probably resolve the lead sentence, but it would reopen other debates. Gimmetrow 04:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has yet answered the challenge to cite an official document of the Church in the 20th or 21st century in which "Roman Catholic" Church was used to mean "Latin/Western" Church. JB's proposed note unfortunately gives the impression that to mean Latin Church by "Roman Catholic Church" is official usage, instead of being merely popular usage among Eastern Catholics. John Paul II certainly did not mean that, when he said that, as a result of the 1054 rupture, "there are within the ambit of Christianity the Catholic Church (Roman Catholic) and the Orthodox Church or Churches whose historical center is at Constantinople." He was obviously distinguishing the (Roman) Catholic Church from the Eastern Orthodox Church only, not from the Coptic Church or the Assyrian Church of the East, still less from the Eastern Orthodox Churches, several of which (the Syro-Malabar, the Syro-Malankar, the Chaldaean, the Maronite ...) by no means have ever had Constantinople as their historical centre. Afterwriting is correct in saying that "Roman Catholic" is not confined to the English language: it was used in other languages before being used in English. And Gimmetrow is right in calling attention to the fact that the Church does not confine the names it officially uses to "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" alone. Soidi (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We've been through all this too. No evidence whatsoever exists for prior use of "Roman catholic" in languages other than English. Roman Catholic has always been an unofficial name others used for the Church, largely in English-speaking lands. This has been confused by some with the roman or Latin Rite, and the Roman Church, bot of which are different things. The worldwide Catholic church does not use the construction Roman Catholic as its proper or official name. Besides, dealing in detail with the note will not be that useful until the first line has been dealt with properly. Xandar 16:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

So the Popes who used "Roman Catholic" were "others", i.e. not part of the Church! And in the Catholic Encyclopedia Thurston does not really say that the use of "the Catholique Romane Church" in the earliest English example he found "was simply a translation of the phraseology common both in Latin and in the Romance languages 'Ecclesia Catholica Romana', or in French 'l'Eglise catholique romaine'"! Soidi (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"Round in circles we go..." as the old song goes. You keep confusing rare and occasional uses of the term by individuals for the proper or official name of the Church, which is quite clear. So far zero bona-fide pre-reformation usages of 'Ecclesia Catholica Romana' have been produced. And in any event Soidi, from your quote you leave out the sentence "It was felt that this inverted form contained no hint of the Protestant contention that the old religion was a spurious variety of true Catholicism or at best the Roman species of a wider genus." What the Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to say is "It is this very common line of argument which imposes upon Catholics the necessity of making no compromise in the matter of their own name. The loyal adherents of the Holy See did not begin in the sixteenth century to call themselves "Catholics" for controversial purposes. It is the traditional name handed down to us continuously from the time of St. Augustine. We use this name ourselves and ask those outside the Church to use it," Xandar 22:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, even one occasion on which a name other than "Catholic Church" is used as an official name is enough to prove that "Catholic Church" is not the only official name, and here we have much more than one occasion. Nobody denies that loyal adherents of the Holy See did not begin in the sixteenth century to call themselves "Catholics" for controversial purposes; but neither did they cease to call themselves by other names. And, as Soidi pointed out, Thurston did say, did he not, that "Ecclesia Catholica Romana" was in "common" use before the earliest recorded instance of the corresponding phrase in English? It has not ceased to be in use, even by Popes. Defteri (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Defteri, if your "rule" about official names held good, then there isn't a person, company, Chruch or Country in the world that could have an official name. One use of "India" rather than "Republic of India", one use of "America" rather than "United States of America," one use of "Jimmy" rather than "Mr James P Smith" would mean they all had no official name! Sorry, nonsense. This is a bogus issue. I've asked repeatedly what other official name you claim the Church uses, its frequency of use, and sources for this as an official name, and I've had no answer. The article you got "Ecclesia catholica Romana" from states that this does not have the same meaning as Roman Catholic Church. And this formulation has not been used as the proper or official name of the Church. I can find no examples whatsoever of its usage in official documents, and certainly not pre-reformation. So the argument of other official names is not made. Despite this, I even offered the suggestion "The RCC - in normal official usage, the Catholic Church - ", in order to sidestep this objection, but it was ignored. Xandar 21:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful analogies! The actual adoption of a country's official name, in the strict sense of "official name", can be documented. The actual giving of an individual's official name, in the strict sense, can be documented. Now how about documenting the actual adoption by the Church of an official name in the strict sense? Hundreds of thousands of uses of "Jane Smith" for and by that person don't make it her official name in the strict sense. Her birth certificate or the record of her act of legal change of name is what shows that her official name in the strict sense is "Jane Smith" or "Mary Jane Smith" or whatever it is. So far you have utterly failed to cite any record of the Church's adoption of an official name in the strict sense. Can you produce it now? If, on the other hand, by "official name" you only mean a name that the Church uses officially for itself, the Church uses several such names and has several official names in that sense. Defteri (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't really wish to get involved in this discussion (and I hope my post won't make this dispute more violent than it seems to be), but I would like to post some comments about some of the proposals here. I don't think it is a good idea, to start the article with "The Catholic Church..." (or renaming the article to "Catholic Church"), since there others who dispute this claim (for example this document uses the term "Catholic Church" only when referring to the "(eastern) Orthodox Church"), and it might give the impression, that wikipedia recognizes this claim (and I don't think wikipedia should get involved in these disputes (who is the true "Catholic Church"), although you could argue that many people use this name to refer to the "Roman Catholic Church" (this name being also used a lot, at least unoffically, although I'm not convinced about that, but I won't get involved in the official name dispute), but since this name "Catholic Church" may also imply accepting this disputed claim, it might not be a good idea to start the article this way). However, even if you would rename the article to "Catholic Church", I won't start edit-warring against that, instead I'll probably rename Eastern Orthodox Church to Orthodox Catholic Church or Orthodox Christian Church (and maybe even Byzantine Empire to Eastern Roman Empire, since that name has much more negative and subjective POV connotations than "Roman Catholic" (at least in my opinion)). I would also like to offer a suggestion, how about just avoiding the official name or how it is called officially problem, and try different approaches to the term "Catholic Church", maybe something like "The Roman Catholic Church, which officially claims to be the Catholic Church," or "The Roman Catholic Church, which officially considers itself as the Catholic Church," (in this way, the official name problem (which as far as I see caused a very long dispute) is avoided, and I think it is obvious that it officially considers itself to be the "Catholic Church") however, I realize this might not make anyone happy at all. (Also, in my opinion, the current "The Roman Catholic Church, officially known as the Catholic Church" should specify more clearly who knows it officially this way (since it may suggest that everyone (not just itself) knows it officially that way).) Once again, I am not "voting" for any side here (in fact, I don't wish to participate further in this debate), I only wanted to offer a suggestion, and to explain why renmaing the article (or even starting the article with "The Catholic Church") is not (at least, in my opinion) a very good idea, and I hope my post won't start a new dispute. I wish you good luck, in solving this problem. Cody7777777 (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, this is my last comment here for a while at least... but just to say that the document to which you point does not use the term "Catholic Church" only to refer to Eastern Orthodox churches. It is a letter to a Pope (written in 1848, for what that's worth), seeking to persuade the "Church of Rome" to return to being a "most honored part of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." So it's conception of the Catholic church explicitly includes Roman Catholicism, at least in the past, and potentially in the future. It's the exact sense of "Catholic Church" as used by John Paul II in the pronouncement from which I took the formulation "Catholic Church (Roman Catholic)." Both are calls to ecumenicism. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Cody. Other groups objections to the use of a name should not be considered in these cases according to Wikipedia Policy (see: Wikipedia:Naming_conflict). It is what the body calls itself that matters. Xandar 21:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources

There are no sources offered here that are cited by any experts on Catholic Church regarding Church name except Whitehead. It is the only source cited twice by worldwide, respected Catholic media, one a member of SIGNIS and overseen by a scholarly expert on Catholic issues. This is very significant because being cited by experts is what makes a source more worthy than others according to WP:RS. We have two encyclopedias backing up Whitehead and then we have three non-Catholic non-experts and non-scholars saying the Church has Roman Catholic as its official name. We already know and state in the note that Roman Catholic is used in legal documents in England. These non-Catholic, non-experts appear to be referring to that scenario. Regardless, we already have what we need to use the term "officially known as Catholic Church" because we have Whitehead and Academic American Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Brittanica and we explain the rest in the note. I don't know why we are even having this discussion anymore. Is someone here trying to make the article state that Roman Catholic is the official name? How could we be expected to rely on non-Catholic non-experts that are never cited by anyone regarding this issue? That is not WP:RS. NancyHeise ^talk 02:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You are proposing that we use WP:RS as guidance. That sounds reasonable to me. Would it be possible to take one final look at what we have by way of sources? I believe WP:VER is the policy we need to address. Sunray (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad Nancy said that Nancy has cited no experts except Whitehead. Since Whitehead does not discuss CC as "official name", but rather "proper name", Whitehead is not a reference for the disputed text. Since Nancy clearly claims it's the only source of any value, then by consequence Nancy is saying there are no sources of any value to support the disputed text currently in the article. Thank you; that resolves most of the discussion. If only we could have arrived at this point months ago. Gimmetrow 03:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Nancy keeps banging on about Whitehead being a "reliable" source when it is blatantly obvious to anyone with any reasonable knowledge of church history that he is in fact the exact opposite on this issue. He might be an expert on some things but on this issue he is simply wrong on a number of points - as has been clearly demonstrated by various responsible and neutral editors. Nancy and Xandar are both far too biased and unable to recognise the serious flaws in their arguments which they persist in insisting on being the "truth" by simply ignoring or dismissing all evidence to the contrary. It is also obvious from their talk pages that Nancy and Xandar are colluding in their persistance in maintaining the so-called "consensus" version of the article. It is disgraceful behaviour and shouldn't be accepted - enough is enough! Afterwriting (talk) 06:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Afterwriting, you sound pretty frustrated with the discussion. It has been a long haul. Both you and Gimmetrow are questioning Whitehead's value as a source. Would you be willing to give a brief outline of the sources that participants have put forward to date and whether and for what reasons they are reliable (or not)? With respect to comments about other participants, I would suggest that we all focus on content, not on the contributor. So, sources? Sunray (talk) 07:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is very frustrating. Although, to some extent, I regret my stroppy comments it is increasingly difficult to keep a proper focus on the content due to certain contributors being apparently obstinately unwilling to consider any possible change to the current version. They seem to be fixated on defending a deeply flawed source (Whitehead) and determined to keep using it. With respect to other sources, more informed editors have already provided a number of adequate sources that contradict Whitehead's personal opinions but these keep being rejected without any valid reason. The providers of the other sources are in a much better position to respond to your request than I am. I appreciate your tact - which is what I would expect from a Canadian. Being an Australian I don't, for better or worse, suffer fools gladly and am considerably lacking in the tact department. Afterwriting (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Tact may be a virtue, but civility and good faith are policies around here. Plain talk is good, but as Wikipedians we are enjoined to hold the barbs. That is difficult in conflict situations, but it is the role of a mediator to point out ways to address one another that can lead to understanding rather than further conflict. Sunray (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Email from Shell

I had emailed Shell last week asking when she might return to this mediation. She emailed me last night saying...

I apologize for my inactivity. Due to personal reasons I will be unable to continue the mediation and I have asked the committee to reassign the case.

Thank you for understanding.

Shell Kinney

So... if Sunray will agree to taking on the mediation role permanently, I think we should accept him/her in that role.

--Richard (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Stepping into a mediation that is already well in progress can be difficult. Two conditions are important. 1) Would participants be willing to accept me as mediator, and 2) Does the mediation committee agree? On the latter point, I've asked the MedCom chair for his view. As to the former, I've heard from a few participants, but would like to hear from others. Sunray (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A couple of comments...

1. A review of this page will show that Shell had not had much of a chance to participate actively as mediator before personal issues caused her to become inactive on Wikipedia. Thus, what has transpired on this page prior to Sunray's arrival should be considered more a continuation of the Talk Page debate than an "active mediation in progress".
2. It is not standard procedure for mediation participants to vote on accepting or not accepting a mediator. Rejecting a mediator is only an option under unusual circumstances (e.g. proposed mediator has expressed a strong POV on the issue being mediated). Thus, if the MEDCOM chair agrees to Sunray taking this on, then we should simply accept him/her taking on the role without voting on it.
3. Accepting Sunray as mediator is effectively a vote against closing the mediation at this time as Nancy had proposed last week.
4. Closing the mediation without a consensus effectively declares the mediation to have failed

As Sunray pointed out, we seemed to have gotten close to a compromise a few times. I would like us to continue on and find a compromise that can be supported by consensus.

--Richard (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is, essentially, a confirmation that the mediation will continue. Sunray (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Participants willing to continue with Sunray as mediator

1. --Richard (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
2. I certainly do. Defteri (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
3. I also am quite willing to accept you as mediator - and I wish you the best in what seems destined to be a difficult task. Soidi (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
4. Yes, I think that would be a good idea. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
5. Yes, I greatly appreciate Sunray's efforts so far. Afterwriting (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Sunray is doing a terrific job. NancyHeise ^talk 17:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
7. More than willing. Soidi (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)