Talk:Catholic Church/Page rename proposal/Archive 1

False Statement in presentation

There is no Wikipedia policy that says that, among the preferred names of a self-identifying entity, Wikipedia must choose the one that it most frequently uses, even if this name is ambiguous. "Catholic Church", an ambiguous term, is not the only self-identifying name used by the Church. Another is the unambiguous "Roman Catholic Church". The main reason (as indicated by the use of italics) presented above for changing the title is:

"Catholic Church" is ... the name used by the Church to describe itself.

This is a false statement. "Catholic Church" is only one of the names used by the Church to describe itself: it is not the name used by the Church, as if there were no others. As indicated in the source that Xandar cites, Wikipedia should merely continue, as now, to note the fact that the Church does use the name "Roman Catholic Church". Soidi (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Soidi you're arguing the semantics of a single sentence in the wrap-up that Sunray posted and the text in question is nothing more than explanatory. Clearly the proposal notes elsewhere that the church and others refer to it in various ways; the consensus note that was developed covers this in more detail. Lets not get bogged down with non-issues; there was plenty of time for you to make these suggestions before the proposal was moved here for general discussion. Shell ^babelfish 14:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Call it semantics or whatever you like, what counts is the meaning. If you think that in context "one of the names that the Church uses" and "the name that the Church uses" have exactly the same meaning (something I find it difficult to understand), then please adjust the text to the wording that for you has the same meaning, but that for others is a different meaning from the one that is false! If the proposal notes elsewhere that the church uses more than one self-defining name, that is absolutely no reason for saying here that, on the contrary, it uses only one self-defining name. Please correct it.

As for your ad hominem reproach that I did not bring the matter up when it was discussed in mediation, I have already apologized to Sunray for my oversight and given him time to perhaps make an adjustment here (see this). But he, like you, seemed to think that "one of the names" and "the name" mean exactly the same thing. And you will see that I was repeatedly insisting on the fact that the church uses several self-identifying names, not just one: among the latest, you will find this and this. I do assure you that there was absolutely no bad faith on my part. Soidi (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at changing that particular phrase to more correctly reflect the use of additional names. If there are any further concerns about wording, it would be helpful if you would bring it up directly with Sunray or myself so that the problem can be remedied. My objection was your decision to use a heading and several paragraphs here to bring out a "false statement" that turns out to be immaterial to the actual text being discussed for inclusion; this could be just as misleading as you claim the summary to be. This issue at hand is not one that is likely to be simple or easy to handle, so the less we mire the discussion with procedural issues, the more likely we can find a collegial solution. Shell ^babelfish 15:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I confess to be somewhat annoyed at what seem to be suggestions that I was acting in bad faith. Have you not read what I wrote above? I did bring the matter directly to the attention of Sunray, indicating expressly that I was doing so before going public on the issue, precisely in the hope "that the problem could be remedied". It was not remedied. Only later, when Xandar seemed to begin building an argument on the basis of the false statement, did I finally raise the matter. Again I assure you that I was acting in good faith. And I assure you once again that I did contact Sunray directly and that I did not need you to tell me that it would be helpful to do so. Soidi (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if something's come across as suggesting bad faith here, that certainly wasn't my intention. It is my intention to help participants here stay on track and avoid losing sight of larger issues that need resolution. Did you have any further objections to the summary after my change? Shell ^babelfish 17:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Soidi is quite correct on this matter - "Catholic Church" is the name the church *usually* uses to describe itself but there are various other names that are (or have been) used by the church, both in official church documents and also in secular legal documents. Thank God that at least one editor has some common sense when it comes to this issue. Afterwriting (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Afterwriting - can you please read the rest of the proposal, specifically the explanatory note proposed for the text and see if it more clearly covers the name usage? The text that Soidi mentions is simply Sunray's attempt to briefly wrap up what was decided during the mediation. Shell ^babelfish 14:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have already read the whole proposal and Sunray's summary complicates the discussion by seeming to state something as a "fact" which is actually still in contention. If anyone believes that there are errors in Sunray's summary that could prejudice this discussion we should be entitled to say so without being criticised. And I believe that the summary could prejudice the discussion because - as Soidi rightly points out - it is a *false* statement and not just a matter of "semantics". This whole process, ultimately, is centred on semantics so we need to get it as precise as possible, including the summary of the mediation. Afterwriting (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I could not find the statement Soidi says is in the presentation by Sunray. I could only find this 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.. Is there a problem with this statement? It is a true statement, our research did determine this and it was not my research, but that done by admins Richard and Sunray I believe. They did a search of names on the Vatican website which turned up something like 99% Catholic Church to something less than 0% Roman Catholic Church. I don't understand what problem anyone could have with that statement - anyone can do that search and the results are indisputable. NancyHeise ^talk 15:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Question about the note

Where is that lengthy note supposed to go? In the lead? Footnote to something? Very long hatnote? Peter jackson (talk) 10:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It will replace the current note 1 in the article which is of no lesser length. NancyHeise ^talk 14:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

POV in the new note

As some of the participants are aware, but have not addressed, the new explanatory note cantains unsouced allegations, namely:

“ the name "Roman Catholic Church" is disliked by many Catholics as a label applied to them by Protestants to suggest that theirs is only one of several catholic Churches... ”

(1) While I am sure Protestants have used the term, so have other Christians, NonChristians, and as is clear elsewhere, "Catholics" have used the term of themselves.

More to the point the cited souce does not attripute this to Protestants; it attributes it just to others and Wikipedia should only attribute it to others."

(2) The reference cites only a basic info about the book and a http address at books.google.com that will be a dead link once the book falls below sales quotas someday. It should quote the source, Walsh, Michael (2005). Roman Catholicism as such:

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

If the whole quote is deemed too long including part of it could be fine.

(3) Since RCs have theological reasons for objecting to "Roman Catholic Church" then (to not be POV) you have to include the theological reasons of other Christians for objecting to "Catholic Church."

Non-RC Christians, object that rather than merely being under the implication that their Church is "one of other, equally valid, kinds" of Christians, Catholic Church implies that every other church is not even "one of other, equally valid, kinds."

“ ...many Roman Catholics dislike the label "Roman Catholic Church" as a suggestion that theirs is only one of several equally valid churches; where as other Christians object that the label "Catholic Church" presumes it is the one uniquely valid church.... ”

Wikipedia:Describing points of view#Usage_note says "Wikipedia should describe all major points of view, when treating controversial subjects."

Wikipedia:Describing points of view says "An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikpedia's NPOV policy."

--Carlaude ^talk 11:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have reliable references that make the points about the term "Catholic" that you think should be in the note? Xandar 12:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia endorse one Church as uniquely valid over others?

Indeed, if it were only a mater of avoiding confusion or of taste then— using the "common" name or "the" name used by the Church to describe itself could and would be good reasons to use this or that name. But that is not the case.

Catholic means universal, and to call the RCC the"Catholic Church" is highly POV. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article_naming says ""...encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality." but as noted above, even the the source, Walsh, Michael (2005). Roman Catholicism admits: "Roman Catholics object... that... calling them Roman rather suggests that there are other, equally valid, kinds..."

So should also call them this so as imply other churches are not as equally valid as they? How can Wikipedia endorse calling the "Roman Catholic Church" by the name The"Catholic Church." This is too much. --Carlaude ^talk 11:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on this seems quite clear. WP:Naming conflict states:

A city, country, people or person by contrast, is a self-identifying entity: it has a preferred name for itself. The city formerly called Danzig now calls itself Gdańsk; the man formerly known as Cassius Clay now calls himself Muhammad Ali. These names are not simply arbitrary terms but are key statements of an entity's own identity. This should always be borne in mind when dealing with controversies involving self-identifying names... Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name.

In other words Wikipedia does not "endorse" names or ban groups from being listed under their chosen name because other people object, since to do THAT would be POV. Self-identfying entities should be listed under their principal chosen name. ie in this case, the Catholic Church. Xandar 12:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that example, because it gives me a chance to point out a key related fact about the RCC.

(1) The boxer changed his name to Muhammad Ali and never used the old one again himself. He didn't just use the name "Muhammad Ali" most of the time.

But it is clear (from the note and supporting debate & sources) the Roman Catholic Church does have and does go by more than one name. The Roman Catholics— as well as Non-RCs— will sometimes use the term "Roman Catholic Church," and even official settings. This is summarized in the note; there are example both ways. Use of "Roman Catholic Church" is especially the case where it would be necessary to not offend, e.g. inter-church ecumenical agrements.

(2) Also, while Muhammad Ali may have taken this name for theological reasons— just as new Popes take new names for theological reasons— no one mistakes this as an a statement about the second-class status or no-class status of another belief-system. --Carlaude ^talk 12:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Should we also object to the article title, Universal Studios, because their studios are not truly universal? Wikipedia's use of the common name of an organization is not an endorsement of that name.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If there is any contention, it would be preferable to redirect Catholic Church to Catholic Church (disambiguation) and leave this article as Roman Catholic Church.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Universal Studios uses no other name. The Catholic Church does use other names. Soidi (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There are no people preaching Sunday mornings nor teaching Wednesday nights that "Universal Studios" is "universal." Nor do people believe The Onion is really an onion. But I have never known any Roman Catholic to just pop into a Methodist church on Sunday because they were out of town. The RCC explicitly teaches it is the one and only right church.

How could Wikipedia's use of the name in the article for the organization not be an endorsement of that name? --Carlaude ^talk 13:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Things must have changed a lot, because 25 years ago, I was able to receive communion at the University Roman Catholic Chaplaincy, and when an RC priest celebrated in my home. At Taize too, Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans and Roman Catholics received communion from their respective or other celebrants no questions asked. It was a tradition that when in India, English Anglicans could received communion at a Roman Catholic church if there was no Anglican church locally, and vice-versa. Granted, Anglicans preferred to receive at Anglican churches, and Roman Catholics were expected to receive at Roman Catholic churches, but there were grounds for exception. That may have changed over the past 20 years, sadly. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Refer to previous statement re disambiguation page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the proposed article name as an endorsement of the inherent claims. There are enough articles on political entities naming themselves "republics" despite being, more or less, dictatorships. Furthermore, while the Catholic Church sometimes does use "Roman" when referring to itself, that seems to be a minority of cases, most of which occur in relation to other Christian churches. Huon (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Huon above. I honestly don't see where the claim that the use of this name qualifies as an "endorsement" comes from, actually. That is the name by which the organization most frequently refers to itself. No other organization, really, uses the name to describe itself, so it's not like there is some degree of disambiguation required either. While there are other organizations that include "Catholic" in their name, they also, to the best of my knowledge, add other qualifiers already. The meaning of the word is not in and of itself necessarily a factor to be considered, particularly when that word is going to be used in the name in any event. John Carter (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No John. Read the Apostles' Creed. Millions of non-RC Christians, Protestants, stand-up and recite in union entire Apostles' Creed every Sunday morning. Their children hear it weekly even belore they can read themselves and see if it printed "Catholic Church" or "catholic Church." And most adults don't need to read it either, having learned it by repetition. They read...

“ I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy CATHOLIC CHURCH... ” — Apostles' Creed

And these Protestants are not thinking that they are talking about some other Church that they are not part of. They are reciting about the Christian Church, of which they are fully part.--Carlaude ^talk 14:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Carlaude, your quote is for "holy catholic church", and as such does nothing to substantiate your claim, particularly as the name One holy catholic and apostolic Church, which tends to be the usage of that term, also adds qualifiers, and is currently a redirect to Four Marks of the Church. Your apparent canvassing of seemingly every Christianity WikiProject with a message about this discussion might produce some results. However, the relevant policy is WP:NAME, and I believe that if that policy were to be fairly applied in this instance it would have to be said that your argument that the name not be used, which is apparently based more on a theological position than the relevant facts of the name itself, is basically a fairly weak one and not particularly relevant to the matter of the articles name. John Carter (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with Xandar, John Carter, Jeffro and Huon and I'd like to present the fact that our only scholarly source on the issue, Richard McBrien's The Church states that the Church claimed "Catholic Church" as its title. There are so many sources that say the same thing about the name. All of these sources say the Church "claimed as its title" the name "Catholic Church".

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

There are no other churches in the world who have claimed as their title the name "Catholic Church". Per the Wikipedia naming policy, the page needs to reflect the name the Church has "claimed as its title". Roman Catholic Church is an a/k/a and we have zero sources that say this is the name the church "claimed as its title". NancyHeise ^talk 14:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Following various splits, schisms, declarations, counsels, and reforms, there is no longer one single Catholic Church - there are many parts to the Catholic Church. The fact that the Roman Catholic Church describes that it is the Roman part of the Catholic Church, not the Catholic Church, as opposed to the Church in Constinople, Antioch, Jerusalem or Alexandria. Later came further division, where parts of the Catholic Church reformed, such as the Lutheran Anglican churches, which see themselves as apostolic and part of the Catholic Church. For one church to claim title over all others on Wikipedia would not be justifiable in terms of the literature on the subject, at best it would be contentious, determined by belief rather than evidence, and a cause of contention which (because of the potential for contention) should not be entered into. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reference to support this POV? We have several references that support the Catholic Church name (listed above your edit), all of these are discussing specifically the "Roman" Catholic Church, not those who have broken away from it (these are the words used to describe those other churches by the scholars themselves, not mine, see McBrien's description in the reference to the proposed note). NancyHeise ^talk 15:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It is unclear why this matter was raised at the Jehovah Witnesses WikiProject page. There appears to be strong consensus (minus User:Carlaude). I'll leave you all to it I think.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, the Oxford movement took great interest in this the 19th century, so you will find papers such as this: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] the Church of England asserts this in Baptism (which is recognised by the Church of Rome, as there is only 'one Baptism' as per the creeds) [6], The Roman Catholic Encyclopedia also acknowledges that this is the belief of Anglicans [7]. The Catholic Church in England severed its links with Rome, but maintained the Church through Bishops and Priests through whom the line of Apostolic succession continued, it never ceased to be part of the Catholic Church, but ceased being in communion with Rome and under authority of the Bishop of Rome. Between the 15th and 17th Centuries some practices that were held in common with the Roman Church either stopped or went underground, but the succession continued as well as the maintenance of conformity to the Nicene Creed. Most Anglicans do believe that the church is still part of the Holy Catholic Church and not part of the Roman Catholic Church - seeing the Roman Catholic Church as part of the Catholic Church, not the Catholic Church. This is bog standard stuff you learn in training to the Anglican priesthood or as an Anglican religious (like an Anglicanism 101). Wikipedia is not in a position to decide on questions of faith such as these. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

MishMich's comments all seem to refer to Anglicanism as being somehow a claimant to the name "Catholic church". Unfortunately, he also adds the word "holy" as in "Holy Catholic Church", which thereby seems to weaken his claim. The discussion is not about the terminology "holy catholic church", "one holy catholic and apostolic church", or anything like that. It is about the use of the term "catholic church" or "Roman Catholic Church" without and additional qualifiers added. Yes, there are several organizations which have split from "mainstream christianity" at whatever period which use the words "catholic church" in their names. Even the example MischMich uses though doesn't seem to do so. However, in so far as I can tell all those cases they also add other words to the name. Certainly, those complete names should be referenced, and maybe even turned into redirects. But this discussion is about the term "catholic church" without any additional qualifying words added, and I still haven't seen any examples of where those two words by themselves are used in any other context. Considering that the church in question claims 1 billion members, about 1/6 of the planetary population and over half of the Christian population on the planet, it seems to me pretty unlikely that any other usage is likely to be meant when people type in "catholic church" anywhere near as often as this usage. And, as can be seen by the hatnote, the term Catholic Church is already a redirect to this page. Is there any particular reason that it should remain only a redirect, and not be the location of the article itself?

I would very much want to be appraised of when this dicussion concludes, by the way. There are a huge number of categories using the term "Roman Catholic Church" in some form in their names. I'm assuming that they would be changed to reflect the change in the name of the parent article, and if that is true would probably be available to help fix them. John Carter (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding MishMich's comment: The Catholic Church in England and Wales seems to be the Roman Catholic Church, and it doesn't seem to use the "Roman" title prominently. So apparently the Anglicans' beliefs are irrelevant to the Catholic Church's naming itself. As an aside, I strongly dislike this talk page section's title. The answer to that question is, of course, "no". But framing the renaming of this article in such terms indicates to me a strong POV - the correct question is, "does the proposed renaming endorse one Church as uniquely valid?" (to which the answer is still no, imho). Huon (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, Mish) incorrectly refers to the "Roman Catholic Encyclopedia". Sorry, Mish, but that doesn't exist. It's the "Catholic Encyclopedia" Ironically, you have essentially provided yet another example of "Catholic" being used instead of "Roman Catholic" in an official context. --anietor (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales is called the Catholic Church in in England and Wales, I have no objection to it having an article with that name. I'm not sure that validates all references to the Roman Catholic Church as the Catholic Church. I'm not sure that this is a discussion that can be settled here anyway, as it needs to be discussed in conjunction with all Churches who are 'Catholic' or 'Holy Catholic' Churches. It is not something that can be decided on this article. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it can be settled anywhere, it could probably be settled here. As I indicated above, Carlaude sent a message regarding this discussion to virtually every Christianity WikiProject out there, and we've already gotten one response from those posts from the Jehovah's Witnesses project above. John Carter (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I do take your point, as I appreciate that people often refer to the Roman Catholic Church as The Catholic Church, and that it may even call itself this, and I am sesnitive to this; but, others call it the Roman Catholic Church, particularly other Catholic Churches, and there are other Catholic Churches. The way it works now, typing in Catholic Church, Catholic Churches, or The Catholic Church all lead here now, which seems to represent a monolopoly on the words that does not exist. The simplest solution would be to call this page 'The Catholic Church', and have the disambiguation page 'Catholic Churches' expanded slightly as a short article, and a disambiguation page on Catholic Church which offers 'The Catholic Church' and 'Catholic Churches'. I'm not sure the way it is set up now works, because typing anything 'Catholic Church' leads here, apart from something specific like 'Old Catholic Church'. Seems a bit greedy to insist that they all lead here, and force this article as the only way to get to other parts of the 'Catholic Church'. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree other churches refer to themselves as "Catholic Church". However, to the best of my knowledge, those other entities all add some other word or more to the name, like, for instance, American Catholic Church. So, in effect, they do not call themselves "Catholic Church", they just include those words, among others, in their names. It wouldn't be the first time that separatist entities have added terminology to an extant name. The general procedure, as I've seen it elsewhere, regarding such cases is to give the primary article which people seem to be looking for the primary position, and to include a "see also" link at the top of the page to the other articles on related subjects. Personally, I too would think that Catholic Churches in particular might work best as a redirect to the dab page, whatever it gets called, because of the plurality factor. But "Catholic Church" and "The Catholic Church" are both basically variations on a theme and those tend to be redirects in almost all cases. John Carter (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This was really at the core of the dispute which lead to the medation. Some editors myself included, had reservations about changing the title because of other church's claim to catholicy. I would not have agreed to the idea of the page move prior to the redrafting of the note. Painstaking work has been put into considering all POV's and remaining neutral; and I think the first sentence of the note clearly addressed the concerns about other institutions and links to an entire article on the topic. Also keep in mind that the topic of this article is the "Catholic church" not the "catholic church, two entirely different concepts. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And to address the question in the header: No, wikipedia is not in the position to endorse a certain name; rather wikipedia naming policy avoids taking sides by using each group's common name. This shouldnt involve any kind of theological discussion, and to describe this as an endorsement puts undue weight on what should be a purely descriptive endevor. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The argument some people are trying to raise about the Church's "right" to use the name Catholic Church is totally IRRELEVANT to this discussions. Wikipedia Rules clearly state that the name a body most commonly self-identifies with is the name that should be used.

In addition, no other Church NAMES itself the "Catholic Church". References to Holy Catholic Church in Creeds, are not the name of the respective church , but references to a theoretical entity.

A similar point is that with respect to other Churches. We have a Church of England article, even though the Church referred to is not the only Church operating in England. The Church of Ireland refers to a small minority Church in Ireland, most churchgoers in Ireland do not belong to this organisation. But the article name Church of Ireland is unchallenged because it is the NAME of the organisation. No-one argues that Wikipedia is validitating that body's claim to be the only church in Ireland. The Orthodox Church in America is a similar case. There are other Orthodox Churches in America, but the proper self-identifying name of the Church is used. Xandar 22:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

@John Carter. I agree, Catholic Churches needs to direct to the dab page, as this is a singular Church, whereas there are Churches (plural) on that page. I have made the necessary edit. I have also created a redirect page for Holy Catholic Church too (as reflected in individual Catholic Churches Creeds etc.) I think that this aspect of the matter should have been considered as part of the discussion about the change, but clearly it wasn't, no thought was given to this, but unfortunately the damage has now been done and I do not intend to argue this further seeing it was subject to arbitration. I have simply conducted a small piece of damage limitation. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Catholic And Catholicism already have their own separate articles while Catholic Church (singular) redirects here. Xandar 22:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see that. Having read the comments cited below, I think I'm willing to concede this, although am not entirely happy with it, but mainly because I suspect most people typing Catholic Church will be looking for this page and our duty is not to confuse readers. As long as Catholic and Catholicism remain, and you are happy about the redirect for the plural and universal descriptions Catholic Churches and Holy Catholic Church, I am not going to continue pursuing this. I'm not saying its right or I agree with it, but I can see the point, and am willing to go along with the consensus established. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 23:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

To MichMish:I myself think that "Holy Catholic Church' might best serve as a redirect to the Four Marks of the Church page, as "Holy Catholic Church" and "One holy catholic and apostolic church" are pretty much the same thing. However, the dab page should have some sort of link to the Four Marks of the Church page, maybe something like "The term "catholic church" is also at times applied to other church bodies, which see themselves as bearing the Four Marks of the Church" or something along those lines. John Carter (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am against the redirect of the Roman Catholicism to just "Catholic". As a Lutheran, I am well aware that Lutherans retain the use of "Catholic" and they certainly don't think that Rome owns the term.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Epiphyllumlover, I am certainly sensitive and respectful of your feelings on the issue, since you discuss it from your personal Lutheran perspective. However, Lutherans don't actually use the term "Catholic" as a self-identifying title. In fact, there are various commissions, groups, etc. of the two churches, in which "Catholic" is used even by those entities to identify the Catholic Church's participation with the Lutheran Church. For example: The Lutheran-Catholic Covenant Commission http://www.lccovenant.org/. (Granted, there are times when the Lutheran Church uses the term Roman Catholic as well). Also, Lutherans use the term catholic, as in the Nicene Creed, but that is in a different context (See the "Catholic" v "catholic" discussion above). --anietor (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Again. if you read the wikipedia guidance, this discussion is not about who "owns" the term, or about who you may think has the "right" to use the term, it is about the name of the organisation, which it uses to self-identify. Lutheran Churches identify by the name "Lutheran". They do not mame themselves "the Catholic Church." Wikipedia is not about whether other people dislike an organisation using a particular name, it is about whether that organisation actually uses the name or not. Examples are Church of Ireland, or Assemblies of God, or Muslim Brotherhood, or Church of Christ or Society of Friends or United Reformed Church. All of these could be objected to as implying "ownership" of the respective terms. However that does not stop them appearing under their self-identified names in Wikipedia. Xandar 22:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

As a Catholic myself- we should change the Name from Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. The fact is- it is the name we use to describe ourselves. Do you find Church of Christ offensive as well? Of course not! What about Universal Studios even though it isn't universal? The name should be Catholic Church- because that is what we call them. Aside from the fact that you only state Theological issues as to why we shouldn't change it- it would be POV to keep the name as it currently is- both because:

1. We misrepresent a minority opinion- where only 9% of the world actually objects to the naming- as only 9% of the world is protestant- and 18% of the world is Catholic. 2. We accept a minority opinion- even though the official name is the "Catholic Church" --Rockstone35 (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Rockstone, "Roman Catholic Church" is also an official name of the Church we belong to, and has been used as such by Popes and departments of the Holy See. Soidi (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

True that may be- but the common name- the offical name- and the real name is The Catholic Church.

Theologically- you must agree the Roman Catholic Church misrepresents us! And, officially- we are are The Catholic Church- and commonly- if someone Asks me what religion I am- I say Catholic. Not Roman Catholic! Catholic- and they know what it is and move on. --Rockstone35 (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And the emergency contact paper in my wallet says "Roman Catholic". What individual editors do is not terribly relevant to the discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Nor is your scrap of paper. In some English speaking countries, government and other pressure made some parishes and dioceses adopt the name Roman Catholic. Some of these bodies still retain use of the term for historical reasons, however, worldwide, the name of the Church is (and always has been) the Catholic Church. See Vatican Catechism and usa and france. Xandar 22:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Lutheran Church originally called itself the Evangelical Church, but the Romanists persisted in calling them "Lutheran" as an insult--an insult akin to the use of "Papist" against Romanists. The name "stuck" and lost it's insulting power through overuse and subsequent reinterpretation. There are some Lutherans today however that still do not identify with the term "Lutheran", and instead call themselves "Evangelical Catholic". They consider themselves to be more Catholic than the followers of Rome and back it up with arguments; for example, noting that the mass as used in the more conservative & liturgical congregations of what is known as Lutheranism is more similar to the historical Western mass before the Tridentine Era than the current post-Vatican II mass. If you look at the Augsburg Confession, you will see that the early Lutherans considered themselves to be more Catholic than the Roman party. To surrender the term "Catholic Church" to only one church that considers itself Catholic is non-neutral POV.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is again an argument that remains IRRELEVANT to this discussion, since it goes contrary to Wikipedia Policy. We are not discussing whether or not you feel you are more catholic than Catholics, or orthodox than the Orthodox. On POV, please read the relevant guidance, [at this location]. It clearly states that it is your position that is POV. We are not to discuss subjective matters such as whether a body has the right to use a particular name, only whether or not it DOES use that name. The Catholic Church principally self-identifies by that name, and no other Church does. As far as Lutherans go, Lutheran Churches are listed under titles that make claims that others could contest, like Church of Norway and Church of Sweden. Is the lutheran Church the only Church in those lands? Xandar 01:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me... but we are More Catholic than you. For one- we are the original Church- our priests are ordained by bishops that come from a line of succession that dates back to Jesus's Time- and only we have a pope (who also dates back to Peter). And- we believe in the Eucharist like it is meant to- and Priests who also come from a line of succession bless them. Anyway- my feelings are also POV in this case- so I'll ignore that in the interest of not having a wiki-flame war. --Rockstone35 (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyway- while it is true that other Churches call themselves Catholic- only the Catholic Church call themselves the Catholic Church. All of the other churches do not, so regardless of what you believe; your church does not claim that name- ours does. Several companies might have family as part of their goals- but if I name my company "The Family Company"- and I become famous enough to make it on Wikipedia- would you argue that my article should not be named "The Family Company" because others also have family as one of the goals of the company? I would hope not. --Rockstone35 (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A persons personal religious convictions are not relevant to this discussion. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"Catholic Church" applied to the Eastern Orthodox Church

I disagree with renaming this article to simply "Catholic Church", a disambiguation should be given in the title, since there are also others who use this title (for example, "Catholic Church" is also used by the Orthodox (eastern) Church in the following [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] ). Also, "Catholic Church" can be understood as a descriptive name (the Universal Church), and since we cannot have an article titled "catholic Church", because titles are meant to start with upper-cased characters, I don't think there can be a difference between "Catholic Church" and "catholic Church" in this case. However, I believe wiki articles about self-identifying entities should have titles similar to what they use, but disambiguations should be offered when it is needed (maybe in brackets, like other users suggested earlier here "Catholic Church (Roman)", if the term "Roman" is disliked, maybe a more descriptive disambiguation should be given like "Catholic Church (in communion with Rome)", although it may seem longer). (I also believe there are many other articles which have (even more) problems about their titles.) Cody7777777 (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That list of sources looks impressive, but only at a first glance. When actually searching some of those books for "Catholic Church" and checking instances of occurrence without further qualifier, I found several which mean the Roman Catholic Church. I checked very few, but I didn't find one which meant the Orthodox Church when not adding some sort of qualifier. I don't think the Orthodox Church really names itself "Catholic Church" - check for example the Website of the Russian Orthodox Church. Huon (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The following [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], use just "Catholic Church" (there is also one using "Orthodox, Catholic Church") for the (eastern) Orthodox Church, (the others above also include "Orthodox Catholic Church", but that's to distinguish itself from others using the title "Catholic Church"). I think these prove that the Orthodox Church also calls itself "Catholic Church" (if you believe it has renounced this title, then please show some sources claiming this). Cody7777777 (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

These five sources do seem to show conclusively that the important church that is also known as the Eastern Orthodox Church does sometimes refer to itself simply as "the Catholic Church", without additional adjectives. The (Roman) Catholic Church uses that name more frequently (both in absolute figures and in comparison to the other names it has for itself), but does that give it an exclusive right in Wikipedia to the name "Catholic Church"?  :::"Catholic Church" as the title of an article was already ambiguous because of the meaning of that phrase in the thought of post-Protestant Reformation churches. This adds a further layer of ambiguity to "Catholic Church" if used as the title of an article. We should keep the unambiguous title of "Roman Catholic Church", while being free to use "Catholic Church" in the body of the article, where the context will make it unambiguous. Soidi (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The only title that the Orthodox has "claimed" per WP:RS scholarly sources (see Richard McBrien The Church) is The Holy Orthodox Church. Theological claims of various churches who state their belief in being part of the one Catholic Church are not factual claims supported by scholarly sources. The note makes clear that various churches call themselves "catholic" but none of them "claim as their title" "The Catholic Church". Just as a note to all, The Catholic Church also believes that the Holy Orthodox Church is part of the one True Church, John Paul II called them "the other lung" and efforts to reconcile these two church has twice produced an agreement by the patriarch to do so, but, in the words of Thomas Bokenkotter, the agreement was not well received by the EO clergy and people so it never took effect. However, this discussion is not about theological claims, (The Catholic Church claims it is orthodox)- this discussion is about what name the Church has claimed as its title and whether any other church has officially claimed this same name as its title. Our sources say only Catholic Church has claimed this as its title while other churches claim "catholicicy", they have different "titles". NancyHeise ^talk 14:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, Cody has shown abundantly that the EOC also calls itself by the name "Catholic Church". This is a well-sourced fact that McBrien does not deny: McBrien does not say that the only title claimed by the EOC is the one you mention. Soidi (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Soidi, have you actually read those sources? Even the remaining five are hardly unequivocal in that regard, with one even explicitly using "Catholic Church" to denote everything non-protestant, including Rome. Also note that they are all more than a century old. The Russian Orthodox Church website, on the other hand, has no mention whatsoever of "Catholic". Even if the Orthodox Church did use "Catholic" as part of its name in the past, it seems to have ceased to do so. Huon (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why you doubt it. Take the very first phrase we are sent to in the very first source: "As an obedient son of our much-desired mother, the Catholic Church". What church is here called "the Catholic Church"? Is it not the same church that is also called "the holy Orthodox Catholic Church", the one whose "chief shepherd" is His All-Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch of New Rome? Or do you think that by "the Catholic Church" was meant the (from their point of view) schismatic Westerners who (again from their point of view) had falled away from the one Catholic Church? Soidi (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence, that the Orthodox Catholic Church has ever officially renounced the title "Catholic Church". The sources shown largely have an official character, the fact that the sources shown are older, doesn't mean that they are rejected today (obviously the Bible, the ecumenical councils, which are even older are not rejected). However, the sources from google books [35], [36], [37] are recent reprinted editions (meaning they can be read today by many people). Also, the The Confession of the Orthodox Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem, which describes an important orthodox Synod of Jerusalem, as far as I see does not even use the term "Orthodox Church", it uses only "Catholic Church" when referring to it, the web page there also claims: "...It is “the most authoritative and complete doctrinal deliverance of the modern Greek Church” on the issues raised by Calvinism, according to Are Protestantism and Roman Catholicism Heretical? at the Orthodox Christian Information Center:

"The Confessio Dosithei presents, in eighteen decrees or articles, a positive statement of the orthodox faith. It follows the order of Cyril’s Confession, which it is intended to refute. It is the most authoritative and complete doctrinal deliverance of the modern Greek Church on the contoverted articles. It was formally transmitted by the Eastern Patriarchs to the Russian Church in 1721, and through it to certain Bishops of the Church of England, as an ultimatum to be received without further question or conference by all who would be in communion with the Orthodox Church."

Dositheus is a “great teacher” of the Church, according to Tradition in the Orthodox Church, at the website of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and elsewhere:

"There are the writings and Confessions of Faith written by great teachers of the Church during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Examples might include the letter of Mark of Ephesus (1440-1441) to all Orthodox Christians; the correspondence of Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople with the German Reformers (1573-1581); the council of Jerusalem (1672) and the Confession of Faith by Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem (1672), and the writings of St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain, who published the Rudder, a book of great canonical and theological importance (1800)."" As it can be seen the "Confession of Faith by Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem" is obviously considered important by the (E)OC today as well. Regarding, the "Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848 A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns" ", it is a document composed by the eastern Patriarchs. (I realize you may feel offended by some of the content from the websites shown, I'm sorry if that's the case.) Cody7777777 (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Soidi and Cody. This is RUBBISH. Even if the links were indications that the Orthodox used Catholic Church as its NAME - which they are not, they are all well OVER 100 YEARS OLD. Cody's references are many hundreds of years old, and completely off-topic. We are not concerned with whether the Orthodox Churches see themselves theoretically as part of a greater "catholic church". These references have absolutely no bearing on the usage of the name NOW. That is what we are talking about. Usage NOW. Now if the Orthodox Church abandoned the name "Orthodox" and used "catholic Church" unqualified as its standard name, we might have a case for disambiguation. Therefore this point is entirely off-topic until that time when the Eastern Orthodox Church seeks to be renamed "Catholic Church". Xandar 18:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, you seem to imagine that the EOC can use only one name at a time! And you seem to have the same idea about the RCC! Both use several names, have you not noticed? The EOC does not see itself "theoretically as part of a greater 'catholic church'": it sees itself as the one Catholic Church, which is "awaiting the conversion of the shepherds who have fallen off from her with their flocks", i.e. the Western bishops. Soidi (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Organisations have one name by which they are principally known, and by which they primarily self-identify. The Orthodox Church may "see itself" as the catholic church, but that is not the name it uses. That's what we are talking about. The catholic Church sees itself as orthodox, as do many protestant churches, but that is not the name they use to self-identify. Stay on topic. What we are discussing is the name principally used to self-identify, and by this test, we know what name the orthodox church uses. Catholic Church is not used as its primary or identifying NAME by the Orthodox Church. All their material, websites, Dioceses etc (even the ones you quote) use "Orthodox Church". Catholic Church (unmodified) is used by one Church as its principal self-identifying name. This one. End of story. Xandar 18:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The EOC has not changed its identity. It is still the Church that calls itself the Catholic Church, as well as other names. In this it is like the (R)CC, which likewise in its official documents identifies itself by using more than one name. We are not discussing only "the name principally used to self-identify". We are discussing the most suitable title for this article about the (R)CC, which is not necessarily the name most frequently used by the (R)CC, since factors such as intelligibility and lack of ambiguity must also be considered. Soidi (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No. we are discussing Wikipedia naming policy, which takes as primary consideration the name principally used by a body to self-identify. Your belief that the Orthodox Church now calls itself the Catholic Church is not only unreferenced, it is directly contradicted by all the evidence. It names itself the Orthodox Church and does not name itself the Catholic Church. There is no ambiguity in this. There is more ambiguity in using the inaccurate name Roman Catholic Church in the title. In addition you have committed to the compromise agreed in mediation - yet you now seem to be arguing against that consensus which you signed up to. This is not a process we got into for amusement, but to make serious progress. Xandar 19:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Organisations can have more than a single "self-identifying name" if they want, and the sources shown prove that the Orthodox Church has also claimed "Catholic Church" as a title, and there is no proof, that it has ever officially renounced this title (it wouldn't make sense for the Orthodox Church to ever abandon this title), so it means it is also a "self-identifying term" of the Orthodox Church today (even if it isn't used often). As shown above, the The Confession of Dositheus, is considered important today as well by the Orthodox (as it is proven by these more recent articles [38],[39]), and it uses only the title "Catholic Church" (when referring to the (E)OC), so I think this clearly shows that the title "Catholic Church" for the orthodox today can be used to refer to the (eastern) Orthodox Church. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, where does Wikipedia say that, among the preferred names of a self-identifying entity, Wikipedia must choose the one that it most frequently uses, even if this name is ambiguous? Soidi (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The name is not "ambiguous". The possibility that at some time over the course of history "the Orthodox Church has also claimed 'Catholic Church' as a title" is of no consequence to the issue of Wikipedia's naming policy today. In any event, clarification is amply provided in the proposed note. --anietor (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"Catholic Church" may be unambiguous in several contexts, but as the title of an article it is undoubtedly ambiguous. Only the content of the article will disambiguate it. The body of the article, where the proposed note will be, can of course use "Catholic Church" unambiguously, even in the opening words. Soidi (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy has been quoted above and in the systematic review which I linked to. There is ZERO ambiguity about the name Catholic Church in this context. Catholic Church ALREADY directs to this article, and there is 0% evidence that anyone seeking Orthodox Church is going to type in "Catholic Church".

Cody: You don't seem to grasp that we are not talking of claims to catholicity but to the NAME of the Church. The Catholic Church claims orthodoxy. But it doesn't identify as the Orthodox Church. Now here are the official sites of principal Orthodox Churches. Not ONE uses the name "Catholic Church to identify itself. Nor does the word appear anywhere on the page. Serbian Orthodox Church

Finnish orthodox

Orthodox Church in America

Syrian Orthodox

Bulgarian OC

The Russian Orthodox Church site is here In its statute uses the name Russian Orthodox Church. It quotes one other official name "The Moscow Patriarchate" NOT the "Catholic Church".

This orthodox catechical article states "Each of these churches is independent in administration, but, with the exception of the Church of Rome, which finally separated from the others in the year 1054, all are united in faith, doctrine, Apostolic tradition, sacraments, liturgies, and services. Together they constitute and call themselves the Orthodox Church."

The argument that the Orthodox Church uses the Catholic Church as its name is without substance. Xandar 19:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You say: "Wikipedia policy has been quoted above and in the systematic review which I linked to". Please, be so good as to quote the words in which Wikipedia policy states that, among the preferred names of a self-identifying entity, Wikipedia must choose the one that the entity uses most frequently.

After an article has indicated what church it is speaking of, "Catholic Church" becomes unambiguous. Until that has been clarified, as in the title of an article, "Catholic Church" is ambiguous: the article could be about the "Catholic Church" that is believed in (as in the Creed) rather than the Church that is believed. It has now been discovered that the phrase could also be a reference to the Church that explicitly claims to be and that calls itself the Catholic Church (as well as being the Orthodox Church and being the "one holy catholic and apostolic Church") and that considers that the Western bishops and their flocks left it. As an article title, the phrase is ambiguous, even if in other contexts it is unambiguous. Soidi (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, we must chose one name. And to do so, we must use the naming conventions and objective criteria in WP:NC and WP:NCON. Judging by the criteria, what name would you chose? Sunray (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The best-known unambiguous name used by the Church itself, as now. Soidi (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And that name is the Catholic Church. Xandar 12:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Xandar because of all scholarly sources in agreement and google test. NancyHeise ^talk 14:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy WP:NAME

For Soidi's benefit, I repost the relevant area on Article Naming of Wikipedia:Naming conflict:

The key principles in summary are:

• If a native name has a common English-language equivalent, the English version takes precedence (e.g. Munich rather than München; China rather than Zhōngguó).
• If the name is a self-identifying term for the entity involved and there is no common English equivalent, use the name that the entity has adopted to describe itself.
• If the name is that of an inanimate or non-human entity, there is no common English equivalent and no dispute over the entity's name, use the official designation (or an English translation thereof) applied by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which the entity is predominately found (e.g. Orlické Mountains from the Czech Orlické hory).
• If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and one or more English-language equivalents exists, use the most common English-language name.
• If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and there is no English-language equivalent, use the most common non-English name.

A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or self-identifying usage:

• Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources)
• Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
• Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)

Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:

• Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?
• Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?
• Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?
• Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?

This is follwed by a highly-relevant example...

Suppose that the people of the fictional country of Maputa oppose the use of the term "Cabindan" as a self-identification by another ethnic group. The Cabindans use the term in a descriptive sense: that is what they call themselves. The Maputans oppose this usage because they believe that the Cabindans have no moral or historical right to use the term. They take a prescriptive approach, arguing that this usage should not be allowed. Wikipedia should not attempt to say which side is right or wrong. However, the fact that the Cabindans call themselves Cabindans is objectively true – both sides can agree that this does in fact happen. By contrast, the claim that the Cabindans have no moral right to that name is purely subjective. It is not a question that Wikipedia can, or should, decide. In this instance, therefore, using the term "Cabindans" does not conflict with the NPOV policy. It would be a purely objective description of what the Cabindans call themselves. On the other hand, not using the term because of Maputan objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Maputan POV. In other words, Wikipedians should describe, not prescribe.

Xandar 12:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems irrelevant. It doesn't say that, among the Church's preferred names, the most frequently used one must necessarily be chosen for the title of the article, which is what you were asked to produce evidence for. To paraphrase your "highly-relevant example": Even supposing that others oppose the use of the term "Roman Catholic Church" as one of the self-identifications by this Church, the fact that this Church calls itself the Roman Catholic Church is objectively true - both sides can agree that this does in fact happen ... in other words, Wikipedians should describe, not prescribe.

I would add: If the Church is flexible enough to use "Roman Catholic Church" where it meets objections to its appropriation of the term "Catholic Church", why can't you be equally flexible? Soidi (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The above sources have shown (since they use the term "Catholic Church", not "catholic Church") that the (eastern) Orthodox Church has also claimed in the past the title "Catholic Church", there is simply no evidence that the (eastern) Orthodox Church has ever renounced this title, that seems to be only an assumption (based on the fact that it isn't used too much, the websites of the national Orthodox Churches don't say that it has renounced that title). (Also, since it claims "catholicity", I think it means it also claims the title "Catholic Church".) The article here contains a statement around the year 1914 (so it is not more than 100 years old) made by Saint Raphael of Brooklyn (who has been canonized around the year 2000):"The Church of the East has never from the first been known by any other name than Catholic, nor has she set aside this title in any official document." "Catholic Church" (not "catholic Church") is used for the (E)OC in the following more recent articles [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]. Also, the ecumenical councils accepted by the Orthodox Catholic Church, also use the title "Catholic Church", since it accepts those councils today, it obviously accepts that title as well (the texts of some of these councils can be found at [49], [50]). Regardless, if others like it or not, for the orthodox, the title "Catholic Church" (not just "catholic Church") can be used to refer to the (eastern) Orthodox Church. (In my opinion, if this article is renamed, a disambiguation in brackets should be added.) Cody7777777 (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No one has ever alleged that the term catholic or even the name Catholic Church is used exclusively by any one church. What is fact is that the name Catholic Church is used most often by the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church most often uses Eastern Orthodox Church; this is just common knowledge. The use of this name does not mean they are not catholic just as the Catholic Church's name does not mean they are not Orthodox. This type of response is based more on emotion, concern about which is the true church, and who is more right. No where in anything that has been proposed has the term been proposed as exclusive, but what is demonstrated is the most common name for the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church. Does the Church use other names? Of course, but it uses those names far less often. In no way does the Catholic Church deny or reject those names, the note makes this clear. Cody, this same principle applies to the Eastern Orthodox Church; she uses EOC far more often than the term Catholic Church. What name should she be know by? Yup, you're right, Eastern Orthodox Church...not the Catholic Church. --^StormRider 14:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not denying that it is used more often by the RCC, that is why it is a redirect here (as long as the disambiguation line is given). But there is some difference between using it as a redirect or as an article title, an encyclopedia is supposed to contain general knowledge, I don't think it is encyclopedic to give the impression that only a single organization can be known by that name. As it was said above, the naming policy insists only on a name used by the organization (not the preferred one, or the most used) it also does not explain what happens when the same name is used (not just contested) by others. (Regarding, the name the (E)OC uses, it does not use "Eastern Othodox Church" officially too much, today it probably uses "Orthodox Church" most of the time, but a more proper official name would be as far as I know, "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" or "Orthodox Catholic Church", also there are other cases where that naming policy is regrettably not applied, this for example.) Cody7777777 (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

So based upon this type of logic, we can go around changing the names of organizations from the preferred names to alternative names that are used, but just not the most common. Regardless what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says, we should just call it the "Mormon Church]]; instead of Eastern Orthodox Church, the name of the article should be Catholic Church; instead of FIAT, we will call it "Fix it again Tony"; the list can go on and on. We use the name the organization prefers, and in this instance it is Catholic Church as demonstrated by the references. An aside: this is a very strange conversation; I have never heard this type of logic before.--^StormRider 16:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The naming policy does not specify "preferred" or "most used", it only says a common name in english (I don't think there is something uncommon about the name "Roman Catholic Church") used also as an official name by the entity (it does not specify how often). Also, the policy does not explain what happens when the same name is also used (not just contested) by another organization, I believe disambiguations should be given in such case. Disambiguations could also be given using brackets, if needed (in this case it would be "Catholic Church (Roman)" (this was not my idea, it was suggested earlier here) or more descriptive like "Catholic Church (in communion with Rome)"). If there would be no ambiguity about this title, it would probably not have produced these debates. Also, "Eastern Orthodox Church" is not the really preferred title of the entity known by that name (the word "eastern" is mainly applied by non-orthodox, but is used also by the orthodox sometimes), among its preferred titles would rather be "Orthodox Catholic Church" or "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church", but I don't think that many will like it to be named that way, and if I would rename Eastern Orthodox Church, I would rather rename it to "Orthodox Catholic Church (eastern)" since there is also another group known as "Oriental Orthodoxy" (and as far as I know "oriental" is not their really preferred name). (Regarding the case, with the article called "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" if others use the same name and disagree with how it is now, maybe it should be renamed as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)" (that's only my opinion, I'm sorry in case you find it offensive), regarding the FIAT article, I don't think it really produced disputes similar to this.) Cody7777777 (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The name to choose for the title is the most suitable one for the publication in which the article appears. In a Church publication, it would doubtless be "Catholic Church". In a non-Church publication, such as Wikipedia, it is just as doubtless "Roman Catholic Church", as is recognized by encyclopedias such as the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Soidi (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Your conclusion is that RCC is the best name. Would you be able to support that with reference to the applicable policy and guidelines? Sunray (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The onus of proof surely lies on those who want to change the title. I am still waiting for an indication of the grounds in Wikipedia policy for the claim that, among the names preferred by a self-identifying entity, the one it most uses and that one alone may be used for the title of an article on the entity. Soidi (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This has already been detailed in the systematic argument linked to below. The reason it would be called "catholic church" is because research has shown overwhelmingly shown that this is the most commonly used name and the name it most often uses for itself. RCC has not turned up with any significant usage other than a few places here and there. This also has nothing to do with the "holy catholic church" (lowercase) as no other church has been shown to have significantly uses the term "catholic" in its title. There is no ambiguity as to which church is being discussed, there is no other church that it might be referring to. With the heavily sourced note and the plans for a disambiguation page, I don't see how you can be opposed to this. Since we have made sourced arguments and because we are arguing from policy, it is now your turn to provide such an argument for your position. You can't simply hold up the discussion with WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, either make an argument or step aside. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

By "systematic argument" you mean, I presume, Vaquero's invalid argument. I am still waiting for a quotation from Wikipedia policy giving the grounds for the claim that, among the names preferred by a self-identifying entity, the one it most uses and that one alone may be used for the title of an article on the entity. Soidi (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think different editors have posted that for you about 3 or 4 times now. Here it is again [51] Not sure why we have to keep posting it, or why we have to keep arguing with you when you are clearly off base bringing up theological claims and issues that are already explained in the note. All that matters is whether or not any other Church has "claimed as its title" Catholic Church. None have. Therefore, because vast referenced scholarly consensus agrees with the fact that the Catholic Church has claimed this name as its title (and are silent as to whether or not they "claimed" Roman Catholic Church as a title), and because a search of the Vatican website produces more than 99.9% of all references to the Church is "Catholic Church" - Wikipedia policy points to a name change - which is why a consensus of editors on both sides of the argument agreed to this at the mediation - including you. NancyHeise ^talk 02:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Where in Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Proper nouns does it say that, among the names preferred by a self-identifying entity, the one it most uses and that one alone may be used for the title of an article on the entity? I have long been looking in that section for the alleged Wikipedia policy rule. I have failed to find it. Please be good enough to quote it to me. Soidi (talk) 04:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and one or more English-language equivalents exists, use the most common English-language name." --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A very sincere expression of thanks to Kraftlos. At last there is something concrete to consider. However, the quotation does not seem to fit our case here. The (R)CC is not "an inanimate or non-human entity", such as a mountain, nor is it "disputed between two jurisdictions". So would Kraftlos or Nancy please quote for me the Wikipedia policy that is supposed to impose CC as a title on the grounds that it appears more frequently in the Church's documents, at least in the internal ones. Sunray is repeatedly calling on participants to "speak to WP policy and support their points with references", and saying that "unsupported points of view can simply be ignored". So how about finally quoting the alleged Wikipedia policy instead of just saying that it exists? Soidi (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The example does refer to a geographic feature, however this whole section is discussion proper nouns, such as George W. Bush, United Nations, etc. It's not really a stretch to apply the policy here since we're still talking about Proper Nouns. The list is titled "key principles" which would indicate that this isn't a rigid checklist, but a set of principles that can be taken to any naming conflict regarding proper nouns. And I would consider a church to be a non-human (not a person) inanimate (not living) entity in the sense of the government, but perhaps human and animate in the sense that its made up of human members. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again, Kraftlos, for speaking to the point, and not calling names instead. The section is indeed about proper nouns. However, the sentence you quoted is clearly about (inanimate or non-human) entities that, unlike the Church, cannot choose their own name, that are not self-defining. The Church is not only self-defining (like Cassius Clay/Mohammed Ali), but also self-governing, not "disputed between two jurisdictions". So the quotation you gave is not about a class of things into which you can fit the Church. Soidi (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition the guidelines on naming conflicts state at this location that a method of choosing between conflicting names is to see which is the most popular by means of certain tests. Those tests have been done, and come up overwhelming with "Catholic Church" over "Roman Catholic Church". Xandar 11:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

These tests include "Check other encyclopedias. If there is general agreement on the use of a name (as there often will be), that is usually a good sign of the name being the preferred term in English." Which name does this test come out in favour of? Soidi (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Soidi, this wikipedia policy page [52] provides at least three policies that would require us to move the page to Catholic Church, these are:

• the self identifying rule that says to use the name the source self identifies with even if others don't like it. Wikipedia does not take sides on whether or not an entity has a right to use the name because that doesnt matter. It is fact that they use it and our WP:RS scholarly sources say that Catholic Church is the name it has claimed as its title.
• The Google test already determined that 99.9% of uses are for Catholic Church over RCC.
• The consensus test, (our vote at mediation to move the page to Catholic Church)

Soidi, please now list for us which Wikipedia policies you find that prohibit a name change, thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 14:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• the self-identifying ruleupholds the use of RCC as the title
• The Google test confirms tht the Church self-identifies as the RCC (among other names); or, if by the Google test you mean the test to find which name is most used, you still have to post the Wikipedia policy that alleged says that only the most-used name can be used for the title.
• A vote of handful of editors does not oblige the Wikipedia community

It is those who demand a change supposedly based on Wikipedia policy who must cite the policy that requires it, not those who prefer to leave the title as it is. Soidi (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Soidi, there's an entire section above you which lays out the policy and arguments for the position to change; ignoring that information will not make it go away nor will it stop a consensus from being formed around you. If you'd like to participate in the final outcome here, you're going to need to work with other editors. You've claimed the same policy that the others claim supports the change - perhaps that's a place to start the discussion? Shell ^babelfish 14:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Have I not been calling for that discussion? Have I not put as heading on this section the title "Alleged Wikipedia policy"? Have I not been repeatedly asked that this fundamental point be discussed? Perhaps now you yourself will be so kind as to post here the statement of Wikipedia policy that supposedly requires that, among the names that an self-identifying entity uses, only the most frequently used may appear as a title for an article on the self-identifying entity? Soidi (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Those editors that support the title change have copied the policy here, given their reasoning for why the policy supports the change and even provided the evidence they have gathered to support that reasoning. This was also given in even more detail during the earlier part of the mediation which you participated in. If you disagree with that reasoning, interpretation or evidence, then provide your reasoning; nothing will come of continuing to request information that has already been repeatedly provided for this discussion. Shell ^babelfish 15:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm disappointed. I was hoping that at last I would find in you someone who would quote a Wikipedia policy about choosing as title one of the names that a self-defining entity uses, rather than the others. But you have only told me that such a policy exists somewhere. Others have given quotations, but only of sentences that do not impose any particular choice of name for the title of an article on such an entity. They have quoted rules about how to tell which name is most common, but have indicated no rule about which of the names used by a self-identifying entity to chose. Cody states: The naming policy insists (when referring to self-identifying terms) only on using a common name in English, which is also used as an official title by the organization it describes, it does not specify "most preferred" or "most used". He is right. When an entity uses several names of its own choice, Wikipedia gives no rule about which of them to pick for the title of an article on the entity. The policies that have been quoted to me apply to RCC (the title in possession) as well as to CC. They do not say that CC must necessarily be chosen. Will you not relent and quote something concrete, please? If you won't, what can I do to get someone to point out this elusive rule that you assure me does exist, but that nobody has yet pointed out to me or to Cody? Soidi (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:NCON#Self-identifying_terms "Identification of common names using external references - A number of methods can be used to identify which of a pair (or more) conflicting names is the most prevalent in English." That's the whole purpose of this exercise is to select a name that most accurately describes the subject. Even if the policy would allow us to use either one, the consensus of the editors is allowed to make the move. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That indicates how to identify the most prevalent English term but does not say that the most prevalent name must form the title. The most prevalent term is not necessarily the most accurate one. An example is "CC" in comparison to the less ambiguous "RCC". A "consensus" can make a move from "RCC" to "CC", but no "WP policy" that says the move must be made is in existence. Soidi (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We're trying to pick which name (not which names) should be used. "Commonly used English translations of self-identifying terms are usually preferred" Therefore, less commonly used self-identifying terms are less preferable. Both Catholic Church and Roman Catholic are used by the subject, however CC is used significantly more frequently than RCC (my searches turn up with about a 4:1 ratio in the news). Therefore the title of this page should be "Catholic Church". Now do you have a reason why we shouldn't move the page to Catholic Church? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Also as sunray said below, "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article." Topic_creation#Use_common_names_of_persons_and_things. This is the guiding principle in naming articles, not we choose the title we like, but that we choose the title that is most commonly used, without regard to the subjects right to use it. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Commonly used English translations of self-identifying terms are usually preferred" is not the same as "The most common of the self-identifying terms used in English is to be preferred". As for Sunray's comment below, I have replied to it below. See #Wikipedia guidelines. Soidi (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Except the policy WP:NAME does say to use the most common name. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The Church itself does not insist on using "Catholic Church" as its title

When dealing with people who have difficulty with calling it simply "the Catholic Church", the Church uses the name "Roman Catholic Church". There are Wikipedia editors who have difficulty with calling it simply "the Catholic Church"; so on what grounds are other editors demanding that, in spite of that opposition, Wikipedia must be more rigid than the Church itself? And remember that the Church itself sometimes uses the name "Roman Catholic Church" even when addressing its own faithful, who have no difficulty with calling it simply "the Catholic Church"! Soidi (talk) 08:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Lets stick to discussing this via Wikipedia policy. We are not here to judge the motives or "catholicness" of other editors. Shell ^babelfish 13:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not discussing their motives or their catholicity, only their logic. I have asked those who claim that Wikipedia policy demands the use of "Catholic Church", rather than "Roman Catholic Church", as the title of the article to quote the Wikipedia policy that, according to them, requires Wikipedia to be far more rigid than the Church itself on questions of nomenclature. Out of respect for the humourless, I have now changed the humorous heading. In future I will take account of their taste. Soidi (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Soidi is making a relevant point which has nothing to do with other editors' "catholicness" (sic - the word is "catholicity"). As the church itself does in fact sometimes - and voluntarily - use the name "Roman Catholic Church" for itself then the constant arguments by some editors that this isn't a name used by the church are obviously mistaken. Afterwriting (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has argued that the Church does not use the title "Roman Catholic Church." As the note says, the Church occasionally refers to itself this way "in some documents involving ecumenical relations." Our task is to chose the name most commonly used by the Church. Sunray (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Will someone please quote the Wikipedia policy that, according to what is being claimed here, states that the name most commonly used by the Church must be used for the title of the article. There are several names that in preference to certain names applied to it by others the Church chooses to use for itself. It does not insist on any one name, but without protest uses the RCC name where the CC name causes difficulties to others. What Wikipedia policy says the Church's nomenclature policy, and that of the best-known encyclopedias, is wrong?

The suggestion that the Church uses RCC only "in some documents involving ecumenical relations" is false. The Church has also used RCC in addressing its own faithful in documents unconnected with ecumenical relations. Soidi (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Right you are, Sunray. Several editors are trying their best to manipulate the issue into a theological one, when it's really an issue about Wikipedia naming policy. For instance, Afterwriting's disingenuous attempt to say that "some editors" (i.e. those advocating the name change) take the position that RCC "isn't a name used by the church". In fact, those editors have consistently acknowledged that the church, in certain contexts, uses the RCC name. The question is: what is the appropriate title of the article, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. As we have demonstrated ad nauseum, it is Catholic Church. There is no ambiguity in the name. The proposed note provides clarification. Healthy debate on this naming issue is, of course, welcome. But these ridiculous tangents and spurious arguments about "endorsing" a theological position are just off the mark and diverting attention for the rather straight-forward issue. --anietor (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Anietor admits that the Church uses RCC as its name. So why must CC be considered the only candidate for the title of the article? Nothing theological in that. And the term "Catholic Church" is ambiguous: if it is not, how come there is a disambiguation page about it? Soidi (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I "admit" that the Church has used RCC? Geez...you're starting to sound like a character from a bad soap opera courtroom scene. I don't believe that anyone has "denied" that the term RCC has been used. Of course, so have the titles "Holy Mother Church", "Christ's Church on Earth", "Universal Church"...I can go for pages here. The question (which editors like Soidi are doing their darndest to evade) is what is the best title of this article, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Let's at least stop hiding the ball. I welcome debate on the issue, but when you sink to such silliness, you start to lose credibility. --anietor (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, which is not a publication of the Church, RCC is undoubtedly the best title for this article. Soidi (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Soidi: The proposed lead clearly states: "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church. The article cannot have two names. So we follow the guidelines to chose the most appropriate name. With reference to the objective criteria set out in the guidelines, what name do you think we should use? Sunray (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The article cannot have two titles. So we follow the guidelines to choose the most appropriate title for the article. The most appropriate title (as distinct from the name or names of the Church in the body of the article) is "Roman Catholic Church", a name used by Church, especially, but not only, in non-internal documents. Soidi (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That is your POV. Would you be able to support that with reference to the policy and guidelines? Sunray (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am still waiting for an indication, by those who want to change the title, of the grounds in Wikipedia policy for their claim that, among the names preferred by a self-identifying entity, the one it most uses and only that one may be used for the title of an article on the entity. Soidi (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Naming conflict the three objective criteria we must use are:

• Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organizations; focus on reliable sources)
• Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
• Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)

I don't think anyone disputes that it is in common usage. Some might disagree, but aside from the tertiary encyclopedic sources (ie took the name "Catholic Church"), I don't think we've found any explicit statement where "Catholic Church" this has been declared to be the offical name. However, go to criteria three, Catholic Church is the name that it uses for itself in the majority of cases. That's not to say that Roman Catholic Church isn't used, no one is saying that; but by these criteria, the article should be named Catholic Church. Also remember, "Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name.", so the point about other churches claiming catholicity isn't an issue here, this is a purely descriptive exercise, it is not POV to describe current usage. As I read it, this is exactly the same argument used in the systematic argument. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Now apply these criteria to "RCC". It is very much in common usage in English, and it is a name currently officially used by the subject to designate itself. ("CC" could perhaps be called rather a "house name", with "RCC" most used for external purposes. And Wikipedia is not a house project.) Soidi (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Soidi.you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel in desperation with these arguments. You have "zero" reference that "Catholic Church" is a "house name" as you have decided to call it, and "Roman Catholic Church" is its "external name." This is a notion you have just invented. The number and importance of the usages of CC over RCC by the worldwide church around the world is a factor of at least 50 - 1. The use of "RCC", even in English is very much historical and in the minority. Since the Church's most important documents, institutions and organisations use Catholic Church, as referenced on this page, that is its name. The number of posts you make on this page isn't going to alter that. Xandar 15:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have merely pointed out that, while "Catholic Church" is the usual term in internal documents, those addressed to its own faithful, the situation is different in the documents that have relation to outsiders. Is it not so? Soidi (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Whilst "Catholic Church" is certainly usually used, "Roman Catholic Church" also fulfills the three citeria cited above on WP naming policy. However, as "RCC" is, at least in some respects, less ambiguous than "CC" this is also important to consider when interpreting the relevant WP policies. It is also of relevance that the church at its most official levels (popes, cardinals, Vatican documents etc) doesn't insist that "RCC" isn't one of the names it chooses to use for the "worldwide" church - unlike some of the editors on here! Afterwriting (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

RCC meets number 1, I don't think either meets number 2, I think RCC meets number three to a far smaller degree than CC. Anyway, Soidi this it the policy which states that, so please stop claiming that you haven't been shown a policy that says what we're saying. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 18:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So we agree that both CC and RCC meet number 1, that neither meets number 2 (if by "official name" is meant just one name), and that both meet criterion 3 ("Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)"). CC is more frequent than RCC in documents of the Church if taken globally (though perhaps not in the documents in which it deals with those who are not its own members), but RCC is also used by the subject to describe itself.

I don't understand your underlined statement "this it the policy that states that". What is "this"? And what does it state? You have not yet cited anything that states that the more frequently used name must be chosen for the title, rather than a less ambiguous name that also meets criteria 1 and 3, and also fails to meet criterion 2. Soidi (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It is pointless arguing with you, Soidi, because you are an obsessive on this issue, and you will not accept the clearest of facts.

• 1. Wikipedia policy says use the name in its constitution and Key documents. That is Catholic Church - not RCC
• 2. Wikipedia policy says poll usage of the terms and favour the most common usage. That brings us "Catholic Church".
• 3. Wikipedia policy says use the name that the Church self identifies by. This across the world by a massive majority is the Catholic Church.
• 4. WIkipedia policy says use reliable references. these state the name is Catholic Church.
• 5. research linked to on this page shows there is no ambiguity about the name "Catholic Church" when applied to one particular religious body. There is ambiguity about "Roman Catholic Church" since many Catholics do not consider themselves to belong to the Roman Catholic Church, but to the Eastern Catholic Churches. Xandar 23:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Xandar, your calling Soidi an "obsessive" on this issue is just too much! No other editor on these issues seems to have been more obsessive than you when it comes to constant POV-pushing and constant ignoring or dismissing other sources and facts that are inconvenient to your entrenched POVs. I apologise for being uncivil but all this "pots and kettles" nonsense is getting very, very frustrating and some of us - including myself - need to reflect on the way we are conducting ourselves in these discussions. Afterwriting (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Anietor, your claim above that I have somehow "disengenuously" claimed that some editors have denied that "Roman Catholic Church" is not a name used by the church is factually false. If you had been a party to previous discussions you would know that some editors kept on falsely insisting that "RCC" was either: (a) a name only by non-RCs; or (b) imposed on the (R)CC by others; or (c) only used by RCs themselves in reference to either the Latin Rite or only to the Diocese of Rome. Afterwriting (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that both "CC" and "RCC" actually do meet Criteria 2 of the naming policy as both are still currently used as the church's "official" names in different legal documents and constitutions - although "RCC" is, probably, usually only used in English speaking countries. There are, of course, different degrees of what "official" use might actually be but the fact is that both have been - and are still - used as the church's name(s) in legal and other documents of the church. The issue with Criteria 2 is whether there is only one "official" name and the evidence indicates that there isn't. Afterwriting (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I said Soidi was "obsessive" on this isssue because about 90% of his posts on Wikipedia over the past year have been on this issue. In addition his sole input into the article has been on this issue.

As far as the Criteria 2 argument goes. This is a non-starter for RCC, since all the major documents of the Church from those of Vatican 2 to the Catechism, Bishops Conferences, Codes of canon Law and treaties are signed Catholic Church - not RCC. Xandar 11:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, ""CC" is the name the church usually claims for itself but this doesn't seem to necessarily rule out "RCC" as the most appropriate name for this article. My real issue and objection with this whole discussion is with those who follow Whitehead and want to claim that it is somehow incorrect or improper to refer to the church as the "RCC" instead - which it obviously isn't because the church also does so itself (but not as often as we all know). On the proposal regarding changing the article's name I am not as yet persuaded either way - there are legitimate arguments in favour of changing it and others for not doing so. I am not convinced that WP's naming policies are so straightforward with this particular article. Afterwriting (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The references do not say that CC is the name the church usually claims for itself, they say it is the name it has "claimed as its title". Please do not change the meaning of the sources to suit your own purposes because that violates WP:OR. There are no sources that say Catholic Church is not the title and many scholarly sources that say it is. We only need one so we used Richard McBrien's The Church in the referenced note. NancyHeise ^talk 13:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

CC is by no means the only title that the the Church claims as its own, and McBrien does not say the Church claims no other title. Soidi (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Give it a rest please Nancy, your constant distortion of what other editors are saying is very tiresome and annoying to say the least. I have never said that the church hasn't "claimed as its title" the name of "Catholic Church" as it obviously has. My point was simply that the church also uses "RCC" as a name for itself - that is hardly "original research" - so, in fact, it is factually true for me to state that "Catholic Church" is the name the church *usually* calls itself. It is *not* true to say that it is the *only* name it calls itself. I would not really expect any sources to mention that the church also calls itself the "RCC" at times - but that it actually does do so is amply demonstrated. Invoking the current references to try and stop any discussion on these matters is unacceptable and irresponsible behaviour. Sources are not always infallible on such matters and shouldn't be misused to stifle further discussion and debate - this is a form of fundamentalism. Afterwriting (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You keep being asked to put up solid information that the "Roman Catholic Church" is the proper name of the church, in contravention of the vast amount of evidence this side has put forward for "Catholic Church" - but you have failed to do so, other than your own feelings on the subject. As you should know, not only Whitehead, but also Walsh, McBrien, Madrid and the Catholic Encyclopedia have been cited for the usage Catholic Church, as well as hundreds of Primary Sources. The fact that RCC is sometimes used in a minority of specific contexts is not an argument for placing it as the title of the article - especially since RCC is an ambiguous term itself. The Mormon Church is a case for comparison. Unlike the Catholic Church, i

tt is far better known by "Mormon Church" than by its self-identified title, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It even uses "Mormon Church" itself on occasions, however the Wikipedia article uses its self-identified name. Follow the links. Xandar 14:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not the church uses more than one name is not at issue here; this information is covered in the proposed note. Afterwriting, its important that you stick to discussing the issue via policy and not make this personal. Shell ^babelfish 14:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone still deny that the church uses more than one name? I think not. What is at issue here is which of those names must appear in the title. There is alleged to be a Wikipedia policy that requires that. Nobody has yet cited it. Unless it is produced, the title should stay as it is. That is the point we should stick to discussing. Soidi (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Systematic Argument for the proposal

User Vaquero has produced a full systematic argument detailing the policy implications of the move to the Title "Catholic Church", based on WP guidance. The article is at the following link User:Vaquero100/CC vs. RCC Xandar 23:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, Wikipedia policy supports article name change to Catholic Church. Thanks Xandar, NancyHeise ^talk 14:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

People advocating against the name change should read this carefully. You will need to address this to make any kind of case against the proposed change. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This argument was put forward in the September 2006 debate on a proposal to change the title of the article. The participants did not find it persuasive. See Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Archive 7. Soidi (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There are so many basic problems with this so-called "systematic argument" that it would be difficult to know where to begin. Many of these arguments have already been found to be clearly mistaken - especially by the actual use by the Roman Catholic Church regarding its various names. It would really help matters if some Roman Catholics actually stopped ignoring the clearly established fact that their church does in fact regularly call itself the "Roman Catholic Church" - even when there are no ecumenical sensitivities involved in doing so. Afterwriting (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read the analysis of important Vatican documents done by User Vacquero, which show only 5 of hundreds of such documents over the past 250 years using the term "Roman Catholic". The others use "Catholic." Xandar 21:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That is just one of the inaccuracies in Vaquero's writing. Soidi (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that this argument was first drafted in 2006 and that users chose a different consensus really is a moot point; we can choose to do whatever we want in 2009, we're not bound by what was decided three years ago. @Afterwriting. with regard to the church "Regularly using" the title Roman Catholic Church, I would like to see what you are basing that on. Also @Soidi, is it not true that only five documents use the term? Please be more specific, rather than just making insinuations of inaccuracy. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are some:

Top-level agreements with other Churches Together with heads of other Churches, the Popes have agreements that call theirs the Roman Catholic Church within the body of the agreement:

• 1965-12-07 Pope Paul VI with Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople
• 1967-10-28 Pope Paul VI with Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople
• 1971-10-27 Pope Paul VI with Patriarch Mar Ignatius Yacoub III of the Syrian Orthodox Church
• 1977-04-29 Pope Paul VI with Archbishop of Canterbury Donald Coggan
• 1982-05-29 Pope John Paul II with Archbishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey
• 2006-11-23 Pope Benedict XVI with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams
• 2006-11-30 Pope Benedict XVI with Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople

Other examples of papal use of the name "Roman Catholic Church" Pope John Paul II often spoke of the Church as the Catholic Church. He also called the Church by the name "Roman Catholic Church", especially when specifically distinguishing it from other groups of Christians.

He used the name "Roman Catholic Church" in his talks:

• 1979-09-29 to the President of Ireland, Dr P. J. Hillery
• 1980-11-17 to representatives of the Jewish community in Mainz, Germany
• 1980-06-25 on the occasion of the 450th anniversary of the Confessio Augustana
• 1985-05-18 to the people of Mechelen, Belgium
• 1989-06-07 to representatives of Christian confessions in Copenhagen, Denmark
• 1989-06-29 to a delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople
• 1980-03-24 at a meeting of the Ukrainian Synod in Rome
• 1991-06-05 at a prayer meeting in the Orthodox cathedral of Bialystok, Poland
• 1991-06-09 to the Polish Ecumenical Council in Holy Trinity Church, Warsaw

He used the customary Portuguese (same as in Spanish) name, which adds "Apostolic" to "Roman Catholic" on at least two occasions:

• 1991-10-18 at an ecumenical meeting in the Aula Magna of the Colégio Catarinense, in Florianópolis, Brazil ("Chiesa Cattolica apostolica Romana")
• 1991-10-20 at the Angelus in São Salvador da Bahia, Brazil ("Chiesa Cattolica Apostolica Romana")

Pope Benedict XVI has also used "Roman Catholic Church":

• 2006-05-25 in Warsaw

And I suppose Vaquero did not omit to mention the encyclicals Humani Generis ("The Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing") and Divini Illius Magistri ("In the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing").

There are more, but for many years I do not have a handy tool for finding the mentions of "Roman Catholic Church" by the Popes.

And the Holy See (the departments of the Roman Curia) has also used "Roman Catholic Church" in various documents.

That does seem to me to add up to more than five. Soidi (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What is your intent in offering all these links? The note says: "Especially in English-speaking countries, the Church is regularly referred to as the "Roman" Catholic Church; occasionally, it refers to itself in the same way. At times, this can help distinguish the Church from other churches that also claim catholicity. Hence this has been the title used in some documents involving ecumenical relations."

Are you merely documenting that the note is correct or are you making some other assertion? Sunray (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course not. I was only responding to Kraftlos's request: "Soidi, is it not true that only five documents use the term? Please be more specific, rather than just making insinuations of inaccuracy." How else was I to show him that far more than five documents (à la Vaquero) were involved? Or was I to let his accusation stand? Soidi (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Vaquero wasn't saying all documents to ever come out of the Vatacan, just the papal encyclicals. A lot of these documents are ecumenical relations as Sunray pointed out, we already recognized this is one way the church uses the name. Anyway, thank you for clarifying what you meant. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 19:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of these (though by no means all) are documents about ecumenical relations. So perhaps they are the best model for an encyclopedia article written not for the Church's internal use but in a context that involves relations with others. Soidi (talk) 19:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The flaw there is that this is not an article "written...in a context that involves relations with others." I do agree that neither is it "written for the Church's internal use". Why does it have to be one of those 2 options? It's an article about the church in a much broader sense than either of these narrow parameters. The article covers institutional matters, theology, faith, communities, culture, history, inter-faith relations..just look at the article's contents to see how broad it is. Again, this is an issue about wikipedia policy related to article names. In that context, the appropriate title is "Catholic Church". Any necessary clarification is provided in the proposed note. --anietor (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Anietor, Soidi's arguments just prove the note is correct and that Catholic Church is the one name the Church uses for itself. I also want to add that many scholars have agreed that the Church "claimed as its title" Catholic Church because all of those tertiary sources are the respected works of many scholars and much peer review. There is only one scholarly work that is not a tertiary source addressing the name issue and that is the one we used in the article. There are no scholarly sources disputing this. All of this evidence points to vast scholarly agreement on the fact that the Church has "claimed as its title" Catholic Church. I don't se how can we be perpetually held hostage by Soidi's unreferenced arguments. At some point we should be able to say "enough arguing". Unless Soidi has a source that says otherwise, (and he doesn't) we need to move on and make the change. NancyHeise ^talk 02:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Since we have allocated two weeks for discussion, rather than say "enough arguing," I would rather suggest that participants speak to WP policy and support their points with references. Opinions are easy to come by. Well-reasoned argument is more difficult, but that is what is needed. Sunray (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As more than adequately referenced by Soidi above, "Catholic Church" is NOT the "one name the Church uses for itself" as Nancy constantly claims. She then constantly argues that editors have not provided any sources that contradict her position even when they obviously have done so. She has done this again and again and again. The fact that "Catholic Church" has been "claimed as its title" does't mean that it's the *only* name the church uses for itself. Honestly, just how difficult is this for someone to comprehend?! Afterwriting (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you are referring to here. The Mediation Outcome summary at the top of the page does not argue that "Catholic Church" is the only name the Church uses and I have not seen editors arguing that either. Would you be able to clarify your comments? Sunray (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's easy - just read Nancy's comment above where she claims that "the note is correct and that Catholic Church is the one name the Church uses for itself." The same claim has been made by her at numerous times previously, before your involvement with mediation. Afterwriting (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that. Nancy has also referred to the letter from the Diocese of Honolulu, which explains, in some detail, how the Church uses the name. This is adequately reflected in the proposed note, I think. My point, though, is that most participants accept that there is more than one name used for the Church and that is not at issue. In fact, the essence of this whole discussion is that there is a naming conflict. The task is to chose the article name based on the policies and guidelines. Sunray (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Common Ground

This discussion is starting to get a bit tangled up. It seems like there may be some parts of the proposal that most people agree with, and other parts that there are diverging opinions on. I would like to know where these points of agreement are so we can work from there.

I was thinking we could each offer a brief statement as to where we stand on the proposal. We would continue the discussions in other sections; this would be like a straw-poll except people wouldn't directly reply to each other here, as generally happens in straw polls elsewhere. Also try to avoid writing a statement base on a previous statement, but keep your words your own, not a reply to someone else's. So in the space below could you all detail where each of you stand on the three points of the Action Plan, keeping it brief and saving replies for other sections and discussions so we can use this as a reference. And if any of you think this is a bad idea, feel free to say so, or abstain. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think most of us find points 1 and 2 acceptable or indeed highly desirable. There is no agreement on point 3, the proposed change of the title. Soidi (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Kraftlos (talk · contribs)

1. Agree - I agreed with swaping the two names on the condition that the note be revamped to reflect certain nuances of their use.
2. Agree - The note as it stands is almost the way I like it, I am not challenging the remaining details because I think this is a fair compromise, it addresses most if not all my concerns relating to the change in the intro sentence.
3. Agree - I was not initially on board with this idea, but have been convinced otherwise because of naming policy and because the first sentence no longer will start with RCC.

I'm not sure where this section is heading. We are not looking for points of agreement at this stage, but at the name change. So far we have 19 editors of the mediation (including myself) agreeing on the WHOLE PACKAGE 1, 2 and 3. Of which Soidi now seems to be backtracking on Part 3, the name Change. Additional editors have supported.

This discussion is primarily concerned with the name change, although if the name change were to fail, parts 1 and 2 of the proposed changes would fall is well, leaving us back at square 1, with the current article text and title based on the former consensus - and we will all have wasted a year. In addition, without the name change the proposed new text breaches the Wikipedia Manual of Style. The agreement to change parts 1 and 2 is based on the complete package of changes, we can't have any one or two changes without accepting all three.

In discussing the name change, we are only concerned with Wikipedia article naming policy. So objections that are against WP policies (eg. "I dont think the Church SHOULD use the name", or "I think my church has a better right to the name") should be ignored. Xandar 12:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The three proposals should be delinked. As for the third, nobody has yet come up with the alleged Wikipedia policy that, among the Church's preferred names, the name most frequently met in its internal use must be chosen for the title of a Wikipedia article, rather than the name that, while also in use internally, is more common in its external relations. The Wikipedia article is not an internal matter of the Church.

To echo what Xandar wrote, the notion that the title should be changed is based on mere personal feelings (e.g., "I think the article should have no title other than the one I prefer", or "In the title of an encyclopedia article, "Catholic Church" can have no meaning other that what I attribute to it"). The notion is not based on Wikipedia article naming policy. Soidi (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Soidi, your comment about "echoing" another editor is bordering on WP:personal attack. You ironically show your own personal bias by constantly misrepresenting not only other people's comments, but the entire issue here. To begin with, to say that Xander is basing his position on personal feelings is ludicrous. Xander is one of the editors who has contributed most productively to this discussion, with numerous relevant and well-cited arguments, citing to solid outside sources as well as wikipedia policies. You are clearly in a minority here, and have resorted to rather desperate tactics to try and change the argument to an emotional or theological one, hoping that people will misunderstand the issue, or get frustrated and give up. Please be productive and fair about the argument. We know how you feel, but keep it civil, honest and fair. --anietor (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have struck out what I thought was an echoing of Xandar's accusation that those who oppose the change of the title are only saying things like "I dont think the Church SHOULD use the name". Since you tell me I misunderstood Xandar's meaning, I apologize. Soidi (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Anietor, your own comments also border on a personal attack so you should also try to be "civil, honest and fair". Also, if anyone is resorting to "desperate tactics" and trying to get other editors to be "frustrated and give up" it is obvious to me who they are and Soidi isn't one of them. I don't always agree with him - and like me he can get frustrated, not surprisingly, with the constant POV-pushing of the anti-"Roman Catholic Church" brigade - but he is usually one of the more reasonable editors and does not just select sources that support one particular position and ignore or rubbish other sources that contradict this position. Afterwriting (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Gah, I was trying to figure out where everyone stands, but I see we've turned this into another battleground. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 18:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Afterwriting. I'm afraid the POV-pushing is from you and Soidi, who seem determined that the article should not state the fact of what the clear and evident name of the Church is. We have had this for a year now. We have tried and tried to achieve compromise formulas. But sooner or later the few people who refuse to be reconciled to the clear and evident facts, and to Wikipedia policy have to be told "you've said your piece - but we must proceed." Xandar 23:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A consensus was reached among all parties to the mediation. This agreement included changing the name of the article. If only Soidi and Afterwriting are in disagreement and produce no sources to support their disagreement, we should not be held hostage to their constant reprisals of the same argument over and over again. We need to make our changes and move on. NancyHeise ^talk 02:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As I've suggested above, we have two weeks to discuss relevant policy considerations, review sources and consider well-reasoned argument. Unsupported points of view can simply be ignored. Sunray (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If this process has ever been "held hostage" it has been done so principally by Xandar and Nancy who regularly seek to manipulate and end the mediation process in their favour by insisting that their position is the only acceptable one. It is also totally unacceptable, Nancy, to give an award to one of the mediators whilst the process is still continuing. And, once again, I did not "agree" to changing the article's name, I said that I would not oppose it if the opening and the note were changed - so please don't falsely claim that "all parties" agreed to changing the name. Not opposing something is not the same as agreeing to it. Afterwriting (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I try not to let barnstars affect my judgement, hard though it is. However, perhaps, since you are disagreeing with Nancy, you could give me one also, for balance. :) Sunray (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Afterwriting. This is just being argumentative and unproductive. You and Soidi have been asked many times now to make any points you have strictly with reference to Wikipedia naming policies. I haven't seen any sound argument yet mandating the use of "Roman Catholic Church" under these policies. Xandar 11:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And I haven't yet been given a Wikipedia policy statement mandating the use of "Catholic Church" as the title of this article. Soidi (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

These policies have been posted for you over and over again (see this section in particular [53]), even with explanation pointing specifics out to you with references to support as well as consensus and google test. Here's the policy page again: [54]. Soidi, we can't just abandon all of our reliable sources, google test, consensus and wikipedia policy just because you don't like it. You have not produced any wikipedia policy to support your POV. YOu have not produced any references either. Please stop arguing and produce either policy or references to support your POV. You wont get consensus if you dont because no one can agree to your POV without them. NancyHeise ^talk 14:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want the title changed, please post in the #Alleged Wikipedia policy section a quotation of a Wikipedia policy that actually requires the change. Soidi (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like WP:IDONTHEARTHAT again. Xandar 23:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries and encyclopedias (entries)

I tried looking up "Catholic church" in quite a few dictionaries & encyclopaedias of religion, Christianity &c. They fall into 2 groups:

1. no entry at all
2. redirect to RCC

Make of that what you will. Peter jackson (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Woohoo Peter. Thats about as useless as you can imagine. Wikipedia is not just another encyclopedia. Not to mention taht most encyclopedias of Religion and Christianity would be protestant- which: regardless of what proof we have- would have "roman Catholic Church"- for their own beliefs- not what an encyclopedia should be about- but whatever. --Rockstone35 (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that Peter's observation has to do with usage. Sunray (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that Peter's observation has quite a lot to do with the Wikipedia policy that in order to choose between conflicting names one should "check other encyclopedias. If there is general agreement on the use of a name (as there often will be), that is usually a good sign of the name being the preferred term in English." Soidi (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Encyclopedia Americana has the entry at Catholic Church not at Roman Catholic Church. If you go to RCC it tells you to see Catholic Church.
• the following sources speak to the name of the Catholic Church and state that it is the name that church has "claimed as its title" (see [55]:
• Academic American Encyclopedia
• HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism
• The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church
• The Oxford English Dictionary
• Richard McBrien's peer reviewed scholarly work, The Church
• Further, the encyclopedias that list at Roman Catholic Church like Encyclopedia Brittanica, do not have any information in their article on the official name of the Church. Encyclopedias like the Catholic Encyclopedia list RCC as a name applied to the Church by those who wish to deny it use of the name Catholic Church for theological reasons. See [56]. See also the Catholic Encyclopedia's repudiation of the Branch theory on this page [57] and its explanation of Catholic on this page [58].
• Many scholarly works on the Catholic Church use only the name Catholic Church in their titles (see bibliography of RCC page) as well as Catholic Encyclopedia old and new.
• Those books and encyclopedias that choose to use the name Roman Catholic Church instead do not equate to a scholarly consensus of the use in academia as the list above indicates.NancyHeise ^talk 22:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it is in its latest edition that Encyclopedia Americana has adopted "Catholic Church" as the title of its article on the Church. Earlier editions, such as those we can check on the Internet (such as this) had "Roman Catholic Church" as the title of the article. The other references given by Nancy are not about the titles of articles on the Church and so are irrelevant to Peter's observation about the entries in dictionaries and encyclopedias. Encyclopedia Americana (latest edition) seems to be a lone exception.

The attempt to present the Catholic Encyclopedia as opposing the use of "Roman Catholic" is misguided: the Catholic Encyclopedia does include an article in which Herbert Thurston argues against the use of this term, but the Catholic Encyclopedia also includes articles that freely use the term, such as Unity (as a Mark of the Church), which states that "the mark of unity which is distinctive of and essential to the true Church of Christ is to be found in none other than the Roman Catholic Church", and, for example, Apologetics Sacrament of Marriage Divorce (in Moral Theology) Statistics of Religions Europe St. Francis of Assisi. Soidi (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Soidi, your link does not go to Encyclopedia Americanana but something else named something else that I have never heard of before. Encyclopedia Americana is one of the largest English speaking encyclopedias in the world, they have the article at Catholic Church, not Roman Catholic Church. If you would like the ISBN # I can get that too, I just need to stop by Broward County Library and get it. Your other links are not to any document speaking about the claimed name of the Catholic Church. Please try to avoid the theological discussion here, it is not what we are here for. NancyHeise ^talk 13:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course the link does not go to Encyclopedia Americanana. It goes to the 1851 Encyclopedia Americana, an earlier edition, as I said, of the work, to which I found a link on the Encyclopedia Americana page. Other older editions that can be checked on the Internet include this. Note that I have not questioned that in the latest editions the entry is "Catholic Church" and not "Roman Catholic Church". Soidi (talk) 14:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why discussion of the alleged attitude of the Catholic Encyclopedia towards the term "Roman Catholic" should be considered a theological discussion. In any case, it was you who brought it up. Soidi (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is recent edition of Encyclopedia Americana that the main Broward County Library keeps in its official reference section. If an older edition called it Roman Catholic as you claim and a recent edition puts it at Catholic Church with no prefix, I think that is additional evidence that the name of this article can be changed with no ambiguity problems. NancyHeise ^talk 18:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)