Jump to content

Talk:Catholic Church/Name

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Catholic Church

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 04:16, 4 November 2021 (Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Proposals and arguments by involved editors

Fishhead64

I endorse the proposal made by Richardshusr that articles specifically dealing with aspects of the Roman Catholic Church be titled “Roman Catholic Church and x," with term “Roman Catholic Church” appearing at the first mention in the article, and acceptance of the use of the term “Catholic Church” subsequently. My rationale for this position is as follows:

  1. Ambiguity:I accept that the institution headed by the Bishop of Rome refers to itself as the “Catholic Church,” and that it is popularly known as such. However, as the articles Catholicism, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and Catholic Church (disambiguation) demonstrate, this term is by no means unambiguous. The ambiguity has its origin in sectarian differences over the definition. No one claims that the denomination recognising papal supremacy isn't Catholic - all the modifier "Roman" does is identify the institution as consisting of Christians in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Self-definition does not exhaust all available definitions, and if allowed to prevail it will exert a POV that denies the claims of other denominations to be constituent parts of the Catholic Church, as they understand the term to mean.
  2. Self-identity: The term “Roman Catholic Church” is, in fact, one used by the institution itself, especially in dialogue with other Catholic denominations (e.g., the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission). It therefore cannot be legitimately claimed that the term is repugnant to the institution, or somehow does not constitute an element of its self-identity.
  3. Historicity: The claim is made that the institution has “always” referred to itself as the Catholic Church, and hence competing claims should not compel the institution to alter its self-identity. This argument would have greater force if the institution itself didn’t use the modifier Roman Catholic under certain circumstances, as noted above. In any event, exclusive claims to the title “Catholic” were already negated in the Great Schism – the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox denominations have always referred to themselves as the Catholic Church. In the English-speaking world, the Reformation likewise introduced a new reality. Some denominations claimed to be constituents of the Catholic Church, while not recognising the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. This is not the place to debate what constitutes a definition of “Catholic.” Suffice to say, if there wasn’t a disagreement about the marks of Catholicism, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
  4. Minority views: The claim is made that the designation “Catholic Church” refers to a minority of denominations, whose claims are so fringe that they should not prevail over the claims of the 2-billion strong Roman Communion. To this, two points must be made:
    1. Counting the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Nestorians, Anglicans, Old Catholics, Ecumenical Catholics, etc., I would reckon that there are at least half a billion Christians who could lay claim to being members of the Catholic Church.
    2. And even if there weren’t these numbers, even if one simply wanted to restrict the designation “Catholic Church” to those denominations which explicitly use the term in their title (which, by discounting self-designation, is in itself a pretty blatant POV), those minority claims should not be negated, especially when there is a perfectly acceptable, non-derogatory, unambiguous, widely-known alternative.
  5. Naming policy: Although I acknowledge that, in popular parlance, “Catholic Church” is likely used more frequently than “Roman Catholic Church,” for reasons of ambiguity I think the more precise name should pertain. In accordance with WP naming conventions, the term “Roman Catholic Church” is not “unreasonably ambiguous” – everyone knows what it means, and it can only mean one thing. I do not object to redirecting “CC and x” to “RCC and x,” provided that a dab heading be placed on articles when appropriate.

Conclusion: I completely respect the desire of some editors to affirm the unbroken claims of the Catholic Church in communion with Rome. Nobody wants to undermine the Roman Communion's claim to being a Catholic Church, merely to challenge its exclusive proprietary claim to being the Catholic Church, bar others - as though their self-definitions were of no consequence, or were false, or were mistaken or misleading in some way. The reality is that pluralism exists and therefore creates ambiguity. The reality is that there is more than one group that self-identifies as the Catholic Church, a fact recognised even by the Roman Communion by concessions made in its self-designation. Likewise, WP also needs to establish a reasonable way of acknowledging diverse claims and ambiguous definitions, regardless of what individual editors may think of their legitimacy. The title "Roman Catholic Church" represents a compromise position, one that admittedly may not make everyone happy, but one that acknowledges a real, post-Reformation-world situation - namely that there exists a Catholic Church in communion with Rome, and Catholic Churches (as they identify themselves) who are not. There is a problem, but it is easily soluble. The term Roman Catholic Church is unambiguous, it is one understood by everyone, it recognises the existence of other traditions' claims to being Catholic, and it is part of the Roman Communion's own self-identity. As such, it addresses all possible problems and objections, and is a solution which is truly neutral. Fishhead64 01:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I concur, but I am opposed to the term CC being changed to RCC in the rest of the article. Why is the opposition exclusive to “the Catholic Church”, and not the use of “the Churh”? The same arguments apply as catholic churches are a subset of the larger churches set. Highlighting in the initial paragraph the controversy surrounding the term "catholic" and how its use responds to "simplicity and clarity" is sufficient. We may also want to mention the COMMON USE of the term "catholics", along with terms like, orthodox, evangelical, or anglican. This common use is alien to the arguments mentioned in the controversy and reflects the general wisdom and practicality in spoken language.Cgonzalezdelhoyo 19:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manabimasu

  1. Overview:First of all, “Catholic Church” refers to the church as a whole. Not just the Latin particular church but also the various other particular churches within the mother church. There is more information now to be used in the naming conventions. “Roman Catholic” is vague. If an incident occurred regarding Catholics in Rome, how would naming conventions apply?
  2. Derogatory: Overtime word’s do change. I want to be clear that the term “Roman Catholic” was used as a smear by Anglicans to show differences. Nowadays, the term is acceptable and as an editor this point does not matter anymore.
  3. Inclusion: The Church as stated in the overview has many particular churches. Many people are unaware of the existence of Eastern Catholic Churches. The statement “Roman Catholic Church” gives a connotation that the Latin particular church is the only one, which is misleading. “Roman Catholic Church” means the church in Rome which I concede whose bishop is the pope. Roman gives an aura that liturgy is associated with the Roman Empire. Although, Christianity did spread within the Roman Empire it also went to the Sassanid and to India. In other words, to highlight that the church is “Universal” and all encompassing.
  4. Dispute: On Wikipedia there has been consensus that Capital ‘C’ Catholics refers to those whose shepherd is the Pope and lowercase ‘c’ denotes the other churches. They have different meanings so it will have little effect on various minorities.
  5. Conclusion:Instead remove the “ also known as Roman Catholic Church” and redirect “Roman Catholic” to its disambiguation page here Roman_Catholic_Church_(disambiguation). This is the most appropriate. Please look at these sources [1][2][3]

Comments

Catholic Church as a disambiguation page

I've been browsing through many articles related to the Catholic Church, and I think some of the mess was produced by an unfortunate choice at the beginning: making a full redirect from [Catholic Church] to [Roman Catholic Church]. Most of the debate seems to focus on challenging/defending the claim that Benedict XVI, or his predecessors, are the true head of the Only Catholic Church; i.e. Peter's Primacy.--- The redirect is a waste of a useful name. Perhaps the simplest solution would be using [Catholic Church] as a disambiguation page, pointing to the several articles under this umbrella. [Early Catholic Church] (when it was assumed it was Catholic by definition), [Roman Catholic Church] (under Benedict XVI), [Eastern Catholic Churches] (under Benedict), [English Catholic Church] (under Elizabeth II), etc.--- Louie 16:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that :) For the record, I agree...but a glance at the recent archives will reveal that this view did not prevail. The current state of affairs was considered a compromise between those who wanted what you suggest and those who wanted Roman Catholic Church to be renamed Catholic Church. Fishhead64 00:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you would find that many (myself definately included) would consider having two separate articles entitled [Early Catholic Church] and [Roman Catholic Church] would effectively enshrine a Protestant POV.Brendanhodge 01:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Fishhead64s position and the current naming convention for the "Catholic Church" article do not conform to published Wikipedia guidelines - "Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is 'right' or 'wrong', nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons." Furthermore: "The most common use of a name takes precedence". (These are from Wikipedia:Naming conflict) The arguments presented by Fishhead64 are an expression of his very Anglican POV and impose a less commonly used name. In Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) we find "When naming an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations use" As far as ambiguity goes, the Church of England commonly uses the names "Church of England" or "Anglican Church". The various Orthodox churches commonly use the name "Orthodox". There is one entity that most commonly identifies itself as the "Catholic Church". The NPOV application of Wikipedia naming guidelines should find the article describing that entity named "Catholic Church". There is a separate article dealing with One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and the various POVs relating to that. SynKobiety 01:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The POV argument is a wash, since it works both ways.
  2. The "common name" principal applies only to proper nouns, not descriptive terms. Whether the name of the institution is proper or descriptive is precisely one of the points of contention. To that end,
  3. The institution in question uses both "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" to refer to itself (see, for example, Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission)
  4. I don't think that Catholic Christians would identify themselves as members of the "One Holy etc.," but simply as members of the "Catholic Church." Orthodox, Old Catholics, Assyrian Catholics, and many Anglicans will confidently claim that their institutions are component entities of the Catholic Church. As I've said before, since a NPOV alternative exists (and what, exactly, is POV about "Roman Catholic," when the institution itself uses the term has never been explained), it should be used. Fishhead64 02:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The argument, which is NPOV, was that the Wikipedia guidelines should be applied without trying to to determine who is 'right' or 'wrong'. The result does not conform to Fishhead64s POV. He should accept that instead of trying to impose a particular name for POV reasons.
  2. We are talking about a proper noun, which is "Catholic Church".
  3. The institution in question most commonly uses "Catholic Church" to identity itself. (see for example, http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk)
  4. If I were to ask members of the various groups listed above, they would identify themselves as members of the "Orthodox", "Old Catholic", "Chaldean Catholic", or "Anglican" Churches. The appellation "Roman Catholic" is NOT NPOV (see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm). SynKobiety 12:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity?

It seems to me that in most contexts, the term "Catholic Church" can only refer to one entity or group of people, so it's not really ambiguous. Just to name a few possibilities: "CC canon law", "CC liturgy", "CC theology", "CC hierarchy", "CC lay apostolate" all seem clear to me. The only one that might be ambiguous to me is "CC liturgy." However, if some things like "CC liturgy" is ambiguous, how about creating a dab template to go at the top of all CC articles stating that some view the "Catholic Church" in a wider sense, and pointing to article(s) about that?

Also, if "Catholic Church" is ambiguous and considered POV, why are there not similar arguments over at "Unity Church" and "Apostolic Church"? Or at "Orthodox Church"? Those names also seem to make a theological claim that others dispute. But most people accept them as names that have evolved to a identify a theo-ecological niche. The exclusivist claims are disputed, not the identifying name. Gimmetrow 16:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Gimmetrow here. I don't see much ambiguity, though I do see the importance of acknowledging that other denominations claim "catholicity" as an attribute.

Part of the question also seems to be: is there any alternative material. So, for example, if we create article titles of "RCC canon law", "RCC theology" and "RCC hierarchy", is there anything to then say in a "CC canon law" article other than setting it to redirect to "RCC canon law" or simply having a note at "CC canon law" saying, "You're probably looking for CC canon law, but in the mean time, please not that some churches not in union with the pope claim catholicity as an attribute."

That said, if the only way to write articles in relative peace is to name them all RCC and X, I'm willing to, so long as we don't have waste untold keystrokes by using the full "RCC" term every single time we refer to the Church in the body of the article.Brendanhodge 18:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that articles on "Catholicism" seem ambiguous enough to warrant a proper dab page. Why not make an article on the Anglican understanding of "Catholic" and link to that from dab pages at "Catholic", "Catholicism", and "Catholic Church"? RCC articles could use "Catholic" or "Catholic Church" in the article itself, where the first occurance of either term would link to the dab page? I'm sure there's a reason why this wouldn't work, right? Gimmetrow 02:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The forced use of the term "Roman" in every title related to the Catholic Church defies all common sense, which really needs to be the over-riding consideration here. Catholics and most others rarely use the term. Given the hopelessly limited usefulness of the WP search engine, each search lacking the term "Roman" would yield very little. I realize that there are theological disputes here which ought to be and are well documented in several locations, but common sense needs to prevail in titling articles so users can find what they are looking for. Titling for the purpose of satisfying a minority POV is impractical and absurd. Besides, this debate will not be resolved until the titling issue is resolved because a constant parade will of Catholic users will join the fray. This I have seen myself over the past two months. --Vaquero100 07:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, the more people who agree with a POV the more accurate that POV is. This is fallacious. Fishhead64 18:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This should not be an argument about which POV is more correct. The Wikipedia naming convention ("When naming an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations use") favors the POV of the group being named without consideration as to whether they are right or wrong. SynKobiety 01:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unambiguous name

This should have a simple, logical resolution. There is apparently only one entity that uses "Catholic Church" as its name. The title of the article describing that entity should match its name. Any other entities having similar names should be listed on a disambiguation page. The entry for "Church of Christ" demonstrates this approach. The "Church of Christ" disambiguation page lists other groups that have or have had similar names, and it also links to "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" when defining the theological concept. I don't see why the treatment of the Catholic Church should be inconsistent with that of the Church of Christ. SynKobiety 02:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Common sense

Howdy. Sorry I haven't been around for a while. After a few weeks on the road, am getting back to the routines...

It seems that a common sense approach to the CC/RCC issue is forming. It is hard to find new things to say on the topic, but the obvious observations here are 1)that there is only one entity which uses CC as its proper name; 2)Most people understand the term, CC, to refer to that entity; 3)There are ways to accommodate the more ambiguous uses of the term, "cc" by reference to a dab page.

CC really should be the name of the current RCC page and there should be no problem with the ancillary pages titled "CC and X."

Good to be back. --Vaquero100 18:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


For those looking for a background on the terms CC and RCC, check this link from Catholic Answers: http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm.

I (SynKobiety) believe that it would be instructive to post a section of Wikipedia:Naming conflict here:

Published Wikipedia Guidelines

Dealing with self-identifying terms

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.

Commonly used English translations of self-identifying terms are usually preferred per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) guideline. For example: "Japanese" and not Nihon-jin.

Where a name includes geographical directions such as North, East, South or West (in a local language), the full name should be translated into English: hence East Timor, not Timor-Leste; South Ossetia, not Yuzhnaya Osetiya; West Java, not Jawa Barat.

Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is.

Example

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. The Maputans oppose this usage because they believe that the Cabindans have no moral or historical right to use the term. They take a prescriptive approach, arguing that this usage should not be allowed.

Wikipedia should not attempt to say which side is right or wrong. However, the fact that the Cabindans call themselves Cabindans is objectively true – both sides can agree that this does in fact happen. By contrast, the claim that the Cabindans have no moral right to that name is purely subjective. It is not a question that Wikipedia can, or should, decide.

In this instance, therefore, 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.

-End of Wikipedia:Naming conflict quote

The Wikipedia guidelines for naming are crystal clear - You are all Maputans who oppose using "Catholic Church" as the name of the article describing "the institution headed by the Bishop of Rome." In this instance, therefore, using the term "Catholic Church" or "Catholics" does not conflict with the NPOV policy. It would be a purely objective description of what the Catholics call themselves. On the other hand, not using the term because of Anglican or Orthodox objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Anglican or Orthodox POV. SynKobiety 01:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, SynKobiety. This explains a lot of the circuitous arguments we have been having for months. Fishead always has to make the ambiguity argument. This is of course a silly claim as we have shown time and again as "Catholic Church" is the most common name used by Catholics and non-Catholics alike. There is no other entity call the "Catholic Church" except in some obscure theology books. Really only theological specialists would ask for clarification of the term-and those would still be a minority as Catholics make up the majority of Christians. When all of this is raised, Fishhead really doesnt have a good answer. So, he shifts the argument to what comes down to a "lack of moral right" argument, which is untenable in the context of WP. Even if his judgment were correct on this, it would still be his judgement and therefore POV. Looking over the conventions, Fishhead doesn't have a leg to stand on. --Vaquero100 01:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A better example would be if one had two groups that called themselves "Cabindan." In this case, the term is descriptive of two discrete groups. The institution headed by the Bishop of Rome has recognised this real-world state of affairs, and so have applied the term Roman as a more specific descriptive term. If "Catholic Church" were unambiguous, this adjective would not be necessary. And, since the institution uses both terms to refer to itself, they are both equally reflective of its self-identity. Is this incorrect? Then explain ARCIC, an example I keep on trotting out because no one has seen fit to challenge the assertion it reflects a component of denominational self-identity. This isn't POV - this is the institution itself speaking. Unless one wishes to claim that the Vatican itself is a nest of "anti-Catholics," which is patently absurd.
This brings me to Vaquero's points, ad hominems aside, I have never argued that "Catholic Church" isn't commonly used to refer to the Roman version, merely the usage is ambiguous, hence sloppy. I find it somewhat shocking that he seems content to cater to the imprecise thinking of laypeople, thus reinforcing it. There exists an alternative name that is specific, and apparently inoffensive to the institutional authority itself, so this seems to be a matter of personal taste on the part of certain editors here, who, like me, prefer one option over another. Personal taste is, as near as I can figure, also known as a POV. In this respect, the naming conventions distinguish between descriptive terms and proper names. "Catholic Church" is a descriptive term and has many uses. It is also a proper name...and has many applications. In this sense, the more specific the term, the more descriptive.
I suppose it's like Jell-o. There's only one recipe, but one company (or, in this case, its employees) insists on owning the brand. Unlike Jell-o, however, the trademark has expired and the term "Catholic Church" has entered into a more general use. Since neither Vaquero nor I nor others of various opinions on this matter can change our convictions, anchored in our faith and our commitment to the Church, I suppose the issue will continue to be contentious. That's fine - I'm happy to continue in dialogue. Fishhead64 06:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In order to show ambiguity, you would have to present a second group using the name "Catholic Church." You have instead given us a group that calls itself the Anglican Church. SynKobiety 11:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The terms "Catholic Church" and "Catholic" must not be too ambiguous, as the Anglican Church sometimes uses them to refer to the "institution headed by the Bishop of Rome":
http://www.churchnewspaper.com/news.php?read=on&number_key=5823&title=Cardinal%20addresses%20bishops
http://www.churchnewspaper.com/news.php?read=on&number_key=5597&title=New%20bid%20to%20beat%20debt%20burden
http://www.churchnewspaper.com/news.php?read=on&number_key=5595&title=Britons%20return%20to%20their%20Anglican%20roots
http://www.churchnewspaper.com/news.php?read=on&number_key=5601&title=Zimbabwe%20violence%20concerns%20churches
http://www.anglican.tk/?m=200504
There are times when "Roman" is prepended to the name "Catholic Church", but it is not with the intent to resolve ambiguity.
That being said, and considering the definition of NPOV in Wikipedia:Naming conflict, I suggest again that we use the beginning of the article entitled Church of Christ as a model for the NPOV way to represent "Catholic Church" in Wikipedia. SynKobiety 23:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the claim made by Fishhead64 that the use of "Catholic Church" to refer to the "institution headed by the Bishop of Rome" is merely a reflection of "the imprecise thinking of laypeople" I have found how this institution refers to itself in the episcopal centers of the major English speaking nations:
http://www.usccb.org/whoweare.shtml
http://catholicanada.com/web/component/option,com_mtree/task,viewlink/link_id,1993/Itemid,27/
http://www.cccb.ca/Home.htm
http://www.catholicireland.net/pages/index.php?nd=2
http://www.catholic.org.au/
http://www.catholic.org.nz/
I believe that it has been demonstrated that
  1. the name "Catholic Church" is the name preferred by the institution itself,
  2. "Catholic Church" is the most commonly used and recognized name for the "institution headed by the Bishop of Rome",
  3. Anglican and Orthodox churches sometimes use "Catholic Church" to refer to the "institution headed by the Bishop of Rome", hence it is not ambiguous to them, and
  4. the use of any name other than "Catholic Church" as the title of the article describing the "institution headed by the Bishop of Rome" is not NPOV and violates published Wikipedia naming conventions.
Agreed ? SynKobiety 04:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, agreed by some, perhaps. No term is ambiguous if it is contextualised, which the articles you cited were. To your claim that a second group uses the term "Catholic Church" to refer to itself, I would refer you to just four examples:
  • The 1662 Book of Common Prayer which includes collects and prayers for the "good estate of the Catholic Church," as found in the offices and in the supplementary prayers.
  • The existence of such books as The Gospel and the Catholic Church by Arthur Michael Ramsey, which deals with - as he puts it - "the Church of God."
  • Statements such as the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, buttressed by canons and constitutions of various provinces (e.g., the Church of North India: "As the Church of England, receiving Catholic Christianity from the undivided Church, has given characteristically English interpretation to it, so the Church of this Province aspires to give characteristically national interpretation of that same common faith and life." (John Pobee, "Newer Dioceses of the Anglican Communion'", in Sykes, The Study of Anglicanism, p. 398).
  • The current Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, writes that the Anglican Communion, following the famous definition of Catholicity given by Cyril of Jerusalem, is "a Catholic Church...which endeavours to tell the whole truth about God and God's human creation." ("Teaching the Truth," in John, Living Tradition: Affirming Catholicism in the Anglican Church, p. 30).
I believe, in contradistinction to your points, that:
  1. The name "Roman Catholic Church" is used by the institution itself to distinguish itself from other institutional uses of "Catholic Church," in instances where there is liable to be confusion. Certainly Wikipedia, which contains various meanings of the phrase "Catholic Church" counts in this regard.
  2. "Catholic Church," while commonly and colloquially used, is therefore an inexact term, and should not be preferred over a more accurately descriptive term.
  3. Other Catholic Churches do use the term "Catholic Church" to refer to the institution in communion with the Bishop of Rome only in instances where the term is contextualised. Otherwise, "Roman Catholic Church" is used. Indeed, I have frequently heard the term "Roman" or the "Roman Church" used colloquially among non-Roman Catholic Catholics.
  4. Wikipedia conventions are ambiguous when it comes to descriptive terms. Wikipedia:Naming conventions notes, "a term that may be used to describe several different search terms may require a disambiguation page." And, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) notes "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." In that sense, "Catholic Church" is a conflicting term.
Having said all this, I agree that this discussion has probably run its course. I will put the question on the Wikipedia:Naming conventions talk page and abide by what consensus emerges there. Time to move on. Fishhead64 00:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fishhead, I don't think anyone deputized you to manhandle this page any more than you already have. It is not for you to decide whether this conversation is over or not. Your determination to shove your POV down our throats is already repugnant as it is. Why don't you at least have the decency to ask what others think about taking it to some other level of authority?

You have held this page hostage. You have your way. What are you protesting? What could possibly be your complaint? I think the hostages ought to decide when, how and where we will take this discussion.--Vaquero100 04:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Furthermore, in the real world WP has no authority to change the name of the Catholic Church. So, this debate will not end no matter the level the decision is made. Catholics will not tolerate the injustice of misnaming the Catholic Church. I know you want this to end. But it never will, Fishhead until justice is done. --Vaquero100 04:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this comment represents the very definition of synthetic martyrdom. I have held nothing hostage. You have been free to do as you please. You have been free to not engage me at all in any kind of discourse. You could have shoved your POV down my throat as easily as you accuse me of doing - and, in fact, you have. Fair enough - Wikipedia is a POV playground, after all.
Your questions could easily be converted back - what, exactly, are you protesting? What, possibly, could be your complaint? My endorsement is one of inclusivity, your's is of exclusivity. Why do you resist a broader vision?
Finally, I believe it is the right of any Wikipedian to appeal wherever and however he or she wishes when other avenues of discourse have been exhausted. No one is obliging you or anyone else to respect, acknowledge, or abide by my appeals - especially when it is to a talk page for heaven's sake!
I would have thought that you'd have been pleased with my willingness to abide by the opinion of independent third parties...but perhaps the incipient pleasure of refighting the Thirty Years War is simply too tempting. Fishhead64 05:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it is you unwillingness to abide by the opinion of independent third parties on this page that concerns me. You are clearly standing alone in this discussion. No doubt this displeases you. So, rather than take it like we Catholic have had to, you have to appeal to a higher authority. This is all the more ironic given that you were the one to start this discussion which now to you appears so inadequate. --Vaquero100 15:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call a talk page a higher authority. I simply want to hear from people who don't have an emotional investment in this dialogue - and that includes keeping my own emotions in some sort of perspective. Fishhead64 17:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proof that "Catholic Church" is not really ambiguous

It is interesting that Fishhead 64 brings "context" into the discussion. The claim is made that context invalidates examples showing Anglican use of "Catholic Church" to refer to the "institution headed by the Bishop of Rome." From http://www.churchnewspaper.com/news.php?read=on&number_key=5823&title=Cardinal%20addresses%20bishops :
"Cardinal Kasper had been invited by the Archbishop (of Canterbury) to share his insights from the Catholic Church at the annual meeting of all serving Church of England bishops..."
This is an Anglican newspaper using the term "Catholic Church" to differentiate the "institution headed by the Bishop of Rome" from the Church of England. In the same article, the Cardinal is quoted:
“Our friends’ problems are our problems too,” arguing that any decision made by the Church of England would affect Anglican-Catholic relations."
This is a Cardinal of the "institution headed by the Bishop of Rome" using the term "Catholic" to distinguish his institution from an Anglican one. There is no confusion for either party. This article is precisely the context in which Fishhead64 claims "Catholic" would be ambiguous, and yet it is not.
Fishhead64 identifies examples of the Anglican Church using "Catholic" or "Catholic Church" regarding itself. These uses only occur in specific contexts, like the examples, which are clearly identifiable as relating to Anglican understanding (and that of bodies derived thereof) of the theological concept of one holy catholic and apostolic church. Outside of that specific context, there really is no ambiguity as to the meaning of "Catholic" or "Catholic Church." To put this in the context of Wikipedia:Naming conventions which are summarized as, "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". It goes on to say, "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." And, "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists". To assess what readers would recognize "Catholic" to mean, we can see the ways it is used. Applying 'catholic -"roman catholic" -"orthodox catholic" -"old catholic" -"anglican catholic" -wikipedia' as the search term in Yahoo will return uses of the word "Catholic" without common qualifiers. When reviewing these unqualified uses of "Catholic", you would have to drill down into the list past the 970th place to find the first use of "Catholic" to refer to anything other than "institution headed by the Bishop of Rome." Even there the entry refers to a group calling itself "United Catholic," which is not an unqualified use of the word "Catholic". This certainly appears to be a minimum of ambiguity! In accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conflict, the article should be named "Catholic Church", as it would be a purely objective description of what the Catholics call themselves. This is not to say that the Anglican POV is to be ignored. It must also be noted that it is also referred to as "Roman Catholic Church." The existing disambiguation page should continue to describe the Anglican and any other understanding of "Catholic Church", just as Fishhead64 noted above.

Fishhead64, this is a good faith effort to have published Wikipedia naming conventions applied to this article. Your primary objection has been that "Catholic Church" is ambiguous. The conventions don't specify that titles be 100% free of ambiguity (if anything truly could be), but specify that article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize and that when naming an article about specific groups we should always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations use. "Catholic Church" best meets this standard as the title for the article describing the "institution headed by the Bishop of Rome." SynKobiety 18:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Identification: prohibited

This article and a lot of the Catholic content of the Wikipedia is being controlled by editors critical of the Catholic Church and in particular committed to the principles that the Catholic Church cannot be permitted to self-identify, and that critics of the Catholic Church get to determine what is written to identify, define, and describe the Catholic Church. No other religion, or for that matter, organization, has it own self-identification suppressed in the Wikipedia. patsw 02:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your statement, Patsw. Anti-Catholicism like any form of bigotry is fundamentally irrational and therefore it's adherents like "Archie Bunker" are often blind to it. Anglicans and their Baptist progeny are the worst violators of all human decency and intellectual integrity. Anglicans who play "protestant" to Protestants and "catholic" to Catholics need to learn the scripture "one cannot serve two masters." This is particularly true at this moment when Anglo-Catholics practice their empty triumphalism while practicing gay bishops ignore the very tradition they profess to embody, thus leading their church down the toilet.

How ironic to have Episcopalians on WP protest how catholic they are and how important the rosary is to them while their church drifts further and further from anything resembling the gospel and the historic church.--Vaquero100 04:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you accuse me of being anti-Catholic! Methinks your views of the Anglican Communion are not unclouded by bias. Fishhead64 05:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any perceptions I have of the Anglican Communion are perceptions born of facts. U2charist? yikes! and as it turns out this was not the only one, this has actually become a common event repeated throughout the country. What a sham! and what a shame.--Vaquero100 15:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Methinks" your more-Catholic-than-the-Pope protestations are the modern electronic equivalent of "rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaquero100 (talk • contribs)

If I had ever made an anti-Roman Catholic remark the same way you casually denigrate churches of the Anglican Communion, I wonder what you'd say...and feel inside. Fishhead64 17:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't Vanquero100's biased definition or Fishhead64's biased definition of the Catholic Church that should be in the article, but the Catholic Church's own definition, the self-definition, which should be in the article. patsw 16:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the following apology on the Anglicanism Talk Page. It is worth repeating on this page:

I would like to offer my apologies to the Anglicans on WP and especially those who edit this page. I realize that I have let my frustration boil over into some outrageous verbal vengence on this page in recent weeks. This was clearly out of order. I regret the offenses I have given.

I might add here that I did go to confession today, and am now in much better spirits. Accordingly, I have made the resolve to "amend my life" as the Act of Contrition states and this applies to WP.

Have a good night. --Vaquero100 02:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing behavior

I'd urge all editors to please wait for a conclusion to be made before editing articles regarding this naming controversy. This is specifically addressing Vaquero100 (talk · contribs) who has sidestepped this process to purge the word "Roman" from wikilinks and article titles. If the consensus is reached that RCC is the name wikipedia should use, then we need to use that across the board. The the consensus is reached that CC is the name to be used, then we use that across the board. If we reach some compromise then we use both under the provisions we set forth. But until we reach a decision, it seems to me to be rogue editing to avoid this discussion and change articles to whatever naming convesion we personally favor. Maybe I was too bold in doing this, but I urge everyone to revert any edits of this nature that are going on while an open discussion is still underway. Everyone, please respect the current policy, and this process (which has yet to reach a consensus).--Andrew c 18:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is This Issue Settled?

Since Fishhead64's ambiquity objection was addressed almost three weeks ago, there has been no discussion. Can we assume assent? SynKobiety 18:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normally that would be the proper choice, but from discussions on other pages (for example the discussion on WP:AN/I), it is clear that no one assents -- to anything proposed here. I suggest all parties refrain from renaming articles until a consensus on this issue is found. -- llywrch 19:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it was addressed, merely the same arguments were rehearsed. The existence of such pages as Catholic, Catholic Church (disambiguation), One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and Catholicism - not to mention this and many parallel discussions on naming - provide ample evidence of the ambiguity of the term "Catholic Church." There has never been an articulation of why "Roman Catholic" is misleading or offensive - indeed, it is a common term, used non-pejoratively, to describe only one entity: The Communion under the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. So, no, we cannot assume assent, especially given the discussion in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion [1], and on the administrators' noticeboard [2] and [3] Fishhead64 01:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please, don't rewrite history: The Catholic Church identifies itself as the Catholic Church and not the Roman Catholic Church. A cabal has locked in "Roman Catholic" in the Wikipedia and blocks self-identification of the Catholic Church. That's my opinion, submitted to some future consensus. It also is certainly offensive and pejorative to this Catholic to define the Catholic Church as the entity under the primacy etc. ... It is analogous to having the state of Israel defined as the entity which is under Zionism. patsw 01:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It refers to itself using both terms - I'm not going to again cite the instances for you, which you have in the past failed to acknowledge. It is certainly offensive and pejorative to this Catholic to have members of one Communion appropriate for themselves exclusive use of a name which is equally my baptismal birthright. Fishhead64 06:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this issue is not settled, why don't you respond the the points made?

Fishhead64, if you don't believe that your objections have been addressed then please describe how the counter-arguments fall short. It is evasive of you to lamely state that they were "merely the same arguments." This talk page was created by you to be the forum to discuss this issue. I am trying to do that. If you can't produce verifiable reasons to support your position that are relevant to Wikipedia naming conventions, then concede the point. Otherwise, you are just POV pushing. If you can only support your position by pointing to Wikipedia articles which you have edited then you are using a circular argument. Keep in mind that in resolving ambiguity through assessing common usage, we are advised to 'Exclude "Wikipedia" from the search.' SynKobiety 04:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there are specific points I failed to respond to, I would be happy to remedy that - especially if it will help bring resolution to this debate. But I believe I answered all the substantive ones, sometimes repeatedly. Please let me know on what counts I failed to satisfy. Fishhead64 06:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When it was pointed out through a survey of usage that using "Catholic Church" to refer to the Church in question is what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity,you did not respond.
When you were asked to explain how the level of ambiguity for "Catholic Church" is greater than that of Church of Christ or that of Apostolic Church, you did not respond.
When you were asked to explain how the existing disambiguation page does not adequately describe what ambiguity does exist, you did not respond.
When you were asked to "describe how the counter-arguments fall short," you did not respond. -SynKobiety 14:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I have repeatedly responded to the first point over the past several months. The nub of that response is that "Catholic Church" has two distinct meanings. I don't argue that a lot of people assume that "Catholic Church" refers to the Roman Catholic Church, and that this assumption is often correct. I merely believe that this is beside the point since the term may sometimes not refer to that entity. The duality of meaning becomes particularly problematic when we begin to talk about such concepts as Catholic orders, Catholic theology, Catholic sacraments, Catholic ecclesiology, etc., since Catholic here may legitimately be used in the sense of Catholic rather than Roman Catholic.
With respect to the second point, I do not believe the terms in question are comparable. Yesterday, I posted a link to Archbishop Williams' recent statement about his commitment to the Catholic Church. I have a book on my shelf called The Gospel and the Catholic Church by Michael Ramsey that uses the term in the sense of Catholicism. I believe that the terms "Church of Christ" and "Apostolic Church" are not used in the same technical sense, and in any event the entities in question are relatively small. All Christian churches are churches of Christ - this is a relatively unremarkable observation - and the apostolicity of Catholic denominations is unpacked at apostolic succession, which is really what is theologicallysignificant about the term. But I suppose the case could be made that those article names do invite an ambiguous interpretation, in which case we may want to visit them as well.
With respect to the third point, I think the disambiguation page does provide an adequate description of the ambiguity - I never argued that it should be blanked. Its existence provides an excellent argument for why we name the page Roman Catholic Church and why articles dealing with that particular communion should incorporate that name. Just becausee one page explains ambiguity is no argument for why ambiguity should elsewhere be disregarded.
With regard to the fourth point, this is rather vague. I would merely suggest that you and other interested editors review my comments here, in archive three of the RCC talk page, and elsewhere to read my response to the various points made. In a nutshell, the counter-arguments fall short because they fail to address my essential argument which is that "Roman Catholic Church" is a precise, accurate, and non-pejorative name used in the English-speaking world (including by the Vatican) that sufficiently deals with the ambiguity associated with the term "Catholic." Neither you nor any other editor has ever explained why it isn't any of these things. Self-identity isn't an issue if both names are used by the entity, so the only reasonable argument is that "Catholic Church" is used more frequently and so is to be preferred. Where we disagree, it would appear, is on the matter of "reasonable ambiguity." Given that a perfectly acceptable alternative exists, I have thus far been unable to see why a compromise meets with such fervent resistance. It seems okay to the authorities of the denomination in question, but not with some of its adherents. Fishhead64 00:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that it has been shown that there is a reasonable minimum of ambiguity: a review of the first 970 listings returned from a Yahoo search for unqualified uses of the word "Catholic" showed the NEVER - NOT ONCE was just plain "Catholic" used in reference to anything other than the Church in communion with the Pope. I believe that shows that the majority of English speakers don't find more than a minimum of ambiguity. In response to this, you have offered no evidence - only your opinion that there is unreasonable ambiguity. That is not an adequate response.
Archbishop Rowan Williams also says, "[S]o that we have ways of being sure we’re still talking the same language, aware of belonging to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ,"[4]. Isn't his cathedral named the Cathedral and Metropolitical Church of Christ at Canterbury? In any case, your response is not adequate unless you explain how the names Church of Christ and Apostolic Church are not used in a technical sense while Catholic Church is. If the relative size of the churches are relevant, please tell me what is the maximum size of a Church before its name is challenged.
Please explain how the existing disambiguation page is not adequate to address the ambiguity that does exist, especially in light of the fact that it has been adequate for Church of Christ.
I listed the fourth point out of my frustration with your lack of previous response. In response to your "compromise" - It has been pointed out to you that "Roman Catholic Church" is not entirely precise and accurate and has its own ambiguity. It more accurately applies to only part of the Church in communion with the Pope. It has also been written to you that many Catholics consider the use of "Roman" to be perjorative, including Eastern Catholics. I can see why Vaquero100 is frustrated when you continue to assert that "Roman Catholic" is "perfectly acceptable" when you have read otherwise scores of times on these pages. I have also seen "Catholic Church" used by officials of the Anglican Church to refer to the denomination is question (and so have you). Given that this usage perfectly acceptable, I don't see why it is so fervently opposed. It seems okay to the authorities of Anglican Church, but not to some of its adherents. -SynKobiety 03:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be rehearsing your points a second time. If you don't accept my response, there's not much I can do about that, unless you think repeating myself would be edifying. I remain unconvinced, and so do you. But I will respond to the actual questions you pose.
In a previous response to you, I gave you the Shorter Oxford definition of Catholic Church, which sounded technical and comprehensive to me - I don't know how it sounded to you, but I'd be curious to hear. This was not subjectively dreamt up by me. I do note that the Shorter Oxford also contains definitions for "apostolic" and "Christian," but not "Church of Christ" or "Apostolic Church." "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church," which you quote Abp. Williams' as affirming is, indeed, a technical expression. I suppose if His Grace were to mention that the Anglican Church is an "apostolic church" or a "holy church" or a "very nice church," that could conceivably be offered in evidence that these are technical expressions. But can an equivalence be established between these terms and "Catholic Church"? It was Lancelot Andrewes who prayed (in Preces Private) "for the whole Catholic Church - Eastern - Western - our own." And that is merely one example of self-definition. If size makes no difference to a claim of self-identity: Fine. I'm all for an inclusive definition of "Catholic Church."
I think the disambiguation page is great, and I've already said so - I don't really know why you're repeating the question. The disambiguation page provides ample evidence of ambiguity. But I see no reason to assume that it is sufficient to remove ambiguity in every article that includes "Catholic" in the title - especially since "Catholic" can reference both an ecclesiological structure and a theological orientation. I simply want to know if I can start including information from non-Roman Catholic Catholic traditions in pages such as Catholic minister or Catholic Church hierarchy. If not, why not?
With regard to your final point, I'm happy to use Eastern Catholic in conjunction with Roman Catholic when articles are referencing both these groups. That would seem to satisfy a desire for accuracy, and remove any pejorative aspects Eastern Catholics may feel. Fishhead64 06:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo should be maintained

It's often difficult to maintain a moderate position in the presence of extremes attempting to draw one way or another. This is evident in the problems of naming the Church headed by the bishop of Rome. Many Wikipedia articles refer to that Church as the Roman Catholic Church, while others refer to it as the Catholic Church. Current Wikipedia practice admits both names. Nevertheless, there are a small number of editors seeking to rename "Catholic Church" articles to "Roman Catholic Church" and another small number of editors seeking to rename "Roman Catholic Church" articles to "Catholic Church." On the contrary, the status quo should be maintained. Articles should keep whatever title they have had historically, and this for two main reasons. First, it reflects a profound balance in regard to NPOV policy. Second, renaming articles is disruptive to productive editing.

The names "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" both reflect a theological opinion, and exclusive use of either effectively supports a POV. Thus, a mixed use is the most appropriate, and also reflects the current Wikipedia practice. For instance, the "main" article is at Roman Catholic Church, however the space at Catholic Church is a redirect. This situation, determined by vote and reflecting consensus, is an amazing balance. Neither term is used exclusively, and there is something for both sides to like and dislike. There are many other subarticles using "Roman Catholic Church" in the title, and others using "Catholic Church". WikiProject Catholicism at one time proposed a category tree structure that included both terms.[5] We have articles at Canon law (Catholic Church) and Catholic Church hierarchy, and others at History of the Roman Catholic Church and Roman Catholicism by country. I'm not really sure what Vaquero and SynKobiety want, but if it involves moving the main article to Catholic Church that seems to upset the profound balance the community has developed. Vaquero should not be doing page moves and category blanking. On the other hand, attempts to rename existing articles to include "Roman" are likewise upsetting that delicate balance.[6][7][8][9] Both must stop.

Article renames are also disruptive to wikipedia. These articles are linked from other articles, and when they are renamed, some redirects become double redirects. When double redirects do not function properly they must be fixed, taking time away productive editing. Thus, any rename should be done with care. According to an old axiom of law, a change in law is an evil, and the new law must be justified as proportionately better than the disruption of a change. When an arguably arbitrary decision has been made already about the naming of some article, unless there is a substantial basis for changing it, the decision should be accepted.[10]

This naming dispute has taken time away from other tasks I would prefer to do. I would like a resolution. Gimmetrow 03:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not entirely clear what the status quo is. It is clear that this is a very contentious subject. The conflict is exacerbated by a lack of comprehension of what is POV and what is not. I understand the using "Catholic Church" as the name of this Church is very POV. I also see that in naming articles Wikipedia naming conventions favor the POV of those being named (see Church of Christ and Apostolic Church for examples). I have observed page moves to include "Roman" in the name which used the name of this article as justification. What I want is adherence to Wikipedia guidelines. I am not advocating suppression of POVs that I don't hold. I expect that controversies, including this one, will be described within articles using NPOV. SynKobiety 04:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that wikipedia guidelines are not binding and may be varied from in appropriate circumstances - you are presumably referring to "naming conflicts" here. The status quo is whatever articles have been named historically on Wikipedia. These names should not be changed without good reason. I have links to a few page renames above that attempted to include "Roman" using this article as justification. As my short essay above attempts to describe, I think that misses the whole point of the naming of this page. Gimmetrow 04:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If memory serves, the example of Roman Catholic sacraments is misleading. This change came after extensive discussion and consensus among editors, with only a single dissenting voice, and as a result of an attempt to edit out material concerning non-Roman Rite Catholic churches. "Catholic sacraments" has, again, two very particular meanings: First, referring to sacraments in the Roman Catholic Church; but also as a synonymn for the Seven Sacraments recognised by Catholic Christians generally. This is an ideal example of the ambiguity of the term "Catholic," and a reason why the status quo is not an ideal solution, but one geared to continuing conflict.
A better solution would be the one proposed by another editor, whose name now escapes me. This editor suggested (on Talk:Roman Catholic Church) that the term "Roman Catholic" be used in titles of articles dealing with subjects specifically related to that denomination, but that the term "Catholic Church" be permissible within the body of the article itself.
I reiterate: My position is one based on clarity and precision, quite apart from the strong feelings I have as a member of the Catholic Church who does not recognise the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Fishhead64 06:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fishhead64 has stated that his POV is clear and precise, but he has failed to show that his POV is clear and precise to the general English-speaking readership. Please look here and see what "Catholic Church" is understood to mean. In spite of your strong feelings, your statement of membership is completely lacking in clarity and precision to the typical English speaker.
Gimmetrow, I suspect that it will be impossible to preserve the status quo unless those historical article names are documented and published. Is, for example, Catholic Church in Great Britain one of these historical names? SynKobiety 07:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that my POV was clear and precise, I said that I was aiming toward clarity and precision when the term "Catholic" is employed, in keeping with the understanding that it has more than one meaning - a proposition I don't believe you have ever disputed. And with respect to my affirmation of membership in the Catholic Church, I think I am in good company. As recently as Friday, Archbishop Rowan Williams issued a statement in which, among other things, he declared "I make no secret of the fact that my commitment and conviction are given to the ideal of the Church Catholic" [11]. Fishhead64 18:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly you can see problems with moves done without prior discussion. If RC sacraments was not one of those, fine, I removed that example. If we can agree on the principles, application of them is a minor matter. (If necessary a detailed list of fixed article names could be generated.) If you don't like my suggestion, then what exactly are either of you suggesting regarding article naming? Use of terms within an article is a separate issue; are you endorsing the solution you describe, Fishhead? Gimmetrow 18:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that moves need to be done with prior discussion and broad editorial consensus, and I trust that my editing behaviour has reflected this conviction.
With respect to your question, I do endorse the proposal I outlined. I believe it represents a reasonable compromise and avoids the article-by-article bickering and horse-trading (which, let's face it, will be interminable). If we make a list, there will be debate. I had, for example, not heard of Catholic Church in Great Britain which, to me, is prima facie ambiguous.
If we have one rule, consistently applied, incorporated into the naming conventions, this will foreclose recurrence of this rather time-sapping and circular debate. I don't expect partisans on the extreme of either side will be happy with this - but it will allow "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic" to be used in a complementary fashion in each and every article dealing with aspects of that specific denomination. Fishhead64 18:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All that Fishhead64 has proposed is that Wikipedia reflect the Anglican POV on this issue. I agree that the term in question can have more than one meaning. That is why there is a disambiguation page. Fishhead64 has agreed that the proposed article name of "Catholic Church" is as it is "commonly and colloquially used," but insists that a less commonly-used alternative name be imposed. Why can't we just apply the same Wikipedia naming conventions that are used to determine the article names of other Churches?
Fishhead64, shall we interpret the fact that you haven't declared ambiguity elsewhere to mean that neither you nor Archbishop Rowan Williams makes any claim that your Church is a Church of Christ or that it is an Apostolic Church? Or do you agree that a disambiguation page linked to the main article can adequately address any ambiguity? -SynKobiety 19:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cardinal (catholicism) has existed for nearly 4 years, and I can find no evidence that anyone has ever argued for its renaming. If you are now saying it should be renamed, you should explain coherently why numerous Wiki editors have not renamed it in all this time. Likewise, the current situation at Roman Catholic Church had the input of many editors and reflects a wide consensus; that is it disliked about equally by both extremes is a good sign it is the correct solution. If you really want a formal naming convention, the best thing to do is not to create some new system radically different than current wikipedia practice. Rather, formalize that current practice so that only limited exceptions need to be changed. Gimmetrow 21:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, in my original draft response outlining my endorsement, I mentioned that article titles that clearly refer to the Roman Catholic Church could be exempted from this structure, but I couldn't think of any examples. Cardinal (catholicism) is a good example of a title that is already unambiguous, and similar ones could also be left as is. So, yes, I think there are exceptions. Fishhead64 06:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not extreme to permit the Catholic Church article to include the self-identification of the Catholic Church. Fishhead64, I promise not to interfere with the Anglicanism self-definition.00:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Believe me if you tried to touch Anglicanism the way Anglicans abuse the CC page, you'd be blocked. Vaquero100 05:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why, is there something ambiguous about the term "Anglican"? Fishhead64 06:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, I wasn't aware that Anglicans were abusing Roman Catholic Church - I didn't recognise any such abuses in the last 500 edits by recognisable Anglican users, but I may be missing some. You, on the other hand, have indulged in some recent editorial activity at Anglicanism and other Anglican-related articles, I don't believe that this incurred a block, merely reversion and rebuke by other editors. Fishhead64 06:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Church of England" is ambiguous in the same way that "Catholic Church" is. -SynKobiety 14:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to make the argument that Church of England can be confused with another entity or entities or concepts, then by all means plead the case. I'd be interested to see the arguments over at that article's talk page. Fishhead64 00:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion of the preceding discussion

As far as I can see, this latest round demonstrates four points:
First, this issue will not die until the official name of the Catholic Church is recognized by WP in the naming of this article. A steady stream of faithful Catholics will always come along and press for the correction. Catholics will be the minority (but WP conventions require WP to recognize self identifying entities by the name they use for themselves), but Catholics will continue to press on. Fishhead, I hope you are up for it, because you have only just begun.
The second point this discussion demonstrates is found in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia:

"The dog-in-the manger policy of so many Anglicans who cannot take the name of Catholics for themselves, because popular usage has never sanctioned it as such, but who on the other hand will not concede it to the members of the Church of Rome...."

Anglicans can't really find much other application in the concrete for the term "Catholic Church," but will be satisfied simply to deny its use to the Catholic Church.
Thirdly, this argument is not about something rational for Anglicans. It is for them about something utterly and blindingly emotional such as "birthright." Though all the rational arguments favor the Catholic position, Anglicans hold the reigns and cannot be forced to engage rational argument.
Which proves my fourth point, that Anglicans and the administrators that support them are afraid of rational discussion of the subject and hold at the very least a contempt and disdain for Catholics who hold up the mirror. Case in point:

Quote from Administrator George's Talkpage follows:

I read you think "Catholic Church" is nasty. George, you are clearly new to this debate and your British and Anglican background suggest that you may be unfamiliar with the nomenclature of the Catholic Church as well as the thoroughly established use of "Catholic Church" in reference to those in communion with Rome. Please see this page for a more thorough treatment of the subject matter: CC vs. RCC Vaquero100 17:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, indeed. I said that I thought that mounting the argument was nasty. The Nicene Creed says that all Christians believe in one catholic church, with "catholic" meaning orthodox and united, and we do all believe in one church. However, multiple schisms have brought the various rites out of communion with one another. To distinguish between them, we indicate which rite they follow. Do they follow the Roman rite, the Byzantine rite, the Syrian rite, the Russian rite? Thus, Roman Catholic Church, Russian Catholic Church, Syrian Catholic Church, etc. To erase the distinction is to insist, in effect, that the Roman rite is the only one to have a claim on being "the" Catholic church. I consider my own church to be catholic, but I am quite sure that it is not Roman Catholic.
Even if all of that theological and historical evidence were not sufficient, though, we need to follow the conventions of the wider Anglophone world, and that is "Roman Catholic" for the church whose polity headed by the Bishop of Rome, and not "Catholic," except in the most ignorant of usages. Again: true and false are not the issue when it comes to locating our lemmae. Geogre 17:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Geogre, in response to Vaquero's invitation to visit the page describing the case for the proposed use of "Catholic Church", you have replied with a statement of what you call "theological and historical evidence." If it were indisputable that this evidence is as you state (and it is not), you would still be correct in saying that they would not be sufficient. Wikipedia naming conventions address the issues of self-identification and common use with a minimum of ambiguity. If you would review the case presented, you would see that you have an incorrect understanding of the "conventions of the wider Anglophone world," and that in common usage "Catholic Church" is always understood to mean the "church whose polity headed by the Bishop of Rome." I would ask that you put aside your POV and support the application of Wikipedia policy to this issue. SynKobiety 17:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been interested in rehashing an old polemic, one that has spilled blood and given no profit to the church or world. I remain so. Wikipedia follows the world in this regard, and, I repeat, it is not the place to redress what any of us regard as historical wrongs. When Britanica, American Heritage, World Book, the Oxford, and the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church agree in dropping "Roman" and using only "catholic" to refer to one specific rite, then Wikipedia will be bound to follow suit. However, as they all, like us, distinguish the various "catholic" churches, the status quo has the benefit of being most useful. Self identification is irrelevant in this regard, but, even if it were at play, you would be wrong in professing to speak for all priests, bishops, cardinals, and archbishops in seeking to drop the "Roman" designation. Geogre 18:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if you thought that I had referred to an old polemic or to any historical wrongs. I merely expressed support for applying published Wikipedia guidelines regarding the use of the name "Catholic Church." According to American Heritage, World Book, Websters Unabridged, and Random House Collegiate, "Catholic Church" refers only to the Church headed by the Bishop of Rome. Also contrary to your statement, self-identification is not only relevant, but according to Wikipedia:Naming conflict is one of the objective criteria for choosing a name. In determining self-identification, I would not presume to speak for all priests, bishops, etc., but do note the following usage by these national conferences: The Catholic Church in England and Wales, Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Catholic Church in Australia, the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, The Catholic Church in New Zealand, and the New Zealand Catholic Bishops' Conference. I encourage you to reconsider your opposition to the consistent application of Wikipedia naming conventions regarding this. SynKobiety 20:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not dictionaries, encyclopedias. Look for the entry describing the Roman Catholic Church in any print encyclopedia, and see whether it is lodged at "Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church." Dictionaries describe usage. For Americans, who have few Syrian, Russian, or Greek churches to contend with, usage will dictate a clipping of "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic," but the same would not be true in an encyclopedia. Again, when those encyclopedias change their entries, we can change ours. Otherwise, you are asking to correct a wrong -- the wrong of not being considered the only catholic church -- by waging the battle here. We will follow the readers. Geogre 22:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those poor stupid Americans have plenty of Syrian, Russian, and Greek Churches - more than the English, in fact. If you meant "encylcopedia" you should not have included dictionaries in your reference list. Dictionaries do describe usage. Wikipedia naming conventions refer to usage also. If you would read and understand the naming conventions then you might start to follow readers instead of trying to lead them. SynKobiety 00:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to see you losing your calm like that. Inasmuch as I am an American, I don't think I would describe my fellow citizens as stupid. All language users simplify to the degree that they are capable. Capability is constrained by ambiguity. If you were in Lebanon, for example, you might need to keep each church's name as long as possible, because no one would be numerically superior (except the Druse). In the US, the Roman Catholic Church is far greater in number and power than any other "-catholic" church, and therefore American speakers will simplify and clip, just as medieval speakers of English would simply say "the church," as if no other churches were in disagreement or existed. Since we seek to be precise and to answer all speakers of English, we have to take the long form. This is in addition to the political side of the discussion, which, as I've said, I'm not interested in debating, as I see it as shamefully bloody. What I cannot understand is why you or any other person would seek to be less specific in naming, if you are not arguing from the political motivation. It's not for me to understand, though, I suppose. Geogre 02:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were insulting Americans by saying that Americans are ignorant through having a limited exposure to those other Churches. I am not interested in debating the theology or the politics of this question. I have been saying it has been demonstrated that in normal usage, "Catholic Church" is understood by English speakers to mean the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Additionally, the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome is most commonly referred to as the "Catholic Church" by English speakers. This has been demonstrated through what was written at Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name and what Vaquero has compiled at CC vs RCC. These facts, together with the Church's self-identification, satisfy the requirements described in the Wikipedia naming conventions. It is not less specific as it matches what most English speakers understand it to mean. You are apparently not representative of most English speakers and should not allow your atypical POV to override the naming conventions. SynKobiety 03:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder which hoary old argument has just been revived? Could it perhaps be the perenial demand by the Papists to move their article from Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church? I must wander along and have a look - maybe there will be a new argument this time. Yes, yes, I know - the triumph of hope over experience... Just zis Guy you know? 21:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How dull. It turned out to be somethign altogether less imaginitive - a plain old-fashioned POV fork. Reverted. With just a tiny application of rouge to hold things in place. Just zis Guy you know? 21:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a POV fork, but the forking involves something a bit submerged. The name has big implications for Roman Catholics of a particularly conservative sort, and it's very important for protestants (esp. Anglicans and Lutherans) that the name change not take place. Now me, I don't think that changing a name will change the fact that it's one church and not THE church, but if Wikipedia were to take the lead in reverting the name, we'd have some extremely angry readers/editors. Geogre 22:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


End Quote.

WP is in a truly pathetic state. Fishhead does not need to and can cannot be forced to engage with the intellect in this tyranny of the majority. Dont expect him or anyone else to be anything but smug and condesceding.

WP lacks the courage to follow its own convictions in this case. This should be a real source of embarassment.

Vaquero100 05:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gather your recent contrition has worn off, since you have chosen once again to indulge in personal invective, something which I will not reciprocate. As I remarked in my lengthy personal note to you of last month, what we have here is a difference of opinion regarding semantics and the opacity of the use of a certain designation. How my expression of my views in this matter can be characterised as smug or condescending is not at all clear to me, but you obviously need to take responsibility for your own perceptions. Moreover, I absolutely decline to take responsibility for the views expressed by other editors, which you have reproduced here and on your user page - so I am bewildered as to why my name is being somehow associated with these individuals.
The rationality of my argument, I hope, speaks for itself. It is true that I spoke of "birthright" in my response to patsw, because his emotional claims to exclusivity invited an emotional response. But I would remind you of the two points I made in the lengthy note on your talk page (now archived):
  1. The use of the term “Catholic Church” has two distinct meanings: First, it refers to the Latin Rite churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome; and second, it refers to those churches which make a creedal confession of membership in the Catholic Church and/or assume membership in the Church by maintaining self-identified marks of catholicity.
  2. The term “Roman Catholic Church” is a non-controversial, accepted alternative designation of the first meaning. It is one that is widespread, at least in the English language. Whatever its historical origins (and I confess ignorance in this respect), the term has gained enough currency in discourse that it has been adopted by the institution itself in certain contexts. From my perspective, this indicates that it is a component of the institution’s self-identity, and not a term like – say – “faggot” is to gays, or “nigger” is to blacks. This is not something, therefore, imposed upon the institution, as it exists in its contemporary form. It is, rather, a lexical convenience in the English language, in order to distinguish which of the two meanings are being conveyed.
I fail to see how this can, by any stretch, be characterised as "utterly and blindingly emotional," but, again, you own your perceptions. Far be it from me to accuse you of being utterly and blindingly emotional in your language or reasoning as you struggle for what you see as justice.
Finally, I think it is telling that your first point already forecloses compromise on this matter. You have made it more than amply plain that you consider nothing short of complete acceptance of your viewpoint the minimum acceptable "compromise." Given that you believe that the naming issue is a matter of fact as plain as a brick wall, rather than a matter of controversy and difference of opinion, I would expect nothing less. It is unfortunate, however, that you find continued obsession with this issue an acceptable outcome - which is what a failure to incorporate and acknowledge differences of opinion precisely invites. Fishhead64 06:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to Vaquero's assertion that "WP lacks the courage to follow its own convictions in this case", it is not possible that the naming of this single article is in line with "WP convictions"? A number of experienced editors contributed to the current solution. On the other hand Fishhead, your proposal apparently is that each and every article on a Catholic topic must use "Roman Catholic" in the article title. That is very far from current wiki practice, and not a realistical solution in my opinion. This may not be an ideal analogy, but imagine having an outsider insist that, from now on, every single article about the "Church of England" must now be named "Established Church of England", because "Church of England" is ambiguous with respect to every other Church in England. Parallel to your reasoning, since "Established Church of England" is an alternate name, that's how ambiguity should be resolved. I also note that there are multiple meanings of "Roman Catholic" - 1) those using the Roman rite, 2) those under the Roman patriarchy (larger than just the Roman Rite), 3) those in formal communion with the See of Rome. Even your paragraph #1 confuses these meanings. When "Roman Catholic" is used as a theological assertion that there are Catholics of the "Roman" variety and Catholics of other varieties, these meanings are relevant. Gimmetrow 03:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be more accurate and precise, that should be the "Canterburian Church of England" to distinguish it from those Churches of England not in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. -SynKobiety 01:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, Gimmetrow, that isn't quite my position. See my response to your comment of 21:45, 8 July 2006 in the preceding section. I think that a lack of clarity is unhelpful, and doesn't solve the main thrust of the difficulty - in some cases, like Cardinal (catholicism), ambiguity is not an issue; in others, like Catholic sacraments, it is. Simply saying, "leave article titles as they currently are" imposes a truce to avoid editorial warfare, which is good as far as it goes, but doesn't deal with the underlying issues which are the basis of the dispute.
I think it's fair to say that a compromise has been reached on the title of this article, with perhaps three strenuous dissenters (Vaquero100, SynKobiety, and patsw). As you appear to recognise, the bulk of the debate has shifted outward to other articles and the naming conventions related to churches in communion with the See of Rome (which subsumes meanings 2 and 3 that you delineate). I absolutely concur with your concluding sentence, and some articles sensitively reflect the distinctions by referring to Eastern Catholics and Roman Catholics separately. This encompasses the entirity of churches in communion with Rome. Entities that use the Roman rite but do not acknowledge Roman primacy are cleraly different communions entirely: A communion is defined by the primary See.
Finally, as I mentioned above, I do not think Church of England is ambiguous in a parallel way. Unless it can be adequately demonstrated that the term is frequently used to mean something other than the Anglican entity, the analogy doesn't hold. A more apt example is the Conservative Party, which most English-speaking people would associate with the Conservative Party (UK). Fishhead64 23:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As has been demonstrated above, "Catholic Church" is not frequently understood to mean something other than the Church in communion with the Pope. It is no more ambiguous than Church of Christ or Apostolic Church. -SynKobiety 01:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I take issue with the word "demonstrated" - it was certainly asserted, but I responded that I did not think that the situations were comparable, and explained why. Fishhead64 05:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What we have now is, in the best Wikipedia traditions, a kludge that works for most people. In most cases the term "Catholic foo" is unambiguous. The term "Catholic Church" is not, as evidence several examples given above. I have yet to meet a Roman Catholic in real life who ocnsiders the term "Roman Catholic" to be offensive. I have met some Orthodox who will correct anyone who refers to the Catholic Church in a way that implies the Roman Catholic Church. I don't see the need for change, and I see plenty of reasons not to. Leave it be. Just zis Guy you know? 20:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree with me then? Gimmetrow 21:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Naming conventions do not require an absolute absence of ambiguity, only that there be a reasonable minimum of it, as was shown above to be the case with "Catholic Church." -SynKobiety 01:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On this we agree. We differ only on the reasonableness of the ambiguity of the term "Catholic Church." I believe the ambiguity is sufficiently powerful in some cases to require the use of an acceptable alternative. Fishhead64 05:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your belief that there is significant ambiguity is contradicted by the results of the usage test that showed that the term "Catholic" when used without any modifiers ALWAYS referred to the Church in communion with the Pope - at least through the first 970 results. Every dictionary I have consulted lists only one definition for "Catholic Church" and it is ALWAYS the Church in communion with the Pope. I can not see how you can claim that this is not a reasonable minimum of ambiguity! If you have no answer to this, then I can't see you continuing your opposition. -SynKobiety 04:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My answer is that this is a strawman. I did not have the luxury of time of reviewing the contents of the first 970 results of the Yahoo search, but I never have believed that Internet search engines represent the last word in settling naming disputes, since they represent specific contexts: First, the context of stuff that has made it on to the Internet, and second, the context of their own particularity. The Roman Catholic Church is a huge, visible, and active institution. The Catholic Church as the body of Catholic Christians of several denominations represents an abstract concept, less likely to hit online news-sites, parish webpages, or devotional or commercial sites. But it is an important, definable, viable, and living concept, nonetheless.
I do know that my Book of Common Prayer uses the term "Catholic Church" throughout to refer to the universal body of Christians, pace the Nicene Creed. I think most English-speaking Christians would unambiguously recognise this confession of faith as not pertaining exclusively to the Roman Catholic Church. The secular world and certain Roman Catholics may, indeed, have a looser or more exclusive concept. That doesn't make it accurate or exhaustive. The fact remains that there are a lot of self-identifying Catholic Christians who should not feel excluded from articles with "Catholic" in the title, if Catholic is what they are. What is your argument that they should be thus excluded? Because they're not Catholics?
I don't know about your dictionaries, but my Shorter Oxford defines the ecclesiological use of Catholic as "1. Of or belonging to the church universal; 2. Of or belonging to the church universal as organised on an accepted basis of faith and order; of the true apostolic Church, orthodox; 3. As applied since the Reformation to the Church of Rome, Roman Catholic, q.v. I am please to see that those particular lexicographers share my own comprehensive view. Fishhead64 00:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The naming policy is: "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."
There is no strawman in what I have written. You have already conceded that the majority of English speakers most easily recognize that "Catholic Church" refers to the Church in communion with the Pope. You said that our disagreement was about the issue of ambiguity. I am trying to discuss with you whether the majority of English speakers would consider that there is a reasonable minimum of ambiguity in using the name "Catholic Church" for an article dealing with the Church in communion with the Pope. That is what is relevant to Wikipedia naming conventions. What is NOT RELEVANT is whether I think it is ambiguous, or whether you think so, or whether Pope Benedict or Archbishop Williams thinks so, or whether the Book of Common Prayer states so - it is only relevant what the majority of English speakers recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity. The internet search was done to provide an objective measure of how "Catholic" is understood by English speakers in general. Your personal opinion about internet search engines is NOT RELEVANT - an internet search engine is specifically described in the naming conventions as an acceptable means to determine usage. According to American Heritage, World Book, Websters Unabridged, and Random House Collegiate, "Catholic Church" refers only to the Church headed by the Bishop of Rome.
I can see that you feel strongly that this usage is "wrong", but Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Article_names_2 clearly states that 'Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons.' -SynKobiety 04:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot argue that Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic are more ambiguous than Catholic: Quite the opposite, in fact. Is it your contention that a majority of English speakers would not as easily recognise Roman Catholic Church as referring to the entity under the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as they would Catholic Church? On both these counts, I think I am on firmer ground. The names I suggest are less ambiguous and about as easily recognisable. No one can say that an internet search on "Roman Catholic Church" will turn up anything but references to the denomination under the primacy of the Pope. Did you really read all 970 references by the way? Not that it makes any difference, but I'm curious: That must have been time-consuming! Fishhead64 06:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some other examples

What about:

Just to name a few? Can one reasonably argue that these are entirely unambiguous? As they currently are named, there seems to be no compelling reason why an editor could not begin including information about other denominations in the Catholic tradition. Fishhead64 00:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 meanings of "Roman" I gave are a sort of hierarchy - there are Catholics subject to the Roman patriarch (as patriarch) who do not use the Roman rite. Not saying this is a major issue, but it comes up sometimes. Anyway, the matchpoint for me on this issue is Canon law (Catholic Church), which someone moved (out-of-process) quoting this article as precedent. That raised two issues. First, exactly what precedent is this article for other articles, since the redirect from CC is part of the precedent here. Second, is this article name a problem? Yes, Anglicans have a canon law as well, but frankly I have always heard it referred to as Anglican canon law. So is this the same as "Cardinals"? (As for "Church of England", be clear that I'm not actually making any argument that that name is ambiguous, but if one were one might point to the entities: "Catholic Church in England and Wales", "Established Catholic Church in England", "Evangelical Lutheran Church of England", "Old Catholic Church of England", and "Independent Old Catholic Church of England and Wales" - all separate entities from what little I can tell.) Gimmetrow 00:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am the editor who "moved (out-of-process)" the Canon law article. First of all, I apologize for my actions due to how they upset a number of editors. But allow me to explain. I was unaware that there was a specific move process. The move tab is on the top of every single page when you are logged in. You are allowed to make uncontroversial moves. The formal move request is only for articles that need admin access. Most controversial moves just require consensus. On top of that, I was going through reverting a number of actions of one editor who felt compelled to change (IMO "out-of-process") the wikilink Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church as the next best thing to not being able to get consensus to change the title of the main article. If the main article name changes, then all the links can be changed, but don't sidestep the process. The fact of the matter is this article is currently named RCC, and whether we like that or not, we should respect that until we can change it (if it needs to be changed). While reverting the actions of the aforementioned editor, I came across Interdict (Roman Catholic Church), Catholic Church hierarchy and Consecrated life in the Roman Catholic Church that all had been moved by this editor to remove the word "Roman". I got carried away and moved one article that didn't have a previous move history of having the word "Roman" in the title. Once again, I apologize, but since my edit has been reverted, and I'm not pushing it, I don't see how this is problematic anymore. If anything, the zealous actions to remove the word "Roman" from every page except the actual article on this topic should be questioned, not my one page move. Hope this isn't too much of a rant. Thanks for reading!--Andrew c 01:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is moved back, but the argument has been made that something about the situation at this article applies to a whole bunch of other articles, and I'm trying to explore what that is. In fact, I have doubts that the "Canon law (Catholc Church)" article should be separate from "Canon law", but assuming for the moment that it is, how should it be named, and why? I really haven't looked into the histories of the other articles, but in many contexts I don't personally have a problem including Anglican content in an article or category entitled "Catholic". Gimmetrow 01:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the school of limiting POV forks. I feel they should only be used when there is too much content to go into one article. I like how there is no Gun control article, but instead one on both sides, Gun politics. I feel that in this case, the information in Canon law (catholic) should probably be moved and redirected to Canon law in general because that article is not unusually long, and the catholic content isn't that long either (if you cut out that long list of related terms). But for an article like Jesus it makes sense to fork out the Islamic POV, the Jewish POV, the Christian POV, the scholarly/historian POV, etc, while the main article summarizes each. But this stuff has little to with the controversy surrounding using the R-word or not.--Andrew c 02:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To include information about other denominations in the articles Fishhead64 listed would not be what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity(see that point above). That is a compelling reason not to do so. Besides, it would be much more precise to include information about his denomination in articles named "Anglican xxxx", as Gimmetrow has pointed out. -SynKobiety 00:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I should point out that I have tagged some of the above articles and categories as requested moves in an effort to broaden the discussion (and - to be honest - hopefully to retitle these to less ambiguous names). I will post this information on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism talk page in effort invite discussion, and would invite my Roman Catholic friends to do the same at Wikipedia: WikiProject Catholicism. I don't know that this will necessarily result in consensus, but it might result in greater clarity. Fishhead64 05:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is nice of you to inform us, but I do find this action rather inappropriate. I recently created a number of articles for some other work, and in consideration of the discussion here I avoided simply naming them "Catholic." Your move requests on multiple pages impose an effective time limit on discussion. Gimmetrow 05:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise if this creates any sort of inconvenience, although I do not regard the action as inappropriate. It is, rather, an extension of this discussion. As I say, this broadens the discussion to other editors, it does not foreclose it. Moreover, it deals with some of the relevant artciles and categories rather than Roman Catholic Church itself. Your proposition has been that the status quo should pertain. Opinions here differ, so I'm testing that proposition in the relevant forums. Fishhead64 05:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This separates and fractions the discussion. What do we do now, argue the varying issues on every page? I can't just put a boilerplate on them, as I don't think each of those pages are in the same situation; some of the articles may have been content-hijacked, and another should possibly be renamed something entirely different than your suggestion. Also, "Roman Catholic" is an ambiguous term in itself, especially in regard to the "Catholic hierarchy" article as that explicitly deals with the Eastern Catholic churches. Britannica accurately says they are "in communion with" the Roman Catholic Church, rather than saying they are part of it.[12] In most cases, it would make more sense to add Anglican content to the categories, than to create an inappropriate name. Gimmetrow 17:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to Catholic Church hierarchy, as well as the other articles and categories, discussion will clarify whether or not the titles should be retained and information from other denominations not in communion with Rome be added, or whether a less ambiguous title should be selected. I'm happy with either solution. My point in identifying these articles and categories as potential moves is first, that this is the logical and natural consequence of a policy of maintaining the status quo rather than having a generally applicable standard: The debate devolves to individual articles. I think this process is time consuming, but I don't know what the alternative is. If I start including Anglican information in Catholic Church hierarchy in the absence of such clarification, what is to prevent another editor from removing it, as was done with Catholic sacraments? I have learned that the footwork needs to be done up front in order to avoid prolonged editorial wrangling over each and every article. Hence, my strong desire for a uniform standard.
Secondly, I've been involved in this discussion for four months with numerous editors, and the clear consensus has always been for a compromise along the lines that I and others have suggested. Indeed, two admins have already mildly rebuked me for posting these as RMs since it is assumed that the proposed moves would be non-controversial. But the citations you flagged above clearly show that such moves result in editorial warfare. I really doubt that another four months, or four years, of dialogue is going to result in anything more than a rehearsal of the same arguments so long as the intransigence of one or two editors prevents what should be non-controversial editorial activity. Fishhead64 18:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "footwork" should be to determine a policy that is fair and NPOV in the active discussion taking place here, not to start movements on a bunch of other pages. This is emphatically not the natural consequence of the policy I am arguing. Gimmetrow 18:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "active discussion" has involved the sustained contribution of four editors, one of whom has consistently stated that he will never compromise on the principle that "Catholic Church" should be used each and every time in reference to the churches in communion with Rome. At what point do we conclude that a fair and neutral policy cannot encompass such intransigence? There are two sides to this issue, and fairness and neutrality would seem to imply a mediating solution. If I had my druthers, "Roman Catholic Church" would be the term used each and every time in reference to churches in communion with Rome, but I am more than prepared to compromise, recognising the commonplace nomenclature as well as the sensitivities of certain editors. Titling articles and categories "Roman Catholic" when they refer to that denomination, with "Catholic" being used subsequently in the article and the use of redirects and/or dabs; and the use of "Catholic" in article and category titles when they refer to churches in the Catholic tradition generally seems pretty darn mediating to me, unless there are other suggestions. I haven't seen any, except the status quo proposal. That proposal, however, locks in place article and category names that may be inaccurate or misleading. How is this stasis fair or neutral? It is a policy of deadlock which, presumably, will prevail until intransigent editors weary of the fight.
I have argued for months for the clear articulation of a mediating solution, but I can't knock down brick walls on either side. In the absence of the acceptance of such a solution — which is as remote today as it was four months ago — I'm eager to hear of alternatives to a page-by-page debate. Fishhead64 19:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The idea behind the status quo argument is to formalize the current practice based on articles that have had a title for a long period of time. (ie, discount some recent content forking.) Given a pattern, some few articles may not fit the pattern and would be changed. I've had a few ideas on how to formalize it, but it's not in a state to go live. A policy that would involve changing (apparently) around half of the Catholic articles seems rather radical to me, not a compromise. I also have concerns with using the term "Roman Catholic Church" for what I might describe as the "Roman Catholic Communion", a concern which would seem to get lost in a mass rename. How does your approach not end up with "Cardinals (Roman Catholic Church)", "Roman Catholic canon law", and "Roman curia of the Roman Catholic Church"? Gimmetrow 19:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am new to Wikipedia and have been watching this conversation for a few weeks. As I am just finding my way around, what is the process for moving these articles? Can somebody help me? --Vita Dulcedo et Spes Nostra 20:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you proposing? What pages do you feel need to be moved. It sounds like the process now is to lay off any moving or renaming of pages until a clear consensus is reached. Despite the conversation not being that inclusive or active, I still feel that we do not have a clear cut policy set out, so editors should probably avoid making controversial edits while this discussion is still open.--Andrew c 00:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been here very long either, but I believe the information you are looking for is at Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. -SynKobiety 04:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for the advice, SynKobiety. I will look into these in a minute...

Andrew c, I am pretty new here, but I have been reading up on this controversy. I don't understand how you can blank the Catholic devotions article and at the same time say no one should change article names because there is no consensus. That strikes me as a bit underhanded. And you only did this a couple of days ago. Can we talk about this? I would think that article should be restored until a consensus is reached, just as you are saying for the other articles. --Vita Dulcedo et Spes Nostra 05:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to you at Talk:Catholic devotions. Please take the dicussion there. My edits had nothing to do with the name of the "Catholic" church, or the RCC vs. CC issue, so this discussion is not relevent to this page.--Andrew c 13:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

proposed article move comment

Vita Dulcedo et Spes Nostra (talk · contribs) repeated the same comment to all the move proposal pages (which I think shouldn't have been proposed in the middle of a discussion because it takes the debate to half a dozen different articles instead of here). Anyway, here is the comment:

  • Oppose I have a friend who is a Ukrainian Catholic Priest. He tells me that the Orthodox use the terms "uniate" and "Roman" as a slur to imply being traitors to the East. They would never call themselves "Roman Catholic," but members of the Catholic Church. It seems that Wikipedia honors self identification--and therefore should in this case as with others. --Vita Dulcedo et Spes Nostra 05:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd like to reply here. First of all, anecdotal evidence that RCC is a slur in Ukraine is a little problematic due to the language differences and the nature of anecdotal evidence (content in wikipedia needs to be WP:V with WP:RS). The next issue is that os self identification. If more than one church self identifies as The Catholic Church, wikipedia policy states disambiguation. So in this case, we'd need to disambiguate the pages with something like Catholic Church (Communion with Rome), instead of using the much more common use of RCC. The whole issue here is IF there are churches besides the RCC that self identify as The Catholic Church. Sure, if you were to walk up to the average person here in Richmond, Virginia and ask them who the Catholic Church was, they'd probably all refer to the RCC. It is this level of recognition that I believe motivates editors to ignore disambiguation issues here (if everyone knows what you are talking about, why disambiguate?). On the other hand, WP:BIAS and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion come into play. To make matters worse, the word catholic has a number of meanings, and some Christians are offended that a lower case meaning of the word is being 'stolen' (in their opinions) by the capital use of the word. I personally don't care much about the theological issues involved here, although a number of other editors have voiced concerns in this matter. It boils down to how can we refer to this Church in a manner that avoids bias and is clear, not just to the majority of people living in Richmond, Virginia, but also to individuals in churches that self identify as The Catholic Church who aren't part of the RCC. I'm not sure there is an answer to this issue. A compromise is probably the best route (as Fishhead64 has proposed months ago). --Andrew c 14:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to summarize my main points:

  1. to Eastern Catholics, the Roman Catholic Church is a particular Church that is in communion with the Coptic Catholic Church, the Melkite Catholic Church, and others; together those churches are the Catholic Church
  2. to Anglicans, the Roman Catholic Church is the Roman communion (including ECs); the Catholic Church is larger than that communion, and includes (at least) Anglicans, Orthodox, and some Lutherans also.
  3. For the average reader, the Roman Catholic Church and the Catholic Church are probably equivalent. If they are aware of ECs or Anglicans, they probably view the Eastern Catholics as a subset of that, and the Anglicans as separate from Catholicism.

On articles dealing with doctrines or beliefs, I think using RCC would work. An EC reading the article Roman Catholic sacraments or Roman Catholic bishop could possibly view it as content pertaining to a separate Church that they happen to agree with. There may be some EC content but for these topics involves minor differences like naming (eg. eparchy/diocese). On the other hand, in articles related to jurisdiction or church structure, the EC position is more critical. ECs would not consider EC patriarchs or episcopate part of the RCC hierarchy (except perhaps for EC cardinals) but rather part of the CC hierarchy. Since there is no juridical "Catholic Church" in the Anglican sense, I don't see how it can be ambiguous to use CC in the context of hierarchy. On the other hand, where the RCC and ECs differ significantly, articles should probably be separate, eg, "Eastern Catholic vestments" and "Roman Catholic vestments", with each page linked on the other. Finally, there are some situations where an article uses the term "Catholic" in a fairly general sense, like Catholic spirituality or Catholic liturgy - it would seem an inclusive sense would work here. So what does this give:

  1. dogmas or beliefs: "Roman Catholic Church" (seems to work for 1,2,3)
  2. hierarchy or organization: "Catholic Church" or "Catholicism" (seems to work for 1,3, angers 2)
  3. significantly different EC and RCC content: separate articles into Eastern and Latin/Roman/Western(as appropriate) (seems to work for 1,3, not sure about 2)
  4. other uses of "Catholic" as an adjective: generic or historical (seems to work for 1,2,3)

I don't expect this is the end product, but how would something like this sound? Gimmetrow 15:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles needed

Gimmetrow, I really like how you've focused on some solid solutions here. I think we're definitely beating a dead horse on the "bias" issue; someone is always going to be offended no matter what we do! Note again from Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Ambiguity_persists:

Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is.

As for the Google search recommendation in the naming conflict guideline, I think SynK's Yahoo search study is a good indication of "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize":

Applying catholic -"roman catholic" -"orthodox catholic" -"old catholic" -"anglican catholic" -wikipedia as the search term in Yahoo will return uses of the word "Catholic" without common qualifiers. When reviewing these unqualified uses of "Catholic", you would have to drill down into the list past the 970th place to find the first use of "Catholic" to refer to anything other than "institution headed by the Bishop of Rome."

General name quibbling aside, in order to make some progress on this issue, we should probably list as many CC/RCC articles as possible (categorized in the three or four categories you list above) and then get a vote for each one. While this is tedious, I think it's the only way to meet the goal of this proposal. It looks like we can't make a blanket statement that all CC pages should exclude "Roman" since that term is useful in some cases, particularly when Church hierarchy is concerned. --J. J. 17:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thanks to Gimmetrow for the thoughtful analysis.
Second, I looked at the link and all I saw was a list of results - how does one find out if all 970 refer to the Roman Catholic Church?
As for the solution, I suppose an article-by-article vote might be the best way - the only way, perhaps - unless we want to just vote on the blanket proposal, and move pages accordingly - on the understanding that some moves may engender controversy which will need to be settled on the particular page. For the record, I do not accept (as Gimmetrow rightly predicts) that "Catholic Church" should be used as a synonym for "Roman Catholic Church" in article titles, unless the articles deal unambiguously with doctrines, dogmas, or structures of that particular denomination (see, for e.g., Cardinal (catholicism)), unless editors are prepared for the inclusion of information on other self-identified Catholic Churches in those articles. Fishhead64 06:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I figured you wouldn't like it, but that's not good enough. I wouldn't like Eucharistic theology in the Roman Catholic Church, but as the doctrines are held by the part (RCC) as well as the whole (CC), I think I could live with it to get this over. Perhaps you could explain why Catholic Church hierarchy is objectionable, as it seems to me that the "Catholic Church" in the Anglican sense isn't an organization with a hierarchy? The article had been at that title from April 2005 until June 2006 with apparently no complaint. Frankly, if ECs can tolerate some inaccurate uses of "RCC", Anglicans should be able to tolerate some (to them) inaccurate uses of "CC". Gimmetrow 21:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Catholic Church hierarchy implies a model peeculiar to churches of a Catholic orientation, namely, the threefold ministry in the context of the apostolic succession of bishops, the existence of a primacy or patriarchy and ecclesiological subdivisions (archdioceses and/or ecclesiastical provinces and dioceses), and some form of synodical government. In this sense, not only the Roman and Eastern Catholics and Anglicans can be desribed as having a hierarchy typical of a communion of the Catholic Church, but so can others, such as the Old Catholics.
I suppose the question is why inaccuracy should be tolerated when it is unnecessary. Fishhead64 19:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, saying "Roman Catholic Church hierarchy" would exclude EC content like Patriarch, Major Archbishop, Exarch, Archimandrite. What do you suggest? Gimmetrow 21:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about inclusivity by including material from other communions of the Catholic Church? Or, if this is unacceptable, renaming it Hierarchy in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic Churches? Fishhead64 21:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like an overly long name and not helpful for linking. Gimmetrow 16:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why there is no ambiguity with respect to self-identification

No one asserted here in good faith, that there is more than one church that self-identifies as the Catholic Church. The assertions made here are that other churches self-identify with some other proper name and indicate they are "part of" the Catholic Church (in caps)(Catholic in character), or "a" catholic church (in lower case), among several(instance of catholic), or both.

Of course, there are spurious claims on the Internet that there is no such thing as the Catholic Church or that there are several Catholic Church's with equally valid claims to that as a singular proper name. There is no ambiguity, at least in the sense the Wikipedia recognizes, there is one and only one church that self-identifes as the Catholic Church and all major reference works recognize this. patsw 14:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you said "all major references works recognize this", I thought I'd browse the Oxford Reference Online (Premium). and I found this entry in the Oxford World Encyclopedia:
Catholic Church Term used in Christianity with one of several connotations: (1) It is the Universal Church, as distinct from local Churches. (2) It means the Church holding ‘orthodox’ doctrines, defined by St Vincent of Lérins as doctrines held “everywhere, always, and by all” – in this sense the term is used to distinguish the church from heretical bodies. (3) It is the undivided Church as it existed before the schism of East and West in 1054. Following this, the Western Church called itself ‘Catholic’, the Eastern Church ‘Orthodox’. (4) Since the Reformation, the term has usually been used to denote the Roman Catholic Church, although the Anglican Communion and the Old Catholics use it for themselves as well.
While I image Oxford has an Anglican slant, it still is an example of a Major reference work that shows the amgbiguity in the term "Catholic Church". I'd like to believe the everyone knows what we mean when we say "The Catholic Church", but I am not yet convinced of this argument. I do not see the harm in erring on the side of caution and being a little more disambiguous. --Andrew c 15:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A compelling argument, if one were needed. Just zis Guy you know? 16:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, Andrew c, is that you are not erring on the side of caution, but that you always err in favor of opposing the Catholic Church. Me thinks there are issues there, brother. And yes, the dirty "Papist" is back. It seems the Anglicans have been up to major mischief in my absence. Aye, vigilance. Vigilance! Vaquero100 16:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally do not find it helpful to this debate to play the victim, accusing people of being anti-Catholic. That said, assuming "Catholic Church" is too ambiguous, we have a number of options "Roman Catholic Church" "Catholic Church in communion with Rome" etc. I personally favor the former, not because I am Anglican (which I am not), but because it is a very common phrase found in encyclopedias and dictionaries. However, if that name really is so offensive, I'd be more than willing to give other wordings a shot, once again, assuming it IS decided "Catholic Church" is too ambiguous (which we haven't even reached that point yet). So we still have a ways to go.--Andrew c 18:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's anecdotal, but I tested the proposition of offensiveness with some Roman Catholics of my acquaintance (including a priest), and while one deemed it "irritating," my clergy friend actually said he was proud of being a Roman Catholic. Obviously there is a diversity of opinion. Fishhead64 06:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, when people say "Catholic Church", no one – and I mean no one – is talking about Church of England. History books on the reformation in England have no difficulty with "Catholic Church" vs. "Church of England". Go to Dublin, walk into St. Patrick's, and ask anyone there if the church is "Catholic". The answers is "No, go to St. Mary's / Whitefriar, this is Church of Ireland." If a stranger in town asks where the "Catholic Church" is, will anyone point to St. George's Episcopal? No, I think not. If we are attempting to be clear, we should use words as they are actually used, imho, - Lostcaesar 06:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Catholics have a problem with the RCC title

I'm Catholic, a KofC member, a former liturgy committee member, and an occasional choirboy, and I firmly believe that this article should remain with the current title to avoid any ambiguity and to avoid giving offense to others who consider themselves Catholic. --SarekOfVulcan 06:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting myself from another page on the same topic:

  • It's nice that so many Catholics don't take offense at the term "Roman Catholic." It is a good, but naive thing. The institution, however, does not see it that way. WP is reporting on the institution which calls itself the "Catholic Church." The personal feelings of mothers, grandmothers, ourselves in our past or present lives have no bearing on this or any other WP article. What matters is what the institution calls itself. That fact that the institution's self identity is disregarded on WP in favor of the POV of others SHOULD cause offense regardless of one's personal feelings because the courtesey called for by WP conventions and policies extended to every other entity is being systematically denied to the Catholic Church. When the Catholic Church is singled out in such a way, as it often is, one needs to wake up see what's really going on!
WP is an intellectual exercise and should have nothing to do with emotional arguments. Unfortunately, this is an emotional issue, and unfortunately for Catholics, most of the feelings run against the Church among English speakers. Anglo-cultural anti-Catholicism is on the rise and this many month debate is really about the denial of WP policy specifically in this case in order to not honor that actual official name of the Catholic Church. Please follow this link for a treatment of this issue based on WP conventions and policies: CC vs.RCC Vaquero100 00:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A "naive thing?" So people who accept the term "Roman Catholic" are really just making fools of themselves while other people snicker behind their backs, and they really should get riled up and upset every time someone uses the term? That doesn't really make sense to me. —Mira 08:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can agree that Pope John Paul II ranks any of the editors here, right?

I give you the following quote by the Holy Father. [13]

This meeting calls to mind that day in 1982 when I journeyed to Canterbury at the invitation of Archbishop Runcie. It was then that this Commission was constituted with a mandate to examine all those things which stand in the way of fuller communion between Roman Catholics and Anglicans.

If the pope can refer to "Roman Catholics" for clarity, so can we.--SarekOfVulcan 06:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly diplomatic language. If you will look at this link, CC vs. RCC this objection is clearly answered. There is no evidence of the of an authoritative document of the Catholic Church which ever uses "Roman Catholic Church" as the name of the institution. Such occurances as you mention above are a matter of diplomatic currency and bear no weight. The Catholic Church has a very precise ranking of its communications by authority such communications as you refer to do not even make the list. Please use authoritative Catholic Church documents if you are going to make arguments about the Catholic Church. Vaquero100 01:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that the Pope isn't an authoritative source?--SarekOfVulcan 02:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The pope is allowed to be 'diplomatic', but wikipedia can't bother with any of that PC nonsense, because self-identity trumps. Wait... if the pope self-identifies his Church as being "Roman" when addressing non-catholics, shouldn't we also use the term he used when address non-Catholics here at wikipedia? Now I'm all confused. (with my tongue in my cheek, no less)--Andrew c 06:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

slightly off topic, redirects and name changes

So I don't know what happened to not editing article names until this discussion was over, but Consecrated life in the Roman Catholic Church has been moved back to Consecrated life (Catholic Church) (look at the history, it has gone back and forth a number of times, once by me.. opps :P) Anyway, the bigger question is I came across Religious life. Look where that term redirects to. I was unaware that the Catholic Church had a monopolgy on the term "religious life". It seems to me that there is a more global page that that term should redirect to, but I was wondering if anyone watching this page could chime in. Any thoughts?--Andrew c 06:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos of this, I redirected religious life to religious order. Obviously, lots of Christian and non-Christian entities have religious orders, hence religious life.
Speaking of POV forks, I have added Catholic devotions to the mix as a requested move. Fishhead64 19:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I moved the Consecrated life (Catholic Church) article. Fishhead is right, it had been moved several times. But as usual, there are some facts he conveniently failed to report. The previous moves were always in violation of WP principles---that is without discussion. These were hostile moves. The article was originally named Consecrated life in the Catholic Church so at least it has now returned in a fashion to the original intent. If it is to be moved to "Roman," let it be do by due process. For some reason it is okay for Anglicans to make controversial moves without due process, but Catholics get reprimands for doing the same. Vaquero100 19:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts? Only that as soon as I saw the name on the edit it was obvious what was going on. I have warned Vaquero to stop his aggressive pushing of his RC POV. Just zis Guy you know? 19:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In Vaquero's defence, I think the original culprit was User:ShakespeareFan00, and Vaquero simply didn't pick up on it or didn't choose to. Fishhead64 20:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my mistake - just rechecked the edit history. The original culprit was Vaquero100. Fishhead64 20:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Fishhead for finding a good page for religious life's redirect. As for the pointing of fingers. I honestly do not care who did what, when. I admit, before I came to this discussion a few weeks ago, I was reverting moves left and right. I since decided that it amounts to edit warring due to the lack of consensus here. I came here and urged EVERYONE (including YOU), to please stop making edits regarding the name. So we have some articles that are in one style, and some articles that are in another style. Big deal, we can work that out after this discussion is closed. However, editing DURING the discussion seems to be a spit in the face of this consensus process (and yes, we are all getting impatient because it has dragged on for months and months). But seriously, I am not going to make and edits regarding the name of articles, can we all agree to stop for the time being?--Andrew c 20:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as I actually haven't been editing article names, I have no problem with your request. I'd like a resolution perhaps more than anyone, and editing warring is not the avenue. Hence my requested moves, entirely in line with process, and my suggestion about arbitration, below. Fishhead64 20:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Propelling this toward resolution: A proposal

As editors know, this question has been a matter of extensive, sometimes heated debate over a period of some six months. It is consuming a good deal of my editorial time and energy, and I'm sure that of other users as well. It is also leading to apparent ill-will between certain editors. We have tried requests for comment and mediation during this period, and sometimes have been tantalizingly close to resolution. Alas, the debate continues to be unresolved. I want to propose that we nominate this dispute for arbitration. Thoughts? Fishhead64 19:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no point if people won't actually discuss compromise positions. ArbCom will come down hard on edit warring (and page-move wars), but often sends naming disputes back to the editors to work it out as soon as possible. This decision covers many of the same issues in relation to a topic most editors here will find less charged. Gimmetrow 21:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute is that some editors (including myself) support the self-identification' of the Catholic Church and some editors oppose such self-identification. By "Catholic Church" I specifically mean the one church that identifies itself with this proper name and not those churches who self-identify with another proper name, and claim a catholic character or a connection to the Catholic Church. patsw 21:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the ArbCom decision above. Anyway, the Church uses many names, including "the Church"; I don't think articles are going to be renamed to that anytime soon . Gimmetrow 21:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gimmetrow, I think that the difficulty here is that there has been a failure to accept a mediating position. The comments below and elsewhere make abundantly clear that there is one single solution acceptable to certain editors, and that is the unequivocal acceptance of their non-mediating position. Given the entrenched positions, it is perhaps no wonder that only myself and another editor have so far been prepared to engage in discussing the proposal you outlined above. Perhaps some editors have learned one of the key lessons of Wikipedia, which I call the "sqeaky wheel" maxim: If you refuse to compromise, eventually your viewpoint will be accepted as a compromise just so that the debate will finally end. This leads to frustration all around and deterioration into editorial disruption, which we've already seen. Surely, arbitration is the tool to solve such intractable disagreements and thus stave off such activity borne of frustration, especially when other avenues have been tried (including, in this instance, mediation, individual rename votes, and requests for comment)? I mean, the worst they can say is "no." Fishhead64 19:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew has engaged, yes. The difficulty I have is that, from my perspective, you haven't responded to my proposal, nor even to questions directed specifically to you. As for certain editors, I have no idea what they actually want; they also have not responded to what I thought were precise questions directed specifically at them. Gimmetrow 19:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did respond to your proposal in the section you cite, I'll repeat it here:
As for the solution, I suppose an article-by-article vote might be the best way - the only way, perhaps - unless we want to just vote on the blanket proposal, and move pages accordingly - on the understanding that some moves may engender controversy which will need to be settled on the particular page. For the record, I do not accept (as Gimmetrow rightly predicts) that "Catholic Church" should be used as a synonym for "Roman Catholic Church" in article titles, unless the articles deal unambiguously with doctrines, dogmas, or structures of that particular denomination (see, for e.g., Cardinal (catholicism)), unless editors are prepared for the inclusion of information on other self-identified Catholic Churches in those articles.
As for your additional question about Catholic Church hierarchy and your point about tolerating inaccuracies, I have now responded to those, as well (see above). Fishhead64 19:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that Fishhead want to end this debate. He is tired of it. I am too, but I will not tire of defending was is just. Patsw, has said it well. WP is clear about favoring the self naming of an institution. Resistance to application of this policy is a matter of deeply ingrained bias cultivated over centuries. No other entity, neither the English crown, nor the Archbishop of Canterbury, nor WP has the authority to change the name of the Catholic Church. The often cited OED was compiled in Oxford at the height of the Oxford Movement and has a deeply ingrained bias as does the Encyclopedia Britannica. The single source of credible and verifiable evidence for the proper name of the Catholic Church is the official and non-diplomatic documents of the Holy See. To ignore this is do a grave injustice and is a profoundly anti-Catholic act as WP singles out just this one instution for complete disregard of its self identity. Short of this recognition, no WP process will satisfy the demand for justice and this issue will not die. So, buck up, Fishhead, if you are utterly committed to renaming of the Catholic Church and erradicating its name on WP, be prepared to duke it out for as long as you edit WP. Catholics have long memories of Anglican oppression. IRELAND, QUEBEC, ELIZABETH, JAMES, ST. JOHN FISHER, ST. THOMAS MORE etc. Quit the bloodshed and we will have peace. Vaquero100 02:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. We can all agree on that, right? And we need to cite reliable sources, correct? I'm currious, what is the basis for saying that the "Catholic Church" is THE proper name with which this religious sect chooses to self-identify. I seem to share Gimmetrow's view. There are a number of names used to identify this religious body, and how do we know which one is "Proper". Using the resources I have available at my fingertips, I posted above the 4 different uses for "Catholic Church" in the Oxford World Reference, but I also admitted probable anglican bias on behalf of Oxford there. Then we have the official website of the vatican which doesn't help that much. I was unable to find any place where it flat out talks of the official name. Sure they use 'CC' a whole lot, but they also use RCC some as well (and almost always when dealing with other Christian sects, such as [14] [15] [16] and [17].) This very amature analysis seems to suggest that at least in some cases, The Church feels the need to identify as the RCC when communicating with outside sects. We have to keep in mind that the audience of wikipedia isn't just Catholic, but multicultural. Anyway, what sort of official sources are there to back up the official proper name of The Church?--Andrew c 04:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew c, could you clarify your position? Are you on my side of what is to be arbitrated, i.e. that the self-identification itself is at dispute? patsw 16:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking for a verifiable source that states that the official and proper name of the church in question is the "Catholic Church". I'm not big on taking sides. --Andrew c 00:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your position then. Are you saying that you are indifferent to the principle of self-identification? If so, then what's the purpose of providing a verifiable source? patsw 01:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that we cannot establish what is the proper self-identification without the verifiable source. It is a known fact that both IWW and Wobblies are common names of self-identification for the "Industrial Workers of the World", however, we would all agree that the latter is the 'proper name', even if the former two are a more common self-identifiation (therefore, the fuller name is used in the article title). It's also clear that the sect in question calls itself "Catholic" or "The Church" and a number of other names. However, we cannot establish what is the 'proper name' without a source. So I was bringing it back to the basics by asking if there was any source for the full official name for the sect in question. Sorry if I sound redundent, but it seems like my intentions were not clear to begin with, so I hope they are now. If not, please ask again (or better yet, simply provide a source for the official name of the church in question). --Andrew c 18:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support using the full name 'Roman Catholic Church' to distinguish this body from others that either call themselves the 'Catholic Church' or use 'Catholic Church' as part of their name. Examples include the Orthodox Catholic Church of America, Apostolic Catholic Orthodox Church, and the Holy Catholic Church (Anglican Rite). There's no question that the Roman Catholic Church calls itself Catholic. So do other churches. It should not be taken as insult or some sort of anti-papist slur, just as a more precise identification. In a similar vein, many people talk about the Methodist Church when they really mean the United Methodist Church, which is by far the largest of more than 40 methodist denominations. I support using the full name of the United Methodist Church for the same reason. Wesley 17:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley, what other church calls itself with the proper name, the Catholic Church? As I have mentioned before there are churches which claim a catholic character or claim to be part of a Catholic Church without defining their church itself to be the Catholic Church. patsw 01:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One church calls itself the Catholic Church

The Catechism of the Catholic Church in the glossary defines Catholic Church

Catholic Church The Church established by Christ on the foundation of the Apostles, possessing the fullness of the means of salvation which he has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. [18]

  • If, as some have asserted, the Church were to define itself as the Roman Catholic Church, wouldn't this precisely be the place to do so?
  • If, as some have asserted, the proper name, the name which the Church uses to identify itself, is Roman Catholic Church, what accounts for this entry in the glossary of the Catholic Catechism? patsw 01:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, this definition does not necessarily need to be read exclusively. As written, it can apply to a lot of entities that consider themselves to be constituents of the Catholic Church. Having said that, perhaps the intent was an exclusive application, but I think it ironically highlights the ambiguity of the term since I can read it and feel very comfortable identifying with it.
Second, as andrewc points out above, officials of the communion in question have used different terms in various documents, pronouncements, commissions, and other contexts to refer to itself. Certainly, the parish church I drive by frequently in downtown Vancouver self-identifies by the large sign posted above its entrance: "Guardian Angels Roman Catholic Church." There is no reason to suppose that the catechism is any more definitive than, for example, individual parish incorporations or the statements attributed to John Paul II cited above. Can anyone seriously assert that the Church does not use both terms to refer to itself? It plainly and empirically does, so it cannot be asserted that "Roman Catholic" is not a component of self-identity. I suppose we can debate about whether the two terms are on par with one another, and that brings me to my next point.
Third, the catechism is indeed a significant document, since it sums up the communion's internal teaching about its doctrine, discipline, and worship. Nonetheless, one of the points in question is that the communion's self-attribution is often context-dependent on whether the reference is occurring internally or externally. It is no accident that John Paul's comments came in the context of ecumenical dialogue - his communion self-identifies as Roman Catholic in this particular environment, and for a very good reason, one that has been repreated here and elsewhere ad nauseum.
In conclusion, naming conventions give priority to the name that an entity gives itself, and the entity in question uses multiple terms. The term it gives priority to in inter-church and interfaith dialogue is "Roman Catholic," and my argument is that this is the term that should be given priority in Wikipedia, which is not an internal Roman Catholic context, recognising that "Catholic Church" can be used secondarily once the context has been established by any given article's title, subheading, or initial reference. Fishhead64 02:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement that The term it gives priority to in inter-church and interfaith dialogue is "Roman Catholic" is not true. For example, last month, Cardinal Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, addressed the House of Bishops of the Church of England (to achieve a lack of ambiguity, I need to say "the Church of England that is in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury"). I believe that you will agree that this is interfaith and inter-church dialogue. If you read the text of the address, you will see the Cardinal refers to the "Catholic Church" sixteen times. Not once does he refer to the "Roman Catholic Church." He also says "...the koinonial understanding of the episcopal office, is not just a particular Catholic tradition, but an understanding we share with the Anglican Communion," comparing "Catholic tradition" with that of the Anglican Communion. -SynKobiety 21:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That definition doesn't describe the group of Churches under the communion of the Pope. It describes every single church that claims origins back to Jesus (which is basically all of Christianity, no? How many churches say "we practice a form of Christianity that was not set up by Jesus and his apostles"?) Mentioning sacramental life and ordained ministry narrows the feild some, but still describes a number of churches besides the one in question.--Andrew c 03:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want engage me on this, please answer the questions I've asked at the top. Or did the two of you just concede that the Catholic Church identifies itself with the proper name Catholic Church?
The question isn't one of correct or incorrect according to Fishead64's opionion and argument, or , Andrew c's opinion and argument, that's a debate for another time and another place but whether it satisfies the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) policy. patsw 12:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree that the church in question uses an ambiguous term (defined ambigously in your citation, and defined ambigously in the Oxford World Encyclopedia that I cited). I also agree that they "self-identify" with "Catholic Church" just like the IWW self-identify as Wobblies, and the church in question uses a number of other words and phrases as self-idenity. However, this quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not state anything about an official, or proper name. Just like the United Methodist Church self-identify as "Methodist", the latter is significantly more ambiguous than the former. I never, ever argued that the church in question DOESN'T use the phrase "Catholic Church" as self-identity. I'm a) arguing that it is an ambiguous term, proved by your OWN citation from the church in question's own literature and b) asking if there is any verifiable claim about the official, proper name of the church in question from reliable sources. I appreciate you digging up a citation, but as stated above, it is problematic in that it makes no claim about the official, proper name, and the definition describes a number of churches and clearly is not unique to just the one in question. --Andrew c 14:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might want to review my response again. I concurred that its self-identity encompasses "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church," with priority being given to the latter in external conversations. This isn't a concession, since I've never stated otherwise. What I am arguing against is that your citation is universally definitive rather than context-dependent. Fishhead64 16:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is false to say the Catholic Church gives "priority" to "Roman Catholic" in "external conversations". Look at how the English-speaking Catholic national conferences identify themselves to the world:
Home Page of the Catholic Church in England and Wales
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops
The Catholic Church in Australia
Catholic Church in New Zealand
Catholic Ireland
CATHOLIC BISHOPS' CONFERENCE OF INDIA
-SynKobiety 22:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew C is arguing with the definition. As written, the definition has no ambiguity: the words Church, Christ, and Apostles have no ambiguity within this definition. patsw 15:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except it defines my Communion (the Anglican) and my beliefs fully and accurately. Fishhead64 16:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...Wasn't the Anglican Communion founded by Henry VIII in 1534? -SynKobiety 22:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

162. Where does the one Church of Christ subsist?
The one Church of Christ, as a society constituted and organized in the world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him. ...[19]

Does Fishhead64 believe this defines her Communion? -SynKobiety 13:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Is Fishhead a girl errr woman? Figures. Vaquero100 05:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you f'n serious? What ever happened to WP:NPA? There is no excuse for that sort of language on wikipedia.--Andrew c 17:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Church names itself the Catholic Church

Therefore, there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. "Dominus Jesus" On the unicity and salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church

  • If the true, proper, and official name of the Catholic Church which it uses to identify itself were Roman Catholic Church wouldn't it appear here?
  • If the true, proper, and official name of the Catholic Church which it uses to identify itself were Roman Catholic Church what accounts for its omission here? patsw 15:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to disambiguity in this example. Look at any of the links above where the intended audience isn't Catholic, such as the Anglo-Roman relations stuff. Why on earth do they use the term "Roman" in all those documents, if it doesn't help disambiguity? In fact, if the true, proper, and official name of the church in question is in fact the "Catholic Church" why use "Roman" at all on any document? This is my biggest hurdle right now. If the church in question feels the need to qualify their name with "Roman" when addressing a non-Catholic audience, we should keep in mind that wikipedia is not specifically addressing a Catholic audience. As for the Google, UN, NATO, IMF, and other enyclopedia tests, we find both in use, but CC seems to be a bit more dominant than RCC so we'd need a pretty compelling case to go with the minority reading.--Andrew c 16:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This debate seems to be getting hung up on self-identification. However, self-identification is not part of the primary standard for Wikipedia naming. The principal rule for naming is "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." Common recognisability, lack of ambiguity, ease of linking; not self-identification. Other policies that may be relevant are the three principal content-guiding policies, Neutral Point of View, Verifiability and No Original Research; and the guidelines on Naming Conflicts. I can't help feeling that this debate would be far more productive concentrating on the things actually required by policy, rather than on this question of self-identification which seems of dubious relevance. TSP 15:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have elsewhere maintained that English-speaking people would recognise "Roman Catholic Church" and "Catholic Church" pretty much equally, but that "Roman Catholic" is to be preferred since it clearly refers to one specific entity - the communion under the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. In this sense, "Roman Catholic" seems to qualify as fulfilling the principal rule you cite of "common recognisability, lack of ambiguity, and ease of linking" to a greater degree than "Catholic Church," In other words, "Roman Catholic" is as recognisable, less ambiguous, and more easy to link (since it refers to just one thing) than "Catholic." Fishhead64 16:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "Roman Catholic" itself has at least 3 meanings. In relation specifically to organization and hierarchy, I find "Catholic Church" to be at least equally recognizeable, less ambiguous, shorter and easier to link. Gimmetrow 16:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The internal/external document argument is completely bogus. Every document we can quote is a PUBLIC document. Internal documents are kept in the Vatican archives! Documents addressed to other Churches or representatives of other churches are diplomatic discourse. The only authoritative body of documents we have to go on are Conciliar documents, the CCC, encyclicals, motu proprio documents and apostolic constitutions.

The names of individual Latin Rite Catholic parishes can clearly include "Roman" in their name because that is a reference to the Western Church which is what they are part of. However, when talking about the entire Catholic Church, Roman is inappropriate because Eastern Rite Catholic Churches are Catholic but not Roman. Vaquero100 23:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out before, other churches also call themselves the Catholic Church, and the tem is used by other Christian denominations as well. Roman Catholic Church is unambiguous and inoffensive (with the possible exception of a very small number of people who are absolutely determined to take offence). No RC I have ever known has ever had any problem at all with being identified as a Roman Catholic. On the other hand, asserting that Catholic Church means Roman Catholic Church would be offensive to many, and cause needless ambiguity. I know your user page says you came to Wikipedia with the express aim of "righting" this "wrong", but Wikipedia is not the place to fight what is essentially an outside battle. Disputes over who is and is not the true "holy Catholic and Apsotolic Church" have probably been going on since AD34 and I comfortably predict they will still be going on long after you and I are six feet under. Just zis Guy you know? 20:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious, what other churches call themselves The Catholic Church? I hear this claim over and over, and I was seriously buying into it, but I am now questioning that claim. I know there are a number of churches that have "Catholic" in their name, but it is always modified with something like "Old" or "Polish National" etc. I know the nicene creed mentions the "catholic church", therefore, almost every Christian denomination considers themselves included in that group, but on the other hand not a single church that I can think of calls themselves "The Catholic Church" (well, besides the RCC). I know in my community, if you say you went to a catholic school, you are talking about the RCC. Likewise, it is always understood that if someone is "Catholic" they are part of the RCC. However, I was giving these other claims the benefit of the doubt that perhaps in other parts of the world the term "Catholic" is more ambiguous. So, if I am still to fight for a more diverse world view, and fight my personal ethnocentrism, I would like to know specifically what other churches identify as The Catholic Church. (and just curious, would Vaquero100, SynKobiety, or Patsw be opposed to an article named The Catholic Church instead of Catholic Church. To me, the added capitalization makes it clear that it isn't a lowercase catholic Church as discussed in the creeds, or some more ambiguous use of the term.) On the other hand, I am not convinced that "Roman" is entirely inappropriate either. It adds to disambiguity. It is a very common term. It is used by the church "diplomatically" when addressing non-Catholic audiences (which wikipedia is). --Andrew c 21:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want to know this also. Here in England, if I walk into an Anglican church and ask if this is a "Catholic Church", I will surely be told "no, Saint Mary's is down the street". And I think calling the Catholic Church the Roman Catholic Church causes confusion over Eastern Rite Catholic Churches (which are Catholic, i.e. Roman Catholic - in communion with the Bishop of Rome). Shall we call these "Roman Catholic Eastern Rite Catholic Churches"? I mean - huh!? Lostcaesar 21:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew c, I apologize for that last outburst but he is a known Catholic-bater AND and administrator! Anyway, I am not aware of a Church that calls itself the "Catholic Church" other that this one. Linguistically, it would be almost impossible to accomplish as the Catholic Church really is everywhere and those who would be most motivated to call themselves thus would always want to make a distinction because they usually have a beef with the CC. The closes I know of is a very small sect, the True Catholic Church, which ironically has no problem on WP for having a POV name.

To answer your other question, I would have no problem with the title The Catholic Church, but others might. That sounds to me even more excusivist. But if this distinction without a difference is helpful to some, I am willing to make that compromise. Vaquero100 03:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The usage, The Catholic Church, is discouraged at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name) -SynKobiety 14:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answering objections

TSP, I hate to tell you this but you did not read far enough down the page. Please look at this section: WP:NCON#Dealing_with_self-identifying_terms. WP is very, very clear that the preferred name is to be used for self-identifying entities. It is also clear that the NPOV policy is contextualized in these cases. WP conventions indicate that it is not POV to "report" self identifying entities by their preferred name regardless of how others feel about that name.

TSP, you have been away for a long time. It is good to see you back. I've done a lot of research on this question from the point of view of WP policy and conventions. It is all written up here: CC vs. RCC. You might want to look it over.

Andrew c, for those familiar with Vatican documents several points are clear in regard to your message above. "Why on earth do they use the term "Roman" in all those documents." I'll forgive the "they" in your comments. First, compared to the enormous volumes of documents published by the Holy See, these several mentions are infinitessimally few. Furthermore, all of these instances are examples of diplomatic messages and communiqués which employ a very defferential language in reference to the adressees. The Holy See has a very elaborate hierarchy of communications with explicit levels of authority. Diplomatic messages are of the lowest level of authority and are considered virtually worthless for determining doctrine or teaching or anything official. On the contrary, those documents of the highest authority are Ecumenical Council, Motu Proprio, Encyclical and Apostolic Constitution documents. As you will see if you look over CC vs. RCC, there have been only five references to "Roman Catholic Church" in all the Church's most authoritative documents of the last 250 years. That is longer than the US has been a nation! The last occurance was 56 years ago. Looking at Consiliar documents alone, which are the highest form of teaching in the Catholic Church, there is not one instance of such wording in 2000 years of history and 21 ecumenical councils. That to me is very convincing. I have asked you many times before to look over that page of arguments and you continue to come up with arguments and questions which are clearly addressed there. Would you please take a couple of minutes and look it over? Compared to all the time you have put into this issue already, it would not take long to read it. This might save us all a lot of ink.

And, Fishhead, yikes. The Anglican idea of "Catholic Church" has no teaching, no canon law, no visible head, no systematic theology. It has a mish-mash of conficting ideas, claims, teachings and organizations, but it is not a real entity. It is an idea without a content. That is why no one except a few Anglican ministers in Britain and an Archbishop of Canterbury ever reference it. If it shows up on Google, it is so far down the list that its obscurity warrents it little more than a mention on WP. WP is intended for the common reader, not the specialist. The common reader would never look up "Catholic Church" to find information on anything but the ancient Catholic Church centered on Rome. You also should take a moment to look over this page: CC vs. RCC because you really dont have an argument. Opinion on WP is beginning to change because the evidence in favor of the Catholic Church's name is utterly and completely overwhelming. Furthermore, it is a serious injustice to single out the Catholic Church as the one entity which WP excepts from its very clear naming policy. To single out one institution in such a way is to reveal a bias which WP cannot afford to harbor. The scant evidence you provide for another use is so isolated and confined in actual use that it is really laughable that anyone would find Catholic Church confusing. Your Church has been working hard for 450 years to force the Catholic Church to change its name. It hasn't happened and it wont happen. And WP policy is to recognize an institution by its own preferred name. Vaquero100 20:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I just did another search that you all might find interesting. I did a search on "Roman" on an online "Catechism of the Catholic Church." The results are [20]. Every instance of the word Roman was a reference to one of the following:

  1. Ancient Rome
  2. The Roman Pontiff
  3. The Roman Missal (includes only the Western Church)
  4. The Roman liturgy (includes only the Western Church)
  5. The Roman Church (refering only to the diocese of Roma or the Western Church)

There was not a single reference in the entire CCC where "Roman" was used to refer to the entire Church, East and West, contered on Rome. It is clear that the emphasis on the dignity of the Eastern Rites forces in Catholic use the term Roman to only refer to the Western Church and not the Catholic Church as a whole. As has been said before many times, "Roman" is not to be applied to the Eastern Catholic Churches whose tradition is centered on Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria, but not Rome. In the eyes of the Catholic Church, Roman refers to the Western Church and communion with Rome does not make a Church "Western" or "Roman."

Now I need to add this to my list of arguments.... Vaquero100 20:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother. The argument is dead long since, this is the compromise solution, learn to live with it. Less angst, in the end. Just zis Guy you know? 20:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to quote you back to yourself, Guy:

I wonder which hoary old argument has just been revived? Could it perhaps be the perenial demand by the Papists to move their article from Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church? I must wander along and have a look - maybe there will be a new argument this time. Yes, yes, I know - the triumph of hope over experience... Just zis Guy you know? 21:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Vaquero100 03:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No progress, compromise

I still think the best solution that makes both sides give in, is to have the main article stay RCC, and have the first initial link in an article be to the Roman Catholic Church. However, susbsequent usages in an article can use CC all they want, so the word "Roman" is only in the article once. As for article titles, if an article covers byzantine rite or any POV from orthodox, old catholics, etc then it can simply have CC in the title, but if an article does not included these other POVs, it should have RCC in the title. It's not perfect, but hopefully everyone will be willing to compromise in order to end this long process? --Andrew c 13:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The disadvantages of this compromise is that is fosters confusion: the Byzantine Rite is part of the (Roman) Catholic Church, while the “old catholic church” is not in communion with the Bishop of Rome / not a recognized member of the (Roman) Catholic Church, so categorizing these groups together is misleading. This is even more difficult when discussing Byzantine Rite Catholics and Greek Orthodox. My amended solution is this: the article will be titled Roman Catholic Church, and the first usage will be Roman Catholic Church, with subsequent uses being Catholic Church. If someone types Catholic Church, it redirects to the Roman Catholic Church. A “disambiguation” usage link remains at the top. Other articles have a burden to clearly express what sense of “Catholic” is meant within their given bailiwicks (since, I imagine, they all have a different idea), and their internal links should be appropriate (i.e. Byzantine Rite usage of Catholic Church should link to the Roman Catholic Church, while some other usage links to the “disambiguation” page). For example, the Byzantine Rite Catholic Churches would say “The BRCC is a liturgical rite of the Catholic Church [link to Roman Catholic Church], in communion with the Bishop of Rome (see Roman Catholic Church).” Whereas the Old Catholic Church would say “The Old Catholic Church is a community of Reformed German Speaking Churches that split from the Roman Catholic Church [link to Roman Catholic Church] but retains a universal, i.e. Catholic [link to disambiguation Catholic Church] theological disposition.” This solution preserves most of your ideas and yet remains clear. Lostcaesar 13:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a compromise. It continues a usage that conflicts with Wikipedia guidelines. The best solution would have the main article named "Catholic Church," with "Roman Catholic Church" redirecting there. The the existing link at the top of the article to Catholic Church (disambiguation) should remain.-SynKobiety 14:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that CC redirects to RCC, I've not heard a reason I find very persuasive that the article itself should be at CC with RCC being the redirect. I think the main article should stay at RCC for precedent/expectation reasons that I find somewhat more weighty than the confusion/offense it means to Byzantines. The redirect from CC very neatly balances POV and lessens the confusion/offense. On the other hand, I do not find the precedence/expectation/ambiguity arguments as persuasive in regard to sub-articles. My compromise proposal was to use CC in titles that relate to hierarchy/law, and RCC in titles that relate to beliefs/dogma. (If that means using "The Catholic Church X" or perhaps "X of the Catholic Church" as Andrew suggested, it's fine with me.) Per MOS, first use of term within article should match title. Second and subsequent uses could in context be "Catholic Church" or simply "the Church". Gimmetrow 14:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Linking conventions are not identical to naming conventions, therefore redirects are not interchangeable with article names. I would also like to point out that, as is stated in WP:NCON#Rationale,
"...no consensus represents the voices of all the contributors to a given article. Following a permanently established objective procedure that does not rely on a fleeting consensus gets around this problem."
As regards article naming, what is offered is a compromise of Wikipedia guidelines that is being disguised as a compromise between two POVs. Because the precedent to which you refer does not follow the established objective procedure for naming articles, controversy persists. As long as guidelines are not followed, there will be new editors questioning why this doesn't comply with those guidelines.
The most vocal of the "Roman" advocates, Fishhead64, has admitted that, "Catholic Church" is the term most frequently used by English-speaking people to refer to the institution. This is undoubtedly true - when using the term "Catholic Church," most people intend to refer to the denomination headed by the Bishop of Rome. That is an excellent argument for naming the article "Catholic Church." - SynKobiety 16:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And if one side isn't willing to give, and they must have the word "Roman" removed from wikipedia, then we are never going to "compromise", and this debate will never end. Good luck with that.--Andrew c 16:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have never said that the word "Roman" must be removed from Wikipedia. The Anglican use of the term should be given due weight. -SynKobiety 19:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While Fishhead's mind has not been changed, I think that there is evidence that the concensus of last March (I think it was 17 to7) in favor of "Roman" is now dissipating. The proposal in March was not argued from WP policies but from theological POV which simply allowed the majority to vote their theological POV. As Catholics are the minority among English speakers, the Anglican position carried. This is precisely why WP convenions are written to favor the preference of the named entity so that a minority entity has some protection. Now that the arguments are framed from a WP policy standpoint, the recent votes have moved strongly in favor of CC, not RCC. It is interesting to note that Fishhead has found other interests to work on since those votes have been taken (on Catholic spirituality, Catholic devotions etc.). I used to be afraid of votes because I had seen how they went in March. Fishhead on the other hand wanted to bring things to a vote. But, the tide is changing... Vaquero100 14:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been 10 days since Fishhead has spoken on this topic. I dont know if this is an abdication, but it seems that the only ones speaking for Roman right now are the ones working on a compromise, Gimmetrow and Andrew c. Does it make sense to speak for a position which at this time no one seems interested in advotating?

At this point, I think the CC position has more than answered all the Anglican objections--and more importantly more than demonstrated its case in terms of WP. As much as I respect the attempt at a compromise, it is really is uncalled for and unnecessary from a WP policy perspective. Vaquero100 15:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonroman Catholic Churches

There are other (small, schismatic) Catholic groups, such as Old Catholics and the Polish National Catholic Church, as well asConclavists such as the true Catholic Church and the Palmarian Catholic Church, that are out of communion with Rome. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 21:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-rite-not-to-be-roman
  2. ^ https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/Latin-Church
  3. ^ https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-is-the-difference-between-the-roman-catholic-and-the-catholic-religion
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholic_Church/Name&oldid=1053478882"