Talk:Catholic Church

FAQ: Name of the article

Many have asked why this article is named "Catholic Church". There are many volumes of discussion about the name of the Church in the archives. In summary, after months of active discussion, a mediation was held on this subject. The outcome of the mediation and subsequent consultation are summarized below.

Outcome of mediation

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

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

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

Consultation process

The mediation on the name of the Church [1] was concluded successfully. Part of the action plan that arose from the mediation was to hold a community-wide consultation regarding a proposed article name change to Catholic Church. The consultation centered on one key question: Can one church appropriate a name for itself? The discussion on this topic examined other churches' use of the term “catholic.” The related topic of whether the term “Catholic Church” was thereby ambiguous was also discussed. There were lengthy discussions regarding the process of the consultation and the interpretation of WP policy and guidelines on article naming. [2]

There was general agreement on the following:

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

A majority of those who commented expressed the view that the proposed name change was in accordance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines on article naming and indicated their support for it. This, was deemed by the mediators to support the consensus of the mediation. That consensus was to rename the article, modify the lead sentence to read: "The Catholic Church also known as the Roman Catholic Church...," and add the new explanatory note prepared as part of the mediation.

The page was renamed on July 2, 2009. The consultation on renaming the article may be found in Archive 30. Further discussion continued on the talk page and can be found in Archive 31. We trust that the results of the mediation and the archived discussions will answer most questions on this subject. Users are requested to familiarize themselves with this material before re-opening this discussion. Sunray (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

History section and recentism

Just browsing over the history section. It seems like the amount of text space is heavily weighted to more recent events, if you look at how much space the time period since the 19th century takes (especially since the 1950s), compared to absolutely any other period of its history, then it looks very odd. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As per my comment above re WP:LENGTH, I think the opposite is true: the more recent stuff belongs on this page, it's the pre-20th century stuff replicated on the History of the Catholic Church page that doesn't.Haldraper (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WP policies such as those on recentism and WP:Undue Weight favour Yorkshirian's point of view. History is a very important part of most faith-group articles, and that history needs to be balanced, reasonably comprehensive, and not give certain events undue prominence by discussing them and not others of equal importance to the subject. Xandar 00:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the balance is about right. Xandar is aware, as other editors may not be, of the lengthy past discussions that led to the current version. Johnbod (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Johnbod, I don't think it's on to effectively exclude newer editors by saying 'we've already discussed this' or expect them to trawl through lengthy archives before expressing an opinion. These things are not set in stone, newer editors may have fresh insights or different viewpoints that should be encouraged rather than stifled with a unamenable 'consensus'.Haldraper (talk) 15:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hal, things should not be "set in stone" and "fresh insights or different viewpoints" should be encouraged. However, the onus is on the newcomers to understand the rationale for the existing consensus and to present argumetns to shift that consensus. The recently concluded year-long mediation over the lead is an example of such a process. Hopefully, not all changes will take that much effort.

That said, I have read through the entire history section, making some edits along the way. I think it is reasonably well-written and covers the key points. I have some doubts about the need to include a discussion of the Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade but maybe I don't have an adequate appreciation of the importance of those events. In any event, my concerns are limited to a sentence here and a sentence there. I don't think the pre-20th century history section could be trimmed much. There are a few places where specific people are mentioned as examples where such mention is not absolutely necessary. However, these really come down to matters of style and wouldn't reduce the text appreciably.

As for the comments by Yorkshirian and Xandar about overweighting the recent past, I think we should remember that Wikipedia is not paper and so we should take into account the existence of History of the Catholic Church, History of the Papacy and a plethora of other articles related to the topic. Since other articles provide a wealth of detail about the history of the Church, we can rely on a tightly-written summary of pre-20th century history in this article. Whenever there is a History of X article, the article on X focuses on the current status of X while History of X provides the detailed historical account of X. Thus, recentism is more acceptable when such a pairing exists. I think a more detailed discussion of "since the 19th century" church history is needed for the reader to fully understand where the Church is today. Discussion of Vatican II, the fall of Communism and even the sexual abuse crisis are far more important than discussions of the Cathars or the Photian schism. If the reader really wants to learn more about those events, there are Wikilinks to the articles about them.

I would challenge Yorkshirian and Xandar to identify specific events in the more distant past to either add or expand upon and to identify specific events in the recent past which are covered in excessive detail.

In twenty years, the sexual abuse crisis will probably not be that important and may very well wind up being reduced to a sentence or two. For now, however, I think (IMHO) it should be given approximately the amount of text it currently has. (Well, perhaps it could be shortened by a sentence or two.)

Let's cater to the needs of today's readers today and change the article over time to serve tomorrow's readers tomorrow.

--Richard (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

When the article is read or reviewed, as at FAC, it is always criticised for not covering enough historical events, not for covering too many. We have been through these discussions quite a few times, and we boil down to an irreducable list of historical milestones and important events that need to be covered in the article. These include origins of the Church, persecutions, Constantineand Nicea, survival after the fall of Rome, evangelisation, losses to Islam, monasticism, great schism, crusades, medieval Church, Inquisitions (including Cathars), Church v state, architecture and art, Universities, reformation events, Council of Trent, counter reformation, wars of religion, science and enlightenment, conquistadors and world mission, etc. etc. There is no way a comprehensive article can omit these matters, and they need to be covered usefully, especially when there are conflicting opinions about many of them. In Catholicism you can't say that an event in 1850 is more important than one in 1450, simply because of the date.

The History of the Catholic Church article is there for more detailed coverage, however it cannot substitute for adequate coverage in the main article. The HistCC article is itself not currently in a fit state to substitute for main article coverage anyway. Attempts were made to trim the history section of this article this time last year, but most of the trimmed material very quickly came back. I feel trimming can be a useful exercise in making sections more readable, without removing important information, but I think if we decided to take that route, we would need to involve Nancy in any such exercise when she returns from Holiday. Xandar 00:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

One example, as far as I can see there is no mention of the Council of Florence in which the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church were briefly reunited - a major event in the history of religion in general. Yet in the contemporary section there is all of this drawn out rattling on about what feminists think and how exponents of the sexual revolution hate Catholic teachings on contraception. A lot of this could be cut down. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised the anti-Catholics haven't inserted noisemaker and loonytoon Sinead O'Connor somewheres in there! Perhaps we need a statement from Madonna (entertainer)? A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that comments such as this only confirm in the minds of detached readers, whose only exposure to organised religion is what they read here, is that religious articles on wikipedia are full of extremists. Your edits such as this[3] and Yorkshirians checkered past (see his/hers history of sockpuppetry) do nothing to enhance the low esteem for the "scholarship" of these kind of articles. Taam (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Taam. It would be far more useful to everyone, if instead of throwing out unsubstantiated accusations of bias extremism and bad scholarship, you actually try assuming good faith, and either come forward with specific, well-cited examples of places where the article is wrong, or cease making uncivil comments. Xandar 22:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The characterization of anyone who dares to question the accuracy of the article as anti-catholic or anti-christian is indicative to me of the generally hostile response to anyone who wants to improve the article. Taking up your offer of providing cited material: The section dealing with "Mit Brennender Sorge" states the following "In the 1937 encyclical Mit brennender Sorge, Pope Pius XI "condemned the neopaganism of the Nazi ideology – especially its theory of racial superiority...".[375] Drafted by the future Pope Pius XII[376] and read from the pulpits of all German Catholic churches, it described Adolf Hitler as an insane and arrogant prophet and was the first official denunciation of Nazism made by any major organization.[377". If you look at the main article for Mit brennender Sorge you will see that there is cited material that doesn't accept it was drafted by the future Pope Pius XII (he contributed to it), nor do others see the document as describing Hitler as "an insane or arrogant prophet". This section is stating as fact what is opinion. Also Falconi ("the first great official public document to dare to confront and critize Nazism") is quoted out of context since he also thinks the encyclical loses it moral stature because, in his opinion, it held out an olive branch to Hilter. Taam (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be the one coming here with a chip on your shoulder, since I don't see any evidence of bona-fide contributors here being called anti-Catholics for providing good faith contributions. If people storm on to the page randomly abusing the article editors, because it doesn't match their preconceptions, and start making abrasive and accusatory comments without bothering to produce evidence, they may well get a less than warm reception. That is not unsurprising. But as regards your example, the difference between the two articles seems to be one of emphasis rather than of differing factual content. The words you cite, do appear in "Mit Brennender Sorge". It is clear to many that these apply to Hitler, others may not believe so - but how representative are such views? What better wording would anyone suggest? There appear to be many views on the document. The Falconi statement: "the pontifical letter still remains the first great official public document to dare to confront and criticize Nazism, and the Pope's courage astonished the world." appears to be a summation of the pros and cons of his argument, so quoting it alone is not to quote per se "out of context". Xandar 00:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It was an editor who used the term "anti-catholics" in the context of another editor proposing, very mildly, that the article should represent more recent historical events. It was this I objected to. If you are sincere of heart about not "abusing" other editors then I would respectfully suggest you refrain from comments such as "You seem to be the one coming here with a chip on your shoulder". Moving on to one part of the article. 1) The encyclical was not drafted by Cardinal Pacelli. 2) The article states as fact that Hitler is the "mad prophet" when that is simply not true, it's an opinion. The main source of this opinion seems to be Anthony Rhodes, whose main fields of interest appear to have been in the field of travel writing and fiction. He was made a Knight Commander of St Gregory by Pope Paul IV for his services to the Catholic Church and this was before he converted to Roman Catholicism 3) The use of the Falconi quote from Father Thomas Bokenkotter colors the section heavily in one direction when in fact Falconi critizes heavily the moral worth of the encyclical "so little anti-Nazi is it...".. "concerned purely with the Catholic Church and its rights and privileges".."even to the point of offering an olive branch to Hitler if he would restore the tranquil prosperity of the Catholic Church in Germany. But that was the very thing to deprived the document of it's noble and exemplary intransigence" To simply rip out in mid sentence the aforementioned "limitations" is not doing justice to the source and I can only guess that Father Bokenkotter (assuming he himself has not been subject to unintentional out of context redaction) is that he has read it from another secondary source, because there is no way I could conceive he would have used Falconi in this way if he had the book in front of him. Taam (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"a view shared by many historians"

I just yesterday belatedly noticed that no one had inserted the text proposed by me and agreed to by BobKawanaka back in June which attempted to resolve the issue of "a continuation" vs. "the continuation" so I inserted it. My edit was subsequently revised by 24.127.29.172. Some parts of her edit are good but it restored the issue of "The Church believes itself to be the continuation of... , a view shared by many historians".

The problem here is that it is unclear which historians believe the Catholic Church to be the continuation of the Christian community founded by Jesus Christ. Are these Catholic historians, Western historians, the majority of all historians? Orthodox historians would argue that the Orthodox church is the continuation and the Catholic Church split off from them. Anglican historians might argue some version of Branch theory in which the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican churches are all equally valid continuations. Protestants would certainly challenge the idea that they are not part of the continuation. I have difficulty believing that secular historians would back the claim of the Catholic Church to be the (sole valid) continuation.

On the other hand, we cannot write that "the Catholic Church believes itself to be a continuation of..." as this could be read to imply something that is not true, i.e. that Catholic Church accepts other churches as valid continuations. Well, it probably accepts the Orthodox and some Anglicans as having validly consecrated bishops who are unfortunately out of communion with the Bishop of Rome. However, there is more nuance in that last sentence than can be communicated in the sentence "the Catholic Church believes itself to be a continuation of...".

My proposed resolution was to get rid of the word "continuation" altogether and focus on apostolic succession and the valid consecration of bishops (which is the entire basis of the Church's claim anyways). Most importantly, we must separate "the Church believes itself to be..." from "a view shared by many historians" unless we can more clearly qualify which historians we are talking about.

--Richard (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard, in the discussions we've had on this before I've always assumed 'historians' to be shorthand for either the first or second of your suggestions, i.e. Western Church historians rather than all historians in the world. Nancy argued - I thought convincingly - that the references support the view that most historians in the field of Church history do accept that the Catholic Church is the continuation of the early Christian community in Judea. Whether you agree with that view is neither here or there really as far as that statement is concerned. On your point about 'believes itself to be', I don't see that as anti-CC POV and the alternative 'the CC is' would rightly be seen as pro-CC POV.Haldraper (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hal, we are agreed that "believes itself to be" is neither pro nor anti CC. It is simply a statement of what the Catholic Church teaches.

The problem is with the addition "a view shared by many historians". This asserts that "many historians" agree that the CC is "the continuation..." --Richard (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hal, you wrote "Nancy argued - I thought convincingly - that the references support the view that most historians in the field of Church history do accept that the Catholic Church is the continuation of the early Christian community in Judea." Can you either provide diffs to her arguments or, failing that, summarize the gist of her arguments?

Also, please consider that I certainly agree that most Church historians would accept that the Catholic Church is "part" of "the continuation". The problem is with the word "the". Does it mean that the Catholic Church is the "entire" continuation or just "part of the continuation" along with the Orthodox and the Anglicans? I think Catholic teaching is that it is "part of the universal Church" along with the Orthodox, Anglicans and, yes, even the Protestants. It also teaches that it is the part that has legitimate authority by dint of being in communion with the Bishop of Rome, etc. etc. and that the other parts of the Christian Church are sadly separated from this communion for the time being.

This is the distinction that I am trying to clarify in the text.

--Richard (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The following text was written before the text above but I'm leaving it on this page as part of my response to Haldraper.

I agree with you that my personal opinion on this question of "continuation" is irrelevant. Given the history of strong opinions on this article, I can see why you would jump to the conclusion that I think my personal opinion on this question is important. However, I think it's an unwarranted conclusion. I'm as strong believer in NPOV. Please do not infer that my raising of this issue is driven by my personal opinion. I am neither Orthodox nor Anglican although I do see validity in their POV on this question.

Having worked with other editors who are Orthodox on articles about the Orthodox Church, I think I have gained some appreciation of their POV.

I am interested in finding what I call "the NPOV sweet spot" on this question.

By "Church historians", do you mean "historians who specialize in the history of the Catholic Church"? Since the history of the Catholic Church is essentially the history of the Christian church for the first 800-1000 years, you are then asserting that "most historians of the Christian Church" accept that the Catholic Church is "the continuation". This assertion can be criticized in a number of ways.

First of all, the word "most" poses some difficulties if we consider that there might be more historians in the West than in the East. If this is true, then "counting heads" skews the result in favor of the West. We also have to be careful when we consider "the mainstream of historians" if the "mainstream" that we are most familiar with is the Western mainstream. Fortunately, the article doesn't say "most" but it does say "many". However, "many" is a weasel word. How many is many? 100, 1000? 10%, 20%, 40%?

More importantly, saying "many historians" without characterizing what subcategory of historians the statement applies to is misleading by omission. I could say "Many Americans believe that abortion should be completely outlawed." and it would be a true sentence. I didn't say "Most" and several million surely counts as "many". I could even say "Many Americans believe that illegal immigrants are criminals" and it would also be a true sentence.

To say that "many historians agree that the Catholic Church is the continuation..." begs the question "so are the Orthodox Church and Anglican Communion NOT part of "the continuation"? The Orthodox would argue that they are "the continuation" and the Catholics split off from them. Consider this: even if the LDS church grew to be several times the size of the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church would still insist that it was "the continuation". Numbers of adherents don't change theological belief.

So what are we really trying to say? "The Catholic Church believes that it is the continuation of ...". Without bringing historians into the statement, the statement would be true as it stands. That is the belief of the Catholic Church.

What would most historians say? That Christianity was, in fact, handed down from bishop to bishop via valid consecration rites thus establishing apostolic succession? That the mainstream rejects the idea that Christianity was invented or reinvented somewhere between 100AD and 300AD? (truly a fringe position)

If that is our point (as opposed to trying to invalidate Orthodoxy and Anglicanism), we should try to find a way to say that more clearly rather than in a way which appears to support the Catholic POV over that of the Orthodox and Anglicans. ::--Richard (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a good point. Both the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodox Church could make valid claims that they have just as good of a claim to being a continuation of the church founded by the apostles. And some of the documents I've seen regarding the very early church could be seen as not really looking much like any of them, which could give an argument, conceivably, that some of the Restorationist churches are the real continuation of the church of the apostles. While it is true that the Catholic Church does see itself as being the more or less sole continuation of the church founded by the apostles, it also generally at least grudingly admits the validity of at least the two I mentioned. Maybe something to the effect of, "the CC sees itself as the continuation of the church founded by the apostles. Most historians agree that it does continue the traditions established by the apostles and their successors, although the same could be said regarding other churches, specifically the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches, as well." John Carter (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the article needs to reflect belief and not present or give the appearance it as historical fact. If you want apologists and church historians we can show a plethora that support the claim, but as soon as we get to historians with a secular background and a number of historians both within and outside of the church we see a much contested presentation about the concept of Apostolic Succession. --^StormRider 17:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS says any statement in an article that all/most scholars ... must be sourced to a statement of exactly that. WP editors counting sources to reach such conclusions would be original research. The case of many may be a bit different. If the article were to cite, say, 20 scholars saying something, that might count as verification.

The weasel words aspect I already mentioned in the peer review section, which has now been archived (presumably someone will disinter it when the PR proces starts). The obvious question, assuming some historians actually do say it's the continuation, is whether those historians are Catholics. If so, the obvious response is that of Mandy Rice-Davies. If not, then it would seem an obvious thing for the article to say so. Peter jackson (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not that bothered either way but I think we could lose the start of the sentence and just state that the see of Rome had primacy from the early history of the Church which the refs clearly support.Haldraper (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That runs the danger of being weasel words. What sort of primacy? The main point of the dispute between Catholic & Orthodox is that the Pope claims primacy of jurisdiction, but the Orthodox recognized only primacy of honour. Peter jackson (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Continuation of thread

Sunray archived an active discussion thread. This is its continuation.

[4] Sunray has restored an unsourced, ambiguous and arguably POV sentence to the article. Please read the text without the sentence. Is the sentence necessary? What does it mean? Why is it there? I am removing the sentence pending discussion in lieu of tag, for now. Gimmetrow 22:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is part of the mediated agreed note, and can't just be whipped out by one person. You were offered alternate forms, but wouldn't accept any - even one you initially proposed yourself. Without the sentence, the following examples appear just that, random examples. We would either have to list huge numbers of such specific documents, or have the sentence there. Xandar 00:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Since you refused to discuss the issue during mediation, I consider your repeated attempt to invoke consensus now rather contradictory, and even a violation of WP:CIVIL. You have had months of opportunity to provide a content-based justification and explanation for the sentence, and have refused to do so. You have refused to explain either exactly what the sentence means, or to provide sources for it, or to change it to something acceptable. For weeks now, your replies have been, in my view, nothing but procedural attempts to obstruct improvements to the article. Please provide a content-based reason for the sentence, or stop impeding improvements to the article. Gimmetrow 02:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could re-read the discussion. The rationale for the sentence was discussed at length. Xandar has explained it once again, above. I'm not sure whether you don't get it or you won't get it. The fact is, though, that there was consensus on this during the mediation and neither the consultation nor the subsequent discussion has modified that. Please accept the consensus. Sunray (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The above is not an explanation, nor does it address content. What I'm trying to figure out is what you and Xandar actually think the sentence means. Can you declare clearly and explicitly and precisely what the sentence under dispute actually says? If you can do that, then we might be able to figure out why it is supposedly necessary, how it could be rephrased to actually say what you claim it's supposed to say, and how that could satisfy Wikipedia's verifiability policy. But if you and Xandar persist in refusing to declare clearly and explicitly what the sentence is supposed to mean, then I have really no alternative but to treat it as unsourced and biased, and argue for its removal so long as the sentence remains undefined and unsourced. Per WP:V, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". One of the main problems here is the sentence admits of multiple meanings, and when you or Xandar are pushed on one meaning, discussion switches to another meaning, and around in circles we go. We've already been through this dynamic before with a vague phrase that its defenders refused to define in meaning - and it took 1.5 years, multiple RFCs and a mediation to get a single word to comply with WP:V policy. Gimmetrow 08:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

While demanding an explanation of the sentence, you have given no consistent or valid reason for its removal. You have actually come up with two separate and unrelated arguments: 1) That there is confusion as to its meaning; ie that it doesn't restrict itself to CC versus RCC, which I don't think is true as most people would understand it - and several alternate wordings have been proposed. 2) That it is not referenced to a secondary source. That argument has been answered by Sunray - that the sentence is supported by the examples that follow. Just as the (unreferenced) sentence that the Catholic Church uses RCC itself is referenced to an example. This was the route we decided to take at mediation to deal with the arguments from yourself and others opposing previous wordings that were based on secondary sources you and others didn't like. The alternative to these sentences would be to list documents using CC and RCC in actual proportion to actual Vatican usage - which would be ridiculously exhaustive. Xandar 10:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean, Xandar, that you are stating definitively and finally that the sentence means precisely and only: "On vatican.va, the term CC appears more often than RCC"? Gimmetrow 14:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The phrase in the note is the following: "The name "Catholic Church", rather than "Roman Catholic Church", is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents." In the discussion on this talk page, I summarized the findings of the mediation on this as follows: "If you take the Vatican II documents, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Code of Canon Law, the terms "Catholic Church" or "Catholic" are used dozens of times. The terms "Roman Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic" do not appear in those documents." How does this not support the statement that of the two, the name "Catholic Church" is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents? Sunray (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Your reply illustrates many of the problems I'm trying to get addressed. First, you've stated a different meaning from Xandar for the sentence, and also different from a meaning you've stated before. This illustrates why, if anything like this sentence remains in the article, it needs clarification and precision. You've also asserted that term A is "usually the term" used - not that term A is used more often than term B, but simply that term A is "usually the term", ignoring terms C, D and E. You've based that on an evaluation of a particular set of documents. How is the reader to know which documents were chosen? Or, for that matter, why those documents? I think the relative frequency of use of various terms in a document is likely to depend on the context and purpose of the document. And finally, one of the statements you made (that certain terms "do not appear in those documents") may even be factually incorrect, but there is no way for a reader to check or verify this, since the source or reasoning behind the sentence is nowhere to be found in the article. With bias, original research, and possible factual errors here, can you not see why there is a problem with this sentence? Gimmetrow 14:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What I said above was simply background on the mediation and supplementary to the note. The sources given in the note refer to the primary documents of the Church, in keeping with the guidelines on naming. The important thing here is that we have consensus on the current wording of the note. Would you be willing to respect the consensus and move on? Sunray (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Around in circles we go. This is not about the guideline on naming, but about the policy of WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. The sources in the note do not support the interpretation given either by you or by Xandar for this line. Sunray, it was stated during mediation that issues with the note would be discussed later. I assumed, in good faith, that this would actually occur. If you wish to invoke "consensus", you should not simultaneously reject the rest of that "consensus". Recent PRs and FACs consistently noted a pattern of bias in the article - even pervasive bias. It has already taken far too long to achieve some progress on just one case of that bias, only to have that progress undermined by another vague and unsourced sentence. The disputed sentence was, I believe, authored by the same editor who created the initial text that led to mediation, and who refused, during 1.5 years and multiple RFCs prior to mediation, to comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV policy. So long as editors support and enable that sort of behaviour, this article seems doomed to languish in pervasive bias forever. Gimmetrow 23:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, with all due respect for your many good works on Wikipedia, I truly believe it is you who continues to languish in POV behaviour unsupported by Wikipedia policy. We had a mediation, reached a consensus and yet we are still burdened by your complaint - one for which you have no consensus or Wikipedia policy to site. Please stop and move on and let the rest of us move on too. NancyHeise ^talk 04:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Folks, this argument has been going on since the dawn of WP. The most succinct, direct and honest outline of the argument in favor of CC as the title was written some 3 years ago and appears here: CC v. RCC. I never saw anyone refute it. It is fair and adheres strictly to WP conventions. So, please, just let it rest, folks.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

But that is not what we're talking about. We're talking about a sentence in the article - a sentence which does not have a reference, and which has multiple interpretations. One of those interpretations - an interpretation that gets repeated often, unfortunately - is almost certainly incorrect, and yet the editors here refuse to either provide sources as required by WP:V, or make any adjustments to the sentence to narrow down the interpretations so that it avoids WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Gimmetrow 08:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, it's as if your computer is infected with a virus that causes it to not show anyone's responses to your argument. It has been addressed over and over again, ad nauseum. You just refuse to accept it. Disagree if you want...you're entitled to your opinion. But it has been well-established how the sentence you dislike so much adheres to WP policy, including NPOV and NOR. To everyone else who has been responding to Gimmetrow...I think we need to realize that Gimmetrow is not going to stop, and perhaps we should just stop feeding him with responses. He refuses to listen, and it has turned into a case of I just don't like it. Unless he comes up with something new and legeitimate, it's probably best to resist the temptation to respond and to just move on. --anietor (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Anietor et al, It took 1.5 years, multiple RFCs and a mediation to get some small degree of compliance with WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR on one fairly simple point. It could be argued that 1.5 years of impeding improvements establishes a long-term pattern of violation of those Wikipedia content policies. If you intend to continue this pattern of behaviour, and intend to continue preventing and impeding other editors from fixing issues in the article, the next step will probably be a RFC to discuss your user conduct. Gimmetrow 03:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that's unlikely. WP procedures say that, before you can launch an RfC about user behaviour, at least 2 people must have complained to the person(s) concerned, other than the person placing the RfC. Peter jackson (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Others have complained about ownership issues. The custodians here have been beneficial to the article in many ways, but not all. It shouldn't take 1.5 years and the sustained efforts of multiple experienced editors to get the custodians to partially address a single point. Gimmetrow 13:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I should have added that the 3 complaints must be about the same behaviour in the same article.

I agree results are often unsatisfactory. Wikipedia has a very nice policy of neutral point of view, but no effective system for enforcing it. Arbitrators and administrators are not authorized to do so, and the community, in general, simply doesn't. Thus editors are left to haggle things out among themselves to arrive at "consensus". (This is something that can be enforced in the existing system: if people try to fight wars with each other they can be dealt with.) The result of this system is, I think, fairly predictable:

• in theory, "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." (WP:DUE)
• in practice, it tends to present competing views in proportion to their representation among the editors of the article

Peter jackson (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no reply, I guess I will pose the question: under what conditions does a sentence satisfy WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies when it does not have a source, when editors cannot consistently explain its meaning, and when most of the explanations provided seem to be based on reasoning that cannot be cited to any source? And are those conditions present here? Gimmetrow 04:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I rather suspect your comment comes under the heading "rhetorical questions". Peter jackson (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Back away lads, this horse won't go no mo. Sunray (talk) 07:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss content. Gimmetrow 01:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

confessional picture

I liked the modern confessional we had in June, the new one does not look like any confessional I have ever seen. What do others think? I also liked the previous picture of missionaries baptizing Indians instead of the present picture in Cultural influence. Thoughts? NancyHeise ^talk 04:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the prior picture of the missionaries was better than the current one for Cultural Influence. I would support changing it back. However, I actually prefer the current confessional picture. The current picture is clearly a confession box. The previous picture (of a "modern" confessional) would have taken me a few seconds to figure out. It may come down to what people are familiar with seeing. I've seen both (and used both!), but I find the current picture more recognizable. I also think that the current picture probably comports with what most non-catholics would recognize from popular culture (film, tv, etc.). --anietor (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO the "modern" picture doesn't look definitively Catholic: maybe I just visit older church's but I've never seen one as stripped down and bare as that (travelled throughout Europe). Most Catholic confessionals are closer to the box, especially in majority Catholic countries. Before the images focuses far too much on the New World I think, there were actually two images depicting California (!). France as the Eldest Daughter of the Church (where confessional is located) and Spain one of, if not the, most militantly Catholic force throughout early modern period (represented in the culture section with School of Salamanca) are probably worthy of some pictoral representation to even it out. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Rationalizing "Catholic" vs. "Roman Catholic" across all relevant articles and categories

I raised this question over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism a few weeks ago and got relatively little response. Now, User:History2007 is raising a significant objection to "Catholic" vs. "Roman Catholic". See this diff. Recently, User:EastmeetsWest moved Roman Catholic theology to Catholic theology. History2007 has moved it back. I think we need to engage History2007 and help work out this issue or we will never have a consistent set of article titles. --Richard (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have reservations about "Catholic theology" as well, because the initial capital C probably isn't enough to indicate that the word is being used to refer to the Catholic Church, as opposed to some sort of inchoate "catholicism" or "universality". Would there be any real objections to retitling it Theology of the Catholic Church, which is less ambiguous in a number of ways? We can always have redirects in place for any titles which would reasonably refer explicitly to the article in question. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't share your reservations but I don't object to Theology of the Catholic Church either. Eventually we have to look at the possibility of something like The Ten Commandments in the teaching of the Catholic Church. In any event, it would be better if this discussion were conducted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism instead of at this Talk Page. --Richard (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The diff you quote is extremely long. If you want lots of people to look into what you're talking about, you might want to mak ethings easier for them. Peter jackson (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, Peter. I copied the URL for the diff from the edit history without actually looking to see what the diff looked like. It is very difficult to read. The relevant section of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism is here. --Richard (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem, of course, is that the terms "Catholic" and "Catholicism" do not equate to "Roman Catholic" and "Roman Catholicism" as these terms also have other meanings - as, also, does "Catholic Church". Therefore "Catholic theology" does not only meaning "Theology of the (Roman) Catholic Church". We were assured in the naming discussion for this article that changing it to "Catholic Church" would not lead to similar changes to other articles but this assurance has not been honoured - and to no one's real surprise I expect. Afterwriting (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Like Richard, I have no problem with Catholic Theology, but Theology of the Catholic Church is also acceptable. As far as CC being ambiguous, we have been over that for 4 years at least and a consensus has been reached. There is no such other real world entity with the name CC, only a theological concept or abstraction. If we really need to have an article on that, it should be called Catholic Church (theological concept), or some such thing. Anyway, it is a use of the term that is fairly technical and used by theologians and not everyday parlance. WP is written not for the specialist, but the average person. Okay, enough of that.

Richard brought up somewhere else the idea of a general nomenclature for a variety of Catholic topics, perhaps, Catholic teaching regarding X. I prefer Catholic teaching on X which he also suggested. Anyway, it would be helpful to arrive at a general nomenclature for these articles pertaining to the Catholic Church so that they are in harmony with the main article and with each other.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In this case all such articles need to include "Catholic Church" in their names and not just "Catholic". Afterwriting (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the name change of the article to "Catholic Church" has now led to ambiguity. When the article was titled "Roman Catholic Church" I understood clearly that, especially in the beliefs section, that this is what people who were fully in communion with the Bishop of Rome held as being true, and I had no objection to this - indeed would have supported this so long as the scope of the article made this clear. This is a prime reason why the Church has never gave up the title of the title "Roman Catholic Church", perhaps user Soidi, who appears to be the most knowledgeable editor, can confirm. There is no strong reason in my part for reverting the article name but it has now to be recognised by the editors who control the present article that the new name allows notable sources to be included, especially in the beliefs section, that do not subscribe to the present definition of "Catholic Church" and there is a lot changes that now have to be made to the lede and the body of the article Taam (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Taam, I have no idea what you are talking about. As an Eastern Catholic who is not at all "Roman" but a member of the Catholic Church, this article only now makes sense. It is customary in the West to assume that Roman Catholic refers to the entire church while this is simply not true. Anyway, as the mediation has recognized there is no reason to believe that someone looking for Anglican theology would look up "Catholic theology." Yes, there are theological disputes, but WP is not in that business. WP is in the business of communicating to the average reader. And, all evidence shows that Catholic Church in the normal everyday use of the term refers to the Catholic Church. So, of course there is no problem. There is only a problem for those who have theological differences with the Catholic Church. Those are duly noted. There really isn't anything more to talk about--except the nomenclature for related articles. --EastmeetsWest (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I dont know what you mean "As an Eastern Catholic who is not at all "Roman" but a member of the Catholic Church,", it may be as clear as day to you but I suggest that for those who are are not part of the community that it is highly ambiguous. As an outsider I want to know what the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome holds as true. Taam (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would only add that after looking at your recent edit history and article name changes that you only confirm for those who are willing to see the goodness in all people that a certain brand of "Catholicism" is only about imposing your version of Absolute Truth on the rest of humanity. This is not the religion I am familiar with. Taam (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I can accept that, afterwriting. How about Catholic Church teaching on X. That would work for articles regarding teachings anyway. For articles that do not have to do with teachings specifically, we might have to look at separately. However, clearly institutional topics such as lists of Catholic bishops or something ought to just have the term Catholic, as there is no such thing as a bishop of the theological entity "Catholic Church." Are there really people who call themselves Catholic bishops who are not members of the Catholic church? Wouldn't they clearly be bishops of such and such a church? After all there is no other real world institution with the name "Catholic Church."--EastmeetsWest (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Taam, It is of course not about absolute truth. WP is not able to arrive at that. It is only a matter of WP naming conventions. Naming conventions have already be discussed and a mediated solution arrived at. Now, it is a matter of consistency in WP article naming. So, lets get on with it. Plenty of work to do to make WP consistent.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

With every respect to you, and without malice, please practice what you preach. The Pharisees (according to modern scholarship) get a poor press in the NT, but legalism, wiki policy this or that, seems to be very popular amongst the overtly "catholic" editors of wiki articles. I have a high regard for catholic scholarship but most definitely it is not reflected in wiki articles imo. Taam (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Taam. Hmmm.... So, let's get back to the topic at hand. If we agree here on some general format for consistent Catholic article naming, how do we go about making the changes? --EastmeetsWest (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that those who are very loyal to the teachings of the Church shot themselves in the foot when they changed this article to "Catholic Church" for the reasons given above. Because you now allow, quite rightly, with the name change alternate views as to what "Catholic Church" means and what it believes. To repeat I am an outsider but the new article name means that I can no longer be sure what the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome now teaches whereas the previous title makes it clear. The same holds true for other articles, an example would be mariology which is present in both Roman Catholic and Anglian communities (I know from visiting Walsingham). My strong suggestion is that in Wikipedia articles should use "Roman Catholic", not least to clarify what set of doctrines are at issue, but also to follow your Church who uses the term Roman Catholic in ecumenical documents. If Wikipedia is not such an an envoriement then I don't know what is. Taam (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Taam, when you said: "the new article name means that I can no longer be sure what the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome now teaches whereas the previous title makes it clear." you expressed exactly the right point. That was a key point that I was trying to make. There is no longer an assurance that what these articles say corresponds to the teachings of the Bishop of Rome. In other words, we have inaccuracy and ambiguity. Time to pray for order. Amen. History2007 (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My understanding, given time I'm sure I could pick out scholarly sources, was that the Church never gave up the title "Roman Catholic Church", indeed they invoked it, to ensure that there was no ambiguity regarding doctrine and to emphasise the aspect of communion with the Bishop of Rome. I am very late to this discussion and haven't read all the archived pages but I am amazed that somebody like Lima-Soidi ever let this move take place. From my experience with him, even if I don't share his beliefs, he is far more knowledgeable about the subject than any of the other editors here and should have been in a position to advise the others of the mine-field they were entering.Taam (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, Taam. When you typed the words "Catholic Church" into Wikipedia, what else were you expecting to arrive at other than the Church which is in communion with the Pope? Where is the real world ambiguity? Relativistic meandering in regards to the name Catholic Church and its obscure application to other entities which have a completely different WP:COMMONNAME is red herring and kind of old hat now. As for ecumenism; obviously most major Churches strive for unity, however the Catholic Church's existence in the world doesn't revolve around its relationship to Anglicanism, so the word "Roman" is not needed in the vast majority of articles. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian, please read carefully what I wrote, it answers your points. Taam (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that we now have ambiguity. What is the Wikipedia definition for "Roman Catholic" as of today please? Any ideas? I do not know where to find that definition now. Where is it defined now? Lots of churches have that written on their doors. So an encyclopedia must define that term. Where is the definition please? History2007 (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The objection is a little confusing. Catholic Church refers to the communion of particular churches in communion under the authority of the Bishop of Rome (as stated in the article). There is no inaccuracy or ambiguity. As to Taam's confusion, Anglicans don't fall into this communion, they are not part of the Catholic Church (catholicity being a separated concept), and the name change doesn't change what church is being discussed. You can still "be sure what the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome now teaches" --anietor (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Anietor, you speak with the voice of innocence but please be assured that there is plenty who reject teachings of the Popes yet most definately identify with the "Catholic Church" whereas the previous name made it clear the article related to those in communion with the Pope. Taam (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Again: what is the definition of "Roman Catholic" within Wikipedia as of today please? Where is it defined? Is that a hard question to answer? It just needs a link. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

And Taam, I agree on Lima - he is an expert. But his last edit was in July. He must be on vacation, to have let this happen. History2007 (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Lima participated in the mediation under the user name Soidi. It was Soidi, Gimmetrow and Afterwriting who insisted that the lead be changed so as not to assert that "the official name" of the church is "the Catholic Church". The mediation found a compromise by neither asserting nor denying that the church had an official name or what it was. Part of that compromise was to change the article title to Catholic Church and to mention "Catholic Church" first in the lead sentence. Another part of the compromise was the drafting of a note explaining the background issues surrounding the two names "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church". Soidi, Gimmetrow and Afterwriting all agreed that they had no objection to moving the article to Catholic Church. Gimmetrow still has some outstanding concerns regarding the Note.

The mediation agreement explicitly limited itself to the title of this article and declined to extend the naming decision to any article other than this one. AFAIK, Lima/Soidi has not commented on the use of "Catholic" vs. "Roman Catholic" in the titles of other articles. However, I am inclined to believe that he would not object to the proposed renaming to "Catholic ...." over "Roman Catholic ..."

--Richard (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Decent summary. Yes, there weren't a lot of objections to the actual move of the article, but not everyone had the same reasons. The "why" was rather diverse. Gimmetrow 03:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Returning to the original subject of this section, what I posted in Richard's discussion at Project Catholicism was that Categories and Dioceses should usually go to "Catholic Diocese of..." or sometimes just to "Diocese of...." if that is the only diocese in the locality. For theological articles I have no objection to either of the choices on offer to maintain precision. Where say Pilgrimage in Catholicism might be ambiguous since the theological concept of Catholicism spreads wider than the Catholic Church, either Pilgrimage in the Catholic Church or Pilgrimage in Roman Catholicism would be acceptable solutions. In the discussion on the name change for THIS article it was said that it did not mean other articles should rigorously follow. That is because, while it was important that people not be misled about the proper organisational name of the Church, particularly in this article, that principle did not apply so strongly to subsidiary articles. Xandar 23:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting

Hi guys. I am still waiting. Again: what is the definition of "Roman Catholic" within Wikipedia as of today please? Where is it defined? Is that a hard question to answer? It just needs a link. Or shall I put in a request for that page to be built? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if Wikipedia is in the business of defining terms like "Roman Catholic". I would term it an unofficial term in use largely in the English-speaking world, coined to designate Christians in communion with the Pope. However it is a term disliked by many of those persons for various reasons. Xandar 23:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would expect an encyclopedia to define a term that appears on the door of thousands of churches. My personal definition, which is very unofficial is based on the real world method of "follow the money": i.e. a Roman Catholic is someone part of whose donation eventually ends up in Rome because the church he goes to has a financial relationship with Rome. Eastern churches do not fall into that pipeline. But I would not expect Wikipedia to use that definition. Hence a more formal definition is needed. History2007 (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Your definition is a matter of OR and personal interpretation. The name has zero to do with that chain of supposition. I don't think WP is in the business of defining every term that appears in popular usage. However the Catholic Encyclopedia has a full historical discussion of the term here And if you are really interested, there are poages and pages of referenced debate in the recent archives of this page. Xandar 23:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That was a useful reference. I will thus build a page for Roman Catholic based on that in a few days. The term is widely used and obviously needs clarification. The Catholic encyclopedia is a solid enough reference to use, and I will find a few more in a few days. I will then redirect Roman Catholic to that new page instead of this one. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable course of action and if you use up to date teaching material regarding beliefs then it can be a handy reference for those who want to know what the Church in communion with the Pope believes, but it would have been much better to have retained the original name for this article to avoid all the chaos that is going to result. Taam (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No. The redirect from Roman Catholic comes to this page as part of the consensus agreement that took a LONG time to work out. We're not changing that without a good consensus to do so. We do not want a POV fork to develop around any article on an alternative name. If you want to write a very brief article just on the usage "Roman Catholic" that is linked to from this article, that might work. But we cant change the redirect and it mustn't be a POV fork. Xandar 00:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I will certainly not do a POV but use the Catholic encyclopedia. And I will not write a dissertation either, but a brief page with a description of the usage. The term needs definition. As is it redirects to a place that does not define it. So it needs a definition and that page will include a clear link to this page. History2007 (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

But the redirect from Roman Catholic comes here, not to any new article. That is the consensus. We do not need specific articles for alternate names. Mormon Church goes to LDS, not to an article on the name Mormon. Bombay goes to Mumbai not to an article on the name Bombay. If you want to write a specific article on naming it gets a link from here, that's all. Xandar 00:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

How does that work again? A term links to a place with no definition, then links to the definition? Sounds like the way cab drivers drive the tourists in New York. And what will that page be called? The real definition? History2007 (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The definition is in the first line of the article which says "The Catholic Church also known as the Roman Catholic Church". There is also a brief note which can be clicked. When the article was named RCC we didn't have another article titled Catholic Church. A further article on the name RCC and its history would not be the prime article for the body. Any new article Roman Catholic (term) or Roman Catholic (name) would have to be linked from here as a minor topic. Xandar 01:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As Xander noted, there is no consensus for creating a separate RC article. Indeed, the consensus is for what we have now, with Roman Catholic redirecting to this article. That is the appropriate, unambiguous, consensus-based structure. Your proposal is POV and without significant support (in terms of sources or consensus), so let's not start start an edit war here. You know that's where this is likely headed if you try and change it to what you personally prefer. Being bold is one thing...ignoring consensus is another. --anietor (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about POV? I have not even written one line of the definition page and you guys are screaming POV? Is this trial before the crime? Why don't you write a page based on the Catholic encyclopedia instead of all this talk? Makes me laugh.... Anyway, it is past my bedtime now... I guess I must be guilty by virtue of being in Rome for a few days now.... By what method will I be tortured? Anyway, I will type more tomorrow. History2007 (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What I meant is a WP:POVFORK, where two artiocles are created on the same topic which, besides being confusing, can be hijacked to present differing POVs. In addition, trying to override consensus has POV elements. I suggested above a method which could meet your concerns on naming without creating a POV fork or misapply a redirect. Xandar 01:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to do it that way anyway. The link was the topic. Now.. good night... History2007 (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now that I am more awake, I think the best way for the "definition page" will be to do what we did for the right hand template for this article. As Xandar may recall I posted a prototype of the suggested fonts, arrangements etc. on the talk page, it got played with by the 3 or 4 of us that were testing it for readability etc. In a day or two I will post a prototype of the definition page for the term Roman catholic on this talk page, so people can edit it, make suggestions etc. Then we see what things look like once that prototype has become stable. And by the way, it is not just an English speaking issue, e.g. these [5] [6] also have Roman Catholic as a term. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the two Wikipedia articles you link to, the French one refers to "Roman" Catholics as being separate from Eastern Catholics. The Italian one refers to the term in the main "Catholic Church" article, describing it as a largely English protestant invention. Xandar 19:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The French statement is certainly true, and the Italian one works half the time... like everything else in Italy I have encountered ... History2007 (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I certainly would not support an article on "Roman Catholic" that does not restate essentially the consensus already achieved. If it were to reflect the current consensus and the Catholic Encyclopedia's explanation of the term, I could support an article called Roman Catholic (terminology). But, an article simply called Roman Catholic would definitely be a case of POV Forking. Regarding all those churches with the name Roman Catholic, it should be noted that they are all Latin Rite churches, a fact which supports the current consensus for Catholic Church.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is a start for the page. Please feel free to comment and or modify it.

---

Roman Catholic (term)

The term Roman Catholic first appeared in the 16th century. Its roots may be traced to the differences between specific groups of Christians in communion with the Pope and others. Historically the differences were with Protestants, but later were even used to distinguish this group from other Catholics who recognize the Pope.

Roman Catholic churches are generally distinguished by the fact that they are part of a hierarchical diocese and archdiocese structure under the Vatican, and that they follow the Latin Rite. Some such churches use the term Roman Catholic as part of their name, e.g. St. Paul's Roman Catholic Church, Princenton, NJ. [7][8][9]. As of January 2009, the were 630 Roman Catholic archdioceses. The churches that form these archdiocese are distinct from other Catholic churches which are organized as eparchies.

---

History2007 (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, no comments, so I guess it was brief enough that did not bother anyone. And clearly not a POV fork. So I built it. On renamings, based on this page, in cases where Byzantine and Eastern art get involved, some renamings are actually necessary, e.g. I renamed my article on Roman Catholic Marian art to Marian art in the Catholic Church because it had many Eastern icons in it anyway. But articles that include theological issues (such as Mariology) can not be subject to the same change since the content was not written with that perspective. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Waiting just 10 hours (and just overnight in the Western Hemisphere) and getting no response is hardly acquiescence, History. The proposal is confusing ("definition"? it's more of an entomological discussion than a definition), inaccurate (conflating Roman with Latin-rite) and goes against consensus, especially if it is a redirect from Roman Catholic, which currently goes to this article. I'm sure others will be chiming in shortly.--anietor (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually that type of page was also Xander's suggestion, if you read above. And he even offered a link from this page to that. And it has no redirect from Roman Catholic, which was the objection. The page is there by itself, as a definition, which is needed. There was no consensus that such a short page should not be built: the objections were to make a POV fork, which the page is not. As for it being etymology, all definitions have some type of etymology. The basic content history came mostly from the Catholic encyclopedia, and the other reference, so please feel free to correct what I wrote if you see errors. What exactly are those errors in that definition? If you see errors, please correct them. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think your change from Roman Catholic (definition) to Roman Catholic (term) was a good one. Substantively, the article would lead a reader to the conclusion that the term RC, today, refers only to Latin-Rite Catholics, which is not entirely the case. More recent Church documents use the term RC to refer to the world-wide Catholic Church (Latin-Rite and Eastern-Rite), including several encyclicals. The article as written now would lead a reader to believe that the term RC can, today, be substituted for the term Latin-Rite. Perhaps that is why you included the term "generally", but I'm not sure it's clear enough (unless, of course, you disagree and are taking the position that the 2 terms are synonymous). Thoughts?--anietor (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Anietor, for Heaven's sake do me a favor: clarify this thing for me and others like me by writing a clear, and concise set of definitions and descriptions and have it agreed to by other experts. As a Roman Catholic (whatever it may mean these days) I have no idea where these conceptual errors that you refer to are suddenly coming from, based on the renaming of this article. If I am confused, so are many other people who hesitate to say so. There is so much talk on this page and yet a clear and clean set of answers are hard to come by. On that note, now that I am on my complaint soap box, let me say that Wikipedia today does not do such a great job of clarifying things about the Eastern practices, for people like me. E.g. Do the Easterns pray the Rosary? Wear the scapular? Somewhere there should be an easy to read table of who believes in what. Who can do this? Thanks History2007 (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

History, if my comment was not clear to you, and I'm required to give you a thorough discussion of Latin-Rite, Eastern-Rite Catholics, then you are not qualified to write the article in the first place. If you write such a simplistic two-paragraph article on "Roman Catholic", ask for comments, and then complain when people do comment and say that you need definitions of the very terms you are writing an article about, I can't really help you. Anyone can start an article, but "for Heaven's sake", write about something you have researched first. Did you even read the article on Latin Rite Catholic Church, along with its sources? Your article in inconsistent, and leads me to believe you haven't done some basic research before diving in. --anietor (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I used to be clear, until this new renaming. What I do not understand is the extent of the rename. That was my request. The paragraph Latin_Rite#Relationship_with_the_term_.22Roman_Catholic.22 does give some ideas, but is not conclusive. It involves guesswork as to what the Church intends. And by the way, I have written close to 100 articles on Roman Catholic issues... History2007 (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The wording as it stands is confusing and not helpful. The first paragraph is okay, since it simply refers to the terminology, like the Catholic Encyclopedia article. Once you go on and try and define a Roman Catholic Church, you are on rocky ground. "Roman Catholic" is two things a) Another name for the Catholic Church, applied to it by protestants and others 2) A name used by some for the Latin-rite dioceses of the Catyholic Church. Your wording seems based on OR in some respects, doesn't give the history of the term, and states as fact that "Roman Catholic" churches are those churches of the Latin Rite - which is not true. Some people use this term for those churches, but it is NOT proper usage. We have to be very careful here not to spread common misconceptions. Xandar 00:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

People are discussing this even below. So I will type below. And the line between "popular misconception" and "common use of language" is an interesting line, with lots of DMZ in many cases.... anyway, I will type below. But how I wish I did not have to be in this debate.... sigh... History2007 (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Numbers

This article says: "Church membership in 2007 was 1.147 billion people". Does that include or exclude Eastern Catholics? How do we know that now? Any ideas? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It includes Eastern catholics. We recently had a long discussion on this subject. Please look in the last archive. Xandar 22:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

May I ask how that conclusion about the number was arrived at? The reference for that number was a Vatican report that used numbers that "catalog the Church's presence in each diocese". Since Eastern churches do not have diocese, that number probably refers to those churches that are part of some diocese. Or am I missing something about the number or the lack of diocese for Eastern churches? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Various reference sources are quoted in the archived discussion I pointed you too. Some of these go into great detail as to their sources for the estimates. Xandar 23:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I will look in the archive again. I can not see it now. But a google search on the number "1.147 billion" just showed that Vatican report and no other. History2007 (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The figures are derived from the Church itself. Reliable sources agree that this includes some people who no longer regard themselves as Church members but haven't told the Church this. I don't know of any source that estimates a figure for this category. Peter jackson (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter: yes and yes, but..... Those numbers come from the Church itself for sure, and there is a question as to their including people who no longer consider themselves members (or may have died yesterday). But the point I have is that the numbers the Church presents ONLY seem to apply to the unmentionable Catholics... excuse me, I meant the Roman Catholics. I say that because I did look into the archives (which are longer than the Long Island Expressway) and still see no other supporting references except those that suggest the Church obtains this number by adding up the numbers from the diocese it has, e.g. via Annuario Pontificio. Hence that number is not for "all Catholics" but only for those Catholics that go to a church that is part of a diocese. As to what one calls those Catholics, that can be debated.... In the real world they are often called Roman Catholics. Anyway, unless other references are found to show that those numbers are for Catholics that also go to "non-diocese" churches, it has to be modified or qualified in a day or two. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

History, I think what you are missing here is that Eastern Catholics do have dioceses, but we call them eparchies. If you look in the Pontificio Annuario, you will find eparchies listed separately, but they are listed. My church is a member of the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Chicago, for instance. In short, yes, we ARE Catholics. We count. And no, we are not Roman Catholics. --EastmeetsWest (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes. But the source said that they counted the diocese, not the eparchies. Hence the number is off by several percent. If you add the eparchies the number will be higher. Why do I care about this: because it is a solid example of a predicate asserted about a specific node within an ontology failing as we move upwards within the Ontology structure. It clearly illustrates the problem of suddenly changing labels on nodes of an ontology, as I showed with an example on the project page. The number used to be there when the article was called Roman Catholic Church. And when the title changed the number became inaccurate. So as you change title, content become inaccurate. Period. History2007 (talk) 22:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

But History, wasn't the "number" that you claim was only correct with the previous article name (RC) referring to BOTH Latin-rite and Eastern-Rite Catholics, even at that time? The article title was RC, but it clearly stated, even then, that it included all those churches, Latin and Eastern, in communion with the Bishop of Rome. If the article had been titled Latin-Rite Catholic Church and gave a membership number, then I would agree with you that changing the title to Catholic Church would render that number inaccurate. But if the RC title still specified that it was referred to both rites, Western and Eastern, how is it that the membership number is no longer accurate? The article seems to have always referred to both. I suppose your argument about how do we know if those numbers are accurate is a valid question. I just don't think that it's correct to ask how do we know if those numbers are accurate "now", as if the title change somehow expanded the scope to include Eastern-rite Catholics. Eastern-rite Catholics are as much a part of the Catholic Church as Latin/Western-rite Catholics, and it seems that the number includes both, as it did under the prior title. --anietor (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

My reading of the source was that they only counted the diocese. But do I care if the number is off by 2%? No. Do I want to show that if one blindly changes title on articles one gets inaccurate results? Yes. Have I made my point? Yes. Now, do we all agree that "blind title changes will get inaccurate results"? You tell me.... History2007 (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

History, I don't think anyone disagrees with the premise that "blind title changes will get inaccurate results". It's a general enough concept that all will agree. But if you then go on and on using a very specific example (as you did here), which is based on incorrect information, you need to expect to be corrected, since silence is often interpreted as acquiescence. But in the end, if you are only trying to get people to agree not to blindly change titles, then you're probably preaching to the choir in here. Fringe editors aside, most of the editors in here are responsible and intellectually honest enough to call people on any inappropriate edits, without regard to which theological "camp" they're in and feeling a need to support them regardless of WP policy violations. --anietor (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

John Carter also said on the project page that such sudden changes were very unlikely. So I pointed out the page Roman Catholic Mariology which is on the brink of an edit war since every instance of the term Roman was removed with a few keystrokes on August 11, 2009, rendering much content as incorrect. And the justification was the "consensus from this page". Similar name changes have been proposed for several other pages, based on the "consensus from this page". I am not saying that there is a search and destroy mission against the term "Roman" by any specific editors, for that would be against policy to say. But you draw your own conclusions. Hence the need to show the inaccuracies created with a few keystrokes as names change.... History2007 (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

The current article states (wrt Mit Brennender Sorge) : "Nazi reprisals against the Church in Germany followed thereafter, including "staged prosecutions of monks for homosexuality, with the maximum of publicity".[378] When Dutch bishops protested against the wartime deportation of Jews, the Nazis responded with harsher measures[377] rounding up 92 converts including Edith Stein who were then deported and murdered.[379]" however looking at the main article on the encyclical it appears that contemporary Catholic scholars do not share the view that the persecutions increased and that in the case of Edith Stein (acknowledging the bravery of the Dutch Bishops) it is accepted that she wrote to to the Pope in the early 30's asking for a prophetic voice to speak out against the Nazi's but the Pope never replied to her. I would like to delete this or alternatively give other scholarly views on the matter. Taam (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the material is well referenced. Views that persecution did not increase after MBS are a distinct minority I think. And a letter Edith Stein allegedly wrote in the 1930s has nothing to do with the matter under discussion. With regard to this section, Nancy has had most to do with its present format, so I think we should wait for her comments on this, since she hopefully should be back on WP regularly soon. Xandar 23:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem leaving one scholars opinion in the article, even if its not his specialist area, but equally if there are other scholars who are experts in this field, and who were much closer to the events, then they should be included as well. As for the "alleged" letter of Edith Stein, could you give a scholarly reference that disputes she sent the letter? I have never encountered this argument before. I only bring up Edith Stein because the article does so, if she is notable for her death she is also notable for that letter imploring the Pope to do something, maybe in the hope that her own and many other deaths would have been averted if the Pope condemned Nazism in 1933. Taam (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No. This is off-topic. Edith Stein is mentioned as a victim of Nazism following protests during the war. Any letter she wrote in 1933 is unrelated to the fact of her martyrdom a decade later. That is a spurious linkage. Xandar 00:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but if the death of one person out of several million is considered worthy of mention in the article then is it not noteworthy that the very letter she sent to avert such deaths is mentioned as well ? I don't follow your logic. Taam (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's easy enough. The article discusses the Nazi reprisals of the 1940s in which Edith Stein was a prominent victim. She was not a victim because of the letter she apparently wrote in 1933, but because of the action of the Dutch bishops. The letter she wrote in 1933 and whether or not she got a papal reply has no direct link and only the most tenuous indirect link with later events. IF the Pope had seen her letter. IF the Pope had replied. IF he had then at that early date decided to denounce the NSDAP as uniquely evil. IF this had had ANY effect at all on the rise of said party. If that effect had (against all similar cases of papal political intervention) changed anything at all. IF that had, again improbably, led to the Nazis saying, "Lets not persecute Jews any more... is a mere chain of tenuous speculation and what-ifs. There is no causal link. It's like arguing the 9/11 article should state the twin towers would never have happened if only the government had acted on my letter ten years before calling for reductions in air travel! Xandar 01:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes the Pope did see the letter, no she never got a reply, though her Abbot received an acknowledgment of the letter. Edith Stein is used in this section to "prove" that the Pope couldn't have been more outspoken because it would have resulted in more deaths - that's how it reads to me. She is notable enough to be named in the article but if this is so then I think she can be also mentioned elsewhere when she called on the Pope to speak out very early in the rise of Nazi Germany to prevent what finally emerged in the Holocaust. Please understand I'm no Pius basher or promoter, I would just rather see a sober presentation without contentious apologetic material trying to prove this or that. Taam (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You still seem to be wanting the article to ASSUME that the Pope was somehow derelict in not responding to her 1933 letter by foreseeing the holocaust and then stridently denouncing a newly elected German minority government that at the time appeared little different to a dozen other inter-war right-wing regimes, in such terms that, what....? It was overthrown by Catholic militia...(highly unlikely) The Nazis changed their ways... (even more unlikely) There was an anti-Catholic reaction a la Kulturkampf... (quite likely). You also therefore want the article to ASSUME that the Popes different action would have prevented the holocaust... Which is an assumption that goes right off the scale. We can't make such unwarranted and unlikely assumptions. The section merely states the facts that over 90 jewish converts were killed. Edith Stein is simply the most notable, and has a WP article, which is linked. Or are you saying all the others wrote to the Pope in 1933? Xandar 02:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I have noted that you have introduced more of the same, i.e trying to "prove" Pius is blameless with this edit[10]. The point is Pius was not the most significant originator of the encyclical, why not mention who was?, nor is there any explicit mention of the Nazi leadership in MSB. Once again I have no hangup in including this so long as we can include other scholarly sources who refute it, imo it was better to take it out rather then indulge in poor apologetics. Taam (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The sources say he was involved. This is a significant fact. All positive facts about a person are not "apologetics". It's called balance. Xandar 02:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

OK keep a mention of Pius contribution but we should clearly state who it was who actually drafted it. How it reads to me is an attempt to prove Pius was this or that instead of cool detached summary of the facts, and that's what I meant by apologetics - an article shouldn't try to prove anything. I repeat once more I am no Pius basher or promoter. Also if you are truly interested in balance then we can add sources that give their view on how little anti-nazi was the encyclical. My opinion is to take it all out and leave it as it was before you added your own thoughts to the piece. Any objections? Taam (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"staged prosecutions of monks for homosexuality"? If I remember right, the Pope himself closed down the Westphalian branch of the Franciscans, apparently accepting a lot of truth in the charges. Peter jackson (talk) 11:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There really is a lot of unsourced OR and claims being made here. I think the general view on MBS historically and at the time, is that it was anti-nazi. You may find odd rogue sources that say otherwise, but these cannot be given undue weight. There is also a problem of people wanting more and more detail and cavills included, which takes the section outside its size range. There needs to be an over-all balance in covering this and other issues, especially since there is intended to be a Peer review of the article shortly. Xandar 20:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter Jacksons contribution is unsourced but the rest of this thread is not, indeed Falconi, who is one of the proponents about the MSB not being anti-nazi (there are many other catholic sources for this) is used by yourself, via Father Bokentotter, as reliable source. Taam (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I may well be able to find a source if it seems important enough. Is it? Peter jackson (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Further Question

The article states: "In addition, the Church has played a significant role in the Westernization of many other nations through its missionary efforts, often associated with the colonial era. By spreading Catholic Christianity it has battled, and in certain cases eventually ended, practices such as human sacrifice, slavery, infanticide, and polygamy, within evangelized cultures beginning with the Roman Empire." When I last brought up the issue of human sacrifice in the Roman Empire I was met with a wall of "catholic" obstinacy so much so I quit Wikikepedia for a few months. At present it still misrepresents the issue of human sacrifice wrt to the Roman Empire and also marriage. With the latter St Augustine said that they had followed Roman practice, i.e monogamy, whereas the article indicates otherwise. I would like to either delete this section or give alternate scholarly opinions. Taam (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The section is factually correct. It states that the Church's influence was "beginning with the Roman Empire", not that all of these practices existed in the Roman Empire. However the fact that over history the church has helped eliminate these practices in various societies is undoubted. PS. You might get less tetchy conversations if you got rid of all the "catholic obstinacy" attitudes. Xandar 23:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A reader with little knowledge will take it that human sacrifice was prevalent under Roman rule. When I brought this up before it was established that the cited source did not actually say this, it was the wiki editors interpolation and they were not for budging. The simple solution would be to take out the "starting with the Roman empire". There also has to be more balance with regard to the Church "battling" against slavery part for the obvious reason that the Church's position with regard to slavery is much more complex than this section suggests. As for your suggestion about "catholic obstinacy attitudes" I think the solution is to be more open to editors who genuinely want to improve the article using scholarly sources and cut out the "anti-catholic" "chip on your shoulder" and wiki legalism talk to anyone who dares to question the accuracy of the material. Taam (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the wording can do with a little tweaking to make the Roman Empire issue clearer, however the main issues here are attested. The position on slavery was indeed quite complex and has been brushed upon elsewhere in the article. It was recognised as legally valid, but was disapproved and the enslavement of native peoples was several times forbidden. Xandar 00:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is slavery of indigenous peoples was approved at different times (multiple scholarly sources can be cited) so I suggest taking out the Roman Empire and slavery parts. If no objection I will do so. Taam (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Would also add that the following section is problematic: "Historians note that Catholic missionaries, Popes, and religious, were among the leaders in campaigns against slavery." because it fails to cover the overt sanctioning of slavery at other times. My suggestion is to take this out but if anyone objects I can add balance with other scholarly sources who don't see this issue in such black and white terms. Taam (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The influence of the Church historically has been anti-slavery, and this needs mention. Charges of overt sanctioning of slavery tend to boil down to specific incidences connected with reprisals and warfare. Xandar 01:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No this is not so, the Church gave mandates to go and conquer countries, and if nesc enslave the native populations, who they had never been at war with. If you want to include the above then I think we have to give the other scholarly point of view. My opinion is to simply to take it out of this section. Taam (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're confusing different things, including wartime mandates for reprisals. We'll see what you come up with. Xandar 02:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

As it happens I'm in the process of putting together all the material I can find (pro & anti-slavery) due to the promptings of another editor on Wikipedia. If you look through my contribution history for 13 August 2009 it will give some idea of the papal bulls for and against and there is more I will be adding, hopefully over the next few days. Taam (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Bethencourt (2007) in reviewing a collection of scholarly essays writes of "the zigzag policies of the Popes from Martin V to Paul III" regarding slavery, with successive bulls prohibiting the African slave trade (1425) and black slavery (1462), then allowing the trade with captive people (1455, 1456, 1493), and finally condemning the enslavement of native American people (1537), while the citizens of Rome were authorized to hold slaves (1548).[11] However even this is not so straightforward because others do not see the "anti-slavery" ones in 1425 and 1462 in quite the same light - see articles for Martin V and Pius II. I haven't gone beyond Paul III in the material collected and added to articles on the 13 August and today, since the initial research was prompted by a question raised about the Renaissance Popes and slavery. But I think there is enough already to see that it's not so clean cut as the article asserts Taam (talk) 07:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The Church itself owned slaves until 1863, I think. Peter jackson (talk) 11:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The general stance editors of this article is that there is a difference between what the Vatican (as the head of the global church) says and does and what the members of the clergy and laity do, either as individuals or even in groups. As a general principle, this is valid. The Church cannot be held responsible for the crimes of its members if it has not sanctioned them.

Taam's research suggests that the Papacy did a bit of a zigzag in the 15th and 16th centuries and the article should reflect that. There might even be enough material for a separate article on the issue.

There is also difficulty in defining what "the Church" is. Presumably the Vatican (i.e. the Pope and the Curia) did not own slaves in the 19th century. 1863 strikes me as the year of the Emancipation Proclamation and so it sounds as if Peter jackson is talking about the antebellum Church in the United States. If this is so, it is true that the American Catholic Church has a less than stellar record with regard to the slavery issue in the antebellum years.

The Catholic Church in the United States was very late to take a stance against slavery. In fact, I don't think it did so officially until after it had been abolished. The reason for this is that Catholicism was stronger in the South than in the North (being especially strong in Maryland, a slaveholding state). This didn't change until after the Civil War with the waves of immigrants from Ireland, Italy and Poland. In fact, there was some debate about abolition within the Church in the decades before the Civil War between the Irish Catholics in the North and the Catholics in the South. However, the southern Catholics won the debate and the American bishops took no stance on slavery prior to the Civil War.

The problem is that the average reader does not draw a distinction between what the Pope sanctions and what individual bishops or groups of bishops sanction. We can say that the Church (i.e. the Vatican) opposed slavery but that doesn't ring true for someone who knows the antebellum history of the American Church. We should not simply assert "Well, but that doesn't count because those were the American bishops, not the Vatican". I think it would be fair to say something like "Despite the Vatican's opposition to slavery, bishops in some countries such as the United States were less vocal in their opposition. In some of these countries, the silence of the bishops amounted to a tacit approval. Some bishops and religious orders in the United States even owned slaves up until the Civil War." --Richard (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Some interesting points from Richard, however there are again a lot of unattributed claims being made here and elsewhere on the page. People are also (as in the Nazi discussion above) wanting more detailed information, cavills and other arguments added to a section that can only be of limited size. Dealing with the Church position on slavery could ideally be expanded to reasoning behind reluctant acceptance of the existing practice as a legal fact, but pressure to eliminate it and to forbid enslavement of free native peoples. Similarly, if certain people want to add that some local Church bodies may have come into the ownership of slaves (presumably through receiving donations or grants of land), we then perhaps need to add more about the system whereby the Church in the Americas (except for orders like the Jesuits and Franciscans) was largely outside of Vatican control. Another relevant topic might be the influence of the Church in ensuring that slave codes in Catholic states protected the slaves personhood and right to marriage and family life, and encouraged free black participation in society - in contrast to the comparable slave laws in protestant areas. Changing the article therefore involves complex considerations. Sources need to be found, weighted and evaluated. I certainly wouldn't accept some of the points in Richard's proposed wording above. Overall this may be something that is best considered as a whole during the forthcoming peer review. Xandar 20:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, what claims are "unattributed"? All the edits I have made to the relevant articles have been cited. On the contrary the assertions you make are uncited in particular "forbid enslavement of free native peoples". Indeed the one shining example that I thought to be true of this in the period in question, i.e the bulls issued by Paul III, turns out to have been anulled by the Pope the next year, contrary to what appears in pop history. Its been a long day, goodnight. Taam (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The statement I gave above was from something I read a very long time ago in a book called The Misery of Christianity, by Joachim Kahl. Obviously an anti-Christian book, & maybe doesn't count as a reliable source in itself, but my impression was that it was reasonably historical, & its statements could probably be sourced, indeed perhaps already were (as I said, it's a very long time ago). My memory says it was a reference to the Dominicans in the West Indies.

As an aside, I might mention that the Emancipation Proclamation has become largely mythical. It didn't abolish slavery in the USA. All it said was that the Union would deem slaves in rebel territory to be free. This meant they wouldn't be returned if they escaped, which often happened already, in violation of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court, & that the rest would be freed if & when the Union won. It didn't apply to those slave states who'd remined loyal to the Union, & slavery wasn't abolished in the last of these until the 13th Amendment in 1865. Peter jackson (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Back to naming

Richard, If I can take up one point you raise (the issue of slavery is too complex to set out here in detail) and that is "There is also difficulty in defining what "the Church" is.". When the article was titled "Roman Catholic Church" it was clear to me that this referred to those who were in communion with the Bishop of Rome and therefore I could take the beliefs section on spec. This Church seems sensitive to such naming issues and uses "Roman Catholic" in ecumenical documents - is not Wikipedia an example? What seems to have happened with the renaming of this article, is an insensitive name change has been imposed (contrary to the practice of their own Church) in an "ecumenical environment" to assert that "we are the Catholic Church" and no others . As I said in an earlier post they shot themselves in the foot because if a learned editor appeared now and was not put off by the intransigence of the sectarians they could legitimately now alter radically the beliefs section. In my opinion the name change was a big mistake and you must now allow other additions from those who consider themselves part of the "Catholic Church" but are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.Taam (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The naming issue has been dealt with. "Roman Catholic" is not the name of the Church, however much you might prefer it to be. Nor is it clear, since it is used in many different ways by different groups. The name of the organisation is the Catholic Church and if "intransigent sectarians" like Taam could concentrate on something other than trying to rename it in accordance with their prejudices, we would make more progress. Xandar 20:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Xander, I'm not a Christian so I don't have any sectarian interests to defend. When the article was titled "Roman Catholic Church" I knew clearly what was being talked about but now this is not so for the reasons given above. IMO your Church shows more wisdom in this matter than the editors of this article. Taam (talk)

Tram, you talk about the article as if the article is about a different entity now that it is titled Catholic Church. It's the same church being addressed. The title has changed to reflect the more appropriate name of that church (see lengthy discussion for basis). We are all aware of your personal views on the topic, as well as your apparent confusion between Catholic Church and catholic churches/catholicity. If you are truly confused by all this, I suggest you do some follow-up research. I assume, however, that your faux complaints about not knowing what church is being discussed is a tool to make a point. In case it is a true confusion, just remember that it is the communion of Latin-rite and Eastern-rite churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome. And to address a specific point...Wikipedia is not an "ecumenical environment", since that would require a degree of creative word-usage and subtle concessions in the interest of diplomacy and other theological or jurisdiction considerations that have no place in an encyclopedia. --anietor (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Taam Your personal difficulties with understanding the name of the Church (which seem to be based on various misapprehensions), have nothing to do with WP naming policies or the Church's own decision on what to call itself. People incapable of reading the first line of this article are unlikely to benefit from the rest. Nor do I see you raising the same objections on the Church of England page or those of the Orthodox Church or Apostolic Church or others, all of which are capable of readings other than that which strictly defines the group that adopts these respective names. Harping on here, and the continuous hurling of epithets, therefore suggests a specific agenda. Xandar 21:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have personal difficulty in naming, I never suggested otherwise, because I have the Catechism and know that when the Church uses this name its very clear she is speaking from an insiders perspective and assumes many things like communion with Peter and his successors. Equally she doesn't heavily handed impose this on other Churches who consider themselves Catholic in inter-Christian dialogue and uses "Roman Catholic". The editors of this article have ignored the sensitivety of the Church imo in imposing the new name change. I don't have any agenda Xandar, as best I know I am more in communion with your Church than you are in these matters. Taam (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

These arguments were gone through in detail for fully twelve months. A conclusion has been reached. The alleged "sensitivities" of other groups are not part of WP naming policy. And in your terms only seem to apply to "Catholic" and not to "orthodox", "apostolic", "church of England" "Baptist", "Church of Ireland" etc. etc. All these names, by your argument, "impose things on other churches" in that they make exclusive claims to qualities also claimed by other churches, and "arouse sensitivities", yet you only harp on about "Catholic". This is inconsistent and POV. That is why such arguments are rejected. Xandar 21:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue of naming of other articles is not what I'm on about (I have never even read them) but the "harp on" angle you mention I don't understand. I try to meet all people on common ground (as your Church teaches) so I am left with the conclusion that perhaps you are indeed a section of the Catholic Church that does not follow the practice of those in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. This is not a problem for me but if you let me know it does help dialogue in that I can take account of your opinions in my responses, regards. Taam (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus of scholarly sources support Mit Brennender Sorge section of the article

Excerpts that support article text that Taam wants me to delete

Opposing FAC reviewer Taam, in this edit [12] has asked me to remove article text relating to Mit Brenneder Sorge and comments by Pius XI to pilgrims. I am placing quotes from my most scholarly sources to support my article text. The fact that both of these issues figure prominently in the history of the Church, and that they are listed in these top sources should be enough to prove their notability and worthiness of inclusion.

• From Eamon Duffy's Saints and Sinners, Yale University Press, pages 342-343 in the paperback version ISBN 9780300115970 (I used the hardcover for the article and I think the page numbers may be different)

  "In January 1937 key figures from the German hierarchy came to Rome on their ad limina visit. They told the Pope that the time for caution had passed, and Pius XI decided to act. Cardinal Faulhaber, Archbishop of Munich, was commissioned to produce a draft encyclical, which was tidied up by Pacelli, and signed by the Pope. In a triumphant security operation, the encyclical was smuggled into Germany, locally printed, and read from the Catholic pulpits on Palm Sunday 1937. Mit Brennender Sorge(With Burning Anxiety) denounced both specific government actions against the Church in breach of the concordat and Nazi racial theory more generally. There was a striking and deliberate emphasis on the permanent validity of the Jewish scriptures, and the Pope denounced the 'idolatrous cult' which replaced belief in the true God with a 'national religion' and the 'myth of race and blood'. He contrasted this perverted ideology with the teaching of the Church in which there was a home 'for all peoples and all nations'. The impact of the encyclical was immense, and it dispelled at once all suspicion of a Fascist Pope. While the world was still reacting, however, Pius issued five days later another encyclical, Divini Redemptoris, denouncing Communism, declaring its principles "intrinsically hostile to religion in any form whatever', detailing the attacks on the Church which had followed the establishment of Communist regimes in Russia, Mexico and Spain, and calling for the implementation of Catholic social teaching to offset both Communism and 'amoral liberalism'.... His speeches and conversations were blunt, filled with phrases like 'stupid racialism', 'barbaric Hitlerism'. In May 1938 Hitler visited Rome. The Pope left for Castel Gandolfo, and explained to pilgrims there that he could not bear 'to see raised in Rome another cross which is not the cross of Christ'. In September he told another group that the Canon of the Mass spoke of Abraham as 'our father in faith'. No Christian, therefore, could be anti-Semitic, for 'spiritualy, we are all Semites'.

• From John Vidmar's The Catholic Church Throughout the Ages, Paulist Press, Page 327 ISBN 0809142341

  "Pius XI's greatest coup was in writing the encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge ("With Burning Desire") in 1936, and having it distributed secretly and ingenuiously by an army of motorcyclists, and read from every pulpit on Palm Sunday before the Nazi's obtained a single copy. It stated (in German and not in the traditional Latin) that the Concordat with the Nazis was agreed to despite serious misgivings about Nazi integrity. It then went on to condemn the persecution of the church, the neopaganism of the Naxi ideology-especially its theory of racial superiority-and Hitler himself, calling him "a mad prophet possessed of repulsive arrogance." But perhaps Pius XI's most memorable protest against anti-Semitism came just before his death, when he told a group of pilgrims in 1938: 'Mark well that in the Catholic Mass, Abraham is our Patriarch and forefather. Anti-Semitism is incompatible with the lofty thought which that fact expresses. It is a movement with which we Christians can have nothing to do. No, no, I say to you it is impossible for a Christian to take part in anti-Semitism. It is inadmissible. Through Christ and in Christ we are all spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spritiually, we are all Semites.' The Nazi's promptly called him "the Chief Rabbi of the Christian World."

• From Thomas Bokenkotter's A Concise History of the Catholic Church, Doubleday, page 389

  "And when Hitler showed his increasing belligerence toward the Church, Pius met the challenge with a decisiveness that astonished the world. His encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge was the "first great official public document to dare to confront and criticize Nazism" and "one of the greatest such condemnations ever issued by the Vatican."2 Smuggled into Germany, it was read from all the Catholic pulpits on Palm Sunday in March 1937. It exposed the fallacy and denounced the Nazi myth of blood and soil; it decried its neopaganism, its war of annihilation against the Church, and even described the Fuhrer himself as a "mad prophet possessed of repulsive arrogance."3 The Nazi's were infuriated, and in retaliation closed and sealed all the presses that had printed it and took numerous vindictive measures against the Church, including staging a long series of immorality trials of the Catholic clergy. At Koblenz, 170 Franciscans were arrested and prosecuted for the corruption of youth and for turning their monastery into a 'male brothel,' A Hitler Youth film was circulated that showed priests dancing in a bordello."

  Bokenkotter is quoting from two scholars in this quote, the first is from C. Falconi, The Popes of the Twentieth Century(Boston: Little, Brown, 1967), p. 117. The second is from A. Rhodes, The Vatican in the Age of the Dictators (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1973), p. 205

This book is the most scholalry work of all our works. It has been a university textbook for decades with four reprintings. It has a bibliography that is 43 pages long and this is the book we used to produce the article text that Taam wants me to delete.

Other scholarly sources that claim Mit Brenneder Sorge described Hitler as a "mad prophet" are

• Spritual Semites: Catholics and Jews During World War II by Paul Martin - page 16
• Keepers of the Keys: A History of the Popes from St. Peter to John Paul II by Nicolas Cheetham - Page 284
• Baltimore Iconoclast by William C. Hughes - Page 215

Sources that quote Pius XI's address to pilgrims that "spiritually we are all Semites"

• Under His Very Windows: The Vatican and the Holocaust in Italy by Susan Zuccotti - Page 45
• The Pius War: Responses to the Critics of Pius XII by Joseph Bottum, David G. Dalin- Page 114
• The Papacy: An Encyclopedia by Philippe Levillain, John W. O'Malley - Page 1209
• The Myth of Hitler's Pope: How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis by David G. Dalin - Page 66
• Three Popes and the Jews by Pinchas Lapide - Page 113
• Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII by John Cornwell - Page 190
• The Holocaust: The Destruction of European Jewry, 1933-1945 by Nora Levin - Page 689
• A Short History of Christianity by Stephen Tomkins - Page 227

And there are dozens more which I do not have the time to place on this page. Clearly this quote from Pius XI is notable and worthy of inclusion in this article if hundreds of authors have reproduced it in their works, including the most scholarly.

The Bokenkotter book is the most scholalry work of all our works. It has been a university textbook for decades with four reprintings. It has a bibliography that is 43 pages long. Per WP:reliable source examples it meets the qualifications of a top source and this is the book we used to produce the article text that Taam wants me to delete. As you can see, Taam's request is unreasonable and would make the article factually incomplete. NancyHeise ^talk 00:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Mit Brenneder Sorge article text referenced to Bokenkotter, Taam has also stated that the quotes listed in the Bokenkotter book are incorrect. I purchased the two books that Bokenkotter is quoting that supports our article text and am placing the actual quotes here so we can all see that Bokenkotter is not misquoting anyone. In addition, Bokenkotter's book, as a decades old university textbook with three reprintings and scholarly reviews, has been seriously vetted by the scholarly community so we shouldnt have to go check his work but I am doing it anyway to prove that he is correct in his cites. One is from Anthony Rhodes The Vatican in the Age of the Dictators (1922-1945), a scholarly source used by university students per its own reviews in the New Statesman, Times Literary Supplement, and The Month. It is referred to in these reviews as "a balanced survey of the relations between Pius XI and Pius XII, and the dictators, notably Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and Stalin." and "A scholarly and balanced analysis of Vatican diplomacy...", "Mr. Rhode's book is one which no serious student of the history of the 20th century can afford to neglect." The other source is from The Popes in the Twentieth Century by Carlo Falconi which, along with Rhodes is often cited by other scholarly works like the one we used in the article - Bokenkotter's A Concise History of the Catholic Church.

From Carlo Falconi's The Popes in the Twentieth Century (1967) Library of Congress catalog number 68-14744 page 230. "Nevertheless, even with these limitations, the pontifical letter still remains the first great official public document to dare to confront and criticize Nazism, and the Pope's courage astonished the world."

From Anthony Rhode's The Vatican in the Age of the Dictators 1922-1945 (1973) ISBN 0030077362 page 205, "Mit brennender Sorge did not prevaricate. Although it began mildly enough with an account of the broad aims of the Church, it went on to become one of the greatest condemnations of a national regime ever pronounced by the Vatican. Its vigorous language is in sharp contrast to the involved style in which encyclicals were normally written..... (goes on to list criticisms of Nazi practices like neo-paganism, theory of blood and soil, spiritual oppression in Germany, oppression of education, the Nazi war of annihilation against the Catholic Faith, cult of idols)...The fulminations thundered down from the pulpits to the delighted congregations. Nor was the Fuhrer himself spared, for his 'aspirations to divinity', 'placing himself on the same level as Christ';'a mad prophet possessed of repuslive arrogance' (widerliche Hochmut)". ..."The true extent of the Nazi fury at this encyclical was shown by the immediate measures taken in Germany to counter further propagation of the document. Not a word of it was printed in the newspapers, and the following day the Secret Police visited the diocesan offices and confiscated every copy they could lay their hands on. All presses which had printed it were closed and sealed. The bishops diocesan magazines (Amtsblatter) were proscribed; a paper for church pamphlets or secretarial work was severely restricted. ...The encyclical was well received abroad. ...(names several countries reactions)... From Chile the German Ambassador reported that the encyclical 'has had great effect in turning the people against Germany'. The most important effect however was in the United States. On the 24th of December, 1937, The German Ambassador in Washington reported that thanks to the anti-Catholic campaign, Germany was losing the support, which had hitherto been very active when the National Socialist anti-Communist policy was announced, of twenty five million Catholics who 'stand united and determined behind their Church'. From these representative samples of world opinion, it might be supposed that the Nazis would have learnt the old lesson, Qui mange du Pape en meurt. But so obsessed were they with the vast military machine they had built over the last four years that they only became more overweening, determined to teach the Papacy a lesson."

The above was copied from the discussion page of the last FAC, Taam's request could not be processed because he is asking us to ignore scholarly consensus. NancyHeise ^talk 23:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your long reply. It might not be clear in the link you gave above the objections raised to a little segment of the article, so for clarity I copy them here with numbers added before them so we can all follow the thread:

"1) Regarding the “mad prophet” claim in the article. I have checked and can find no other scholarly works that could support this view as a consensus or even minority view so I ask once again that it be deleted. 2) This combined with the omission of the “Belgian Pilgrims” qualification , 3) the erroneous claim that Mit Brennender Sorge condemned anti-Semitism, 4) the erroneous attribution to that encyclical of words spoken informally to visiting pilgrims, 5) and all having the effect of exaggerating the Church and Popes response to the Nazis , and all in one little segment of the article, is a real concern over the use of sourcing generally.

• point 1) the article no longer presents as incontrovertible fact that the encyclical "described Adolf Hitler" as an insane and arrogant prophet", good.
• Point 2) was indeed actioned and the article no longer misleads, good.
• Point 3) was actioned and the article no longer states the encyclical condemned anti-semitism, good.
• point 4) was actioned and the article no longer propagates an error, good.
• point 5) remains outstanding imo

The long passages you quote are taken from:

• Father John Vidmar Roman Catholic priest and theologian
• Father Thomas Bokenkotter Roman Catholic priest and historian
• Anthony Rhodes made a Knight Commander of St Gregory by Pope Paul IV for his services to the Catholic Church and this was before he formally entered Roman Catholicism
• Eamon Duffy historian who describes himself as a "cradle catholic"

Of course there is no objection on my part of using sources such as this simply because they may be perceived as writing from an insiders point of view, so to speak, in the history section of the article. My normal practice when using such sources is to clearly state who says what and their status so that reader can be fully informed of the perspective involved, and for balance show it also from another scholarly perspective, wherever this is possible, leaving it to the reader to form a balanced view. In all these areas there are many pov's and I don't think that it's right to depend too heavily on Roman Catholic or other Christian authors to write an impartial wikipedia article on history. The classic example of this concern was the articles use of Father Bokenkotters redaction of the Falconi quote in which Falconi is cut off in mid sentence i.e the part mentioning the "limitations" of MSB in very robust terms: "so little anti-Nazi is it...".. "concerned purely with the Catholic Church and its rights and privileges".."even to the point of offering an olive branch to Hitler if he would restore the tranquil prosperity of the Catholic Church in Germany". As I said earlier I'm not impugning Fathers honesty - I strongly suspect he read it clipped from a secondary source without having the book physically in front of him. Taam (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Taam, we chose our sources due to the way they are respected in the academic community, we did not do a religion check first to see what the personal beliefs of the authors were. If the scholarly community uses these books as the most reliable and respected sources on Catholic history, that is what Wikipedia WP:RS, and WP:reliable source examples requires - and that is what the article reflects. You can not ask us to omit facts reflected by numerous scholars in these most respected sources. Someone changed the wording of the sentences to make you happy without omitting the facts. However, these changes specifically omitted actual quotes from these sources to "tame" them to suit your personal taste. This is not accurate reporting - this is introducing POV language to suit one Wikipedia editor who has no reliable source to support his objection. NancyHeise ^talk 18:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to repeat that if you introduce material that says one thing but it is contradicted by other reliable academic sources who are specialists in this field then we present both sets of view. I don't know if people have deliberately chosen sources to prove a point but the end result is unbalance and it read as if the article was indeed trying to prove this or that which it must not do. In contentious issues I indicate who is saying what and their background and certainly not to pass of as fact what is opinion. As I pointed out in the list given above there was serious errors in a tiny section of the article that according to your reliable sources was accurate.Taam (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Taam, you took offense with the fact that our most respected scholarly source, Bokenkotter, says that Mit Brennender Sorge calls Hitler "an insane and arrogant prophet". These were Bokenkotter's exact words that he himself repeated from another scholar. That's two scholars saying the same thing! You wanted that quote eliminated because you disagreed with these scholars analysis. Who are you? A Wikipedia editor! Show me where any respectable scholar says Bokenkotter is wrong? No one says anything but wonderful things about Bokenkotter's book. We can't just toss things because some Wikipedia editors are doing their own WP:OR and don't like what scholars are saying. We just put the scholar's research on the page and show Reader the facts as presented by consensus of modern scholarship. NancyHeise ^talk 19:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is the article stated as incontrovertible fact what was only opinion originating with Anthony Rhodes (see my comments above) Hitler isn't mentioned by name in the document but the article would have had it that he was. Michael Phayer concludes that the encyclical "condemned racism (but not Hitler or National Socialism, as some have erroneously asserted)". Phayer, Michael (2000). The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930-1965. Indiana University Press. ISBN 0-253-21471-8.Taam (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you please provide the page number for your quote in that book? I can only find one mention of Mit Brennender Sorge in that book here [13] and it does not say what you have listed in quotation marks above. Also, we are supposed to use scholarly sources, not pop history written by Michael Phayer who's work has been officially discredited my a major academic journal of history [14]. Wikipedia does not allow us to rely on such sources but rather suggests using sources that have good reviews from such academic journals. NancyHeise ^talk 20:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If you scroll up to page 2 of the link you have for Michael Phayer book you will see the quotation. The subject is his specialist area and in this case it's obvious that what he says is correct - look at the encyclical (it was written for ordinary people) and you will not find a reference to Hitler - it was Rhodes opinion. The main article for the encyclical continues to give Rhodes opinion but for balance gives alternate views like Falconi (used by yourself as a reliable source) who says "so little anti-nazi is it {i.e the encyclical}...even to the point of offering an olive branch to Hitler if he would restore the tranquil prosperity of the Catholic Church in Germany...the very thing to deprive the document of its noble and exemplary intransigence". In the main article we made it clear this was Falconi's opinion and it was only inserted to balance out the out of context quote from Father Bokenkotter of Falconi whereas this article just presented the latter. The link you give to Michael Phayer is not working but if there is criticism of any of his viewpoints then I'm not surprised since this whole area is an apologetics war ground. Indiana University Press give some short reviews of the book in question.[15] One review says "Phayer’s book, particularly strong on German source material, is at pains to list Pius’s strong points his piety, his loathing of Hitler, the instances of personal warmth, the occasions when he criticized Nazism." so he doesn't fit the stereotypical image of a Pius basher. You should inform the academic press that Michael Phayer is not be allowed to be used on Wikipedia, I would like to hear how you get on! Clips from reviews of his latest book are here[16].

I seem to have another problem with a passage from Father Bokenkotter (I think Rhodes is once again the source) that doesn't check out against scholarly works but thats for another day, goodnight. Taam (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Taam, we can't use books with bad reviews in academic journals, period. There is too much history inventiveness out there and it just makes our article incorrect - we use the consensus of historians. This consensus has said that Mit Brennender Sorge called Hitler or the Furer a "mad and arrogant prophet". Some say it condemned Nazi leadership. Whichever source you choose the bottom line is that consensus agrees the Church condemned the Nazi leadership - that is what the article says. The fact that the Church pointed out to the Nazi's a way toward better relations does not negate the fact that they condemned the Nazi leadership and their ideology - and they did so from every pulpit in Germany before the start of WWII. How can we be asked to eliminate this major fact? NancyHeise ^talk 20:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

PS, I can't get the link to Cambridge's Journal of Ecclesiastical History to work again either, perhaps because it is a PDF file, not sure. However, here is the New Oxford Review's official book review of Michael Phayer's The Church and the Holocaust and they say the same things.[17] Please do not allow yourself to be misled by pop history, it hurts relations between Catholics and Jews, not a good thing for anyone. NancyHeise ^talk 21:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The article stated as fact that Hitler was called a "mad prophet" whereas any reader can quickly check on-line that this ain't so, it was Anthony Rhodes opinion. Indeed using one of your own reliable sources the encyclical is not described as anti-nazi. My opinion is that if Hitler as "mad prophet" stayed in then it should be clearly marked as opinion/interpretation and not presented as incontrovertible fact then also include Falconi assertion that (in his opinion) it offers an olive branch to Hitler if he would restore the tranquil prosperity of the Church. Now getting onto Michael Phayer. He only repeats what is obvious to the reader of the encyclical and what Falconi confirms as well. There is no intention in my part of using Phayer or any other of the current crop of scholars who are embroiled in the Pius wars and their opinions of what Pius was or wasn't- that's best left to detailed articles. As I warned you above this whole area is a war-field of polemics. Jospeh Bottom in First Things magazines[18] calls it the Pius Wars being battled out in article reviews. The link you give to a review certainly imo comes under this heading. As the First Things article calls the situation: " “Whack the Mole,” with dozens of reviewers ready to smash their mallets down on the next author to stick up his head...Relatively mild efforts to praise the Pope (such as José Sánchez’s Pius XII and the Holocaust in 2002), like relatively mild criticism (such as Martin Rhonheimer’s November 2003 essay in [First Things->www.firstthings.com]), are as clueless about the situation in which they appear as the proverbial visitors from Mars. Indeed, there is something willful and maddening in their tone of Olympian detachment. In a world of imbalance, what but pressure on the other side can restore the balance that a true scholar is supposed to love?" All this is off topic since the article should not be presenting any of these theories imo and it has nothing to do with the point raised. Now getting back to the article and the point I alluded to in the previous post. The article states that after MSB was published "Nazi reprisals against the Church in Germany followed thereafter, including "staged prosecutions of monks for homosexuality, with the maximum of publicity". Now the extract you post above gives more details by saying it relates the Koblenz Franciscan trial. All the scholarly sources I can find say that the Koblenz trial took place in 1936 i.e before MSB was issued (some think the encyclical contains a mild allusion to it) and whilst it's inclusion in the article seems to add dramatic effect relating to the Nazi response to the encyclical it seems out of step with other sources (including near contemporary catholic scholarly treatments). I think you said you had Rhodes book which Father Thomas might be using, could you confirm what Rhodes says and if he gives more details to avoid having to put in an alternative point of view. Also is it possible that a separate page could be set up to put all your useful excerpts from books so we can refer thus making these threads more readable? Taam (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

POV

Does the following part of the history section strike anyone else as pro-CC POV?

By spreading Catholic Christianity it has battled, and in certain cases eventually ended, practices such as human sacrifice, slavery, infanticide, and polygamy, within evangelized cultures beginning with the Roman Empire.

The tone could be summed up as 'the Catholic Church, aren't we great!' :-)

There are also a number of more specific problems:

1. why is it necessary to add the word Catholic to Christianity to describe the Church's mission?

2. 'battled' implies the things listed are intrinsically 'evil' rather than facts of history shaped by social and economic forces. It is POV to imply for e.g. that polygamy is something to be 'battled'. Similarly, human sacrifice in many pre-Christian religions was seen as necessary, including by its 'victims'.

3. 'in certain cases eventually ended' seems deliberately vague, unreferenced and unhistorical. The fusion of the Church with the Roman state in the fourth century certainly did not lead to the end of slavery whatever the later record of the Church. Wikipedia should reflect this mixed picture rather than present a one-sided one.

Haldraper (talk) 09:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree here. This appears to be promoting a POV. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it is written from the pov of how the Roman Catholic Church sees itself. This is to be expected on apologetics sites but not in wikipedia. In my experience its very difficult to get this point over to editors who are overtly Catholic and think they have a mission to enforce their version of truth on all others. If you see my trail of comments on the Slavery talk page you might understand the nature of the problem. Taam (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is the juxtaposition of three ideas in a causal relationship in a way that pmits some of the nuances. The three ideas are: "The Church spread Catholicism", "it opposed evil practices" and "those evil practices ended in part due to the influence of Christianity".

First of all, the idea being presented here is common to all Christian mission efforts, not just Catholic ones and the sentence does not reflect that. Secondly, even if the sentence did reflect this, it would suggest that Buddhism and Islam did not have similar salutary effects as they spread. Also, the sentence emphasizes positive aspects of the Church while ignoring negative ones such as its failure to oppose serfdom in Europe and slavery in the United States.

While it is true that the Church opposed these "evil practices" everywhere that it conducted missionary efforts, it was not their primary mission to accomplish the end of these "evil practices". The primary objective was to spread the faith, ending the "evil practices" was an ancillary objective and result. The use of "by spreading Christianity...it battled" conjunction suggests this and so we should seek ways to weaken the suggestion.

It's also inaccurate to say that "(the Church) ended them". In general, it was not "the Church" that ended the practice but rather the civil authority which was influenced by the views of the Church. This may seem like a picky point but the sentence as written suggests that the Church actually did something official to end the practices.

It would be reasonable to say "As the Church spread Christianity through its missionary efforts, it opposed practices such as human sacrifice, slavery, etc. and in some cases helped to bring an end to them."

--Richard (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard, your version is more temperate, i.e lacking the crusading language used presently in the article. However the points Haldraper raised still need to be attended to. There is no R.C scholar that I am aware of (who is a specialist in this area) has ever taught that slavery was considered an intrinsic evil because it goes right against Church teaching and a number of Papal bulls that explicitly state otherwise. The article seriously misleads in this respect. Another point Haldraper brought up regarding human sacrifice is also important. He is, perhaps unwittingly, echoing Bartolomé de las Casas, the famous priest who defended Indian rights against the invaders from his own country. Las Casas pointed out the hypocrisy of those who condemned these human sacrifices as a great intrinsic evil, that robbed those who had practised it in the past of any future human rights, by pointing out to the Spanish and Romans their own cultural background in this area -- they were in no position to condemn anyone as evil. Indeed he pointed out that those who had made such sacrifices, thinking it was pleasing to God, did not do evil, and as Haldraper also points out we also have records of missionaries describing how Indians went joyfully as a sacrifice for their people and with the expectation of being with God. Taam (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The word "battled" does not imply "intrinsic evil". If Party A and Party B fight against each other, you can say that Party A battled Party B or Party B battled Party A, without even knowing the cause. Whether "battle" fits within the context of the article at the discussed section is one thing, but you're reading more into a word than is there. It would be appropriate to say that the Church fought against X (polygamy, human sacrifice, infanticide or whatever the issue is), and you can just as easily say battled, especially in the context of certain causes that did, in fact, involve actual armed conflict. This discussion is also smacking of relativism. I'm going out on a limb here and will say that things like infanticide and human sacrifice, generally speaking, are not good things. But that debate is not even necessary, frankly, since the article doesn't say "ended the evil practices of...". It says "battled, and in certain cases eventually ended, practices such as...". That is not POV. Some editors seem to be confusing the term by essentially arguing: Hey, saying the Church had a hand in the end to infanticide implies something positive, so it's POV. Please read what WP:POV is before using the term in a context beyond what it actually means.--anietor (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree because the article doesn't qualify "battled" slavery so the detached reader assumes that slavery has never been condoned, i.e intrinsically evil in all circumstances. Also your bring up "relativism" seems to be another example of R.C editors who cannot seem to understand this is not the New Advent web site, nor "The Catholic Encyclopedia", nor "Catholic Answers". Whatever your beliefs are they should be kept out of Wikipedia save those pages that are there to explain the R.C point of view. Taam (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Taam, I actually had in mind the bodies of sacrificed Bronze and Iron Age people that have been found preserved in peat throughout Northern Europe. However your point about South America is equally valid.

Anietor, your comment is pedantic: 'battled' in a sentence on the Church's contribution to culture does put a positive spin on the Church's actions. You also take a suprahistorical view of human sacrifice that ignores the fact that its 'victims' accepted the necessity of such rituals (as well as ignoring the human sacrifice central to your religion). Equally, infanticide has not been viewed in the same way throughout all cultures in history: as I said, there are also economic and social factors to take into account. The POV is not as you suggest because the Church's actions are positive but that you assume they are because of your Catholic POV. Neither do you answer either of my points about the basic historial inaccuracy of implying that the Church opposed slavery in the late Roman Empire or why it is necessary to put the word 'Catholic' in front of 'Christianity'.Haldraper (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentence being questioned and framed as POV is actually not POV. It is what the represented scholars are saying about the Church - not what individual Wikipedia editors are saying. We just placed this information into the article because it reflects modern scholarship. We can't omit it because some people dont like what is said. NancyHeise ^talk 18:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Haldraper, A Jesuit scholar quotes an instruction from Pius IX issued 20 June 1866:

“Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons.... It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given”.

Pius IX, J.F.MAXWELL, ‘The Development of Catholic Doctrine Concerning Slavery’, World Jurist 11 (1969-70) pp.306-307..quoted by Michael Stogre in his book "That the world may believe: the development of Papal social thought on aboriginal rights", p. 124, ISBN 2890395499 Taam (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And once again, you are taking out of context, magnifying and distorting a discussion. This [19] is what Pius was discussing, he was not advocating slavery. NancyHeise ^talk 20:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly I made no mention of advocacy. What is it you feel I'm taking out of context? I'm simply quoting directly from a source. Looking at the article you link to there is no mention that I can see of the Pius quotation. I am aware of the Church's attitude towards slavery that's why I thought the article grossly misrepresented its view. There has never been an blanket condemnation by a Pope (without getting involved in the internecine disputes about JP2 comments in more recent years) of all forms of slavery for the very good reason that it was sanctioned in various forms and times by the Popes in the past. If by chance you are alluding to editing the "Cultural Influences" section to present a more nuanced view of what the Church has taught and practiced then I'm with you on that, that's the point we have been trying to get over. Taam (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to charges of WP:NPOV violation in cultural influences section

Because the discussion immediately above questions the cultural influences section, I thought it might be helpful to copy and paste the answer to this very same question at the last FAC.

• Most significant was its role in the spread of the Christian religion throughout the world, a process which ended practices like human sacrifice, slavery, infanticide and polygamy in Christian lands. Historians note that Catholic missionaries, popes, laymen and religious were among the leaders in the campaign against slavery, an institution that has existed in almost every culture. Christianity improved the status of women by condemning infanticide (female infanticide was more common), divorce, incest, polygamy and marital infidelity of both men and women in contrast to the evangelized cultures beginning with the Roman Empire that previously permitted these practices.

This quote comes from the Cultural Influence section of the article. It is referenced to seven scholarly works. Listed below.

• Kohl, Infanticide and the Value of Life (1978), p. 61, Contribution entitled Infanticide: an anthropological analysis by L Williamson, quote: "Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunter gatherers to high civilizations, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule."
• Thomas Bokenkotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church university textbook for decades here's one [20], another [21], another [22] another [23] another [24] p. 56 "Roman law allowed abortion, imposed no criminal penalty for abandonment of a child, and even permitted infanticide. It was only through Christian influence that these crimes were eventually outlawed. Divorce was consistently condemned by the Church, in keeping with its absolute prohibition by Jesus."
• Owen Chadwick, A History of Christianity Barnes and Noble reprint p. 242 "During most of the Middle Ages the work of freeing slaves by ransom was regarded as a good work; and orders of monks, such as the Mercedarians, were founded to win liberty for slaves. ...The leaders in the campaign against slavery were of five kinds: the intellectuals of the Enlightenment; the more humane of the American and French revolutionaries; Catholic missionaries in the Americas (the Jesuits never allowed slaves in their settlements); some radical Christians such as the Quakers..., and devout English evangelicals let by the parliamentarian William Wilberforce. Britain did not finally abolish slavery itself until 1833."
• Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners Yale University Press p. 221, "Gregory had a low opinion of the effects of state patronage in the Americas and the Far East. He condemned slavery and the slave trade in 1839, and backed Propaganda's campaign for the ordination of native clergy, in the face of Portugese racism. His disapproval of the Portugese misuse of the padroado (crown control of the Church) went further."
• Mark Noll, The Civil War as a Theological Crisis University of North Carolina Press (book review from The Journal of American History here [25] p. 137 "Cochins main concern however was to present a detailed defense of the Catholic Church as working throughout the centuries to apply 'abolute principles' of Scripture that defined "the equality of men before God, the lawfulness of wages, the unity and the brotherhood of the human race," the duties of mutual love to neighbors and the Golden Rule. Cochin put into the present tense what he claimed the leaders of the Catholic Church had always done: "Occupied moreover, before everything the enfranchisement of souls, they seek to make of the master and the slave, two brethren on earth, and of these brethren, two saints in heaven. To those who suffer they say 'Wait!' to those who inflict suffering, 'Tremble!'"
• Noble, Western Civilization the Continuing Experimenthas numerous authors who are profiled here [26] and is a university textbook here's where it is listed by a Cornell Univ. professor [27] p. 446, "The most chilling tribute, however, was in humans for sacrifice. When the wars of expansion that had provided prisoners came to an end, the Aztecs and their neighbors fought 'flower wars'—highly ritualized battles to provide prisoners to be sacrificed. Five thousand victims were sacrificed at the coronation of Moctezuma II (r. 1502–20) in 1502. Even more, reportedly twenty thousand were sacrificed at the dedication of the great temple of Huitzilopochtli in Tenochtitlan." p. 456, quote "The peoples living in the Valley of Mexico believed that their conquest was fated by the gods and that their new masters would bring in new gods. The Spaniards' beliefs were strikingly similar, based on the revelation of divine will and the omnipotence of the Christian God. Cortes, by whitewashing former Aztec temples and converting native priests into white-clad Christian priests, was in a way fulfilling the Aztecs' expectations about their conquerer." "
• Noble, Western Civilization the Continuing Experiment has numerous authors who are profiled here [28] and is a university textbook here's where it is listed by a Cornell Univ. professor [29] p. 230, "Women's lives were not as well known as men's. 'Nature produced women for this very purpose.' says a Roman legal text, 'that they might bear children and this is their greatest desire.' Ancient philosophy held that women were intellectually inferior to men, science said they were physically weaker, and law maintained that they were naturally dependent. In the Roman world women could not enter professions, and they had limited rights in legal matters. Christianity offered women opposing models... Eve.. and Mary...Christianity brought some interesting changes in marriage practices. Since the new faith prized virginity and celibacy, women now had the option of declining marriage. ...Christianity required both men and women to be faithful in marriage, whereas Roman custom had permitted men, but not women, to have lovers, prostitutes, and concubines. Christianity disproved of divorce, which may have accorded women greater financial and social security, although at the cost of staying with abusive or unloved husbands. Traditionally women were not permitted to teach in the ancient world, although we do hear of women teachers such as Hypathia of Alexandria (355-415).... Some Christian women were formidably learned. Until at least the sixth century the Christian church had deaconesses who had important responsibilities in the instruction of women and girls. Medical knowledge was often the preserve of women, particularly in the areas such as childbirth, sexual problems, and "female complaints." Christianity also affected daily life. Churchmen were concerned that women not be seen as sex objects. They told women to clothe their flesh, veil their hair..Pious women no longer used public baths and latrines. Male or female, Christians thought and lived in distinctive new ways. All Christians were sinners, and so all were equal in God's eyes and equally in need of God's grace. Neither birth, wealth, nor status was supposed to matter in this democracy of sin. Theological equality did not, however translate into social equality....Thus in some ways Christianity produced a society the likes of which the ancient world had never known, a society in which the living and the dead jockeyed for a place in a heirarchy that was at once earthly and celestial....Strictly speaking, catholic Christianity would be the one form professed by all believers. A fifth century writer said that the catholic faith was the one believed 'everywhere, all the time, by everyone.' It is no accident that the Catholic Church grew up in a Roman world steeped in ideas of universality. The most deeply held tenet of Roman ideology was that Rome's mission was to civilize the world and bend it to Roman ways."
• Rodney Stark, professor of Social Sciences at Baylor University The Rise of Christianity, Princeton University Press p. 96 "Because infanticide was outlawed, and because women were more likely than men to convert, among Christians there were soon far more women than men, while among pagans, men far outnumbered women. p. 102 "In Athens, women were in relatively short supply owing to female infanticide, practiced by all classes, and to additional deaths caused by abortion. The status of Athenian women was very low. Girls received little or no education. Typically Athenian females were married at puberty and often before. Under Athenian law, a woman was classified as a child regardless of age, and therefore was the legal property of some man at all stages in her life. Males could divorce by simply ordering a wife out of the household. Moreover if a woman was seduced or raped her husband was legally compelled to divorce her. If a woman wanted to have a divorce, she had to have her father or some other man bring her case before a judge. Finally, Athenian women could own property but control of the property was always vested in the male to whom she 'belonged'." p. 103 "Although I begin this chapter with the assertion that Christian women did indeed enjoy considerably greater status than pagan women, this needs to be demonstrated at greater length. The discussion will focus on two primary aspects of female status: within the family and within the religious community." p. 106 "These differences are highly significant statistically. But they seem of even greater social significance when we discover that not only were a substantial number of pagan Roman girls married before the onset of puberty, to a man far older than themselves, but these marriages typically were consummated at once."

It is difficult for me to understand why some editors want to eliminate representation of these serious facts regarding cultural influences of the Catholic Church. It is nice to note that other religions and denominations have also had cultural influences but the article is not about those other religions and denominations, it is about the Catholic Church. What is POV about this? The article never passes judgement saying any practice was bad or good, it just notes the practice that scholars say was changed by the influence of the Church. Obviously, a great many sources make note of this significant fact and we should not be asked to hide it. NancyHeise ^talk 18:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to add some more info from the last FAC that supports this cultural influences section: "Some excerpts from Thomas Bokenkotter's A Concise History of the Catholic Church which has been a university textbook for decades. Regarding the Church impact upon Medieval culture and society he writes:

"Bishops, priests, monks, friars, nuns, they were by and large the most educated, the most cultivated, and the most respected members of medieval society during the period of the Church's ascendency, and they constituted a much larger percentage of the population than they do today. Their large numbers enabled the Church to dedicate itself to a wide range of social services, constituting a kind of Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The Church's care for the unfortunates was concentrated in its hospitals, which at the time were not restricted to care for the sick but ministered to all kinds of needy persons."

"In comparison with the Eastern Christians, whose stand against war was generally consistent, Western Christendom appears much less enlightened. The barbarian invasions and the conditions of feudal society made war a constant fact of life; ecclesiastics tried to channel this bellicose energy for the Church's own purposes. Holy war in the service of the Church was regarded as permissible and even desirable. Popes even led armies into battle and ranked the victims of a holy war as martyrs....A series of Church councils followed in France, which prescribed oaths to be taken by the nobility to limit their war-making propensities."

"There is no doubt, however, that the Crusades contributed much to the developements of the time: the rise of commerce and towns, the growing sense of nationality, the expansion of intellectual horizons, and the increase in the prestige of the papacy. But in none of these instances was the influence decisive. The taste for Eastern spices, silk, and metalware, for instance, was already stimulated by a trade that was growing independently of the Crusades; the crusaders' effect on the rise of commerce was not as crucial as is sometimes supported. Probably their most important effect was to retard the Turkish advance into the Balkans for three hundred years."

"As we can see from this brief survey, the Church's impact on medieval society was profound. In every department of life one found the Church present. Under the leadership of the Popes, the priests, monks, friars, and nuns who were the spiritual elite of medieval society labored steadily to instill faith in the illiterate masses, to give them at least a glimpse of truth and goodness beyond the grim facts of their narrowly circumscribed lives. ....And one can agree with the conclusion of a recent study by Francis Oakley, '...For whatever its barbarisms, its corruptions, its malformations, whatever its evasions and dishonesties, in the medieval church men and women still contrived, it would seem, to encounter the Gospel."

In that last paragraph, Bokenkotter is quoting Francis Oakley from his book The Medieval Experience, Foundations of Western Cultural Singularity published by University of Toronto Press. The actual quote and book are here [30] as you can see, the full statement Francis Oakley is making is that the Medieval Experience profoundly shaped our modern Western culture and the Church was the main driving force. NancyHeise ^talk 18:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no objection in principle from me in having a "Cultural Influence" section, it is the content and presentation that is of concern. I do however lean towards integrating much of the material into the main article text in an historical context, e.g the patronage of music and art set within it's socio-political period - what was in the air so to speak. Now all the material you have copied here I think gets to the heart of the matter: synthesis, interpolation and lack of balance. Please note that the text pasted at the beginning of this section is from the time when the article was a featured candidate, and the differences to the current text. Unless I'm missing something none of these sources indicate, the way the article now does, that the Church was always against slavery - it's much more complex. According to Saint Augustine the Church followed the Roman way in marriage, i.e monogamy, whereas the article suggests otherwise. Also the issue of human sacrifice is dealt with too simplistically and to the average reader seems to demonize people without giving the context of such deeds and how they relate to the concept of human sacrifice in, for example, Christianity. Also little things added like "Roman Empire" suggests that Romans in the Christian era condoned such a thing. Taam (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The most significant and notable facts are included per the Church and slavery in the history section. The cultural influences section is accurate and not misleading, it never says that the church was always against slavery, it says what the scholars say, that popes, religiuos and laymen were leaders in the campaigns against slavery and that church influence was a key ingredient that eventually ended the practice. I have difficulty working with you because you are asking us to omit these facts and insert minutia. Also please provide a link to the source supporting your assertion that the Church followed the Roman way in marriage. I have already provided the sources that say otherwise above. NancyHeise ^talk 20:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It does indeed mention Dum Diversas but what you have to remember is that in a very long article such as this people read sections and one of the problems of having a "Cultural Influence" set apart from the rest of the text is that it is prone to loading one way or other pov. In this case such a summary section has to be subject to very careful editing when it's trying to give an overview. At present it doesn't succeed. Just another point to note on balance. The article states the following:

"When some Europeans questioned whether the Indians were truly human and worthy of baptism, Pope Paul III in the 1537 bull Sublimis Deus confirmed that "their souls were as immortal as those of Europeans" and they should neither be robbed nor turned into slaves."

Now if you go to that articles page Sublimis Deus you will see how the executing brief for the bull was withdrawn the next year by the Pope and this is not a trivial omission. Paul III also repealed laws that allowed slaves to go free, see his article. Popes also owned slaves, see articles for the 15th century Popes: Pope Martin V, Innocent VIII. I suggest we delete the synthesis and interpolated material at the beginning and make it into distinct sentences or paragraphs that are good approximations of what the individual source says so that we can add wherever needed any required counterview. So I'm not suggesting deleting good solid info that is supported by scholarly work but only to clearly identify the source, the issue, and if needs be add alternate scholarly opinion. Taam (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed one of your points regarding monogamy and the Church following the Roman way. On doing a quick google search Augustine is quoted by a R.C scholar[31] as follows:"Now indeed in our time and in keeping with Roman custom," says Augustine, "it is no longer allowed to take another wife, so as to have more than one wife". Unfortunately its only a snippet view at this link.[32] If you want to check out monogamy then I suggest doing a google book search for the term along with "Ancient Rome" and hopefully that should give you plenty of scholarly refs.Taam (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think your approach to slavery is unacademic. I say this because the scholars do not treat it that way, our aritcle emulates information by the prominence it receives from the scholarly sources. None of them note the information you are taking from Wikipedia pages that have not been checked for sources. The fact that popes may have owned slaves is irrelevent to the paragraph in the article on the history of the New World. If you want to insert a fact stating the some popes may have owned slaves, you may want to insert the fact that slavery was practiced everywhere and by everyone except Christian Europe, a Europe that was Christianized by the Catholic Church, a Christian Europe which was the driving force in eventually eliminating the practice worldwide. That would be representative information but you want us to magnify unsourced statements from Wikipedia pages or from sources that have been denounced in the academic community as unreliable. None of the sources we have used in the article have received bad reviews by any academic journal, please do not ask me to use such sources as they invite charges of WP:NPOV violations. Please also note that the Catholic historians you have objected to are those whose books have zero bad reviews and are the most oft cited on google scholar and/or most often used by universities as textbooks - meeting the highest standards suggested by WP:reliable source examplesNancyHeise ^talk 20:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the executive brief of "Sublimus Dei" being annulled the following year please see this link to a Jesuit scholar work[33] (p. 86 & 91) basically it removed the penalties for those who did not follow the teaching that this article states regarding "Sublimus Dei". For a ref to Pope Innocent VIII owning slaves see Rodney Stark book (who you already use as a top notch academic source) "For the glory of God", p. 330, Princeton University Press, 2003, ISBN 0691114366. Incidentally it's extremely odd that Stark lists the anti-slavery papal texts and criticizes Protestant historians for not highlighting in the past Sublimus Dei yet he then goes on to ignore the pro-slavery texts as well as omitting to mention the doubts raised by other scholars over SD's status. As for Pope Martin owning slaves you can try google books but using the cite in the article it traces to V. B Thompson[34] and his book "The Making of the African Diaspora in the Americas 1440-1900", Longmans, p. 78, ISBN 0582642388. The point of the Pope owning slaves and also the mention of bulls relating to slavery was for your benefit to show that what was in the cultural influence section was too simplistic-idealistic and encouragement to revise it. Taam (talk) 06:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Slavery question

I just want to add this quote from Professor Edward Norman's The Roman Catholic Church regarding slavery which we have omitted from the article as yet. I am not sure I want it omitted. From page 67 "Today, a markedly uncritical attitude to Moorish Spain seems prevalent. It derives, however, almost wholly from artistic and cultural judgement. The political and social arrangements of the Moors are generally ignored by the modern enthusiasts, for Moorish Spain comprised a series of autocracies which completely failed to develop anything like the representative institutions, the judicial system, or the concepts of individual liberty that evolved in medieval Europe. It was, additionally, a slave society, with a slave economy. All those placid courtyards and sparkling fountains, that poetry and art, rested upon the existence of one of the largest slave populations the world has ever seen. In the absence of any doctrine of individual rights, the slaves of the Moors were also subject to infelicitous indignities: at the court of Cordova in the tenth century, at the very height of that great city's most astonishing artistic accomplishments, the Emir maintained a palace harem of 6000 women and 13,000 young boys. It is not surprising that Spanish Christians found Moorish moral standards defective, nor that they should have sought what is now termed as regime change."

As per the quote above, I think what makes the article currently anti-Catholic POV is the omission of what life was like for people before the Church came along. The Cultural influences section devotes a couple of sentences to offset that omission in the most mundane and humble way. I am not going to be in favor of eliminating this completely as it will make the article represent a completely anti-Catholic POV. WP:NPOV invites us to list both accomplishments and failures. These are currently both represented, please do not ask us to eliminate the accomplishments. NancyHeise ^talk 19:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again, anyone who wants to improve the article is now "anti-catholic", with every respect I cannot begin to imagine how you could in truth assert this looking at the current state of the article. If you want to really extend this section to give a broad and balanced survey of cultural influence then we can cover also the burning of heretics, the suppression of paganism etc. which I think should be treated.Taam (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not call anyone anti Catholic, I called the article semi anti-Catholic POV because it condenses, I think too much, the accomplishments of the Church in Cultural Influences section. Burning of heretics and suppression of paganism are covered. See Inquisitions section which is also wikilinked with a main link to Criticism of the Catholic Church. Suppression of paganism is not called suppression because scholars do not call it that either, that is what anti-Catholic propaganda calls it. We would have used the term too if scholars had done so. NancyHeise ^talk 20:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The anti-catholic or anti-christian talk has cropped up before and it seems to be like a hint to editors to keep away who are only seeking accuracy and balance. For suppression of paganism see "Decline and fall of the Roman city", John Hugo Wolfgang, Gideon Liebeschuetz, Oxford University Press, 2003, p. 143, ISBN 0199261091. Ramsay MacMullen in "Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries" Yale University Press, ISBN 0300080778 - the whole book treats this subject from the opening chapter "Persecution" through to "assimilation". The Jesuit scholar Cardinal Avery Dulles also uses the term.[35] There are other books I can give you that describe how that which could not be suppressed was "assimilated". If you are interested in the interplay between the Church and the State then "Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance", H. A Drake, John Hopkins University Press, ISBN 0-8018-7104-2. I don't understand how you can say such material is anti-catholic. It seems the definition you apply is "if does not conform to my perfect ideal of the Church" it's anti-catholic propaganda. Maybe my eyes are too weary but could you paste here the passage that you feel deals with "suppression of paganism" when the Church came to power and also the section dealing with the suppression of non-conforming Church's. Taam (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A sort of related point is the apparent desire to exculpate the Church from the excesses of the Inquisition by asserting that the Church executed very few people because it was, in fact, the civil authorities who performed the executions after the Church had turned over the accused to them. There seems to be a desire in this article to attribute to the Church the positive actions that it has been associated with while attributing to the civil authorities and others not representing the Church proper those negative actions that some might wish to blame it for. It is certainly not black-and-white. The Church is not guilty of all that it has been blamed for but neither is it completely innocent. The Church has accomplished good things but with some qualification. I would like to see a more balanced treatment that neither vilifies nor glorifies the Church. --Richard (talk) 06:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Church (Popes & ecumenical councils) authorized the execution of heretics by burning at the stake & the torture of people to get them to confess, & its procedures presumed people guilty until proven innocent. I can give you citations from the New Catholic Encyclopedia for all this if you wnt. Peter jackson (talk) 10:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard, you sum up succinctly my own thoughts. Peter, please bring forth such material so we can introduce balance to the article. Taam (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Taam. Your idea of "balance" seems to be skewed. Nancy was saying that this article could be considered anti-catholic if it did not portray a fully balanced viewpoint. Yet Taam and some others object to certain historians and views as "pro-Catholic", and hence unreliable. However they simultaneously object to other editors stating that certain historians can be demonstrably anti-Catholic in their outlook. This is an illogical position to hold. It is almost as if I were to say that we cannot trust any history of the USA written by an American citizen, and that the only reliable sources for US history are those written by non-Americans, including Soviet and Arab fundamentalist sources.

I don't know how you could reach this conclusion if you had carefully read what has been written. It seems more like an attempted provocation in the absence of reasoned discourse. The section is/was highly misleading through synthesis, interpolation and lack of balance - this is a hazard when creating a section in which contrary views have to be shown. As another editor hinted, it seemed to be an idealization of the Church battling and triumphing over all these evil people. My concerns remain, i.e the section should be broken up into distinct fragments with the scholarly source cited with each clip so that if there is an alternative scholarly opinion it can be inserted to provide balance. Taam (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard, the article doesn't actually use the inquisition "defence" that you suggest it does. The argument that the Church executed no-one because the convicted were handed over to the secular authorities, (who executed them under civil law,) is sometimes made, but doesn't actually appear in this article. This article does state, however, that organisations like the Spanish Inquisition were not run by the Church but set up and controlled by secular rulers, who used them to impose their own policies. This is acknowledged fact, and needs to appear in any discussion of the "inquisitions".

Peter jackson, your statement above presents certain facts and claims, but presents them crudely and in the lack of their proper context. Making bald statements like that is therefore a negative form of POV. "Guilty until proven innocent" is to my mind a serious twisting of the forms of inquisitorial justice developed in both civil and religious cases in the 12th-13th century. These forms replaced trial by ordeal, and developed to form the basis of most European judicial systems today. Talk of torture and burning again spreads more heat than light unless the context and detail of these things are presented. It is a bit like saying the Allies attacked Normandy in 1944 killing huge numbers of people, without explaining what led up to it. In the case of execution of persistent and radical heretics, most states (Catholic, non-Catholic and non-Christian) considered it a necessity to prevent civil strife and foreign intervention. These are all facts that need to be included to present a proper rather than a caricatured or propagandistic picture. Xandar 11:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

‘Talk of torture and burning again spreads more heat than light’. And not just' the talk, various witches and heretics may well have noted. Still, a joke’s a joke and a rare and a good thing on this page. Thank you for making my day brighter. Ian Spackman (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to ask Richard, Peter Jackson and Taam to include statements from reliable scholarly sources that support the assertions they want to see in the article. It has happened in the past that we are charged with POV for simply relaying information as presented by scholars. People read it and are surprised because it doesnt fit their personal view of the Church, a view which may have been formed by "pop" history books by authors denounced by the major academic journals. I have had to provide from time to time, links to these reviews in order to vet out the pop history and stick to the actual academic history. The statments made about the inquisitions in the article are from actual academic sources. The sources also make mention of excessive Protestant propaganda that for hundreds of years exaggerated the abuses of the inquisitions in order to demonize the Catholic Church. Please be careful when you request information to be included and check your sources to make sure they are not pop history. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 20:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me first make clear that I'm not saying anything about what I "want to see in the article". I don't edit articles or directly advocate or oppose edits. I merely make comments, which may of course tend to support or oppose edits that others have made or suggested, or may even make suggestions myself, without actually advocating them. If there's any sort of vote, I won't take part. Now, to respond to Taam's request, I'll give the citations from NCE. Note that there's an old, common-sense rule of evidence that admissions people make against themselves are particularly worthy of credence. Thus admissions against the Church in Catholic sources are ipso facto reliable. The excuses offered in the same sources would look better if backed up by non-Catholic sources. The quotations here are from the 2nd edition.

vol 14, page 118: "In 1252 Innocent IV sanctioned the infliction of torture ...

He was not ... presumed innocent until convicted. ... on the contrary, a credible accusation established a presumption of guilt.""

vol 3, page 86: "In 1184 Pope Lucius III issued the decretal Ad abolendam ... that opened the way for the use of capital punishment as the standard remedy for dealing with realcitrant heretics ..."

page 87: "... Canon 3 of the Fourth LATERAN COUNCIL in 1215, endorsing as official policy henceforth that heretics were to be handed over to the secular power for punishment ... Sixteen years later, Pope Gregory IX in his constitution, Excommunicamus (1231) incorporated into canon law the 1224 imperial constitution of Frederick II, including burning at the stake by the secular arm as the appropriate punishment for a recalcitrant heretic.

vol 7, page 487: 2nd Lateran Council required secular rulers to prosecute heresy

page 488: Ad extirpanda authorized secular courts in Italy to torture people into confessing to heresy

Those snippets and part-sentences are of no practical use, since there is no context whatsoever. This is going back to "...the allies invaded Normandy in 1944, killing many tens of thousands of innocent people..." WIthout the context such a snippet is useless as a source. Xandar 21:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's true that policy is to understand things in context. Nevertheless, that doesn't invalidate the statements themselves. Most of them are straightforward factual statements about Church documents & can be easily verified. I'll leave it to others to argue amongst themselves about how to contextualize this in the article itself. I might also ask how much context has been quoted for anything else said in the article.

Now, having responded to Taam's request for citations, I'll return to the official topic of the section, slavery.

Macmillan Encyclopedia of World Slavery, 1998, volume 1, page 190: "... in Spain in 1823, the authorities had put on the Index a theological handbook for confessors that condemned slavery.

page 191: "... Leo XIII, became the first pontiff to publicly condemn not only slave trading but the institution itself, in his encyclical Catholica Ecclesia (1890)."

A Historical Guide to World Slavery, ed Seymour Drescher & Stanlet L. Engerman, Oxford University Press, 1998, page 152: "The Roman Catholic church's influence served to ameliorate the treatment of those African slaves, although apparently not as much as historians once believed."

Peter jackson (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to add the observation of the Jesuit scholar Avery Dulles "No Father or Doctor of the Church, so far as I can judge, was an unqualified abolitionist. No pope or council ever made a sweeping condemnation of slavery as such. But they constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources."[36] The second sentence seems reasonable to me in that if a Pope did issue a blanket condemnation of slavery, because it was intrinsically evil, then it means contradicting the words of other Popes. The third sentence is more problematic because of the 15th century Papal bulls which sanction the overthrow and enslavement of peoples and these are not mentioned in the article. Taam (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Official Name of the Catholic Church

If everyone is concerned about the "Official" name of the Roman Catholic Church, why not just ask the Roman Catholic Church? Certainly, you could contact the Holy See's representative in Washington D.C., or just go to the Vatican's website and send an email. Just a suggestion. But as a faithful member, I've always thought, "Holy Roman Catholic Church," but that's 10 years of Catholic School, and an impassioned 7th grade religion teacher, Sister Mary Francis, talking. And what "Sister Says" is never wrong.Malke 2010 (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The ambiguity for me (based on the rename here) is not just the name, but what it refers to in compound terms. The only real way would be to ask the pope - and I don't have an appointment this week. I will type more later tonight. History2007 (talk) 07:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL, yes, I'm sure the Holy Father's number is unlisted. But I have always had the Holy Roman Catholic Church in my head as the proper name as I'm sure millions of other Catholic school children did back then and even today. And I don't agree that Catholic Church is the proper title. I think at least it's Roman Catholic Church to delineate it from the Anglican Catholic Church, for example. They call themelves Anglican Catholics, so not using the Roman Catholic Church can lead to confusion.Malke 2010 (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Pope's phone number is well known: VAT 69.

But do you think the Pope answers when the phone rings?Malke 2010 (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, I don't think the Church has a name, because it considers itself the one true church & therefore doesn't need a name to distinguish itself from other churches. It's just "the church". Peter jackson (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The proper or "official" name of the Church is that which it uses in its core documents, and pronouncements such as the Codes of Canon Law, the Documents of Vatican II, the names of Episcopal conferences, the Catechism of the Catholic Church etc. There is a clue in the last example. If you are that interested, Malke 2010, there are six lengthy pages of discussion around this topic in the archives of this page and in the recent mediation. That mediation has now concluded. This page is for talk on improvements to the article, and not for abstract discussion of things like official names. Xandar 10:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

For reasons given elsewhere on this page I think the article name change was wrong. Peter does actually allude to a truism - the commonest name she gives herself in documents is "the Church", i.e all embracing. The point is Wikipedia is not the "Catholic Encyclopedia" and should not be in the business of pushing forward any groups ideology. The Encyclopedia Britannica article is titled "Roman Catholicism" and the only criticism I have ever read against them is that they were pro-catholic Church after the 11th edition in view of the commercial impact on their business if the Church faithful turned away from them and stopped buying the books. Taam (talk) 10:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You have said this about ten times now on this page. The issue has been dealt with in accord with long-term Wikipedia guidelines on naming. Your belief in forcing on this Church (and only this church) a name of your preference is immaterial. You seem to hold some deep-seated belief that anyone who has anything favourable to say about the Church is pro-Catholic and influenced by malign pressures. I think that says more about you than the Encyclopedia Britannica or anyone else. Give it a rest. Xandar 11:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It is Encylopedia Britannica I am using as a reference along with Encarta, along with the OED, along with at least another dozen reference encyclopaedias and dictionaries. It is not I who is being dogmatic. Everyone knows if they pick up a Catechism or visit New Advents "Catholic Encyclopedia" what this Church believes in the matter, but you cannot seem to understand this is not a Catholic web site. Your own Church when it is in dialogue with other Church's is not so tactless to push this in the face of others - it uses "Roman "Catholic".Taam (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Taam and Peter, one of the key results of the mediation was that this article wouldn't make any claims about any "official" name, because there are multiple views about what the "official" name of the Church might or might not be. An "official" name was not the basis for the page rename. Gimmetrow 11:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, could you kindly give me a link to where on Wikipedia the discussion and decision is taken to change the article name. I don't need to read the debates on what is the "official" name, only the part when changing to Catholic Church comes up and thereafter. Thanks in anticipation. Taam (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

For better or worse the article's name now uses the most usual (common) name of the church and also now avoids stating an opinion on what the "official" name(s) may be. My reading of things is that "Holy Roman and Catholic Church" (or similar) is, at least traditionally, the name used in official documents. Afterwriting (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to state or define what the official name is, none of the other reference works I have checked do so. Taam (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it should not be ignored, that there are actually some sources which explicitly claim that the official name of the Church discussed in this article is the "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church" ([37][38] [39] [40] [41] [42][43]), of course, they could be wrong, but they are verifiable nonetheless (but anyway, the article should not mention anything about an official name). However, regardless of that, as stated before there are multiple Churches claiming the title "Catholic Church" today, and according to wiki article naming conflict guideline ("A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names." (it speaks here about clashes of entities' names, not of clashes of article titles). Also, the current article title "Catholic Church" cannot make distinction between the title "Catholic Church" (which is used by multiple Churches) and the descriptive "catholic Church", a very important concept for many Churches (and it should be also noted (although maybe it is not too important), that the wiki article of a protestant denomination calling itself "Apostolic Church" (which was mentioned somewhere above), is titled "Apostolic Church (denomination)" (not simply "Apostolic Church") due to the importance of the descriptive "apostolic Church"). The WP:NCDAB also states that "When there is another term (such as Pocket billiards instead of Pool) or more complete name (such as Delta rocket instead of Delta) that is equally clear and unambiguous, that should be used". In my opinion, it would be better, if a disambiguation in parentheses is added to the current title of the article (like "Catholic Church (in communion with Rome)" or another description). Cody7777777 (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Naming guidelines simply do not mandate what you say they do. This is because the, er, Catholic Church is clearly the primary topic for the term "Catholic Church". You determine whether there is a primary topic before you start looked for a disambiguating term. "Catholic Church" is the most common name for the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the primary topic for the term "Catholic Church." As such, the article should be at Catholic Church, whatever its official name is, and whatever other terms might be ambiguous with it. john k (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I see, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states "that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article", so it does not clearly state that we are forced to use it as an article title, it states that we could also use it as a redirect, but as far as I see, the WP:NCDAB is clear enough in stating that "When there is another term (such as Pocket billiards instead of Pool) or more complete name (such as Delta rocket instead of Delta) that is equally clear and unambiguous, that should be used". Also, the WP:NCON claims that when the are more self-identifying entities claiming the same name, we should use disambiguation ("A name used by one entity may well clash with a name used by another entity. Disambiguation and expansion can resolve overlapping names."), so as far as I see, the wiki naming policy guidelines don't really support an article title simply "Catholic Church" (at least in my opinion, and there is a difference between using it as an article title or as a redirect). Cody7777777 (talk) 07:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

But there really is no other organization which is simply called the Catholic Church. And it's nonsense to say that normal English language usage is that it is called the Roman Catholic Church. Are you really suggesting that if someone says, "I have a lot of problems with the Catholic Church," your response would be "which Catholic Church? Do you mean the True Catholic Church which opposes Vatican II and supports Pope Pius XIII? Or did you mean the Old Catholic Church of liberal German Catholics who did not support Vatican I? Or perhaps you meant the United Methodist Church, which uses the Nicene Creed and thus believes it is part of the one holy catholic apostolic church?" Of course not. "Catholic Church" is absolutely unambiguous - it means the subject of this article. As for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the implication is that it should be a redirect only when it is not the most common name or is otherwise forbidden by naming conventions. For instance, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC shows that, for example, Cassius Clay should redirect to Muhammad Ali, because he is the primary topic for the name "Cassius Clay," even though there are other notable people named Cassius Clay. Or that Lord Palmerston should redirect to the prime minister, even though his father and grandfather were also Lord Palmerston. When something is the primary topic, and the most common name, and otherwise is okay with our naming conventions (i.e., not a nickname, or whatever), ambiguity is not a reason not to use it. This is pretty clear from hundreds of Wikipedia articles - London, Paris, Rome, Troy, Berlin. This ought to be clarified in the language of PRIMARYTOPIC, but it is a pretty clear wikipedia principle going back a long way. john k (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I still have to say that the statement ""Catholic Church" is absolutely unambiguous" is still not sourced, this means it is an assumption (you can of course believe that is unambiguous, but as far as I know, here assumptions can be considered as Original Research). There is however evidence that suggests it is ambiguous, even the note in the lead of this article, does actually state "There is some ambiguity about the title "Catholic Church", since the Church is not the only institution to claim catholicity", there is also an entire article called Catholicism which explains other meanings of "Catholic Church", and the following book claims "The simple title "Orthodox Church" is potentially misleading, just as the title "Catholic Church" is for the Roman Catholic Church, since the term "Orthodox", like the term "Catholic", is used by other Churches too.". Regarding the statement "But there really is no other organization which is simply called the Catholic Church", you can find some English sources which use "Catholic Church" to refer to the (E)OC, in this earlier discussion, so there are other organizations which call themselves "Catholic Church" (although, not too often, but that doesn't mean there aren't any other organizations using that title). Cody7777777 (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Common use of language

Malke opened an interesting perspective here. It has to do with the "common use of language" as understood by the public, e.g. by myself, by Malke and the Sisters who taught him years ago. If Wikipedia deviates from that it will enter The Twilight Zone, a world of names and renames unknown to the common person. It will have its own Newspeak-like language, imposed by committees.

Now, one issue that needs to be mentioned upfront was stated by the famous Rhodes Scholar Bill Clinton years ago in a different context, namely: "it depends on what is is".

Here what the church name "is" is beside the point. A consensus has established a name for it within Wikipedia. Period.

What is clear is this:

• There was a long (and I mean long) debate on this talk page.

• A decision by consensus was reached by a number of Wikipedia editors to contextually accept within this Wikipedia page the equation "Roman Catholic Church" = "Catholic Church" when referring to a specific institution whose official address is in Vatican City.

• The consensus examined various sources, and made guesses based on the "behavior of the Vatican" in some encyclicals, documents signed, etc. Maybe John Paul II opened the door a crack to the Eastern brethren, maybe he did not. There was guesswork involved, but a decision was made within Wikipedia. I am not sure if pope Benedict XVI agrees with that consensus, for he is not a Wikipedia editor as far as I know. However, I am sure a few Cardinals walking the streets of Rome would agree with it and a few would disagree with that statement. But again, that is beside the point. Consensus was achieved.

• Said consensus also specifically stipulated that the equation did not blindly apply to "subsidiary pages" within Wikipedia.

I think those 4 facts are clear. What is not clear is what can be done with compound terms of the form:

Catholic X vs Roman Catholic X.

when we substitute values for X. What is certain is that a "blind substitution" of any term for X will result in meaningless situations that will render content incorrect and result in a form of Newspeak imposed on Wikipedia content. Fortunately, as far as I know, there is, as yet, no Room 101 where editors breaching the name change will be re-educated, but that is really beside the point.

Now, let us look at what happens if one blindly performs the substitution of : Catholic X for Roman Catholic X. We could all try the following tests at church next Sunday and see the reactions:

• Let X = person, then the statement "a Catholic person is a Roman Catholic person" is clearly regarded as false by most people who go to church. So we do have a solid counter example that blind substitution fails.

• Let X = priest, then the statement "a Roman Catholic priest can sometimes be married" will probably get an interesting reaction too. However, "a Catholic priest can sometimes be married" is a true statement, given that some Eastern priests are married.

• Let X = church, outside the context of the institution. Then the statement "the Cathedral of St. George (Saskatoon) is a Cathloic church" is true, but most people who enter that church would probably say that the statement: "the Cathedral of St. George (Saskatoon) is a Roman Cathloic church" is flatly false.

So the use of a generative grammar approach to "blindly create compound terms" from the consensus reached regarding the institution name is inconsistent, and was never part of the consensus anyway. Hence it must not be used in a blind manner within Wikipedia. And in case you think no one would use the consensus to try that type of thing out of context, it was tried by someone on Roman Catholic Mariology, as well as several other page renames.

And it is important to have "tests" based on the new rename. Because there is a proposal to rename "Roman Catholic archdiocese of ABC" to "Catholic archdiocese of ABC" in many cases, based on the consensus. This will result in information loss unless the page content is modified to reflect that it used to be called Roman Catholic, and priests therein can not get married. If an editor wants to add that information, what test can he/she use to be consistent with the consensus as well as the common use of language by the population at large? That needs to be clarified.

So, the next question: Based on the current consensus, what test can I perform to determine if a specific church building on a specific street (not the institution) is Roman Catholic? What is the test now based on the rename of the institution? That is not clear to me based on the discussions. The application of the Latin Right test is briefly referred to in the Latin Right page, but not as a full proof test. To me it is unclear based on the consensus. So the compound term Roman Catholic church as applied to a specific building needs definition now. As does Roman Catholic belief for that matter.

I am all ears. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

History, this page is to discuss how to improve the article, not to address your personal confusion on what RC means. The idea of a "test" is a dead end. Why? Because there are some Latin-Rite Catholic parishes that use the RC descriptor, and some that do not. What we name this article is not going to change that. There is no test that will explain why St. Columba Catholic Church and St. Dominic Roman Catholic Church use different naming conventions (not to mention parishes that don't even put the word Catholic on the front door i.e. Mission San Diego de Alcala). There is inconsistency across the countless parishes throughout the various dioceses. Nothing we do in this article will change that fact. What we have done, through consensus and in accordance with WP policy, is decide the most appropriate article title. Your issues are not resolvable, short of a decision within the Church itself to require a consistent naming convention. --anietor (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

First, let me assure you that 99.9% of Roman Catholics (myself included) recognize a Roman Catholic church from a mile away. There is no confusion there. There are many tests, but perhaps not clear Wiki-tests. The confusion comes from the fact that the rename consensus may spread across Wikipedia and information loss takes place. It needs to be confined to this page. So the proposal for renaming articles by removing the term Roman Catholic from them (which tries to rely on the consensus here) needs to be abandoned. The reason I discussed it here is that this page is giving rise to information loss elsewhere within Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Simple. All Roman Catholic churches are Latin Rite. No Eastern Rite churches call themselves Roman. Roman = Latin. Get over it, History.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Is that the official Wiki-position now that "Roman Catholic" = Latin Rite ? Again, what is is is beside the point here. What matters is the official Wiki-consensus. Is that a consensus that "Roman Catholic" = Latin Rite ? Can I get that in writing please? (pun intended) History2007 (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You are over-simplifying things. The term Roman Catholic is not a "rite", so you can't equate them. EastmeetsWest was pointing out that if a particular church (lower case) or parish uses the term Roman Catholic, it is a fair assumption that it is a Latin-Rite church. However, the terms are not interchangeable. I don't know of any parishes that use a title such as St. X Latin-Rite Catholic Church. But St. X Roman Catholic Church is likely a Latin-Rite church, since an Eastern-Rite church would not use the Roman descriptor. You seem to be very frustrated by the lack of a clear, consistent set of rules within the Church regarding naming conventions. We feel your pain! But it is clear that you are not going to be satisfied with any response, because what you want does not exist. Across parishes there is no "rule" for when to use RC. Across time the practice of the Church and churches in their use of RC has changed. You are thinking too narrowly, and trying to fit everything into a neat box. It aint gonna happen! It's not that editors in here are causing your confusion, History. The issue is not clear-cut in the real world, and we are just trying to find an acceptable way to write an article about the Church, and applying WP guidelines, consensus, etc. to select an appropriate name. NO NAME will be perfect (because of the real-world ambiguity, individual people's preferences and sensibilities, etc). But we need to keep these discussions focused on how to improve the article, not to answer an editor's personal confusions. --anietor (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I seek this info not because I have a need to determine if St. Peter's Basilica is Roman Catholic, but because I need to know the consensus that radiates out from the name change on this page, so I will follow that consensus as I edit various Wikipages. But you two have given a start:

Wiki-consensus says that in most cases a specific church can be called a "Roman Catholic church" (lower case) iff it follows the Latin Rite.

Can I get that in writing please? (pun intended) History2007 (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

History2007, I wrote to and received and posted on this talk page a letter from the Diocese of Hawaii. Its official name does not have Roman Catholic in it but it uses the name Roman Catholic in its legal entity corporation (different from its official constitution from the Vatican). The diocesan official said it used the name Roman Catholic to signify that it is latin rite and there are no Eastern rite churches within its domain or under the cloak of its legal corporation. That letter is posted in the last or next to last archive I believe. NancyHeise ^talk 20:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, anietor, you are right. RC is not a rite, it does refer to a rite, though. Eastern churches call themselves Greek Catholic or Byzantine Catholic, neither of which is a rite but refer to the orignins of their rites, just a Roman Catholic refers to the origin of the Latin Rite. At any rate, Roman Catholic is not an appropriate term for all Catholics only Western Catholics. So, when refering to Catholics in general, we should not use the term Roman. For instance, I have no problem with "RC diocese of X" because that is a Latin Rite diocese. It is clear and unconfusing. However, "List of dioceses of the RC Church" is problematic as it includes non Latin Rite dioceses (known as eparchies but which are essentially the same). If such a list did include only Latin Rite dioceses, it would still be problematic to call it "List of RC dioceses" because of the common confusion between RCC and CC. If such a list is confined to the Latin Rite for some reason, it ought to just simply say so and carry the name "List of Latin Rite Catholic dioceses." But, Roman Catholic on its own is ambiguous.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Now, I am getting the feeling that the statement:

Wiki-consensus says that in most cases a specific church can be considered a "Roman Catholic church" (lower case) iff it follows the Latin Rite.

is being accepted and we can end these questions? I used considered rather than called to make things simpler. Is this Wiki-accepted? History2007 (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your statement, History. I don't know whether there is "wiki-consensus", since it really hasn't been hashed out much in here. It sounds like you want a wiki-blessing to do something, but you don't have anything specific in mind. You have mentioned your general concern about editors blindly renaming articles, and I think it's fair to say that there is consensus that name changes must be done on a case-by-case basis. Since we don't know exactly what you are going to do, it's hard to say yes, you have consensus on this concept, go run with it. Consensus is a "communal process of collaboration". It's hard to say there is collaboration when the specific task (create a page, edit, revert, prevent an edit...) is not clear. Can I suggest you identify a specific edit (you want to make, or want to revert), and then deal with consensus? --anietor (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is one vote towards a consensus. If there are a couple of others, I will take that and run with it. Since you asked, among other issues, one of the items I have had in mind (and no one laugh please) was about lists actually. I think the list pages in Wikipedia are generally far from satisfactory, be they lists of rivers in Germany or lists of Roman Catholic churches. You can take a look here: User:History2007/Improving_Wikipedia#Online_knowledge to get the general idea about Marian churches vs others and how the Churches of Rome needs serious help, although that is really beside the point here. But if I can not determine if/when a church can be considered Roman Catholic any more (after a rename), I can not manage such lists. I will, in time, type suggestions into "where should Wikipedia be in 5 years" and say that it needs to be all rebuilt using a better approach than Wolfram Alpha. But that is another discussion altogether, and certainly not for this page. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, History, you still seem to be misunderstanding the term Roman Catholic big time. It is an unofficial term, invented and used largely by Anglo-Saxon protestants. In the past in countries like Britain and its empire, Catholic Churches, when eventually tolerated, were not allowed to call themselves Catholic, but had to accept the name "Roman Catholic" in all dealings with the state. For historical and legal reasons some parishes in the former British Empire and US continued this usage. Eastern Catholic Churches and most Latin-rite catholic Churches outside the Anglo world have never had this usage imposed upon them, and continued to call themselves simply "Catholic". The eastern Churches in particular strongly reject the term Roman Catholic. No Bishops conferences, Eastern or Western term themselves "Roman Catholic". Therefore your attempt to define all Latin Rite churches as Roman Catholic churches is a misapprehension. Xandar 23:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Final comment: What is quite clear is that we have neither a consensus nor a general agreement on the subsidiary topic of "Roman Catholic" when used on its own, despite the clear consensus reached on the name change for this page after the archived marathon discussion. I thought anietor and I were beginning to move towards a tentative agreement, but clearly that is not a consensus. So I will type this and then it is certainly time to stop.

However, it is clear to me that the "common use of language" does leave Roman Catholic as part of the English language as used by hundreds of millions of people. And if 95% of the people who speak a language associate term X with concept Y, then term X is part of the language and its general meaning is concept Y, and it can be used in that language as such. Let me give you an example from another context to make things clear. Suppose that 95% of English speaking people associate the term Rose with a specific type of flower, in their mind. A few botanists start a debate that reaches a consensus that there are really no roses in the world because two specific species rosa-ignotus and rosa-incognitus are different things. And they point out that the term rose was really an invention by some English gardener and it was only used by the public after its use caught on; and that currently in academic conferences held at various universities the term rose is never used.

Now what happens if said botanists start a movement that makes a specific 800-flower-type shop only refer to rosa-ignotus and rosa-incognitus and never refer to roses. What happens is that when members of the public call to order roses, very few orders get placed. As the "standard bearers" of botanical truth said botanists feel that they have a duty to uphold botanical facts, just as you said further above that "common misconceptions" need to be avoided. The analogy really holds here: you will lose members of the public.

The public uses the term rose and understands it to be a specific type of item. Similarly, hundreds of millions of Roman Catholics know when a church is Roman Catholic from a mile away: it has an unmarried priest, it has a bishop that is appointed by the Vatican, and part of the collection each Sunday ends up in Rome. They do not think they need to know if that is OR.

The problem is that said public needs assurances that the information they get from Wikipedia about "Roman Catholic belief" corresponds to what they think their church teaches, just as when they send roses they need to have an idea that those flowers were like what they expected. They need to be sure they are not getting Coptic teachings. The debate about rosa-ignotus and rosa-incognitus is of no interest to the public, and will just make them look elsewhere for flowers.

Given that the editors who type here all get paid the same salary (i.e. zero) it is fair to assume that in one way or another they "want to do good". But to achieve that goal the audience needs to be both informed and reassured.

There is thus a serious problem in "losing audience" by getting too far from the common use of language, in either botany and theology. And that is specially true for the younger audience whose general knowledge level in various topics has been a subject of wide debate. As you may have read in the news, several years ago most highschool students had absolutely no idea what Chernobyl was and some thought that it was Cher's last name! This crowd needs information they can easily relate to and rely on, and debates on Latin Rite is not going to help here. And given that there is a huge potential audience in India, the orient etc., they need to be assured that what they read corresponds to the type of church they go to, and no other. Else they hesitate to read.

I will stop now, but I do think that the top level goal of Wikipedia is to educate the public, and to do so, Wikipedia must respect their use of the English language. Cheers History2007 (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

History 2007, you have fallen into two common errors: assuming that all the editors on this page are practising Catholics ('We could all try the following tests at church next Sunday and see the reactions') and live in the US ('However, "a Catholic priest can sometimes be married" is a true statement, given that some Eastern priests are married').

As a lapsed Catholic I won't be going to Mass this or any other Sunday but if I did return to my parish church in England the officiating priest would - like many here - be a married ex-Anglo-Catholic vicar who became a Roman Catholic over the issue of women's ordination.Haldraper (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This subsection is headed "Common use of language", but a lot of comments above are about how language "should" be used. The fact is that normal English-language usage, as evidenced by most encyclopaedias, is that the Church is called the Roman Catholic Church, including Eastern rites. Whether Wikipedia should follow common usage or the Church's own preference, which is clearly that used here, I leave to others to argue about. To Xandar & others I merely point out that there's a Wikipedia principle that consensus can change, so people are free to advocate reversing the move, though it seems unlikely they'll succeed in the near future unless they can find a substantial audience who didn't hear about the proposal at the time. Peter jackson (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously saying that it is not "normal English language usage" to say "Catholic Church"? john k (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely the phenomenon of married ex-Anglo-Catholic vicars who became Roman Catholics over the issue of women's ordination is a much more parochial one than the basic notion that Catholic priests in the Latin rite are unmarried, which holds true for the vast, vast, majority of Catholic priests in the Latin rite. I'm rather surprised that the Catholic church even accepts Anglican ordinations as valid, to be honest. john k (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't. They have to be "re"ordained. And basically you're right. Canon law for the Latin rite says priests must be celibate. These particular priests require a dispensation.

John, no, I'm not saying that. Both usages are normal English. But the practice of most encyclopaedias suggests Roamn is regarded as more "correct".

Does it? That doesn't seem to follow. john k (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just as a matter of interest, what's the Pope's official or preferred title? He tends to sign himself Servant of the Servants of God, the Code of Canon Law usually calls him the Roman Pontiff, and Catholics tend to call him the Holy Father. Perha[ps that article should be rename too. Peter jackson (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Meta-discussion

This has been a long-standing debate in the Wikipedia. The advocates of Catholic point to the fact that this is how the Church identifies itself and adds Roman only when necessary to make a distinction with respect to rite, governance, or geography. Normally, the name an organization uses to self-identify is the name of its Wikipedia article.

The Roman Catholic advocates point first to the long usage of this term in encyclopedias originating under American and British editors, and then to fact that many other groups self-identify with Catholic in their name without any affiliation to the Catholic Church and believe the Wikipedia identification without Roman is an implicit deprecation of their identity, or an implicit support for the doctrinal claims of the Catholic Church.

In terms of how this dispute has been handled in the past -- first, this is the place to discuss it. Secondly, there's never been a consensus here the name should be changed to Catholic. I suspect that this is simply too difficult to judge without looking at it through ones ideological lens. So it is unlikely to ever change by consensus. patsw (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

NB: In what follows, "you" does not refer to Patsw but to the general group of editors who are objecting to the move of this article to Catholic Church.

As Cody77777 has reminded us on numerous occasions, polling is not a substitute for discussion. Well, the problem is that the debate over what the title of this article should be can continue forever without reaching a conclusion. Cody77777 attempted a proof of that lemma before we sat on him and asked him to kindly shut up. Seems he had misprogrammed himself and got stuck in an endless loop. Excepting those of us who have nothing better to do with our time, there is value in ending discussion and moving on.

Some would argue that there was no consensus to change the title to "Catholic Church". There seems to have been a heavy supermajority in favor of the change although, as I predicted, there have been several strong opinions voiced against the change.

If you feel that there is a consensus to change it back to "Roman Catholic Church", why not take a straw poll and assess the level of that consensus? If it is greater than 30%, you have a point and we should work harder to seek compromise between the two sides. If not, then I apologize but I really think it is time for you to to stand down and yield to the supermajority.

--Richard (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I may be missing something but can you point to where on this articles page a consensus was reached about name change, something which couldn't be agreed in 2006? As I understand it the mediation started over the issue of what was the "official" name, not changing the article name. People who had little interest in defining what was the "official" name - like so many other encyclopaedias and the Church herself- would never have followed this discussion. Before such a name change took place it should have been boldly advertised and votes taken here on this articles page, after suitable discussion, as I understood happened the last time this issue came up. Taam (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Taam, despite all the talk about policies and guidelines, Wikipedia is not a tightly defined set of rules and procedures that people must follow to get things done. There are huge gaping holes where Wikipedia (perhaps wisely) refuses to attempt to close. Mediation is one of those areas where loose definition can be seen as an advantage. Your comment suggests a view in which a mediation must be restricted to the issue that it was opened to discuss even if the resolution to that issue might involve things that are strictly speaking different from the original issue under mediation. To apply that to the case at hand, it was determined after nearly a year of discussion, that a feasible compromise could be arrived at if the larger community of editors could be convinced to move the article to Catholic Church so that the lead sentence could be modified to mention "Catholic Church" first before "Roman Catholic Church". 17 participants of the mediation unanimously agreed to support this solution. Some expressed doubt that a consensus could be formed for the move but others believed that the situation might have changed over the last 2 1/2 years. We agreed to test the consensus by advertising our proposed change on this Talk Page.

The results of the mediation were presented at Talk:Catholic Church and also advertised at multiple religion pages. One bone of contention is that the results of the mediation were presented as just that, "Results of the mediation and consultation". They were not labeled "Proposed move to Catholic Church" which might have attracted more attention. Nonetheless, the proposed move was not hidden in the results of the mediation and there were some people who noticed it and objected. However, I believe the number of such editors was less than 5 (like 2 or 3 according to my recollection). 17 in favor, 3 opposed suggests a significant supermajority... just about as much of a consensus as you can find on a controversial issue in Wikipedia. I suspect that this was the basis on which the mediators proceeded with the move.

Now, you might argue that the "proper" process was not followed.

Some have argued that this should have been advertised in the "Controversial moves" of Wikipedia:Requested moves. Others have countered that this is not a "hard and fast" requirement. While I agree that the proposed move could have been made more explicit to those who only watch this page casually, my personal stance is that this is Wikilawyering. If you believe that the move was done against consensus, then by all means, form a consensus to move it back. You would need at least 34 editors to oppose the 17 who have supported the move. That would constitute a 2-1 supermajority in favor of Roman Catholic Church over Catholic Church assuming that no additional editors express support for Catholic Church. (Seems unlikely to me but, if you think it's plausible, be my guest.)

There is, unfortunately, a gray area between 2-1 in favor of Catholic Church and 2-1 in favor of Roman Catholic Church. All it takes is about 8-9 people in favor of Roman Catholic Church to establish that there is not a supermajority in favor of Catholic Church.

If no supermajority exists in favor of either option, there lies the "no man's land" of endless discussion, bickering and disputation. If people wish to fight in this no man's land, then the only path forward is dispute resolution which means yet another mediation. (I doubt a RFC would add any value at this point in the process.)

If you or anyone else wants to dispute the consensus, then please... go ahead and take a straw poll and determine what your strength in numbers is. If you have enough support to challenge the consensus and it's really that important to you, then go forward with dispute resolutioin.

However, I doubt that further discussion will get us anywhere. I suspect that all the relevant arguments were presented in 2006 and have been presented here.

--Richard (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a concession: There was a vote of barely two-thirds; that isn't even consensus for RfA, much less a major discussion. There was no effort to advertize it to the mass of Wikipedians uninvolved in the religion projects; there was no announcement at WP:RM. It is no surprise that this failed to draw people with experience with naming issues, or a mass of uninvolved Wikipedians, who might have formed a consensus. There was no consensus; which requires much more than a vote. Taam is quite right to feel put upon - and this article should be restored to its established placement. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested moves?

since Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 3#REQUESTED MOVE to Catholic Church, has there been any other requested move? --PBS (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Your question has been asked and answered repeatedly. Study the mediation discussion.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the mediation to which you are referring.--PBS (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The mediation itself was very lengthy and spread over several pages, here and elsewhere. A good place to start with an overview is Talk:Catholic_Church/Page_rename_proposal Xandar 21:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Or just read my summary of four years of this debate above. patsw (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And a good summary of the issues. What seems to have happened here is a mediation process was started over what is the "official" name of Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. This seemed a big mistake because its not an issue for other Encyclopaedia articles. I don't understand why we had to do what the Church has never done herself, i.e make a definitive statement about her official name. Wikipedia should never have been in the position of trying to prove anything, but that seems to have been attempted here. At some point in the mediation discussion on the use of "official", the name change comes up which should have happened on these pages but as far as I can tell didn't. The long drawn out debate about "official" name, that imo should never have even have been discussed, appears like an unintended smokescreen that hid a very sensitive name change. That cannot be right. Taam (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious why you think it "should never have even been discussed"? Gimmetrow 18:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it was doing something that other mainstream reference works avoid, no doubt due to the controversy, and also that as best I know the Church has never defined what it's official name is over the past 2,000 years and miles of teachings documents. I don't mean that this was intended, but it looks as if people were trying to work out on behalf of the Church what its "official" name should be and I don't think we ought be doing that. What it calls itself most often is of course not in doubt. Taam (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Were you not aware that the purpose of mediation was to remove an improperly sourced, biased and controversial statement about the church's "official name"? Gimmetrow 20:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Gimmetrow's comment above) Taam, the central issue under mediation was to determine whether we agreed with what you wrote. There was certainly a group of us who do agree with what you wrote but it is not accepted by all. One faction asserted (and probably still believes) that the official name is "the Catholic Church". Another faction asserted (and still believes) that the Church has more than one name that it uses officially and that there is no one name that is the official name. The end-result of the mediation was that Wikipedia would say nothing regarding the existence of a single official name of the Church but, in order to satisfy the concerns of the "official name" faction, the article would be renamed to Catholic Church so that the name "Catholic Church" could appear first in the lead sentence. As for your assertion that "What it calls itself most often is of course not in doubt.", I'm not sure this is true. I suspect Gimmetrow might dispute the assertion. --Richard (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a live dispute that the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome self-identifies as the Catholic Church? patsw (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

None with me. I think everyone accepts that this Church believes she is the "Catholic Church" but its another thing to push this belief onto everyone in a wikipedia article. My opinion is we should follow the practice of other mainstream reference works, and indeed the Church, when on common ground in dialogue with other communities, and use Roman Catholic to avoid ambiguity. Taam (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• When I did some research into non-American/non-British mainstream reference works, the usage was consistently Catholic. If you found Roman Catholic as an article title in a French, Spanish, German, Norwegian, etc. mainstream reference source, that would be good to add to the record.
• If there's a reference to Roman in a document from the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome in which Roman is used for its identification among several Catholic Churches (as opposed to a reference to Roman rite, governance, or geography), that would also be a good add to the record. patsw (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree if the norm in Spain, Germany etc. is "Catholic Church" then its worthy of note in an article titled "Roman Catholic Church" on the English wikipedia. As for your second point this link[44] provides a search list of documents from the Vatican archives that records the use of "Roman Catholic Church" by this Church when in dialogue with other Christians when it has nothing to do with Latin rite etc. Taam (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think when it comes to a identification of the Catholic Church in ecumenical document with the Eastern Orthodox Church, there is a concession being made: for the purposes of this document, we (i.e. the Vatican) emphasize the same creed, same sacraments, and same apostolic succession as one Church in an imperfect unity, so here the Roman reference is to governance. A similar, but I think unfortunate, concession is made in documents of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity in choosing to use the name Roman Catholic Church which is the name assigned by the World Council of Churches to the Catholic Church. The reference to Cardinal Emmanuel III Delly, patriarch of the Chaldean Catholics as a "Roman" cardinal is even more remote. The only sense in which he is a Roman is that Cardinals in ancient times were drawn from the clergy of Rome and in modern times are assigned a church in the diocese of Rome. These few references are simply overwhelmed by the number of references to the Catholic Church without Roman in a context of self-identification. patsw (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity. If you say "The Catholic Church," everybody in the English speaking world knows exactly what you mean. Some Anglo-Catholic types might pretend to be confused, but the only reason they are pretending to be confused is because they know exactly what you mean. The issue is not ambiguity, it is that there are some people who don't like the name for political/religious reasons. Nobody calls the Church of England or the United Methodist Church or the Evangelical Church in Germany or the Orthodox Church the "Catholic Church." Other churches which are described as Catholic with a capital "C" are always described with modifiers - the Old Catholic Church or the True Catholic Church or what not. There simply is not any serious issue of ambiguity. If you want to argue against the title being Catholic Church, the only basis for that argument is that some protestant and orthodox churches don't like it, not ambiguity. john k (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with the name change for the reasons given in my previous posts. Your own Church doesn't force it's belief on the Orthodox or any other Church's when in dialogue and uses "Roman Catholic"; imo the editors who claim communion with that Church and follow its practice are at least demonstrating sincerity and at the same time cultivating good relations with other Christians rather than reinforcing negative stereotypical images, goodnight.Taam (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That the Church uses "Roman" to refer to itself at times is irrelevant. I obviously use Farsight to refer to myself sometimes too. That does not change the fact that my real/official name is still Philip.Farsight001 (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't use official names. That's policy, because the official name usually conveys the POV of the official who coined it. We follow usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't use official names?! Where did you get that from? So the country isn't actually named Germany? And his name isn't actually John Quincy Adams? That's certainly news to me.Farsight001 (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The official name of Germany is the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland) as our article says. It is actually normally called Germany (in English); and therefore we follow usage against official correctness, as mandated by our naming conventions policy. So we should here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, but on what basis do you argue that "Roman Catholic Church" is what the Church is "normally" called in English? --Richard (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Experience with the English language from Belloc to Macaulay; Catholic Church is a mark of an apologist - and one who claims that no other Church is. If there was actually an examination of anglophone works of general reference during this vote (voting is evil, and this is why), let's have a link; if not, we should restore the article and have a proper move request, which can collect actual references at the same time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What part of WP:NAME even makes a reference to a point of view? If you want to use the editorial "we", you should include a reference to your authority for doing so. If the convention is, in fact, to follow usage, then Catholic is more used than Roman Catholic. Or it that also a matter of dispute? patsw (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Point of view? That's in the Wikipedia:NPOV#Article_naming; observe that it also commends following usage. Is the rest of this more google searches, or the red herring that (unless ambiguity can arise) Catholic is the usual adjective for the Roman Catholic Church? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The name change was done in a corner. This name is not common or customary usage, which would be the long-standing title Roman Catholic Church. That name of course arose because Britain is a historically Protestant country, but that is not material; less so than the traditional use of Catholic Church by Catholic apologists, which adds a strong tone of POV to this name, as to the defenses of it. This article should be tagged accordingly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"Done in a corner" is a gross misrepresentation of the months long discussion involving probably a hundred or so editors on the subject. And yes, this name is common and is the customary usage. I'll admit that "Roman" is not much less common, but it is still less common. A google search for "Roman Catholic Church" gives us 10 million results, while a search for ("Catholic Church" -Roman) gives almost 40 million results. (The "-Roman", in case you didn't know, automatically ignores any sources that anywhere use the word Roman) So online at least, CC is used almost 4 times as much as RCC. To call it uncommon is just not true.Farsight001 (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

So it was done using that highly scientific tool: searching with raw Google. Did anybody in this conclave consult WP:Search engines, which warns against that? Did anybody consult other works of general reference - in English, not in Italisn? And was this kaffeklatsch a subject of general notification anywhere, so that Wikipedians in general could correct these weaknesses? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The extensive months long discussion used google? No. I just brought that up because you claim that RCC is more common. I merely wanted to show that, at least via google search, which is admittedly a bit crude, it is most certainly NOT. You came straight out of the block claiming that the only people who use CC are "apologists", with absolutely no way to support the claim. In my experience discussing religion (which is a fair amount), people who jump right of the block with statements like that are the ones guilty of being that which they accuse their opponent of. (in this case, an apologist) It's called projection. I'm just saying - I suggest you take a step back and think about it again, or at the very least, come back with some sources.Farsight001 (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding, that Google search (""Catholic Church" -Roman" or other similar searches including "Catholic Church"), it should be noted, that it would just simply return results were "Catholic Church" appears and were "Roman" does not appear, "Catholic Church" does not really need to refer to the RCC in all of its results (for example, in the context of the following English sources (which can be found through a Google search including "Catholic Church")[45][46][47][48],[49][50],[51],[52][53][54], [55], [56],[57], [58], [59], [60], [61],[62][63][64][65],[66][67],[68],[69],[70],[71][72] "Catholic Church" (without additional terms) is used for the Eastern Orthodox Church, and a search "Catholic Church" could also return results with "Orthodox Catholic Church", "Old Catholic Church", "Independent Catholic Church",etc.) Cody7777777 (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

My, my, my Septic, we do have a very good image of ourselves don't we. Of course, we mere mortals only used Google. To think that the months and months of discussion covering countless hours of research, verifying references, etc. was not done. We just stood around for all those months banging out google data together. I am now banging my head on the wall in amazement and sheer terror that this is the quality of editors we have to contend with to ensure that the Catholic Church is afforded the same ability to call itself as it chooses as others are. As a LDS this is just the quality of conversation that unnerves me with Wikipedia; it is tyranny of the ignorant minority. A weakness that Wikipedia will suffer from until editors are first required to prove their expertise before editing. --StormRider 23:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Pmanderson asked "Did anybody consult other works of general reference - in English, not in Italisn (sic)?". She may wish to look here. --Richard (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That is an excellent resource, Richard. But that information and more is available in the many pages of archives of these discussions. It is clear that the people parachuting in with all sorts of claims have not even bothered to read the discussions. Xandar 01:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The real problem for RCC advocates is that CC is BOTH the preferred name of the Church in its own usage, especially in its most dogmatic documents--AND it is the the most common name in everyday English. Either way one argues it, it comes down to CC according to WP conventions. That the term RCC is also used is not relevant, as WP does not report what a body ought to call itself, but what it calls itself and what others most commonly call it. There really isn't any argument here either way unless one is still trying to force what one thinks the Church ought to call itself or be called or whatever. This is just bald POV forcing and disruptive. Again, CC v. RCC is an excellent resource written over 3 years ago. But, the discussion is much, much older than that! --EastmeetsWest (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"bothered to read the discussions", Xandar? That's a bit unfair, isn't it, given the enormous length, the scattering over various pages, & the time-spread of years mentioned above?

I must respectfully disagree with patsw about "Roman Cardinal". Their official title includes Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae. Peter jackson (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Addition to lead sentence

A user has been persistently adding Holy Roman Catholic Church as another alternative name in the first sentence of the article. This has been removed, since it is A) Not part of the consensus wording agreed upon via mediation of this sentence, and b) The name is itself inaccurate and its usage unreferenced. There is no reason for this title - even if it had been used to be here in preference to others. Xandar 23:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Names of the Catholic Church

During the mediation, it occurred to me that it would be useful to have a single page which would serve as a repository of sources to be used as references for the discussion. Although this page was created by me in my userspace, it represents the collective work of multiple editors on both sides of the mediation issue. Those who were not party to the mediation may not be aware of the existence of this page and so I present it here in case it is useful in the current discussion. User:Richardshusr/Names of the Catholic Church

--Richard (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested Move

Catholic Church → Roman Catholic Church —

Testing consensus for current title as some editors argue previous move to Catholic Church was done out-of-process and presumably without a true consensus. --Richard (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit pointy but since no one else seems to think it worth determining what the consensus is, I will step forward and ask... Do we have a consensus to move this article back to Roman Catholic Church?

Support

• Strong and Immediate Support If there was a discussion of evidence, let's have a link; the claims immediately above are uncontrolled, unexamined Google searches. Furthermore, since this was moved out of process, the result of no consensus should be to restore this article to its old, stable place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • For what it is worth, this RM is not my idea, although I support it. I am no party to a truce I did not know of, concluded at a discussion which I did not take part in, and to which most of Wikipedia was not invited. It was enough for me to note that this has not ceased to be controversial since the "mediation". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The article was NOT moved out of process. Your attempts to change the Wikipedia mnaming guidance by stealth and subterfuge and to re-open the naming debate agai after it has been decided under Wikipedia mediation and policy are Disruptive editing, and against WP rules. Xandar 23:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• I support this request for renaming (however, in my opinion, a more neutral wiki article name could be "Catholic Church (in communion with Rome)" (or something similar with parentheses), but as far as I see, "Roman Catholic Church" is less ambiguous and less controversial as an wiki article title than the current "Catholic Church" (which as a title is claimed by multiple Churches, and also an important religious concept used by many Churches), and as far as I know, "Roman Catholic Church" is also a self-identifying usage), most of my reasons for disagreeing with the current article title were posted during the last phase of the mediation([73],[74]) and also in this discussion. (I would also have to add, that I don't really like using polls.) Cody7777777 (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on that, Polls are evil! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. As far as I can see the move was done under cloak (unwittingly of course) of a mediation process that was not about renaming the article whereas it should have been clearly stated here on the articles talk page like it was done in 2006 when there was no consensus for a move.It is my opinion we follow the well trodden path of major enyclopedias such as Britannica, Encarta etc. and use "Roman" in the title not least because it makes it clear the substance of the article beliefs section is about the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome. As it happens it also seems to be the practice of that Church to use such a name in its dialogue with other Christian Church's who consider themselves Catholics. We should follow that same tact on the English Wikipedia in my opinion. Taam (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The move discussion was clearly stated on the article talk page and other fora. The fact that you weren't interested in this article during the year of discussion doesn't allow you to come back now and push your POV. "Tact" ie, bowing to other groups dislike of a group using a certain name is specifically dismissed as a WP naming consideration. So your argument is invalid. Xandar 18:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support Whilst a six month gap would have been preferable, there is no ambiguity re RCC as opposed to a debatable amount of ambiguity re CC. So in the absence of any hint that RCC is an offensive name for the Church, I would support that as the unambiguous name. ϢereSpielChequers 13:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to have read the discussion - where plenty of evidence was presented that many Catholics, and especially Eastern Catholics find RCC both offensive and inaccurate. The failure to engage with the 1 year of past discussion, and raising of the same points repeatedly, is why such issues are not to be raised every six weeks. We have HAD this discussion. End of story. Xandar 18:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. It is the more specific name and not too hard to find. There can be more than one Catholic Church, let's not allow Rome to monopolize the concept. (And I though we had problems on the Falun Gong project, oy vey.) / PerEdman 22:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that these issues of Catholicity, as well as the global concept of a catholic church (body of all believers) were both considered and in fact that's what the hat note linked in first sentence, as well as the disabiguation links at the top of the page were put in place for. Were this an attempt to monopolize the term, then these wouldnt be included. In fact, I was one of those opposed to the move last year on this exact aspect, but we came to an acceptable compromise. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose Per discussion during mediation. "Catholic Church" is both the most often used name by the Church itself and by English speakers in general. --Richard (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the evidence that excluding the Church's own usage, that name is most often used by reliable sources in English? --PBS (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose This subject already went through a LOT of discussion. It has been decided, and it is silly to discuss it again every time someone who doesn't like the change comes along. In addition, "Catholic Church" IS the more common usage, and so the reason for bringing the issue up in the first place (that RCC was more common) is simply false.Farsight001 (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The name "Roman Catholic Church" was also agreed after lots of discussion so does that mean it was invalid to discuss the issue again and change the name to Catholic Church? --PBS (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• OPPOSE This is illegal and disruptive editing. Once a name change has been agreed, there can be no proposal to re-change the name for at least six months. The "vote" above is tendentious. Xandar 23:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is it disruptive edition to ask for a WP:RM? It could equally be argued that changing the name of an article previously decided with a WP:RM (Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 3#REQUESTED MOVE to Catholic Church ) is disruptive. Why should the closing administrator consider this a valid argument? --PBS (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Might want to add your oppose to the actual oppose section. Some people are strong enough sticklers that they won't count it if it's down here. Also, if you have a policy you can cite about future renaming proposals having to wait 6 months, please cite it. I'd love to see this pointless vote ended extra quick.Farsight001 (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose obviously, since many of the users spent months and months of discussion, to come to a consensus on this CC/RCC issue already and the validity of it stands for 6 months. This actually seems to be getting quite disruptive at this point. Certain disgruntled lobbies are even trying to change the nature of Wikipedia policy itself to get around it. If you see naming conventions talk. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The name "Roman Catholic Church" was also agreed after lots of discussion so does that mean it was invalid to discuss the issue again and change the name to Catholic Church? The naming convention is clear the name should be at the name which most reliable sources in English would use and has sufficient precision so that it is not confusing. You have not stated your reasons for the preferring Name Catholic Church instead of Roman Catholic Church. --PBS (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I hesitated to even vote, since it gives an air of legitimacy to this silly poll. The issue has been discussed, reviewed, and settled. Consensus can certainly change, but a decision that took months to resolve should not be reopened a couple of weeks later buy a sour-grapes editor who can't accept consensus and insists on beating this dead horse. --anietor (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Was it not settled after the last WP:RM? If so why was it not put to a WP:RM do decide if the name should be changed? You have not given any reasons based on the Wikipedia Naming conventions, as to why you think that the name "Catholic Church" is better than the name "Roman Catholic Church". --PBS (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I can imagine that future complaints can be assembled that the Catholic Church really does self-identify as "Roman Catholic", or that users of the Wikipedia who entered "Catholic" in a search should not have gotten the article on the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and gotten entirely different article. We can look forward to February 2010 for that. patsw (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Self identification is not naming convention policy justification for naming an entity. --PBS (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Utter rubbish, PBS. Xandar 10:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If I am wrong, it would be more constructive to put in a link to the section in the naming convention policy that supports Self identification rather than stating that what I write is "utter rubbish". Are you usually as rude to editors who make a comment you disagree with? --PBS (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The current title follows WP conventions quite precisely and cannot really be confused with the theological concept of "catholic church." That many do not like the name or are in some way offended by it is their POV and is beside the point. CC is the most common and the preferred name of the entity. There really isn't anything more to say. For more info, see: CC v. RCC--EastmeetsWest (talk) 03:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - voting is evil and it does not represent any form of concensus. However, as this was just discussed for months...M-O-N-T-H-S!!! An entity may choose to call itself what it chooses and the Catholic Church has made it clear that it prefers to use the name Catholic Church. Of course it also uses other names, but none of them come close in usage to Catholic Church. I suggest to those who support this silliness to just put aside their religious views and look at the facts. I suspect that we will be dealing with this silliness for a good long while; such is the way of religious zealotry. --StormRider 04:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Self identification is not naming convention policy justification for naming an entity. --PBS (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Some of the statements above are rather overstatements. The page rename was just one aspect of the mediation; it wasn't a central point of discussion for the entire mediation. Nevertheless, in the resolution this page rename was an aspect that, as far as I recall, everyone agreed with or agreed to tolerate. There should be at least a half-year moratorium on reopening the page rename. There are issues with the text that need addressing. Gimmetrow 05:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If the page name had been put to a WP:RM I would agree with you. But it was not and half year moratorium on reopening the page rename is a tradition that is used after a WP:RM As there has already been a WP:RM on this issue this page should not have been moved without one. Do you have any arguments based on the naming conventions for the change of name from "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church"? --PBS (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If you bothered to read the eight or more pages of discussion before posting drivel, you would see the answer to that question, PBS. As far as your other false/uninformed allegation is concerned:The page move was made properly under the instructions as set out on the WP:RM page, and the discussion was cast far WIDER than mandated. This was all done under the aegis of experienced Wikipedia dispute mediatiators. Xandar 10:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

PBS, the end of mediation produced a proposal which included the move proposal. This was announced here and open for discussion by everyone. The move proposal was, indeed, discussed at that time (post-mediation). Gimmetrow 13:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - This really doesn't need to be brought up every other month. This has been settled, please stop re-opening this discussion without a firm grasp of the history of this discussion. Thank you. ...oh, and voting is evil! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The name was settled after the last WP:RM. So would you support the name being moved back to "Roman Catholic Church" until the issue has been decided by a W:RM? If not why do you object to a WP:RM request being made? --PBS (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No, because Catholic church is both the Self-Identifying name and the most commonly used name in english. The reasearch was presented in the page regarding the name change proposal; if you haven't read the proposal, then you really can't argue against it. I don't know of any valid interpretation of the naming policy that would locate this article at RCC. Besides, it hasn't been 6 months yet. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem now to be basing you argument no on "This has been settled, please stop re-opening this discussion without a firm grasp of the history of this discussion." but on the "Catholic church is both the Self-Identifying name and the most commonly used name in english". Is the Church of England part of the catholic Church? --PBS (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

PBS you are showing your ignorance of the year-long debate on these issues by your points. Please READ the past years worth of discussion on the issue before raising the same irrelevant junk over again. Theological issues do not concern organisational NAMES. It is for these reasons - to avoid continuous disruptive editing by people who refuse to accept the facts - that there is a moratorium of at least six months before such issues can be raised again. Xandar 10:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Read what has been said before you ask anymore questions. We shouldn't be forced to re-invent the wheel every time someone doesn't like the page move. Get up to speed first. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If it is ignorance then please point me to the relevant section of the years worth of discussion on this issue. Calling something irrelevant junk is not the way to persuade someone that you have a valid argument which should be supported. --PBS (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Read the entire discussion; the whole thing addresses the absolute weakness of your position! In case you missed it, the Church of England is their name of choice. You are confusing doctrine with naming conventions. What you are failing to GET (I am raising my voice because this was addresses ad nauseum on multiple occasions), the Church of England claims from a doctrinal position to be part of the "catholic" church; however, it does not claim to be part of the Catholic Church. Please try to do a modicum of research before making any statements or arguments. You have missed the boat completely. --StormRider 16:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - after months of debate, and numerous other processes that followed Wikipedia policies, concensus was reached. No reason to overturn concensus now. Marauder40 (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

In which section in the archives do you think that consensus was reached? --PBS (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Concensus does not mean that all parties agree. A third party mediator agreed that concensus was reached. If you want to find where it happened read through it. I read through it once while it was happening I don't feel the need to read through it again. If you want to know where it was reached you should read through it, that is the purpose of an archive. Marauder40 (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - It is far to soon after the mediation to make this proposal, particularly considering the amount of discussion and material presented during the mediation. John Carter (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• No - I did not participate in the mediation but followed it closely. It was a quite thorough discovery and vetting of sources (some I didn't know existed) and meticulous (sometimes to a fault) wording work. I do not have a horse in this naming race but I am chiming in now because I really do not want to repeat that whole process again when there is really little chance of the consensus shifting. I am finding the specific arguments for the reversion of the change specious and worry this proposal will become an unecessary dramamagnet. Let's wait a while at least. my comment should be read as a compliment to those many editors who put in legwork beyond the call of duty during the mediation Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Data

• First, our competition: Britannica - Roman Catholicism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmanderson (talk • contribs)
• User:Richardshusr/Names of the Catholic Church - Sources regarding what the Catholic Church calls itself. --Richard (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • So what happened to reliance on reliable independent secondary sources, as we are expected to do? This is the RCC's view of itself; this article should discuss that view (and does rather well at it) - but should not adopt it. Using this title crosses that line. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal is tyranny of the ignorant and will lead to some terrible outcomes. So because some people call Arabs rag heads we should use that name than the name they choose to be known as. Or Latter-day Saints, the name they prefer, should only be called Mormons, of the Mormon Church, because that is a common name. Or how about black people, what common name should we call them because it is common and for goodness sake why ask them what they want to be known. Wikipedia allows entities to name themselves because of the stupidity of the alternative. Of course, we also identify the alternative names in the article, which this one does as do all others, but the primary name fo the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church. What others call it be damned, but simply because others want to call itself something else does not change the name. How are you missing this and what does not make sense to you? Do you have any references that state the preferred name of the Catholic Church is anything else? Here is a hint, they don't exist. What does exist is the plethora of evidence that the Catholic Church uses that name in its primary documents. --StormRider 17:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Following other works of general reference, using independent sources, and employing a language understood by the people - to paraphrase another religious leader - is the tyranny of the ignorant. Yeah, right. Do works of general reference say "rag heads"? No. Take this straw man and give it more stuffing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and ignore any requests for REFERENCES; do you have them? If not, then exactly what is your beef except to enforce your puffed up opinion. You have been instructed, you have been told; ignorance is no longer an argument.--StormRider 20:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• • I would also point out that the two "independent" sources on Richards source list under the Encyclopaedia & Dictionaries section might seem to indicate support of all the other R.C sources. But if you look up Britannica 11th edition the main article is "Roman Catholic Church" and if you check on google books for Academic American Encyclopedia you can see as the main entry "Roman Catholic Church" on snippet view. With Richards permission I would like to update this source page to reflect mainstream encyclopaedias. From what I have checked so far they are heavily weighted towards using "Roman Catholic Church". I also had a quick check on all the wikis that link to the english Wikipedia. Out of the ones (62 total) I can display on my pc 71% have Roman in the title whilst 29% seem to be "Catholic". Taam (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
    • You are welcome to add more sources to the page and/or make comments about the sources existing on the page. The one rule I would like to assert is that no sources should be deleted. Additions and comments are OK but please do not delete sources contributed by other editors. --Richard (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The policies and cartegory decisions of other encyclopedias do not affect Wikipedia policy. Nor do they overrule the majority of English language usage and the primary self-identification of the body itself. Nor do samples of wikis, dependant on Wikipedia. You do not use a Wikipedia name as a reference for Wikipedia naming. In fact Encyclopedia Americana sites their article at "Catholic Church", but the decisions of various editorial boards in the UK or US are not relevant. Xandar 18:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Really? I spend much more time at WP:RM than Xandar does - and the usage of other works of general reference is routinely mentioned there and at our naming conventions (see the elaborate discussion at WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name, for example. So also the version of Naming Conflict to which Xandar reverted says to "Check other encyclopedias". Did he read it?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
        • It says to check other encyclopedias as part of a general checking of usage of the relevant terms. The encyclopedias do not stand alone. The checking of usage shows that not only is Catholic Church the self-identifying term of prefence, it is also the most commonly used name in English by a long way. Xandar 18:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
          • • Is this a retraction? Nobody said that encyclopedias were the only works of general reference; the first naming convention cited lists four other classes of work. (All of them are evidence of the majority of language use; and better evidence than Google.) But they do show that the decisions of encyclopedias are relevant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
              • I don't think he was reverting because of what you were adding to the guideline, but simply because you were changing the guideline without reaching a consensus on the talkpage. Anyway, that is bordering on a personal attack. Please stick to the subject (not the editor), if you want to discuss WP:NCON do it there. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the substantive issue of moving the article

It would be helpful if one of the editors who seeks to revert the recent change to Catholic Church would provide a feasible, intelligent proposal why the name of this article should be "Roman Catholic Church." This individual should have done a thorough review of the months-long discussion that resulted in the change to the current title and explain why that conclusion was incorrectg. They should understand the difference between doctrine and naming conventions, i.e. that many churches claim to belong tot he catholic church and that the catholic church is not the Catholic Church. They should also be able to present how a church is not able name themselves and why that name should be taken away from it in favor of another name. Lastly, they must present references that support their position as to why the correct name is Roman Catholic Church, which is not the name used by the church in question. If these things cannot be done, there is no discussion. --StormRider 04:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the process

For the closing administrator. If there is no consensus for a move then this article should be moved back to Roman Catholic Church which is the stable name that the article has had for many years, and was the name agreed upon with the last WP:RM. The article was moved here with no advertisement of a proposed name change at WP:RM. Mediation is not a forum for deciding on the name of an article when it has been previously decided with a WP:RM. --PBS (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been repeatedly demonstrated that the rename proposal was widely advertised both on the Wikiprojects and with an RfC notice. Mediation was not the basis for the page move, but the subsequent community discussion on the proposal which rightly occurred right here at the talk page. I don't know how we can make that more clear. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly you agree with me, that if after a WP:RM there is a clear consensus to move the page to Catholic Church then it should be moved, but if there is not then the page should remain at Roman Catholic Church. Or are you saying that if there is not a clear consensus for either name it ought to be move to "Catholic Church", because ... --PBS (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all. The page has already been moved by the correct processes and by consensus. Nothing further needs to be done. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

NO. THERE IS NO CURRENT WP:RM. BECAUSE LESS THAN SIX MONTHS HAVE GONE BY SINCE THE PAGE WAS PROPERLY MOVED BY CLEAR CONSENSUS. The present attempt to disrupt the page and re-open a decided issue can only be seen as tendentious and disruptive editing by people who refuse to accept consensus on this issue. The Consesnus is established, and trying to launch another vote less than six weeks later is against WP practice. I'm sorry if you do not accept the vote, the mediation and the consensus achieved, but that does not give you the right to launch continuous disruption on Wikipedia in the interests of pushing your POV. In addition moves are not decided by vote but by consensus discussion. We have had one year of that. We are not having it all over again because of you and your pals. Xandar 10:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

user:Xandar you have made a lot of claims in the above posting!

• What vote in which section? Do you realise that a consensus is not built on voting?
• I am aware of the practice of not having a requested move more often than every six months,[75], I am not aware that asking for a WP:RM if there has not been a previous request within six months is "against WP practice" do you have a source for that claim?
• What is the POV that I am pushing?
• Who are my pals?

In addition why was the recent attempt to build a consensus not put to a WP:RM? If it was an attempt at mediation without a WP:RM why were the editors who took part in the last WP:RM not informed of this mediation as it is reasonable to expect any WP:RM decision only to be changed by another WP:RM and if it is to be done by another mechanism why not in form them? --PBS (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Second paragraph of the WP:RM states "There is no obligation to list such move requests here; discussions of page moves can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry. " That is exactly what happened here. Marauder40 (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is immediately followed by "This page may be seen as a place to advertise move debates that would benefit from wider community input." Didn't anybody suppose the wider community would be interested in this major revision? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

And preceding the section Marauder quoted are the words: "In some situations the appropriateness of a move may be under dispute, and discussion is necessary in order to reach a consensus. There is no obligation to list such move requests here; discussions of page moves can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry."

PBS. The move discussion (not vote) followed on from a consensus decision following five months of arbitration on the naming issues. This was followed by a separate discussion on the move thrown open to the entire community and which was notified on other faith fora across the community - a thing that went far beyond the consultation guidelines on WP:RM, which only insist that the move be advertised on the article talk page. As for PBS. You were a leading participant in an early debate/vote which found no consensus to move RCC to CC at that time. You argued strongly in favour of RCC. From reading those discussions it seemed clear that those voting RCC, including you, had not based their position on Wikipedia naming guidelines, and in fact were arguing that CC couldn't be used because it might "offend" other groups. That is of course not a valid WP naming consideration. Xandar 17:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't care whether people want to consider this an official RM or not. I just want to know... are there more than 1/3 of concerned editors who think this article should be at Roman Catholic Church. If yes, then we should continue the discussion. If not, then we should ask the minority to kindly shut up until the 6 months are over. --Richard (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about any re-opening of the discussion. The decision has been made by the correct and exhaustive process. We are not going to be re-discussing the same points on this page ad-infinitum with everyone who chooses to turn up with a grudge. The moratorium is there for a good reason - so that persistent POV pushers can't tie up an article endlessly by refusing to accept the same decision. When I came to this article I accepted the previous consensus for RCC even though I didn't agree with it, and it was based on the wrong criteria. However now that we have spent one year on the naming issue. The decision has been made and that is enough. As we can see from the contributions of the new (and old) objectors, nothing new has been added to the arguments, and the points raised show that there has been no attempt by them to read through the discussions that have already taken place. Raising the same issue time and time again becomes disruption. Xandar 18:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive Tagging

I have removed the disruptive dispute tag put at the top of the article by pManderson. The issue of naming was settled just over a month ago by consensus after six months of discussion, six months of mediation and a widely advertised official rename discussion. Placing a tag on the article after this is merely another example of misuse of tags for the purpose of article disruption and POV pushing. Xandar 00:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

A 70% majority with continued dissentients is not consensus; nor can a past consensus bind those not party to it. Ideally, Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are considered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views; at a minimum, consensus is what almost everybody will grudgingly tolerate. This is neither. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This issue was discussed for about a year, reviewed, debated, and ended with consensus. Just because it was contentious, and some people insist of beating this horse weeks after, doesn't mean consensus was not reached. The tag, so soon after the change and following consensus, is a misuse of the tag and, essentially, vandalism. There will never be 100% agreement on this, so under your criteria, it would be a permanent tag. --anietor (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well put. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It also doesn't mean the question cannot be raised again. (And you're right, consensus is not unanimity.) / PerEdman 22:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this is a consensus. You just happen to be one of those minorities whose mind will not change unless it is exactly their way. What you happen to be doing, the consensus page that YOU cited, seems to call canvassing. Plus it is physically impossible to compromise in this situation. It MUST be one way or the other. No middle ground exists, unless everyone would agree to name the article "Ro Catholic Church", which would just be silly. And if, as two of the other editors have mentioned, article renamings of this scale are only to take place once every six months, you have certainly not waited for the prescribed amount of time. I'm sorry you missed out on the vote last time, but if you look at it, one more person on your side would not have changed the end result. Consensus was arrived at before you came, and because you arrived too late, you cry foul. Tough cookies, buddy.Farsight001 (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

p.s. - you really ought to check out how NOT to achieve consensus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_consensus%3F#How_not_to_achieve_consensus Farsight001 (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)