Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Lead

Direct from WP:LEAD: "The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs". Randomblue (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, no, the "length" section says:"The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs." Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The boxed statement at the top of WP:LEAD states "This page documents an English Wikipedia style guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Our lead had to be longer in order to fulfill the requirement that it properly summarize the article. We feel we have treated this with the common sense allowed. NancyHeise ^talk 23:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of "Catholic Church" redirect

Just a heads up. Deusveritasest is continously vandalising the Catholic Church redirect, by breaking the redirect to this article. I suggest keeping an eye on this and judging by his blatant and bitter attempts at causing trouble on this talk page, blocking him. - Ockie Eye (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try contributing to the debate about violation of NPOV. Because so far I have provided substantial evidence that ideas behind the particular defenses of this structure are in fact false (the primary one being that "only the Roman Church officially calls itself 'the Catholic Church'"), and thus have rendered violation of NPOV as the prevailing opinion. For my redirects to be unjust, you would have to establish that this set-up is legitimately NPOV. Deusveritasest (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Deusveritasest would seem to be breaking the three revert rule, and should be suspended for continuing such actions. The redirect from Catholic Church was part of a long-established and hard-won compromise on the naming of this article, where it was accepted that it be named "Roman Catholic Church" so long as "Catholic Church" redirected here. Secondly, this meets entirely with Wikipedia policy, since redirect should go directly to the article that most people typing in the name would wish to reach. Considerably over 90% of those typing in "Catholic Church" are seeking to reach this article - therefore it redirects here. Xandar 11:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

REASONS FOR REQUEST

The lead begins with "The Roman Catholic Church, officially known as the Catholic Church (Latin: Ecclesia Catholica)". This expresses the point of view (strongly defended here) that the Church in question (which I will refer to simply as "the Church") has adopted "the Catholic Church" as its one and only official name.

1. Claim that there is only one official name

Official documents of the Church show it referring to itself by other names. One such name is "the Roman Catholic Church". A simple example is the title of the official document of the Holy See Notes on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in preaching and catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church.

An article by Kenneth D. Whitehead is cited to support the point of view in the lead. On the basis of the practice whereby the Pope signs decrees of ecumenical councils with the formula "I, (name), Bishop of the catholic Church" (a formula that the Pope uses for no other documents except bulls of canonization), this article argues that "the Catholic Church" is the only official name of the Church. (To be more precise, it does not say "official" name, but only "proper" name.) This choice of signature can certainly be taken to show that "the Catholic Church" is used as an official name (and other official documents show that this is the name most used, apart from simply "the Church"), but the conclusion that it is the only official name is unjustified. One might as well say that the use in official documents, including papal encyclicals, of "the Roman Catholic Church" as a name for the Church proves that "the Roman Catholic Church" is the only official name.

The other source cited in support of the point of view expressed in the lead is of 1889. It declared that the authorities of the Church did not use "Roman Catholic Church" as the official name of the Church. Without explicitly saying that they used any particular name as the official name, it said that they replaced "Roman Catholic Church" with "Catholic Church" or "Holy Catholic Church". However, official documents later than 1889 show the Church using "Roman Catholic Church", even if less frequently than "Catholic Church".

Thus the Church's own official documents show that "the Catholic Church" is not the only name that the Church uses officially.

2. Exclusion of other points of view

The lead totally excludes any mention, even as a minority opinion, of the view that "Roman Catholic Church" is an official name of the Church, even the official name. This view is stated expressly in serious sources such as Our Religious Traditions by Sterling Power Lamprecht, published by Harvard University Press in 1950, which says: "The Roman Catholic Church has the two adjectives, Roman and Catholic, in its official name" (p. 31); and The Sacred Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions by Arthur Carl Piepkorn, Philip J Secker, Robert Kolb, published by CEC Press in 2007 (ISBN 0979528402, 9780979528408), which on page xxxv says that the adjective "Roman" is a part of the official name.

Even if the Church's own usage in its official documents were ignored, a sourced view such as this ought at least to be mentioned in Wikipedia in the context of proposing the opposite point of view.

3. Over-wide expression

The lead states that the Church is "officially known" as the Catholic Church. This is much broader in meaning than would be a statement that the Church uses this name as its official name, and it does not correspond to what can be verified to be reality. In civil legislation the Church is "officially known" as the "Roman Catholic Church", and even, as the 1889 article remarked, in certain national constitutions. Today, "Roman Catholic" is found in the national constitutions of at least Argentina, Canada, Costa Rica, Malta, and Poland. For this reason "officially known as" is here an inadmissible expression. Soidi (talk) 08:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope I am not being impertinent, but I am always unsure of cites, and their applicability. I've tried to track down two of your cited authors, Sterling Power Lamprecht and Arthur Carl Piepkorn, and I must be coming up short. The first was a professor at Amherst(?) and therefore not likely a spokesperson for the church? And the second was Lutheran-MissouriSynod (and perhaps as such with own reasons for attaching 'Roman' as... disparagement?). Truly what I'm wondering about is if this minority view is both informed and significant? Shenme (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. The sources mentioned were not spokespersons for the Church. Neither were the two sources mentioned in the lead. Soidi (talk) 09:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

After weeks of searching Soldi has found a book from Harvard in 1950 that supports his view. That does not contradict the vast weight of fact howerver. Xandar 11:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The vast weight of fact provided by the official documents of the Church does indeed outweigh the two cited sources that explicitly claim the one official name is "Roman Catholic Church" and the two cited sources that may claim (though only implicitly) that the one official name is "Catholic Church".

Unfortunately, the "RFCreli list" page seems not to have been updated for some days, perhaps since the start of the month (cf. this comment). We may have to wait a while for knowledgeable newcomers to join the discussion. Soidi (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I agree with you. I have found nothing in Soidi's efforts to support any change in our current article text. In fact, Soidi's position would insert POV into the article and directly contradict the two solid references that support article text. These two references specifically discuss instances of when Roman Catholic is used and specifically state that Roman Catholic is not the official name of the Church but Catholic Church is. Further, the reference by Whitehead has been featured prominently in the oldest and most respected Catholic publication in the US, the Our Sunday Visitor and in the most respected and only Catholic network in the English and Spanish speaking worlds, EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network). Soidi's references do not feature in any Catholic publication. His Vatican documents are not held up anywhere as evidence of "official name" and constitute minor instances of when the Church has used "Roman" as an adjective, sometimes to be polite in ecumenical dealings and in other instances when they are forced to do so by governments such as England who require its use by the Church. NancyHeise ^talk 13:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

For a long time the article said "commonly known as", which is presumably less controversial, and can still be accompanied by the McClintock footnote. Is that OK? Gimmetrow 04:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid we cannot go back to the innocence which with this expression was (presumably) formerly known since the question has been raised. "Commonly" would go way beyond Soidi's demands and paint a picture of a group called RCC that is commonly known as CC. The opposite however is true. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"The Roman Catholic Church, also commonly known as the Catholic Church..." This does not imply either phrase is an "official name", which is a questionable concept here; it says that these phrases are two common ways to refer to this entity. Soidi appears OK with that. Gimmetrow 13:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If thats the case, then why not flip the sentence and rename the article? Something like "the Catholic Church (more) commonlt known as the Roman..."Farsight001 (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, Farsight. But I think there is a rule on WP that the first name should be the title of the page.

In contrast to what Gimmetrow wrote, "commonly" has an air of popular, vernacular and will lead the reader to wrongly assume that the first name (RCC) is the official name when in fact it is the second name (CC) that is the official (not necessarily the only but still the primary official name). It is the position of "RCC" in the front that requires us to note that "CC" is the official name. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats why I suggested we rename/move the article too. :P Farsight001 (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Re all three items (since the:There is no such claim that "Catholic Church" is the only officially used name. But it is the "official" name of the group.

The second objection is basically the same objection as the first. And no, we do not need to give "opposing views" about a group's name. Go and ask the group how it is called and use that. Random books, even when published at Harvard, doesn't change that.

Neither does civil legislation. As stated before, it has no business is defining a group's name. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The first point is that the Church's documents treat "the Catholic Church" no differently from "the Roman Catholic Church" or "the Church" or other names - no matter how many times Bellman-like editors repeat that "Catholic Church" is "the" official name.

The second point is that the verified existence of the opinion that "Roman Catholic Church" is the official name should be at least mentioned, in view also of weaknesses in the two sources cited in support of the opinion that "Catholic Church" is the official name: the first of these two bases its argument that "Catholic Church" is the proper/official name not on any declaration by the Church to that effect, but merely on usage in the Church's documents (an argument that would hold also for other names); and the second deals with the situation of almost exactly 120 years ago.

The third point is that, while civil legislation does not decide a group's choice of name, it does decide the name by which the group is "officially known" in the field of civil legislation. If the article specified "officially known" as referring to official usage within the Church itself, there would be no ambiguity; but the article does not specify. The article uses "officially known" in the passive voice without indicating by whom it is officially known. Is it officially known as the Catholic Church by the Anglican Church? By the United Nations? Common parlance ("commonly known", i.e. by the world in general) would be a stronger basis for using the name "Catholic Church" in this article (which is not a document of the Church); but to say this name is that by which the Church is "officially known" (apparently, by the world in general) is false. Soidi (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sodidi, it is hard to argue when you constantly redefine your points. First you accused others of insisting that CC is the only official name, now you change it to "RCC" and "CC" and "the Church" are en par. Well, if that's the case why not move the article to "the Church"? Why not use "the Church"?

And no, civil legislation does not ever define the official name of the Church. Governments sometimes stick unwanted labels on groups they don't like (and the group under discussion here has had its fair share of inimical governments) - should we then, based on your principle, name these groups accordingly? I don't think so! Neither should we go by bodies less important than governemnts or even rival religious groups! There is no alternative to the self-given name. Common parlance, the only thing that may rival the self-given name in this case happens to agree with self-given name. Ask the average man about "the Catholic Church" and they will tell you about the body headed by the Pope. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone here help to unfreeze the "RFCreli list" page? Its bot for adding new "Requests for Comment" seems not to be working. Until this request is posted on the page, I fear we will only have repetition of the views expressed for months by the same few people. We need the aid of outsiders. Soidi (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Xandar and Str1977 and Farsight001 and Shenme. Gimmetrow is kindly trying to find middle ground which I would be willing to compromise with if only it did not require us to make the article factually incorrect. Soidi does not seem to want a middle ground but is insisting on forcing the article to reflect a view that has been expressly rejected by the Church as evidenced by my two references supporting the use of "official name". I do not see the value of bending to Soidi's demands and I can see the harm in doing so. NancyHeise ^talk 15:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither do I see any merit. Especially since he is obviously trying to force a principle of outside definition upon the Church. Not that I am surprised since that attitude is not Soidi's alone.

I see two alternatives:

• Either we move the article to "Catholic Church", make RCC a redirect and reword the intro "The Catholic Church, also commonly known as the Roman Catholic Church, ..."
• Or we keep things as they are.

In the name of the compromise once reached, I opt for the latter. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Str1977, above, falsely attributes to me the view that "Roman Catholic Church" is the one official name of the Church. It should be obvious that that is not my personal view, but only the view of people like the authors of the two sources I have cited. (Sorry, I misread. Soidi (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for clearing that up and kudos for admitting your mistake. No hard feelings. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Str1977 continues to repeat Bellman-like that "Catholic Church" is the official name of the Church. That is precisely the point at issue. And you don't prove your thesis by merely repeating it.

I agree with Gimmetrow that it would be best to remove the problematic "officially known as" and return to something like "commonly known as" or "also known as". Str1977 has not yet taken in that the Church is not "officially known as the Catholic Church" to the world at large. It may be thus known popularly, but it is not known officially by that name to the world at large, including governments and other Churches. Neither has Nancy taken in this fact.

Nancy continues to state that her two sources provide a solid foundation for her thesis, although the one argues merely on the basis of official documents of the Church (from which one could draw other conclusions) and the other speaks of the situation in the century before last.

The title of the Wikipedia article should not correspond to what you would expect to find only in an internal document of the Church or on a Church-associated website. It should correspond instead to the title given to articles on the Church in all other encyclopedias not explicitly associated with the Church. In line with Str1977's remark, "Ask the average man about 'the Catholic Church' ...", "Catholic Church" may be used freely in the body of the article. Str1977's remark could be used also to support use of the phrase "commonly known as" (Gimmetrow's proposal). Soidi (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, could you please stop misrepresenting at least what others say. I did not attribute to you "the view that "Roman Catholic Church" is the one official name of the Church." Read again what I wrote.

Also stop using epithets regarding other editors (and re: repeating - aren't you doing the same? Have you not done it for a longer time than I?). Yes, I did not argue the case for CC being the official name as that has already been done before I even arrived.

However, I have given good reasons why "commonly known as" doesn't work.

You seem to fail to realise the meaning of the word "official" - the name a group uses for itself is its official name. Nothing else!

And about that internal document rubbish. This article is not a church document and doesn't read like one. But each and every topic has deserved the respect to be called by its own name, not by an expression others prefer to further their POV. And yes, now I say POV because I see no other explanation for your insisting.

Finally, yes, "average man" may lead to "commonly known". And it is not wrong that the CC is commonly known as the CC. However, it is wrong to portray it like suggested, "The RCC, also commonly known as CC", as that implies that RCC is the proper official name and CC merely a popular name. The opposite is true. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow was offering this as a possible compromise. It was rejected by everyone but Soidi. I personally reject it because it is factually incorrect and unsupported by any reliable source. The only reliable sources so far offered are mine, particularly the one by Kenneth Whitehead [1] which is from a book whose excerpt is featured in both Our Sunday Visitor and Eternal Word Television Network as the explanation of the Church's official name. In addition, if one were to ask what are the core documents of the Church the answer would be those of the ecumenical councils, all of which are signed "Catholic Church" not "Roman Catholic Church" for the very reasons specified by Whitehead, when used by the Church herself, refers to the Diocese of Rome. The main publication of Church belief is likewise entitled "Catechism of the Catholic Church" because to add "Roman" to the name would cause it to mean something that excludes the Eastern Catholic Churches. So why is there such a push to eliminate "official" when it clearly is necessary to help reader understand what the entire Church calls herself? Especially when reliable sources, one of which is featured in two prominent Catholic publications throughout the English and Spanish speaking worlds, are used to back this up? NancyHeise ^talk 20:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%! Str1977 ^(talk) 21:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you really find the Whitehead text convincing? I don't; it's making a theological argument. If the Church wanted to be "officially known" by one particular name, it would say so. Most comparable entities have a written constitution setting forth their official or legal names. I don't think we have that. We can observe that certain names are used predominantly in various contexts, but that's not described as "officially known". Gimmetrow 01:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

How can you argue with someone who thinks "theological argument" a put down? As for official documents, you can have a look at the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" or maybe the Creed. (How about "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"?) Str1977 ^(talk) 06:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "put down", it's just recognizing that a legal name isn't decided by that sort of argument. Whitehead's historical argument is fine that "Roman Catholic Church" is not the "official" name, but the positive argument for "Catholic Church" there is based on the creed. That text could support the "more commonly called" terminology here, though. Gimmetrow 12:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I stand by Soidi and Gimmetrow's assessment. The only evidence so far to support the use of "Catholic Church" as the "official" name comes from common usage. To my knowledge the Church has not made a legal pronouncement regarding its name, but has used both RCC and CC interchangeably in various contexts. Soidi is not saying that we must use the officially recognized name of the Church by secular organizations, but rather that, should we continue to use the "officially known as" phrase, we run into ambiguities regarding who exactly regards this name as "official". I also disagree that having the "commonly known as" phrase would imply that RCC is the official name. The usage makes no such implication. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to rename the article "Catholic Church" and make the appropriate move? The article could start as "The Catholic Church, sometimes referred to as the Roman Catholic Church.." Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I believe the Whitehead source clearly makes a case for "official name". I do not see how others can not take note that a Church signing its most important self defining documents and self defining one universal book of beliefs (Catechism of the Catholic Church) with the one name that it has been known by for millenia does not constitute a clear "official name". In addition, I can not stomach being forced to insert clear anti-Catholic POV by failing to make clear to Reader what the Church prefers to call itself when not forced to call itself Roman Catholic Church (which excludes Eastern Catholic Churches in when used in proper Catholic language). However, because I value Gimmetrows logic very much and am very grateful for his past tremendous help in various matters, I have eliminated "official" and replaced it with the actual words used by the Whitehead source "more commonly and properly called the Catholic Church". Is everyone happy with this? We can't get a better source than Whitehead and these were his exact words. NancyHeise ^talk 02:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This note is to Gimmetrow - Responding to your comment above. The Church constition is Lumen Gentium. It is one of the Second Vatican council documents, all of which were signed per Kenneth Whitehead's reference in the Church's official name "Catholic Church" . Isn't this evidence enough of "official name"? How much more official do we need to get than the Church constitution? NancyHeise ^talk 03:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

A final, I hope, comment on this: the Pope signs documents of ecumenical councils and bulls of canonization (and no other documents) with the formula "I, (name), Bishop of the catholic (or Catholic) Church". (Episcopus Ecclesiae catholicae could be validly translated in either way.) Both these classes of documents are signed also by others, none of whom, though they are bishops of the Catholic Church, use the form "I, (name), bishop of the Catholic Church". It is at least possible that the formula for the Pope's signature on these documents is meant to state that the Pope has direct jurisdiction over the whole ("catholic" in that sense) of the Church, while the other bishops who sign them have direct jurisdiction only over their own sees. Even if this interpretation is not accepted, the Pope's use of this formula when signing these rare documents indicates no more than that "Catholic Church" is an official name (officially used name) for the Church. It does not prove that "Catholic Church" is the one and only official name. Treating use of the word "constitution" in relation to Lumen gentium (and also to Sacrosanctum Concilium, Dei Verbum, Gaudium et spes) as making Lumen gentium the equivalent of a national constitution seems, to say the very least, exaggerated. Soidi (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that we shall use the name that each entity gives to itself. The name of the (Roman) Catholic Church is of course in Latin and it is Ecclesia Catholica, that is Catholic Church. That is also the name used by the (Roman) Catholic Church officially for itself, see for instance the Cathechism of the Catholic Church [2]. Only in some ecumenical documents, and only in the English translation the term Roman Catholic Church is used: it is simply a courtesy for other denomintations. A ntv (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Morever, Actually in the (Roman) Catholic Church exists about 23 different rites not Roman. Exist also Latin rites not Roman (and not Eastern Catholic). All of them belong to the Catholic Church and are in full communion with the pope. To be in communion with is not a synonym of being Roman. A ntv (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"Ecclesia Catholica Romana" ("Roman Catholic Church"), used in reference to the whole of the Church, is found not "only in some ecumenical documents": take the case of the encyclical Divini illius Magistri, and its translation into various languages, including English. "Ecclesia Catholica" (or "Catholica Ecclesia") is thus not the only name used by the Church officially for itself. Soidi (talk) 06:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, you're missing the fact that while the Church may call itself by multiple names, it is still possible to have only one official one. "Roman Catholic Church" generally refers to only one rite, when there are 22 other rites who do not go by that name ever. From what I understand, encyclicals can and do address only one rite or many.Farsight001 (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course I am not missing the obvious fact that the Church could choose one name as the official one. But if you want to show that the Church has actually done so, you should cite some clear evidence. There is no official back-up for your claim too that "Roman Catholic Church" generally refers to only one part of the Church. Do you really believe that only a part of the Church is "the City of God" (Divini illius magistri), that only part of the Church is one and the same thing with the Mystical Body of Christ (paragraph 12 of Humani generis), that only part of the Church is the "true Church of Jesus Christ" (paragraph 13 of Mystici Corporis)? Soidi (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this discussion is continuing in the following section with a vote taking placeNancyHeise ^talk 14:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved?

Thanks to Nancy for dropping the phrase "officially known as" from the article. If nobody puts the phrase back, I think the problem to which I was endeavouring to draw attention is solved. The reference to the 1889 writer is now irrelevant and should be removed. Some may wish to add to "properly" something like "in the opinion of members of the Church", but such an addition does not seem to me to be required: at least it is in no way as necessary as it was to change the contrary-to-demonstrable-fact statement about the alleged single official name. Soidi (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"Ecclesia Catholica" is not a commonly used name for the Church. There is no longer any justification for giving a Latin translation of "Catholic Church", which seems to have been inserted to bolster the idea that "Catholic Church" was the one official name. Soidi (talk) 08:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There he goes again. The wording he complained about has been replaced and now he wants to POV up this article by adding the nonsensical "in the opinion of members". This really tempts me to reinsert "official". I will restrain myself for now but as soon as anything moves into this direction (or the one mentioned in the next paragraph) I will do so without hesitation.

Soidi, please get it into your head that it is the church, not its members, not you, not any governments or anyone who decides what the proper name is. And it is customary to add names in foreign languages if the actual, official name is in that language. Latin is the language of the Church and hence the name in Latin is essential. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC) (I don't want "in the opinion of members", which I have called unnecessary. The article no longer adopts anybody's point of view on "the actual, official name", and no valid argument can be built on the assumption that it does. Soidi (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC))

Soidi, I really feel as if POV has been shoved down our throats by your efforts. I am in no way happy with the arrangement as I feel it is a violation of the actual truth. Now you are going to ask for insult to the injury and require us to remove (Ecclesia Catolica)? I think that is really going too far. I am against it. If the source states that Catholic Church is more commonly and properly the name, we are entirely justified in using the latin translation of the Churches own name in its official language. I will not remove it and you have no justification for asking. One of the FAC supporters, a veteran editor, specifically stated that it had to be there in its present form see [3]. NancyHeise ^talk 09:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never been especially keen on the Latin, which we have not had for long. It could go in the note maybe. Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how many editors other than Nancy consider justified the presence of any particular Latin translation of "Catholic Church" in the lead, even as a footnote. It was on the basis of Mike's unsourced declaration, "The official name in Latin (is) Catholicae Ecclesiae", that Nancy inserted the first Latin translation a mere 8 days ago. The article no longer makes a statement about an alleged single official name, and so the article (as distinct from our own personal POVs, which must be kept out of the article) no longer presents grounds for including any Latin translation of "Catholic Church". The Latin phrase at present in the article (different from what Mike specifically stated should be there) is the third translation (all of them different) that has appeared in 8 days. (By the way, I'm sure Nancy doesn't hold that, objectively speaking, supporting or opposing the FAC adds or detracts weight from an editor's arguments.) Soidi (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I have just discovered another of the mistakes I make. I presumed that Nancy was referring to what Mike said on the article's Talk page. I see now that she meant her own Talk page. The statement by Mike that I referred to and quoted above was that of 1 October 2008 here. I should also clarify that it was another editor who first put forward the idea that Mike, and later Nancy, adopted, namely that "Catholicae Ecclesiae" is the Latin for "Catholic Church". Soidi (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The official language of the Church is Latin, this is not known by many non-Catholics and unfortunately some people who call themselves Catholic are very ignorant of this fact. Therefore it holds that it's name in Latin belongs in the article, in this case the Lede. As every Church Document is written in Latin it carries the epithet: Ecclesia Catholica or more exactly Ecclesiae Catholicae. The -ae ending denotes singular possessive translated as "of the Catholic Church" or "the Catholic Church's" . For example The Catechism of the Catholic Church would be translated as: CATECHISMUS CATHOLICAE ECCLESIAE . I was thinking of it as more of a plurality as in Pope Leo's document of 1890 bearing the same name. He used the plural nominative I believe more in the spirit of Eccumenism. Do you want to start another lame debate over inclusion of the adjective Romana?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The old saying of choking on a gnat, but swallowing camels comes to mind...at least the first part. Latin is the language of the Catholic Church and it appears that all of its official announcements are first in Latin and then translated into the various languages of the world. I see no problem in having the Latin name provided in the lead (I still can't bring myself to write lede, sorry). More importantly, the preferred principle for Wikipedia is to allow groups to identify themselves as they choose. The opinions of others means nothing. When there is a significant disagreement it can be covered in the article. In this specific situation, I recommend leaving it as is, using the Latin name, and move on. --^StormRider 17:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Why only a Latin translation of "Catholic Church" (which Nancy recently inserted), and not of "Roman Catholic Church" (which Nancy deleted)? Shouldn't Latin be given for both names or neither? The Church has in fact used the name "Ecclesia Catholica Romana" in Latin. Perhaps here again an argument was built on the false assumption that the article takes a position on what is "the actual, official name". Soidi (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, I do not think your efforts here are in good faith. Do we need to go to Rfa over use of Latin? Why are you so stuck on this? Are you somehow personally offended by it? I think you should not be if you are. However, we have made great concessions to your argument - against consensus of editors. I would like for you to please respect that. The Latin translation inserts no POV and it is ridiculous to place it next to the name that is not "more commonly or properly known". NancyHeise ^talk 18:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no justification for inserting here a translation from English (the language of this encyclopedia) into Latin. Use of the Latin phrase would be justified only if it were the original, not a translation, if, that is, it were a quotation from an authoritative document in Latin that stated that Ecclesia Catholica (or Catholica Ecclesia or Catholicae Ecclesiae?) is the name by which the Church is "more commonly and properly called". No such Latin document exists.

I should have thanked Johnbod for his support for the proposal to omit the Latin phrase, and for saying that even putting it in a footnote would be a "maybe" matter.

I notice that the reference to the 1989 1889 document has not yet been removed. Soidi (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, you don't seem to get that no one wants to insert a translation. "Ecclesia Catholica" is not a translation but the proper, official name of the Church. Hence it must be included it. OTOH, "Ecclesia Catholica Romana" is a translation of a POV driven epithet. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A curious remark, in view of the fact that "Ecclesia Catholica Romana" is quoted from Pope Pius XI's encyclical Divini illius Magistri, while no source is given for Str1977's claim that "Ecclesia Catholica" (rather than "Catholica Ecclesia" or "Ecclesia catholica" or, for that matter, various quite distinct Latin names) is the proper, official name of the Church in Latin. In reality, this is just an editor's pick among the various possible ways of rendering "Catholic Church" in Latin. Soidi (talk) 10:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you have forgotten how to post properly so I will bring things in proper form for you.

As for your complaint: it has been explained further down. One appearance (or even ten) in a document do not make RCC the official name of the church. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

And twelve appearances of "Catholic Church" in the Catechism of the Catholic Church do not make "Catholic Church" the official name of the Church, but only show it to be an official name. Soidi (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps on this issue, we may follow consensus. Also, what 1989 document needs to be removed? NancyHeise ^talk 22:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What consensus exists on your insertion, only a few days ago, of a translation into Latin of "Catholic Church"? I should have typed "1889", not "1989", regarding the McClintock document. Sorry for my mistake. Soidi (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What consensus is there for your attempt to remove it? A very valid reason for including it has been given. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

And a very valid reason for excluding it from this particular point of the article has been given. Parity, it seems. Soidi (talk) 10:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you have forgotten how to post properly so I will bring things in proper form for you.

As for your point: no, you have not given any reason for excluding at all except that you consider Latin translations to be no good (it is no translation) and prefer to make your own translation, which is exactly what you accuses others of doing. Double standards anyone? Str1977 ^(talk) 16:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Have I not already said that I have made no translation, but have instead quoted the original official Latin text of a papal document that calls the Church "Ecclesia Catholica Romana"? And have I not already pointed out that you have given no source for your statement that "Ecclesia Catholica" (rather than, for instance, "Catholica Ecclesia") is not just an official name for the Church but the only official name in Latin? And have I not said that there would be no problem if only those who put such store on the Latin phrase would just insert it at a slightly different point, and stop insisting that it be used to push on the reader by stealth an unverifiable idea that you are unable, for lack of a reliable source, to express explicitly in the article? Soidi (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Soidi - a suggestion. Let it go. You got it changed some. If you keep pushing it, its just going to get changed back to the way it was before you even arrived and started this discussion because people are going to just start seeing you as an abnormally patient pov pusher - especially when you neglect to reveal the intentions of you actions repeatedly. You're already close to that line. Don't make it worse. Also on the subject - why do we need a document for it's latin name? Do we need to cite an official document to say that microsoft makes computers or that the anabaptists official name is "anabaptist"? No. Official documents are directed at members who generally don't need to be told these things again and again. Frankly, I don't understand why it doesn't get to fall under the realm of common knowledge. There is a wiki policy regarding such things (I just can't remember its name to look at it. Farsight001 (talk) 01:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The article does not say, as you seem to presume, what is the (alleged) official name of the Church. The insertion of the Latin phrase is a very recent POV pushing of the idea that a single official name exists. Soidi (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Placing the latin phrase next to Catholic Church does not push a POV, it is placing the latin phrase next to the name that is "more commonly and properly known" which is more like common sense than POV. NancyHeise ^talk 17:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The statement that the Church is more commonly and properly known as the "Catholic Church" is based on a source in English, which says nothing about how the Church is or should be known in Latin. Placing beside the words "Catholic Church" one of the possible translations of "Catholic Church" into Latin suggests that that particular Latin translation is the original of the "more common and proper" name; and, since Latin is the language of most official documents of the Church, it suggests that whichever Latin translation is chosen is in some way official.

If it makes no such suggestion, why do you so strongly want to keep this very recently introduced phrase? Soidi (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Because at first, I was against it. I thought it was unnecessary wordiness that clogged up the first sentence. After arguing against it, I discovered several editors who supported the idea, one very strongly. In other Wikipedia pages it seems, in their Leads we have the translation of names in the language of the article subject. It was something we did to maintain consistent Wikipedia application of the issue and I felt it was more encyclopedic. I am wondering why you care so much. Are you offended by this somehow? I don't know how you can expect me to do everything to please your sensibilities and just ignore those of others. I am trying very hard to be respectful of everyone's differing opinions and create an article that is acceptable to everyone. That will take some give and take from various editors. I would appreciate if you would consider that your sensibilities were calmed against the consensus of editors on the page. We have bent to your preferred version. I think you are being kind of greedy in the sensibility dept by insisting once again only for your position in this matter, to the exclusion of several other editors. Please be a little more flexible. NancyHeise ^talk 19:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It does not offend my sensibilities or my principles to have in the article some Latin translation of "Catholic Church". What I object to is inserting it into a misleading context, where:

• It appears not to be a translation but to be a quotation from "the language of the article subject". Presenting an editorial translation as if it were an original text related to the matter under discussion (here, the more common and proper name) is not "encyclopedic".
• It suggests (and apparently that is why the "several editors" supported the idea) that the phrase chosen (concretely, the third to be chosen) is the official name in Latin.

If you are sincere about only wanting to "have in the Lead the translation of names in the language of the article subject" and are not seeking instead to suggest a particular idea, then, even if you think my interpretation unjustified, you will have no objection to moving the Latin translation of "Catholic Church" to another part of the lead, where it will not be understood in that way. Please do so. Then there will be no problem. Soidi (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

How about:

"The Roman Catholic Church, (Latin: Ecclesia Catholica) more commonly and properly called the Catholic Church [1][2] is the world's largest Christian Church, representing over half of all Christians and one-sixth of the world's population."

OR

"The Roman Catholic Church, (Latin: Ecclesia Catholica Romana) more commonly and properly called the Catholic Church [1][2] is the world's largest Christian Church, representing over half of all Christians and one-sixth of the world's population." --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

OR

"The Roman Catholic Church (Latin: Ecclesia Catholica Romana), more commonly and properly called the Catholic Church [1] (Latin: Ecclesia Catholica), is the world's largest Christian Church, representing over half of all Christians and one-sixth of the world's population."

Giving the Latin also for "Roman Catholic Church" removes the one-sided suggestion that arises from giving a Latin translation only of "Catholic Church". Note too that, by removing "[2]", I have again recommended removal of the reference to the irrelevant 1889 (this time I have typed the date correctly) document. Soidi (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I would have no problem with that, I don't speak for the others, however.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

While I will continue to defend the obvious and incontrovertible fact that "Catholic Church" is the official name of the Church, I am prepared to live with the " more commonly and properly called" wording. However inventing a pig-latin translation of "Roman Catholic Church" and inserting it into the article in order to try to give that title official respectability is not on. Ecclesia Catholica is there because it is the ancient Latin name of the Church Ecclesia Catholica Romana would be the artificial translation of an anglophone construction into dodgy Latin in order to lend it false authenticity. If ever used, such a construction would refer to the Catholic Church in the city of Rome. Xandar 21:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually that's the title given on the Latin wiki:[4]--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Far from being "pig-latin", "Ecclesia Catholica Romana" is the exact phrase used in Pope Pius XI's encyclical Divini illius Magistri, where it is not used to "refer to the Catholic Church in the city of Rome".

In a Wikipedia article, it is not enough for an editor to declare something to be an "obvious and incontrovertible fact": the alleged fact must be verifiable.

As presented in the article, it is rather "Ecclesia Catholica" that is a translation (only one of the possible translations) of an Anglophone construction, inserted in order to lend false authenticity to the claim that the Church has at some time declared "Ecclesia Catholica" to be its only official name. Soidi (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That still doesn't make "Eccl. Cath. Rom.", as you seem to think any official name. How about using the term used for the Church, "the city of God" (Latin: civitas Dei), as a title. After all it is used in the very same document you side, right next to it. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should vote on this one. This is really a consensus issue because there is no one reference that tops others on the matter. It is really a judgement call. Why don't we conduct a vote and see where everyone stands and then respect the majority?NancyHeise ^talk 01:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. Soidi (talk) 07:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

One might be tempted to substitute the first letter of the first word for a certain cluster. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

VOTE HERE

• for Sentence number 1: "Roman Catholic Church (Latin: Ecclesia Catholica Romana), more commonly and properly called the Catholic Church (Latin: Ecclesia Catholica).
• or for Sentence number 2"Roman Catholic Church, more commonly and properly called the Catholic Church (Latin: Ecclesia Catholica).
• or for Sentence number 3: The Roman Catholic Church, more commonly and properly called the Catholic Church is the world's ... In official documents, the Latin used for "Catholic Church" can be "Ecclesia catholica" (e.g. Lumen gentium, 8, 23, and 28), or "Ecclesia Catholica" (e.g. ????), or "Catholica Ecclesia" (as in the title of the Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae and in the quotation from the Council of Trent given in Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 15) or "catholica Ecclesia" (as in Lumen gentium, 13 and 53). The Latin used for "Roman Catholic Church" is "Ecclesia Catholica Romana" (Divini illius Magistri). ...
• or for Sentence number 4: The Roman Catholic Church, more commonly and properly called the Catholic Church is the world's ...

• Sentence number 2
  • Support NancyHeise ^talk 01:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Soidi (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support The Roman Catholic Church is properly called the Catholic chuch in English, but in its own language is called "Catholica Ecclesia". The Romana isn't added unless concessions are needed for a particular audience. Having both translations makes it seem that both have equal weight when they don't. Marauder40 (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support The article needs to tell the reader what the Church actually calls itself, not to be pretending something different to pander to certain viewpoints. Xandar 22:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support as the only reasonable option among those presented. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Actually, I'd prefer the "officially" that was here before Soidi showed up, but that's not an option, so this one is good. Farsight001 (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Article needs to tell the truth. 71.161.221.23 (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

COMMENTS

Nancy's insistence on putting a Latin translation of "Catholic Church" precisely where it can be interpreted as implying a certain Point of View on a disputed question seems to indicate that her real aim does not correspond to the justification she advanced for having a Latin translation in the lead. And she has given no source to justify her choice of that particular Latin translation in preference to the three other equivalent Latin phrases used in the above-cited official documents. Soidi (talk) 07:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As Nancy gives no source for her claim that in Latin the Church is called "Ecclesia Catholica", rather than any of the other names (two of which give "catholica" a lower-case "c") met with in official Church documents, so too Marauder gives no source for his similar but not identical claim that in Latin the Church is called "Catholica Ecclesia". For what "particular audience" did Marauder think the three papal encyclical quoted above had to make concessions by adding the word "Romana"? Humani generis and Mystici Corporis were addressed to "Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and other local Ordinaries enjoying peace and communion with the Apostolic See". Divini illius Magistri added "and to all the faithful of the Catholic/catholic world". Soidi (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Both documents were written include an audience that included members of non-Roman rite churches (the "Patriarchs" mentioned in the title points to this), the term here was to differentiate between those in the Roman rite and those not as I said, it depends on the audience.Marauder40 (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Do Patriarchs "enjoying peace and communion with the Apostolic See" need, as a "concession" (!) to them, to have "Roman" included in the name of the Church that is the City of God, that is one and the same thing with the Mystical Body of Christ, that is the "true Church of Jesus Christ", as the encyclicals declare? Really? Soidi (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's easy to see you have your mind made up no matter what people say but. Within the Catholic church Roman refers to the Roman rite (or to be more precise the Latin rite), there are many rites within the church, all of which are in full union with the Church and the Pope. All of which are validly Catholic. The Church in most situations refers to itself only as the Catholic church. At times it may refer to the Roman rite to differentiate between that and the other rites. In some ecumenical situations it may refer to itself as the Roman Catholic church but that doesn't mean it thinks of itself by that name. Similar to people calling the LDS church the Mormon church. They do not call themselves Mormon and prefer not to be called Mormon but you will see them use the term occasionally as a concession to other people. Here is a good link that explains the official name of the church (Yes I realize the link doesn't constitute a valid source for the article itself but it does explain things.) Marauder40 (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If, as you say, "Roman Catholic Church" refers, except in ecumenical situations, only to part of the Church, then, according to these declarations of the Holy See, which are addressed only to members of the Church as a whole ("in peace and communion with the Apostolic See") and not ecumenically to people outside the Church, only part of the Church is "the City of God" (Divini illius magistri), only part of the Church is one and the same thing with the Mystical Body of Christ (paragraph 12 of Humani generis), only part of the Church is the "true Church of Jesus Christ" (paragraph 13 of Mystici Corporis). Do I misunderstand you? Soidi (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Marauder's interpretation of the words is obviously wrong. Roman does not refer to the "Latin rite" or the the Roman local church here but it does refer to the entire body of the (R)CC. Why Pope Pius used that expression in that istance we cannot answer here (nor should we try, due to NOR!) Still, that doesn't give us anything more than that official documents occasionally use the (theological nonsensical) term. It doesn't make it a or even the official name. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually my interpretation of the use of Roman and Latin is correct in most situations. As you said, we have no idea why Pope Pius choose to use Roman in that case to refer to the entire Catholic church. Nobody has ever said that the Pope cannot make a mistake (except in matters of faith and morals.) As the link I provided shows, in most cases the Catholic church only uses Roman to refer to specific aspects of the church (i.e. the rite, the office of Pope, etc.) In most cases it refers to itself as just the church or the Catholic church. Sure you may find in history where it referred to itself differently, that doesn't make it the official name. I don't understand why this is an issue because the phrase doesn't say that is the ONLY name it goes but, but it is the offical name and the official name is the name in Latin. Marauder40 (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the part I can agree with. It was the attempt to explain the pope's usage by speculation I protested. And obviously, the pope can make mistakes in anything, including faith and morals. Many popes have or might have. Only, according to the Catholic faith (which the two of us share), Catholics believe that God will keep the pope (and ecumenical councils) from doing so when speaking ex cathedra. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't speculating on what the Pope was saying only commenting on the common usages of the terms Roman and Latin and the fact one of the documents was written for an ecumentical environment. I know that matter of faith and morals only applies if the Pope is explicitly teaching using his office as Pope. I didn't want to go into that detail, the only reason I included the faith and morals part was so someone didn't say "but I thought Catholics say the Pope is infallable." Marauder40 (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully with Xandar's comment: "The article needs to tell the reader what the Church actually calls itself, not to be pretending something different to pander to certain viewpoints." The documents quoted immediately above show the Church calling itself (officially) by a name additional to the name that Xandar wishes to be considered the only one. The article should not pretend that the situation is different from what it really is, for the sake of pandering to the undocumented and demonstrably false viewpoint that the Church actually calls itself by one name only. Soidi (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The Church is called "Catholic Church" and, in its official language, "Ecclesia Catholica". Both should be presented side by side. That the article is titled "Roman Catholic Church" is the result of a wiki-compromise and should not now be used as a basis to further push a POV. Latin WP is no reliable source as it just as changeable as en.WP. The smaller basis of editors there makes it even more liable to errors and mistakes. Finally, please please please latin does not contain that capitalising nonsense so prevalent recently in the English-speaking world. There is no such distinction in latin. So please shut up about it. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It is just plain common sense to place the latin phrase next to the name that is "more commonly and properly known". NancyHeise ^talk 16:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sentence number 4
  • Support. Why add unnecessary and unsourced complications? Soidi (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Why remove the official Latin name. If you look around WP, many articles add names in foreign languages, even going so far as to provide whole lists. If you want to trim unneccessary complication, go there. But don't waste our time claiming that "Ecclesia Catholica" is "unsourced"! Str1977 ^(talk) 07:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • OpposeI prefer placing the latin name beside the name by which the Church is "more commonly and properly known". Its just common sense. NancyHeise ^talk 16:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

COMMENTS Str1977, but it is unsourced as the official Latin name. No problem if it were only an official Latin name. Why "Ecclesia Catholica", rather than "Catholica Ecclesia", as the official Latin name? Soidi (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, which Latin name? And as TSP rightly says, that "Catholic Church" is the name by which the Church is "properly known" can be stated in a Wikipedia article only as the opinion of the writer quoted. And do read WP:ASF. Soidi (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Soidi, stop this right now. Your actions are falling under the definition of trolling. If you continue, I will put you up on AN/I for trying to disrupt Wikipedia. The official language of the Catholic Church is Latin. The Catholic Church has always been Latin. The name would then be in Latin. Yes, the Catholic Church has existed before English has existed. There is nothing about opinion. There is nothing about sources needed. Your argument has no grounds and is in violation of many of our proceedings here. Every other foreign nation and foreign company follows the same format with their name. There is no excuse for this type of argument. Now, for anyone wanting to know about the background of the name and why it is the official name - Latin Catechism, Latin official language information, and Latin Catechism. "Catechismi Catholicae Ecclesiae" or "Catholicae Ecclesiae Catechismus" depending on context and case. Since this is the Church law, it is the only document that can be used to determine an "official" name. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Revulting

Ok, the section on cultural influences of the roman catholic church is, quite frankly, revulting. To actually dare say that the spread of Christianity was good for meso-american cultures is so wrong it boggles the mind. The Aztecs, Tlaxcala, Inca, and so many more cultures in the americas were nearly brought to the brink of extinction by the spread of Christianity. It destroyed their entire culture and reduced them to slaves. Christians destroyed their cities, their literature, their arts, their customs good and bad ones. To say that the church helped end slavery???? Ok, that is so historically incorrect I'm amazed its on Wikipedia. The Church activiley fought to maintain the practice of slavery in the entire world. From Europe, to the Americas, to Africa and Austrialia. The Bible itself endorses slavery, in several sections in several books. Like Leviticus to name one. The church actively fought to keep the feudal system in Europe, to keep Native americans as slaves, to kidnap Africans and sell them as slaves all over the world, it fully supported the persecution of Native Austrialians as slaves and so on and so on... The Church persecuted free thinkers throughout history. It was the church that enslaved women. It was the damn Roman catholic church that brought on the Dark Ages. That's why they are called the Dark ages. Cause the Church had reduced all culture in its reach to the dogma's of the church. There was nothing else for nearly 1000 years. Somebody edit this section to be less pro-church, please. For the sake of history and all the victims of the church, somebody please. Do not call the influence of the roman catholic church a good thing, cause the bad far, far outweighs the good.84.194.17.50 (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What does "revulting" mean? Str1977 ^(talk) 07:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The English Protestants who took possession of North America treated the native population far better than the Spanish and Portuguese Catholics treated the Indians of Central and South America: they didn't enslave the Indians; they only wiped them out. 62.1.59.141 (talk) 08:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed but one shouldn't make the same mistake some people make here. It wasnÄt English Protestants that wiped them out but simply English (and later American) settlers and colonisators. Religious motives should not be invented. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your comments. The information that you are so incredulous to believe is referenced to the top scholarly sources available as recommended by WP:reliable source examples. Isnt it amazing what people do not learn in their high school history classes? Thankfully the universities have higher standards for textbooks and that is why Wikipedia recommends them for use in creating history sections. It might be interesting for you to learn more about slavery. It was an institution that existed in almost every worldwide culture except Christian Europe, which was Christianized by the Catholic Church. Isn't it amazing that it was Christians, with help from the Church, who were the first to condemn and eliminate this horrendous worldwide practice? The Dark Ages may seem dark to us here in the 20th century but they were certainly a step up from the chaos of the Barbarian invasions that preceeded them. NancyHeise ^talk 17:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, this really isn't true. Slavery (at least on the massive scale practiced in the colonies) wasn't required in "Christian Europe" itself. But the people who organized and benefitted from the slave trade lived in Europe, and usually considered themselves to be fine an upstanding defenders of the faith.

Meanwhile, it was Bartolomé de Las Casas, defender of the Indians, who was one of the very first (if not the very first) to suggest that the labor problem in the Americas might be ameliorated by the importation of slaves from Africa.

It is true that individual Christians, often (but not always) motivated by their Christian beliefs, often argued strenuously against slavery, especially by the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. (Most of the more prominent of these, in England at least, were Protestants, but no matter.) Other individual Christians, however, Catholic and Protestant alike, saw no contradiction between their faith and the buying and selling of other human beings.

Obviously, however, this is a complex and contested topic, and difficult to summarize in a few lines. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You are forgetting that slavery in Western Europa (where you say it was "not required" - why?) disappeared due to the influence of the church. It only reappeared after the colonisation, in the colonies. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes and in every faith, there are quite a lot of people who do not seem to practice what they believe or use their beliefs to justify their evil deeds, even Atheists are subject to this phenomenon. Catholics are not unique to this problem, we are just unfortunate enough to have a longer history than others. The Africans were practicing slavery before arrival of Europeans and still practice it today. Anglican Bishop Peter Akinola was supposed to be sacrificed in a pagan African ritual when he was 10 years old because his uncle had arranged it [5] - fortunately he escaped. I have a problem with people who, like the anonymous editor above, state things like " To say that the church helped end slavery????" Yes and the Christian Church is still helping to end slavery. NancyHeise ^talk 19:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Nancy. I think the picture is going too much into detail and thus invites the sort of counter-criticism. But that doesn't make this "criticism" right here. This is no "criticism of the church" (a.k.a. churchbashing) section but a section on its cultural impact. And the move against slavery and against human sacrifice is certainly an impact, quite regardless of the (Spanish, not Catholic) conqest of America. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Caption to Aztec image

Just a note about this caption: "Aztecs were practicing human sacrifice, which ended with the spread of Christianity to the region by Catholic missionaries, however the natives were nearly exterminated by the Church."

I think that this is doubly misleading, both in what it has to say in favor of the Catholic Church, and in what it has to say against it.

1. Human sacrifice ended with the arrival of Europeans in Mesoamerica... but then so did just about every other ritual or cultural practice of the Aztecs (pyramid-building, for instance). The implication here, however, is that the natives continued otherwise as before, except that they were now taught or told to stop the human sacrifices.

2. It wasn't the Church that "nearly exterminated" the native peoples of the Americas. It was the Europeans in general.

It would be more accurate (albeit more complex) to say that the Church both justified the pillage of the Americas in the eyes of the conquistadors and, in certain areas, ameliorated it (or tried to). Elsewhere in the article, some of this complexity is at least alluded to. This caption, however, is misleading. I would simply junk both it and the accompanying image. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jb, Thank you for your comments. I did not see where the caption said that the natives were nearly exterminated by the Church. That must have been a vandalism edit because it was not there when we submitted the article to FAC after peer review. The reference supporting the picture caption is from a university textbook on Western Civilization coauthored by 7 college history professors. These are the quotes that support the picture caption

"^ Noble, p. 446, quote "The most chilling tribute, however, was in humans for sacrifice. When the wars of expansion that had provided prisoners came to an end, the Aztecs and their neighbors fought 'flower wars'—highly ritualized battles to provide prisoners to be sacrificed. Five thousand victims were sacrificed at the coronation of Moctezuma II (r. 1502–20) in 1502. Even more, reportedly twenty thousand were sacrificed at the dedication of the great temple of Huitzilopochtli in Tenochtitlan." p. 456, quote "The peoples living in the Valley of Mexico believed that their conquest was fated by the gods and that their new masters would bring in new gods. The Spaniards' beliefs were strikingly similar, based on the revelation of divine will and the omnipotence of the Christian God. Cortes, by whitewashing former Aztec temples and converting native priests into white-clad Christian priests, was in a way fulfilling the Aztecs' expectations about their conquerer."

I am just placing facts on the page. Some people think I am being POV for doing so but if that is the case, they need to talk to the professors who write the university textbooks I am using - not me. I am just following Wikipedia policy and using the sources that WP:reliable source examples says are the best sources to use. NancyHeise ^talk 17:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The part of the sentence about the natives being "exterminated by the Church" has indeed disappeared now. (Perhaps it was a vandalism edit.) Regarding the other point, the quotations you provide don't really contradict what I was saying. (Interestingly, they point to the similarities between native and Christian beliefs, and a sense that cultural change was in some ways pre-ordained.) Yes, the Aztecs performed human sacrifices. Yes, this practice ended with the arrival of the Spaniards. But so did just about every other practice of Aztec civilization. Anyhow, it's not a huge point. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I want to also point out that the opposing POV is presented in the next paragraph of the Cultural Influence section stating "In contrast to scholars such as Ramsay MacMullen, who take a negative view with respect to the loss of ancient literature with the rise of Christianity,[191] ". NancyHeise ^talk 19:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Although ironically, this too is untrue: in fact one thing the Church was good at was recording and preserving native texts. We wouldn't have the Popol Vuh, for instance, if it weren't for the Church. FWIW. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well gosh, I didn't know that. Interesting! NancyHeise ^talk 22:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Voting on Lead sentence structure

Please note that a vote is taking place on this page above on which form of sentence to use in the the very first Lead sentence. You may give us your opinion in the matter here [6] We are trying to find out what everyone thinks to obtain a consensus for one form or another. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 15:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"properly"

I couldn't see a place to add this in the tangled mess that the above has become.

I'm afraid that "properly" is much worse than any of the options that preceded it. "Officially" had the valid interpretation that it was the usual term used for official purposes by the body itself (even if other terms are used officially both by and for that body). I don't see how "properly" can hope to be neutrally justified. Is "Roman Catholic Church" therefore an "improper" usage (including when the Church uses it itself)? TSP (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the statement that the Church is "properly" called "the Catholic Church" implies that the Church uses improper terms when calling itself (even in official documents) by other names. But a source has been cited that does make the statement, which is therefore, by Wikipedia rules, admissible unless someone comes up with a contradictory source. There are, as you indicate, sources that show "Catholic Church" is an official name of the Church (as are other names) but, since "drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research" (WP:OR), a Wikipedia article may not declare "Catholic Church" to be the only official name of the Church or reserve "official name" to this name alone. Soidi (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"more properly" and "commonly" known as the Catholic Church are the exact words from our cited source. Perhaps we need to put those terms in quotations so people know we are quoting exactly? I did not think that was necessary but we can add those if it becomes a problem. NancyHeise ^talk 22:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No. I disagree with any further concession to the POV pushers on this issue. Catholic Church IS the official and proper name of the Church, used in virtually all official documents and pronouncements. Placing the term properly in quotations is unacceptable, since that would reduce this to a matter of opinion rather than of fact. I know that some people for sectional reasons wish to deny the title Catholic Church in respect to the subject of this article, and will pursue their ends incessantly to push that POV. However this is the name of the Church, and that fact must be paramount in Wikipedia. Xandar 22:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I am also a Catholic and supported Soidi's points, so this is certainly not just about pushing a "sectional" POV. I do, however, think that the use of "properly" is very problematic. Personally, I think that having it just say "more commonly know as" would solve a lot of problems. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If "properly" is problematic we can always revert back to the earlier usage changed in yielding to Soidi's POV pushing complaints, "officially called". Mere "commonly known", as explained above, implies that CC is the common, popular, vernacular name while the first-mentined RCC is the official. That's the POV that Soidi's is pushing for and I for my part will not allow that he succeeds in this. Finally, there is also the alternative of moving the article to CC but I am afraid this will open up a whole different can of worms - and certainly will not please Soidi. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the source that "properly" is cited from - this one - is simply a personal opinion piece. I don't believe it is a reliable source, and even if it was one it is clearly only stating Kenneth D. Whitehead's opinion, not demonstrable fact. (The article has also been shown to be wrong in much of its analysis - stating, for example, that the church does not use the term, when many sources clearly show that it does).

There seems to be some confusion about what one does with reliable sources. If something is a reliable source, you can present facts from it, as facts. You can also present opinions from it, AS OPINIONS. A "fact" in this context is ""a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute" (see WP:ASF).

If Bob Smith has a book published by a reputable publisher in which he says "Pope John Paul II was born in 1920", then we can use that as 'Pope John Paul II was born in 1920 [ref]', provided that no other source seems to contradict it. If in the same book he says, "The Church has been a force for good", then that is clearly an opinion; we can't use that to say, 'The Church has been a force for good [ref]'; we can use it to say 'Bob Smith considers that the Church has been a force for good [ref]'. It is an opinion; being published in a reliable source does not turn it into a fact.

In the source currently relied on, the author is clearly giving his opinions. These are also clearly disputed (if the many bodies which use "Roman Catholic Church", including the Church itself, considered the usage 'improper' they would not do so - see our second ref for the same sentence).

If you like we can put "The Roman Catholic Church, which Kenneth D Whitehead considers to be more commonly and properly called the Catholic Church". I'm not convinced that this frankly unnotable person's opinion belongs in the first sentence, however. It certainly doesn't belong there presented as fact. TSP (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the last two comments, and support TSP's proposal, at least regarding the word "properly". "More commonly" might be justified if a field in which the name is more common were specified: either "in the Church's official (or internal) documents" or "in ordinary speech". It might then be possible to find a reliable source that would justify making a factual statement about one or other of these fields, although unfortunately I cannot point to any. Would it be considered original research to state - after citing a number of Church documents that use "Catholic Church" several times (the Catechism of the Catholic Church has it 12 times, apart from the title) and comparing that number with the much smaller number of internal documents of the Church that use the name "Roman Catholic Church" even once (excluding the rather numerous documents drawn up jointly with other Christians) - that the Church's internal documents use "Catholic Church" more commonly than "Roman Catholic Church"? (By the way, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which in its body uses "Catholic Church" 12 times, 7 of which are in quotations from other sources, refers to itself far more frequently as "the Church": down merely to CCC 1065 I counted 544 instances. Thus we cannot say that "Catholic Church" is the most common name, but only that it is more common than "Roman Catholic Church".) Soidi (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There is also a confusion of what to do with reliable sources. The use of "properly" or "official" doesn't require us to have a RS that spells out those words. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again everyone, I see we are still at it. Sorry but I reverted TSP's elimination of the word "properly" because both terms "commonly and properly" come from this source [7] which we determined is the best source of all those anyone has found. The reference is an excerpt from a book written by Kenneth Whitehead that has been featured in the most prominent Catholic newspaper in the US, and also featured on the only Catholic television network in the English and Spanish speaking world, EWTN. Because it is the only source that has been promoted by Catholic media as an explanation for the Catholic Church name, it is more oft cited by the Church itself than other sources people have put forward. It meets the requirements for WP:RS, it is a third party source that has been embraced by the article subject's own media as an explanation for name. I do not think it is in any way appropriate for someone to eliminate either commonly or properly because both are important facts regarding the name - if you omit one or the other, you end up giving Reader incomplete and potentially one-sided, false information. NancyHeise ^talk 16:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure when this was determined; but I'm afraid it's been determined wrong. Did you read my comments above? Please read WP:ASF, which I linked to. This is not a good source; it is openly an opinion piece advancing one side of the debate, published by a partisan publication, and demonstrably wrong in at least some of its facts. More importantly, in how you are using it you are presenting an opinion as a fact; this is simply wrong. I would accept "The Roman Catholic Church, which Kenneth D. Whitehead considers to be more commonly and properly called the Catholic Church" as accurate and neutral; awful, of course, but accurate and neutral. The current wording is neither accurate nor neutral. Surely you can see that presenting an openly opinionated source, then backing it up by saying that others who share the same opinion have cited it, cannot be a neutral approach? TSP (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your assumption that this is opinion. Whitehead's piece is not featured in an opinion column. It is featured in a fact dissemination venue "The Catholic Answer" is a place where Catholic facts are disseminated to Catholics via Catholic Media. It is not like writing a Letter to the Editor. Therefore, because it has been so prominently framed as a Catholic Fact, we are entirely justified in calling it that. You need to have some sort of documentation to back up your assumption that it is an opinion because Whitehead clearly backs up the fact with more facts. Really, I cant believe this whole discussion, I mean gosh, the Church's own constitution is signed by the pope's name followed by "Bishop of the Catholic Church". We should never have been forced to eliminate "official" but we did to try to make Soidi happy but I see that now we have other problems. I would be happy to go back to "official" but I think "more commonly and properly" is factual too. NancyHeise ^talk 17:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"As the previous section attempted to explain, the term 'Catholic' has so many meanings, and is claimed by so many different Churches, that it cannot properly be used (though of course in practice it is) to denominate one specific Christian community. The Christians commonly known as Catholics should more properly be known as Roman Catholics." - 'Roman Catholicism: The Basics', Michael Walsh, Routledge 2005, p19.

At the very least, this establishes that "Catholic Church" being the "proper" name is "a matter which is subject to dispute", and therefore an opinion in the terms of WP:NPOV. Therefore it is not appropriate to state it as a fact within this article. TSP (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) TSP, I think you have the correct position in that "properly" is a POV term best used by Catholics, but for me as a non-Catholic I have a reaction to being forced to acknowledge a proper term. Roman Catholic rolls off the tongue too easily for me and when used I know exactly the entity we are talking about. When Catholic Church is used I will more often than not think in more universal or ecumenical terms, rather than a specific church. Context is demanded for me to more quickly understand what is meant. Properly seems to stymie that ecumenism for me personally. I think the correct terminology is "officially" known as the Catholic Church, rather than usingn properly. Using officially acknowledges to the reader that this is a term that is self-designated or their preferred term. Is the Church known by others names? Of course; over approximately two thousand years one would assume that several names would have been used by herself. I reject Soidi's position that to be called "official" there must needs be a single label that is only used by the Church. If necessary, one could easily address in a subsection all of the formal names the Church has used during its history, but I am not sure it is necessary for this article. I would move that we go back to offically known as the Catholic Church...--^StormRider 18:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It is those I have had to argue against who claim that there is only one official label. I have pointed out to them repeatedly that the Church does use today more than one name as an official name. There is no verifiable reliable source that declares that the Church has at any time, past or present, adopted a single official name as the only one. "Used officially" indicates to the reader that this is a term that is self-designated, a preferred term, but not necessarily the only self-designated term preferred term. "Officially known as" suggested on the contrary that there is only one name by which the Church is officially known by everybody, including, no doubt, Storm Rider. All we need is some verifiable reliable source that says that "Catholic Church" is a name "used officially" by the Church. I would have thought that its own documents are such verifiable reliable sources; but there are editors who deny that. Perhaps only because the Church's own documents show that "Catholic Church" is not the only name "used officially" by the Church. Soidi (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I am going to go bang my head against a wall for a while.....OK, new proposition here: How about "The Roman Catholic Church, more officially called the Catholic Church (ecclesia catholica)..." Both of the refereces really are saying this. NancyHeise ^talk 20:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we just use "also known as"? The article used to say that months ago and it was just fine.

In fact, why are we so concerned what the Church is "officially" called? That's sounds so legalistic, so very, well, "Anglo-Saxon". The Church has adopted Roman law which allows for many exceptions, and presumably a lack of concern with "official" names. Can't we make an exception to this whole "official" thing and move on? I mean, geez. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with that if we can place a note after it with an explanation discussing how the Church uses those names as discussed by Whitehead. What do others think? Can we also put the Catholica Ecclesiae in the note too? Opinions please? If this is not OK, we need to follow consensus. Right now, we have a consensus for one form of sentence at the voting section on this page above. I would like to respect consensus and the solid references at some point here.NancyHeise ^talk 21:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I really cannot believe that people are still seriously trying to push the point that the church is not "properly" called the Catholic Church. Among the ludicrous arguments presented in this section have been: That the idea that the Church's proper name is Catholic Church is one man's opinion! - That the Church's documents do not show that the name is the one it officially uses! - that the name Catholic Church is not official because it also calls itself simply the Church! - and that because a few individuals have chosen for reasons of their own to "dispute" that Catholic Church is the official or proper name, that that "dispute" makes it not a fact but an opinion! All of this is illogic carried to extremes. I suppose on those grounds we need a published reference explicitly saying that George W Bush is the US President's "official" name before we could use it on Wikipedia! But that wouldn't be any good - since if a Republican stated this, it would be set aside as a partisan opinion! However StormRider has tellingly revealed what is behind all this when he says "for me as a non-Catholic I have a reaction to being forced to acknowledge a proper term". Sorry, but your reaction doesn't matter. You may not like the fact that the Church is properly and officially called the Catholic Church, but that is a fact - and a fact far better attested than that George W Bush is the name of the President. Nor does it matter that other groups use the term catholic in some circumstances, the Republic of the Congo appears as just that, even though another nation of that name exists, the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Church of England appears under that name, although it is by no means the entire church in England as the title it uses might seem to claim. The Church of Ireland similarly appears on even less basis. It is however used as the proper name of the church becaue that is what it calls itself. The Featured article India states that the official name is the Republic of India with no citation whatsoever. The current compromise has meant catholics bending over backwards to be amenable. Going any further would be to go into major inaccuyracy. "more officially" is such a fudge as to be meaningless. The Church now and always has called itself the Catholic Church. No qualification. It is known by this name by most people around the world. Perhaps, if this POV niggling continues, the simplest solution would be to go back to "officially known as" in the wording - or else change the name of the article back to Catholic Church on the same basis as other faith groups. Xandar 22:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Also known as" is completely unacceptable, since it does not specifically state the Church's official or proper name. TheChurch is "also known as" the Church of Rome, or "the One true Church" These are not, however, its proper names. And yes, the proper name IS important, and not to be censored, since this is an encyclopedia. Xandar 22:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Xandar, but my personal affection for the very kind hearted Storm Rider leads me to consider his proposal which is not a good reason for changing referenced facts I know. Storm Rider, as much as I respect your opinions, I have to go with what the sources and consensus say and in this case its "more commonly and properly known". Would you be OK if we add a note next to that to state that other churches like Anglican and such consider themselves to be catholic even though it is not part of their official name? I would be fine with that too. NancyHeise ^talk 22:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Very simply, I have quoted above a reliable source which advances a different view on what the "proper" term is. That means that there is dispute on this matter. Therefore, the view on which is the 'proper' term can only be cited as the opinion of one source, not as an undisputed fact; see WP:ASF. I think the real problem is that "properly" is an even less well-defined term then "officially". I didn't actually mind officially, but apparently others did; but, I'm sorry, I have shown that dispute on the matter exists within reliable sources, so the article cannot go on stating which is the "proper" name as an undisputed fact. Again, see WP:NPOV and WP:ASF. Perhaps a better-defined word would be a good idea? TSP (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually you have quoted someone's opinion of what he thinks people who call themselves catholics should be called. The proper name of a body is that which it historically and currently uses to identify itself in the majority of its official documents and actions. In that respect (and others), the term "Catholic Church" has overwhelming authority. I am happy with the term "properly" or "officially", but whatever term is used has to be clear and precise that this is the actual name of the Church. The problem arises because Catholic Church was not insisted on as the article title, and Roman Catholic Church was accepted as part of a compromise (largely on the grounds of removing ambiguity). Therefore there has to be an early and clear statement of the Church's actual name. If the wording were "The Catholic Church, often also called the Roman Catholic Church," that would be accurate. A form of wording similar to that existed on the article for a year, but people argued about that, and since the first mention of the subject in the lead should normally reflect the article title, this was altered, and the "officially called" wording was finally settled on. This displeased many catholics, but was defended as an end to the disputes. We are never going to please everyone, but we must be factually accurate and clearly state what the Church is actually called. Xandar 23:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Certainly I have quoted an opinion; I quoted it to counter another opinion. In Whitehead's opinion, the Church should 'properly' be called 'The Catholic Church'. In Walsh's opinion, the Church should 'properly' be called 'The Roman Catholic Church'.

I think the problem is with the many implications of the term "proper". Perhaps it is intended to mean "considered by the Church itself as its usual name". But it also has the implications that other uses are improper, or that it is somehow wrong to use another name. That is clearly not the case, as the Church itself uses other names. Because "proper" is not a well-defined factual term, it is always going to be a matter of opinion what is the "proper" name, and opinions are always going to differ. You have found a published source that thinks the church should "properly" be called one thing; I have found one which thinks it should "properly" be called another.

Personally I had no major problem with 'officially' - it's true, it didn't tell the whole story, but it gave the general idea. Others have objected to it; I don't know whether they have concensus. I do know, though that 'properly' is not the solution you are looking for. TSP (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people did not have a problem with "officially" it was just Soidi at first and when Gimmetrow voiced his support for a change from officially, I caved but it was not a consensus. Personally, I felt that the two sources supported the use of the word "officially" and it seems that you and Storm Rider, as Anglicans feel more comfortable with that term. Perhaps the two of you could help to convince Soidi whom I suspect is also Anglican to come to terms with that word. We have really tried to please everyone but it seems that most people are happiest with "official". NancyHeise ^talk 00:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What about "Roman Catholic Church, more officially called the Catholic Church"? That kind of addresses Soidi's concerns that Catholic is not the only official name used by the Church herself and it also addresses the fact that Catholic Church is used more officially by the Catholic Church. Let me know if this works for everyone. NancyHeise ^talk 01:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

How can a name be "more" or "less" official than another name? It is either an official name or it is not. How about "The Roman Catholic Church, more often called the Catholic Church both in common parlance and in its own documents"? I don't think the factual accuracy of this is disputed. Soidi (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"More officially" means nothing. It's a fudge. It is not encyclopedic, and anyway, will probably only cause more trouble down the line. Soldi's latest suggestion is not only a mouthful, but does not present the firm and unequivocal statement that Catholic Church is the actual name of the church that is required because of the use of the term "Roman Catholic Church" in the title. At the moment I can't think of anything more useful and less wordy than "officially called the Catholic Church", or "officially known simply as the Catholic Church." Xandar 11:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

[8] "As everybody knows, however, the Church referred to in this Creed is more commonly called just the Catholic Church." "...more commonly called..." seems straightforward. Gimmetrow 12:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

However that does not state it is the proper or official name of the church Xandar 13:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It says "more commonly called". Gimmetrow 13:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Xandar has yet to produce any reliable source in support of his wished-for "firm and unequivocal statement" that "the proper or official name of the church" is the "Catholic Church". So far it rests only on his repeated affirmation that it is so. Soidi (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

How's this The Roman Catholic Church, is more commonly called the Catholic Church (Latin: Ecclesia Catholica) both in its most official documents such as the Church constitution Lumen Gentium as well as in common usage.[1][2] It is the world's largest Christian Church, representing over half of all Christians and one-sixth of the world's population.[3][4] .... Can we please come to agreement here. The references clearly support this text. NancyHeise ^talk 18:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Nancy, for changing your question. An edit conflict kept me from posting my puzzled response to your first question, and I have had to write a quite different and longer response. The phrase "its most official documents" is still somewhat peculiar. People will be wondering how to measure the degree of "officialness" of Church documents." Wouldn't it be much simpler to say simply "in its official documents"? And what need is there for the phrase "such as the Church constitution Lumen Gentium"? Many readers will associate the word "constitution", especially when referred to as "the Church constitution" rather than, in the correct way, as the "constitution on (i.e. about) the Church", with the idea of a country's constitution; they will not realize that the word has a completely different meaning in connection with Lumen gentium, which, as I already said at 07:32 on 21 October 2008, is only one of the four documents of the Second Vatican Council classified by that name. The other three were on the Church and the modern world, on the liturgy, and on Revelation, a fact that makes it even more evident that the word "constitution" in their regard has a quite different meaning from what it has in relation to a national constitution. Could you possibly consider shortening your proposal so that it would read: "The Roman Catholic Church, more commonly called the Catholic Church both in its official documents and in common usage, is the world's largest ..."? I fear you will want to include Ecclesia Catholica. Can you find a source that indicates that, in spite of the fact that the official Latin text of Lumen gentium does not have this form, but only Ecclesia catholica and catholica Ecclesia, what you propose has the greatest right to be considered the official Latin name? Do the two sources at present in the article really support what they are cited for? They certainly do not support any particular Latin name. They do not support the claim about the "most official" documents. Perhaps the first supports what is said about common usage (I haven't reread it), while the second does not. What indeed does the 1889 document support? Would it not be better to omit them? I don't think the simplified phrase could in good faith be questioned. Soidi (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

My primary thought is that you allow each group to call themselves what they choose. Xandar, regarding my point above, please know that my choice between properly and officially was more a reaction to the initial argument that it needed to be changed from officially to something else. As I have said before this is making mountains out of mole hills. Please do not think I was drawing a line in the sand. If I was writing the article I would probably use officially, but if it was later edited to properly I would not think it significant enough to question. Nancy's suggestion above works particularly well with the Latin clarification. Let's get to concensus quickly and move on.--^StormRider 18:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The recent change to "The Roman Catholic Church, more commonly called the Catholic Church both in its official documents and in common usage, is the world's largest ..." is both ungainly, and again fails to provide the correct information. "more commonly" can mean anything, and does not clearly state the actual name of the church. Xandar 20:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with Xandar's change and I think Storm Rider agrees. I don't think I can bend anymore to Soidi because it seems that he wants something that is not supported by the references ie that the Church is only commonly known as with no reference to the most official documents which the Whitehead reference is clearly talking about. Yes I want to keep the 1889 document to support the Whitehead book excerpt. I think it helps to have a Protestant source supporting the Catholic source. It also uses the term "official" when describing what the name is... Catholic Church. NancyHeise ^talk 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This conversation continues below with "Constitution", please respond there. I am going to archive this page after we all make it down to the new section. NancyHeise ^talk 00:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

THE DATING IS NOT RIGHT IN THIS ARTICLE

The article talks about '..in the fifteenth century...' and then goes on to list dates beginning '15--'. These would be in the SIXTEENTH century!!!

The same thing happens when the writer(s) talk about the 'seventeenth' century: they put dates beginnine '17--', which is of course the EIGHTEENTH century!!!

I cannot trust this article much if you make such silly mistakes!

Breezy Day —Preceding unsigned comment added by A Breezy Day (talk • contribs) 14:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken. The mentions I can see are "Beginning in the late 15th century, [...] In December 1511," - clearly that is a progression; one thing occurred in the late 15th century, then another in 1511 (which is of course the early 16th century). Likewise, "Toward the latter part of the 17th century, [...] In 1685" which seems entirely correct. If you can point to which dates you think are inaccurate, we will certainly check them. TSP (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think A Breezy Day is mistaken, I checked the article too. Not sure what this user is looking at. NancyHeise ^talk 18:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor wording issues

There are two minor wording issues I ran across while fixing a couple of typos. Re: "On his 2008 visit to the United States he was received with particular dignity and his Masses were televised live on the major national news networks. Even though both Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI condemned the Iraq War as a "defeat for reason and for the gospel", when asked why the Pope received such attention, U.S. President George W. Bush said "Because he is a really important figure ..."."

I think the wording is awkward here. Since the second sentence starts with "Even though", I would expect to see something contrary to or against the war's condemnation in the subsequent clause, but it instead addresses why Bush thought the Pope received attention. Or is the article making the point that the pope was received with "particular dignity" even though he condemned the war? The sentence using "particular dignity" is vague as to who or what offered that dignity, and does not attribute it to the Bush administration to suggest a conflict.

It is also not clear that both popes condemned the war using the same quote (obviously only one of the two was pope at a time); the source only indicates the Vatican condemned the war using those words at the time John Paul II was pope. Perhaps a slight rewording to attribute the quote only to one of the two popes, a second source for the second pope, or attributing the quote more generally to the Vatican, would be better. -- Michael Devore (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The Iraq war addition was in response to a FAC reviewers comments. I'll try to come up with a better wording. Thanks for your comments here and all your help. NancyHeise ^talk 22:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I made a couple of changes. Let me know what you think. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 22:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that makes more sense now. -- Michael Devore (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracies creeping in

The FAC process often means a lot of quick changes, and Nancy has had to deal with a lot of this on her own, which is a very hard task. I am sorry that I have not been able to contribute as much as I would like this time round. However a few inaccuracies have crept in to the historical section with some of the recent alterations. Particularly with regard to "Papal apologies", the claims made about them did not reflect the actual text, and have been amended. see. [9] and [10] The latter is not even a Papal letter, as claimed. Also the Old Catholic Church break-away is hardly a schism - and is not even claimed as such in their own article. Also the Teutonic Knights fought pagans in the Baltic, but the claim that they "conducted wars" against them was POV language implying that all the aggression came from the Knights rather than this being a to and fro war between Christians and very warlike pagans of the Viking tradition. Xandar 22:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Xandar, I will go back and check those again. NancyHeise ^talk 00:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, first, here's the entire quote from Bokenkotter that is our best scholalry source - we need to include this in the article "The papal letter 'We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah," urged Catholics to repent for what they did to help cause the Holocaust and to become more aware of their own faith's Hebrew roots. The Pope has continued to make extraordinary efforts toward reconciliation with the Jewish community." From page 484. NancyHeise ^talk 00:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The Bokenkotter quote is, I'm afraid an inaccurate paraphrase of "We remember", which is featured on the Vatican website here [11]. First, "We remember. A reflection on the Shoah" is not itself a papal letter, but written by Cardinals Cassidy and Dupree. There is a brief papal letter attached which says : "On numerous occasions during my Pontificate I have recalled with a sense of deep sorrow the sufferings of the Jewish people during the Second World War. The crime which has become known as the Shoah remains an indelible stain on the history of the century that is coming to a close. As we prepare for the beginning of the Third Millennium of Christianity, the Church is aware that the joy of a Jubilee is above all the joy that is based on the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God and neighbour. Therefore she encourages her sons and daughters to purify their hearts, through repentance of past errors and infidelities. She calls them to place themselves humbly before the Lord and examine themselves on the responsibility which they too have for the evils of our time."

The phrase "urged Catholics to repent for what they did to help cause the Holocaust" quoted by Bonkenkotter does not appear. It seems to be Bokenkotter's interpretation rather than whgat was actually said. The document itself actually details how the Church condemned Nazi racism. In fact it states: " The Shoah was the work of a thoroughly modern neo-pagan regime. Its anti-Semitism had its roots outside of Christianity and, in pursuing its aims, it did not hesitate to oppose the Church and persecute her members also." The nearest the document gets to Bonkenkotter's construction is this passage... "Nevertheless, as Pope John Paul II has recognized, alongside such courageous men and women, the spiritual resistance and concrete action of other Christians was not that which might have been expected from Christ's followers. We cannot know how many Christians in countries occupied or ruled by the Nazi powers or their allies were horrified at the disappearance of their Jewish neighbours and yet were not strong enough to raise their voices in protest. For Christians, this heavy burden of conscience of their brothers and sisters during the Second World War must be a call to penitence "

So, whatever Bokenkotter says, it is inaccurate. Nowhere does the Pope or the document declare that Catholics "helped cause the holocaust" and should repent for that. That is something Bokenkotter has read into the text for himself. We cannot quote a false quotation - especially when it inadvertently seems to make makes a false admission that Catholicism helped cause the holocaust, when the document says the opposite. It may say that some Catholics did not do what they should have to oppose the holocaust - but that is avery different thing. That is why I was so surprised by the quote and checked it out. Xandar 01:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, that is not correct, we can use scholars interpretations of these, they are more qualified than we are to paraphrase the subject matter. Bokenkotter is the most scholary source and I would like to respect our most scholarly source because I think he has every qualification to decipher what is being conveyed by the document. We may also have those qualifications but we are prevented by WP:original research from doing so on Wikipedia. I would like to keep this in the article, it is not POV, it is a referenceable fact sourced to a scholarly work. We would be POV by eliminating it. NancyHeise ^talk 20:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but in this Bokenkotter is obviously and quite clearly wrong, as I have shown above. It is not POV to remove a falsehood. Just because someone publishes something doesn't mean that is correct and can be used in Wikipedia. If a scholarly source makes a clearly identifiable factual error, as this does, that cannot be repeated if we know better. Pointing out factual errors in a source is not original research, any more than it would be if such a source claimed Russian was the official language of Scotland. It's not a matter of interpretation. The Bokenkotter sentence makes two clear mistakes. One, that the document was written by Pope John Paul, the second that the document anywhere states that Catholics bear responsibility for the holocaust. The TIME Magazine report of the time backs this up. [12] These documents are carefully framed, and if that was what it had wanted to say, it would have done so. I would suspect from this evidence that Bokenkotter never actually read the document, but is himself relying on secondary sources. The article sentence as cast, laying blame on the Catholic Church for the holocaust is factually wrong and will have to be removed or replaced with something that actually matches the facts. The way that the sentence is written also gives the false impression that the words in quotes are taken directly from the document. Xandar 21:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link to the actual page in the book used to cite the Old Catholic Church sentence [13]. Please feel free to improve that sentence. I found this very hard to paraphrase concisely because it was such a jumble of events. Please help. NancyHeise ^talk 00:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The book mainly covers Holland only, and says the breakaway group was always very small. However I think we need a better source. Xandar 01:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Teutonic order issue, I changed the sentence and refd it to make more clear what these military orders did. I think it is more factual now. Thanks for checking my work Xandar ! NancyHeise ^talk 00:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The Church's "Constitution"

(hides from the "Properly" debate :P )

I'm wondering about the reference to Lumen Gentium as "the Church's constitution". It would seem that an apostolic constitution is much different from the idea of a country's or other organization's constitution, the latter function being served by the Code of Canon Law in the Church. Can anyone elaborate? Nautical Mongoose (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The Apostolic Constitution was promulgated at the end of the 2nd Vatican Council by Pope Paul VI As such it is the most official of official documents concerning the Church. It states.. This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth".(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. Xandar 00:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, getting around the constitution definition I changed it to read : "The Roman Catholic Church, is known as the Catholic Church both in common usage as well as officially in self defining documents such as Lumen Gentium.[1][2] " I hope this satisfies everyone. NancyHeise ^talk 00:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the constitution, however I amended it to read: "The Roman Catholic Church is officially known as the Catholic Church both in its pronouncements and in self defining documents such as its Apostolic Constitution Lumen Gentium." Xandar 02:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

1. An apostolic constitution is a papal, not a conciliar, document. Soidi (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong in this respect. See Lumen Gentium... "Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, is one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council. The Constitution was promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964, following approval by the assembled bishops by a vote of 2,151 to 5." Xandar 12:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Then it's not an "Apostolic Constitution", as X. called it immediately above, but a "Dogmatic Constitution". Soidi (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

2. The Second Vatican Council issued a single "constitution" ("on the Sacred Liturgy"), two "dogmatic constitutions" ("on the Church", and "on Divine Revelation") and one "pastoral constitution" ("on the Church in the Modern World"), nine "decrees" (which I won't list), and three "declarations". Soidi (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, Lumen Gentium is the highest level document. Xandar 12:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No higher, at least, than the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum. Soidi (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

3. Lumen gentium is by no means the only "self-defining" Church document. Mystici Corporis, which uses the word "Roman" is another. In fact, as we shall see, Lumen gentium, in a footnote, also uses "Roman". Soidi (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The term "Roman Catholic" never appears in Mystici Corporis. However the term "Catholic Church" is used several times to define the church. Xandar 12:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Nancy's latest text no longer makes a comparison with "Roman Catholic Church": instead it says that the Church "is known as the Catholic Church ... officially in self defining documents such as Lumen Gentium" - as if it were known officially in its self-defining documents by no other name. But Mystici Corporis, 13 calls it "the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church". Soidi (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

4. Lumen gentium uses several names for the Church: apart from "Catholica Ecclesia" (53) and "Ecclesia Catholica" (14), it has "Ecclesia Dei" (20, 41) or "Dei Ecclesia" (9), "Christi Ecclesia" (8, 26) or "Ecclesia Christi" (8, 9), "Sancta Ecclesia" (54 with upper-case S - several times elsewhere with lower-case "sancta"), "una, sancta, catholica et apostolica Ecclesia" (26, 8), "Ecclesia universalis" (19). If it is claimed that these last two examples are descriptions, not names, the same would hold for "Ecclesia catholica" (8, 23, 28) and "catholica Ecclesia" (13). "Ecclesia catholica, a successore Petri et Episcopis in eius communione gubernata" (the Catholic/catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him), which is the passage most quoted in this regard, not only gives "catholica" a lower-case initial, but also has a footnote: "Dicitur “Sancta (catholica apostolica) Romana Ecclesia”, in Prof. fidei Trid., l. c. et CONC. VAT. I, Const. dogm. de fide cath. Dei Filius" (It [the Ecclesia catholica, a successore Petri etc.] is called the "holy (catholic apostolic) Roman Church" in the Profession of Faith of Trent and in the First Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith Dei Filius), an indication that Lumen gentium considers that what it calls the Catholic Church is also called Roman. It is therefore false to represent Lumen gentium as having indicated only one name for the Church. Soidi (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

In its defining statement, which I quoted above, and then throughout the constitution, "Catholic Church" is used as the title of the Church.Xandar 12:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The statement by which it defines the Church is "a successore Petri et Episcopis in eius communione gubernata" (which is governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him). If by "defining statement" you mean the whole of what you have transcribed above, that contains also the name "Church of Christ" and a footnote ("13*") that says the Church is also called "Roman". The original official text of this passage does not contain the phrase "Catholic Church" with capital letters. Instead, it has "catholic Church". "Throughout the (dogmatic) constitution" "Catholic Church" with capital letters appears only twice and "catholic Church" only another two times. Soidi (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

5. The Church's "pronouncements" are multitudinous. Soidi (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

But in overwhelming numbers are made in the name "Catholic Church."

says Xandar. Soidi (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

6. Because of the facts outlined under 3, 4 and 5, it is misleading to speak of "Catholic Church" as the name by which the Church is known "in its pronouncements (without distinction), and in self-defining documents such as Lumen Gentium". The name by which the Church is known in Lumen gentium is rather "Ecclesia", which appears repeatedly in every section of the document, with only rare additions of adjectives such as "Catholica" or "Sancta" Soidi (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No. "Ecclesia" as a shorthand form, and not an official name, as any such document would when talking about "the Church". Just because General Motors also calls it self "the company" in its official documents as shorthand, doesn't mean its name isn't General Motors. Xandar 12:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Another "says Xandar" statement, no better founded than a statement that "Ecclesia Catholica" is a shorthand form of "Ecclesia Catholica Romana". Soidi (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

My main problem with the current opening sentence as it now stands is that it is a very poor opening to the article. WP:LEAD says

"The article should begin with a straightforward, declarative sentence that, as briefly as possible, provides the reader who knows nothing at all about the article's subject with the answer to two questions: "What (or who) is it?" and "Why is this subject notable?".

Our current opening sentence is

"The Roman Catholic Church is officially known as the Catholic Church both in its pronouncements and in self defining documents such as its Apostolic Constitution Lumen Gentium.".

That does not in any way fulfil these requirements and is not a good opening for the article. Perhaps we could just say, "The Roman Catholic Church, or Catholic Church is the largest...." (etc) and leave the naming question for a little further down, perhaps in a later paragraph of the lead? TSP (talk) 18:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Claim of consensus

Consensus so far supports this version (copied from above) VOTE HERE

• for Sentence number 1: "Roman Catholic Church (Latin: Ecclesia Catholica Romana), more commonly and properly called the Catholic Church (Latin: Ecclesia Catholica).
• or for Sentence number 2"Roman Catholic Church, more commonly and properly called the Catholic Church (Latin: Ecclesia Catholica).
• or for Sentence number 3: The Roman Catholic Church, more commonly and properly called the Catholic Church is the world's ... In official documents, the Latin used for "Catholic Church" can be "Ecclesia catholica" (e.g. Lumen gentium, 8, 23, and 28), or "Ecclesia Catholica" (e.g. ????), or "Catholica Ecclesia" (as in the title of the Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae and in the quotation from the Council of Trent given in Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 15) or "catholica Ecclesia" (as in Lumen gentium, 13 and 53). The Latin used for "Roman Catholic Church" is "Ecclesia Catholica Romana" (Divini illius Magistri). ...
• or for Sentence number 4: The Roman Catholic Church, more commonly and properly called the Catholic Church is the world's ...

• Sentence number 2
  • Support NancyHeise ^talk 01:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Soidi (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support The Roman Catholic Church is properly called the Catholic chuch in English, but in its own language is called "Catholica Ecclesia". The Romana isn't added unless concessions are needed for a particular audience. Having both translations makes it seem that both have equal weight when they don't. Marauder40 (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support The article needs to tell the reader what the Church actually calls itself, not to be pretending something different to pander to certain viewpoints. Xandar 22:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support as the only reasonable option among those presented. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Actually, I'd prefer the "officially" that was here before Soidi showed up, but that's not an option, so this one is good. Farsight001 (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Because we have a consensus for a certain version, I am going to change the lead sentence to that version. If anyone wants to change the lead sentence again, I suggest they post another vote on the talk page and get consensus. Please do not change the lead, it reflects talk page consensus and is supported by the two sources which we have determined to be better than any others. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 20:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the discussion has moved far away from your attempt to settle the matter by voting, leading to several expressions of disagreement with your proposal, shouldn't we wait to see if there really is consensus on this matter, instead of presuming it? Remember Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion: "We include text in articles based on such policies as verifiability and encyclopedicity, not based on whether the text is popular among voters." Soidi (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• No - you may be prepared to carry on arguing the toss for another month, but most of us regard the matter as settled. Support no 2 as best of those offered. Johnbod (talk) 21:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. You can't claim that a poll, where all the options contained the same wording on one part of the article, represents a concensus on that part of the article. "Properly" remains an opinion and a violation of WP:NPOV. I have demonstrated above that there are sources which differ on what the church is "properly" called, therefore it is "a matter which is subject to dispute" not "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute", so may only be quoted as an opinion, not as a fact. See WP:ASF. TSP (talk) 22:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

TSP, you removed wording that has been agreed by consensus. We have earnestly tried to come up with a version more to your liking but it has proven to be a futile effort. I don't understand why you object to using the exact words used by the WP:RS reliable source. None of anyone's sources have been framed by reputable Catholic media as the answer to the question "What is the Church's real name?" The Whitehead source is not an opinion, it is an excerpt from a book, supplemented with research to back up his findings and presented to Catholics in two media sources, the Our Sunday Visitor and Eternal Word Television Network - not in their opinion sections but in their Catholic Answer section as the Answer to the Question. I am replacing this consensus sentence and if you want to hold another vote on another version of the lead sentence, please do. We are trying to find the sentence that most people are OK with, so far, it is the one voted upon above. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 23:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you ever read WP:ASF? It has been linked to many times, and is really quite unambiguous, and is a core and non-negotiable part of Wikipedia policy. I've quoted it in full below.

That 'Catholic Church' is the 'proper' name is "a matter which is subject to dispute"; as an example, Walsh's 2005 book 'Roman Catholicism: The Basics' advances exactly the opposite position. That means that, for the purposes of WP:NPOV it must be regarded as an "opinion", and stated only as the view of those who can be cited to hold it.

You can't really pretend that one option winning on a poll in which every option offered contained this wording represents consensus in favour of it - surely that's obvious? Just to be sure, WP:NPOV (of which WP:ASF is a part) goes out of its way to state that "The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."

I'm sorry that you feel that you have found it futile to come up with a version more to my liking; for what it's worth, I have only objected to two formulations; this one for its obvious violation of WP:NPOV, and the one which turned the entire first sentence into a discussion of the names the church is known by, for its obvious violation of WP:LEAD. I do appreciate all the work you've done on this article, but that doesn't mean I can ignore such blatant breaches of policy. I really do feel that every alternative that has ever been offered is better than this one.

If you think that this doesn't breach WP:ASF, then please tell me which part of my logic you disagree with; it seems very clear to me. TSP (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

TSP, what page is that quote from Walsh on? I can not find it anywhere in that book. I am trying to place it in a note after Catholic Church. NancyHeise ^talk 00:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

TSP, I have read ASF and it says to assert facts. Kenneth Whitehead is not asserting an opinon, he is asserting a fact that he then backs up with evidence to support. His fact is presented in the Catholic Media as fact. The Walsh book does not contain the quote you say it does. I searched for the quote using Googlebooks and it does not come up, even when I split it up into pieces and then do the search again. I think you position is unfounded and I am going to stick with consensus. There are no serious disputes that the Catholic Church more commonly and properly called just that. I have references to back it up both Catholic and Protestant. NancyHeise ^talk 00:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to take a look at this discussion at random by Soidi and after reading over everything, my first comment would be that the whole note is POV and lacks reliable third-party sources. Secondly, I think "more properly" sounds POV, and officially is a better way of phrasing it. Third, in order to claim that it is more commonly called a certain name, you would have to reference a reliable source that says that (which I don't see). Finally, I'd like to remind you that the official Wikipedia naming conventions require article titles to use the most easily recognizable name, not necessarily the official name. My vote right now would be None of the above. --Kraftlos (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

However Wikipedia:Naming conflict states that the self-identified name of an organisation or other entity should take priority over most other claims. Xandar 00:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

A Simple Formulation from WP:NPOV

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion. That the United States is the only country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon during wartime is a fact. That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion. However, there are bound to be borderline cases where it is not clear if a particular dispute should be taken seriously and included.

When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For instance, rather than asserting that "The Beatles were the greatest band ever", locate a source such as Rolling Stone magazine and say: "Rolling Stone said that the Beatles were the greatest band ever", and include a reference to the issue in which that statement was made. Likewise, the statement "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band ever" can be made if it can be supported by references to a particular survey; a claim such as "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart" can also be made, because it is verifiable as fact. The first statement asserts a personal opinion; the second asserts the fact that an opinion exists and attributes it to reliable sources.

It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe...", a practice referred to as "mass attribution". A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups.

A balanced selection of sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. When discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

See also #Let the facts speak for themselves below and Wikipedia:Describing points of view, an essay on the topic.

Then why don't we put "properly" in quotation marks with the reference directly following it and place a note after Catholic Church which discusses the dispute and include Walsh's opinion? Would you be OK with that scenario? NancyHeise ^talk 00:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If an opinion is presented it needs to be explicit in the text whose opinion is being quoted. (There are a few places in the article where things are in quotes without it being clear who is quoted - these really need sorting as well.) It would need to be something like "commonly, and, in the opinion of Kenneth D Whitehead, properly".

I really think it would be better just to pick a different word - one which can actually be proved as a matter of demonstrable fact. Something like "properly" will only ever be an opinion - what is "proper" is rarely a matter of objective fact - and we really can't put opinions in the text as if they were facts; putting them in quote marks doesn't really change this unless it's stated in the text whose opinion is being quoted. If it's in the narrative flow, even in quotes, that makes it read as the opinion of Wikipedia. We can't justify this unless it really is undisputed fact; and we have a source about as good as the one which advances "Catholic Church" as the 'proper' name that advances the opposite (Walsh is an academic and scholar of Catholicism, and his book is published by Routledge, a reputable academic publisher).

I'm sorry if I seem unreasonable, but I really don't think I am being; this is pretty clear in Wikipedia's core policies. I really can't see how "properly" can be justified as appearing in the text as anything other than Whitehead's opinion. TSP (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

TSP, yes, I think you are being overly unreasonable and I also feel Soidi is too. If it weren't for the two of you, we would not have a problem here. I can not seem to make either of you happy even when I go to consensus. I can not find your Walsh quote which I need to see in order to confirm that it actually says what you say it says. Please can you give me a page number? Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 00:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but, as I say, I think the policies are clear. (Page 19, just so it's on record here as well as on your talk page.) Writing Wikipedia articles isn't meant to be a matter of appeasing certain individuals; it's a matter of making sure that all facts are well-sourced, presented neutrally, and are in fact facts. The problem with "properly" is not that I object to it; it's that it is an opinion being cited as a fact. (It is still an opinion even if it is a well-regarded and highly-cited one.) Even if I wasn't objecting to it, the problem would still be there. TSP (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If you type in the quote into Google, it tells you what page it is found on. I typed that quote in, even in parts and it said that it does not match anything in the book. I have also found a very solid reference to support our article text here [14]. This is a scholarly journal and is supported by research. NancyHeise ^talk 00:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

TSP, here is the link to your Walsh book quote [15]. Clearly he is stating his own personal opinion and then agrees that the church is called Catholic. My sources do not state opinion, they are stating the fact that Catholic Church is the more proper name used by the Church herself. I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill and you are incorrectly applying Wikipedia policy in an effort to refute consensus and solid sources. Because Walsh represents a minority opinion, I can place his quote in a note as evidence of the disagreement. NancyHeise ^talk 00:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he is stating his opinion. Equally, Whitehead is stating his opinion. What something is "properly" called is rarely going to be a matter of objective fact. Both give some reasoning behind why they hold those opinions (as the policy notes, 'Opinions involve both matters of fact and value'). Whitehead does advance facts to support his position, but also advances his values to support it (for example in his position that it is important to use the term "Catholic Church" in order to reinforce the position that the Roman Catholic Church constitutes the universal church).

Whether you agree that Whitehead is stating an opinion, in any case, it's entirely clear, that in Wikipedia terms this is an "opinion" because WP:NPOV uses an extremely broad meaning of what "opinion" means - "a matter which is subject to dispute". If a book has been recently published by a reputable academic publisher which states the opposite view from the one expressed, it's pretty clear that the matter is subject to dispute. Equally, the policy is very clear on what we do in this circumstance: "When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion." It wouldn't be acceptable to leave the opinion in as a fact, with merely a footnote observing that not everyone agrees with it. If the matter is subject to dispute, it needs to be presented as the opinion of those who have advanced it, not as a fact.

I'm not utterly sure why you think it has been established to be a minority position either. We seem to have one source presented on each side. Whitehead's, you've asserted, is highly cited by Catholic media; on the other hand, obviously, Catholic media does not represent all of world opinion, and on matters like this can be expected to have views on one side of the debate. That doesn't matter, though; just because one view is in the majority, doesn't mean that that view gets stated as fact with other views only as footnotes. If something is disputed, it needs to be presented as a view, not as an undisputed fact. TSP (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

TSP, Whitehead is not an opinion article. Neither is Whitehead spouting an opinion. His book is supported by this [[16] academic journal which also provides the exact same research and evidence as Whitehead. I do not see Walsh's opinion reproduced anywhere. Whitehead's book excerpt is reproduced by two prominent Catholic media outlets as the explanation to viewers to questions about the name of the Church. Your source is not featured anywhere as an explanation. There are some Protestants who think the Catholic Church is not Christian, as your Walsh book discusses, do we need to then place some kind of qualifier in the lead where we say that it is a Christian Church? No, because that is someone's POV opinion, not a fact supported by scholarly research. Walsh's comment falls into that category too, it is clearly a personal opinion he is expressing, not a fact based on scholarly research and he even agrees with the fact that the Church is in fact called the Catholic Church. Further, he is not, nor has he ever been a professor of anything, he is not a scholar, his is a former librarian and former Jesuit.NancyHeise ^talk 01:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to think that. I think that Whitehead's view is an opinion (other people who agree with it citing it doesn't stop it being so, nor does the fact that it is an opinion that is based on facts as well as on values). You think that Walsh's view is an opinion. Can you at least agree that Walsh's published disagreement makes this "a matter which is subject to dispute"? If not I'm not totally sure where to go from here, as I'm not entirely sure we'd even be speaking the same language any more. (I'm not quite sure, incidentally which bit you read as Walsh agreeing that the Church is "in fact" called the Catholic Church - like "properly", "in fact" is a term sufficiently hard to define to not be very useful in attempting to establish encyclopedic facts.)

Possibly you think that Walsh is meaning "properly" in a different sense from the one you are using it in; that may very well be true, but "properly" is the term the article is using, and "properly" is the term that he is using. If an author writes "The Christians commonly known as Catholics should more properly be known as Roman Catholics", it seems pretty obvious that it is not undisputed that the church is "properly called the Catholic Church", therefore it cannot appear as an undisputed fact in the first sentence; WP:NPOV is very clear on how to present matters that are subject to dispute. "Properly" is a term with many meanings. Perhaps it would be a good idea to select one that can more easily be tied down to a single undisputed meaning?

(Edit conflict) No, he has never been a professor; neither, to my knowledge, has Whitehead, nor many of the authors we cite. He was the librarian at the University of London's specialist college of philosophy and theology and was editor of the Heythrop Journal, an academic journal of philosophy and theology; I'd consider that to make someone a 'scholar', but in any case, that isn't very important. The book in question was published by Routledge, a major academic publisher, and I think is indisputably a reliable source. That doesn't make his opinions fact, of course; but then neither does any amount of being cited by other Catholic media do the same to Whitehead's. TSP (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You do not have consensus of editors to support your view here. If you check googlebooks you will not find another book that says what Walsh says. He is alone in his opinion which is not that of a scholar and is not offered up to the public as fact by anyone but the author himself who provides no scholarly research to support his "opinion". Whitehead is supported by an academic journal [17] as well as the fact that two major media sources cite him as the answer to that question. What you are calling a dispute is not a dispute if the only person saying something is one person, who is not a scholar, and whose personal opinion is nowhere reproduced or agreed to by any reliable published source. Per your own wikipedia policy links, this does not make for a minority opinion that has to be included in article text. NancyHeise ^talk 02:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) I'm afraid it is clearly a dispute. So I've only found one source disagreeing (it is, incidentally, the first Google hit for 'catholic church "properly"'); that's probably because what the church is "properly" called (that precise word) really isn't a matter that that many people have written about. As I say, I've seen exactly two sources offer views on this matter: one on each side. (Your link above doesn't seem to go to a page with any content other than an index - possibly you could tell me how to get from there to a page that would back up your contention?)

Walsh's book concerns the topic of this article, is published by a major academic publisher, and is used as a recommended course text by at least one university ([18]); it's an excellent source, which fits the requirements of WP:RS in every particular, and substantially better than the Whitehead piece does. Its existence does indeed indicate that a dispute exists; and, indeed, the combatative tone of Whitehead's piece makes it clear that he considers himself to be engaging in one. True, Whitehead cites facts to back up his opinion (a few of which are, as noted, incorrect); but he is also clear that he is basing his opinion on his values - he is clear that his view of what constitutes the "proper" name is based on his view that the church in question constitutes the holy, catholic and apostolic church of the Creed. (This is not, of course, something that Wikipedia can or should offer an opinion on, so in its own way Whitehead's article gives the best possible reason why Wikipedia should be careful about its use of the term "Catholic Church".)

As I say, it's quite possible that you are meaning 'properly' in a different sense to that that Walsh is using it in; I urge you to select a phrasing that can be neutrally established as a matter of objective fact. The current one, I'm afraid, is in clear violation of policy. TSP (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

TSP, Walsh is not making a statement of fact, his words are "The Christians commonly known as Catholics SHOULD more properly be known as Roman Catholics." This is clearly different from Whitehead who is making a statement of fact "It IS not, by the way, properly called the Roman Catholic Church, but simply the Catholic Church." Walsh actually agrees with this statement of fact when he states "the term 'Catholic' has so many meanings and is claimed by so many different churches, that it cannot properly be used (though of course in practice it IS) to denominate one specific Christian community." Per the academic journal American Ecclesiastical Review page 135 [19] "Twice during the nineteenth century, the name of the Church came up for authoritative decision, and in both cases the decision was that the ancient name should not be qualified by any prefix." also from the same page "The word Catholic has two different functions. It expresses and attribute of the Church and IS the name of the Church. ...but the face of the Church is in fact obscured to many outside by the CUSTOM of calling the Catholic Church by the UNAUTHORIZED name, 'The Roman Catholic Church'". Walsh is not disputing what the name of the Church actually IS, he is disputing what it SHOULD BE, entirely different situation and one that does not warrant inclusion in the lead sentence which is a statement of fact, not opinion. NancyHeise ^talk 11:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

TSP, I had SOME sympathy for your cavil about "properly", seeing that this could be interpreted as an opinion, rather than in the way that it is intended ie. the formal, or proper name. However when I made the change to the formula: "The Roman Catholic Church is officially known as the Catholic Church both in its pronouncements and in self defining documents such as its Apostolic Constitution Lumen Gentium." - which attempted to satisfy your objection AND the objection to the definition of "officially", you THEN cmae up with a totally new and different objection about sentence structure. I can see why this could be seen as not being at all helpful, and why Nancy then went back to the previous version that had achieved the most votes for consensus. It does need to be stated explicitly in the first sentence that the actual, (not alternate or aka,) name of the subject of the article is the Catholic Church. Some people, for various reasons, may not want this to be stated, but that is not a legitimate purpose in this debate. We need a formula that clearly states the facts. I would therefore suggest two more possibilities... "The Roman Catholic Church, whose formal title is simply the Catholic Church..." or "The Roman Catholic Church, formally defined as the Catholic Church in its dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium..." "authorized could be used too. Xandar 11:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Xandar: I would have no objection to either of those last two; though Soidi might argue that they can't be proved (unless, of course, they can). Yes, I did object to two consecutive formulations on entirely different grounds, but I think both were valid. It is not acceptable to present a disputed matter as an undisputed fact; neither is it reasonable to devote the article's entire first sentence, the most important sentence in the article, to matters of terminology.

I would see no problem with that wording in a later sentence in the article; or even parenthetically in the first sentence - "The Roman Catholic Church, officially known as the Catholic Church both in its pronouncements and in self defining documents such as its Apostolic Constitution Lumen Gentium, is the..." - though this does make the first sentence rather long and was perhaps over-complicated for the very first thing a reader will see. Would it not be acceptable to start with very simply "The Roman Catholic Church, or Catholic Church, is" and leave all questions of precedence to a later sentence? This really does feel like something that will not be the very most important concern for most readers.

Nancy: I think that the meanings of "should properly be called" and "is properly called" are more or less identical.

I'm not sure that the American Ecclesiastical Review (subtitle "a monthly publication for the clergy" - from 1903!) is in any sense an academic journal; it seems to rather have been a simple clergy magazine. In any case, the article you point to is part of an ongoing debate (or, you might say, dispute), not a definitive statement; yes, an article was published in the issue you cite (simply under the name 'Propagandist') advancing that position; it seems to have been in response to an article published in the same journal by H.J. Hughes in September the previous year, and a letter in January the same year, advancing the opposite position ("Thus, just as the name 'Catholic' originated in the universal and early recognition of an essential note of the only religion which possessed true Christianity, so, too, the name 'Roman' has been adopted by the Church herself and recognized by the world at large as the proper appellation of the only religion which has any claim to true Catholicism."). I think the journal harms rather than aids your case that there is no dispute on this matter. TSP (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

TSP, you are incorrect that American Ecclesiastical Review is anything other than solid source. It is published by Catholic University of America, the only pontifical university in the US, meaning it is under the direct authority of the Pope. The journal was a publication for Church priests, further indication of its authoritativeness, the article subject is telling us what its own name is. Walsh's position is clear opinion. I think the facts clearly show that the issue American Ecclesiastical Review put forth was an answer to an earlier assertion, one that was shown to be false since the two times the issue came before Church authority for consideration, the term "Roman" was rejected as a prefix. This is not someone's opinion, these are facts reproduced by Whitehead and again published in a Catholic Media Forum. So we now have three separate solid Catholic Media Forums saying the same thing that supports our article text. You have put forward someone's opinion that has not been featured anywhere except the author's own book. I think you need to obtain consensus to support your opinion on the importance of your author's opinion if you wish to further your cause here. I tried to make everyone happy but that proved to be impossible because of you and Soidi's opposing concerns. What I am left with is the actual wording in our best source and consensus of editors to support the sentence. You have neither a source that puts forth another wording nor consensus. If you want to change the lead sentence, you need to offer something better than Walsh and you need to gain consensus. NancyHeise ^talk 16:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Terrific, right. The American Ecclesiastical Review is a solid source, right? Things published in it can be relied upon, right? In that case, surely, surely, you cannot deny that the article published in the same source, just five months earlier, putting the opposite case, and citing facts for it, constitutes dispute to the one you cite? I am astonished that you cite a 100-year-old clergy magazine while telling me I need to "find something better" than a recent university-recommended academic book, but if that's what you want, fine; the American Ecclesiastical Review also published:

'Thus just as the name "Catholic" originated in the universal and early recognition of an essential note of the only religion which possessed true Christianity, so, too, the name "Roman" has been adopted by the Church herself and recognized by the world at large as the proper appellation of the only religion which has any claim to true Catholicism.' - H.J. Hughes, 'American Ecclesiastical Review, September 1902

Surely, if this source is such a good one, here is the evidence of dispute you seek? TSP (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with TSP that use of the word "properly" is POV. If I had seen that in the article before I read the talk page, I would have removed the word as violating the NPOV policy. What is "proper" or not is always someone's opinion. Yes, opinions can be based on facts, but they are still opinions. If included in an article, opinions should be attributed in the article text to the entity that is advocating that opinion. That is not being done in this current wording. I haven't been following this closely for some time, but I wonder why "properly" was inserted in the first place. Karanacs (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

We are using the same wording of our best source and that agreed to by consensus of editors. I have placed a note at the end of the sentence to explain use of the terms "commonly and properly", that other churches consider themselves catholic and included the Walsh book as a linked reference. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 18:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when you refer to consensus, are you referring to the poll in which every option offered contained this wording? Or was there some other, more valid attempt to gain consensus for this wording that I missed? TSP (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The claim of consensus is in connection with the poll taken above on this talk page where we have six editors in agreement (Johnbod's ) support is listed below the poll. NancyHeise ^talk 20:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And in which no option was offered which did not contain this wording. Surely it is obvious that you cannot make a claim for consensus in support of a wording based on a poll in which that wording is the only thing offered? That is consensus to exactly the same extent that the latest Zimbabwe general election was democracy. Personally I didn't vote because I had no strong feeling between the options offered.

In any case, myself, Nautical Mongoose, Soidi, StormRider and Karanacs have expressed opposition to the term 'properly' in this thread, which seems to call into question the assertion that the six voting in favour of one option on the poll constitutes consensus. TSP (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Soidi did not oppose use of properly but of officially. Soidi opposed using the latin name after just the Catholic Church. Karanacs said I had to qualify the use of properly with a reference or note which I did. There were four sentence versions offered for voting. As you know extensive efforts were made to try and find a word that everyone was happy with, it was impossible to come to complete agreement so we are left with voting. We have voted on what most people want and it happens to be the exact wording of our sources. I have placed a note after Catholic Church to qualify the statement making it clear that many churches call themselves catholic referenced to your chosen source. But since I can not use the word "official", I have to use something to denote what the Church is more properly called and I am useing the exact wording of my best source. I dont see how you can be so upset with this arrangement. This is what we have to do because all other options have been exhausted. NancyHeise ^talk 07:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Soidi opposed your proposed text. Period. Soidi (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Your idiosyncratic way of interpreting the alleged consensus situation, when five editors active on the page (six, if you count Kraftlos) oppose it, corresponds to the way in which you cite Walsh as supporting your statement that in common usage "catholic" refers to members of the Roman Catholic Church, when what he says is that, though "Catholic" is "regularly" used in opposition to "Orthodox" since 1054 and in opposition to "Protestant" since 1529, "in common usage the matter is not quite so straightforward".

You cite a claim advanced by an anonymous writer in the American Ecclesiastical Review as proof that the question of the Church's name was reviewed twice in the nineteenth century and decided in favour of "Catholic Church". One of the alleged "reviews" was presumably the opposition by the English-speaking bishops to the inclusion of the phrase "Catholica Romana" in the documents of the First Vatican Council (they asked that, at least, a comma should be placed between the two words); the bishops of other countries had no problem with the phrase, which appeared in the drafts, but in view of the opposition agreed not to use it. That can scarcely be classified as a "review" of the question and a decision that the name of the Church was "Catholic Church": it concerned only the two documents that the Council issued, not other documents, and did not declare it a principle that only one name should be used even in those two documents. I have no idea what other occasion the anonymous writer can have considered to be a "review" of the question. The word "review" that he uses begs the question of the previous existence of a decision on an alleged sole name to use for the Church, something for which no evidence is offered. Yet you present this anonymous writer as a reliable source that verifies your statement, when you know that a named writer, H.J. Hughes, in the same publication said on the contrary that "the name 'Roman' has been adopted by the Church herself and recognized by the world at large as the proper appellation of the only religion which has any claim to true Catholicism"

Then, in the note you have put in the article, you add: "The Church herself, in her most authoritative and self-defining documents such as those of Vatican I and Vatican II uses the name 'Catholic Church'". (As if in these "most authoritative and self-defining documents" the Church used no other names: Lumen gentium, for one, does use other names, as pointed out above.) To bolster this statement of yours, you cite two sources, the first of which merely quotes some instances when the Church has used the name "Catholic Church", and says that "the term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself", a claim disproved by the several documents in which the Church does use the term, and the other says much the same about the situation in 1889.

So, even if what you wrote did have consensus, it would need to be revised. "We include text in articles based on such policies as verifiability and encyclopedicity, not based on whether the text is popular among voters" (WP:VOTE). Soidi (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Soidi You are just repeating the same refuted arguments over and over again. Lumen Gentium clearly and precisely in its leading paragraphs defines the name of the Church as the Catholic Church, (text which I quoted above,) Other names used in the document are clearly shorthand forms and not the Official name. And as has been gone over MANY times, "Roman Catholic" has only been used by the church in very rare occasions, usually as a courtesy when in ecumenical dialogue with certain bodies. Xandar 13:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You have done no more than repeat your own claims in response to the observation that Lumen gentium did not in fact say: "The only name for the Church is 'Catholic Church'", and that that dogmatic contitution itself used other names. Even in the part that you call the "defining statement" it called the Church the Church of Christ and cited two Ecumenical Councils, that of Trent and the First Vatican Council, in support of its statement that the catholic Church "dicitur 'Sancta (catholica apostolica) Romana Ecclesia'" (is called the "Holy (catholic apostolic) Roman Church"). You may say the Council was mistaken in its interpretation of the two preceding Councils, but the fact remains that, precisely in the part that you call the document's defining statement, it declares that this other name is a valid one. Why don't you at last truly respond to these difficulties instead of declaring that a mere repetition of your own view "refutes" them? Soidi (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I did propose two other alternatives not using "official" or "properly" these were... "The Roman Catholic Church, whose formal title is simply the Catholic Church..." or "The Roman Catholic Church, formally defined as the Catholic Church in its dogmatic constitution Lumen Gentium..." I know Soidi will like neither, but other people might have a view. Xandar 13:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"Catholic Church" is not the only formal title given to the Church in its formal documents, as the documents show. Lumen gentium did not formally define the Catholic Church as the Catholic Church, no matter how many times you say it did. Soidi (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just repeating the same thing doesn't make it any truer. Catholic Church is the name the Church uses for itself in the vastly overwhelming majority of formal documents and pronouncements around the world. Pretending otherwise is silly. Lumen Gentium clearly states in its defining passage .. "This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth". This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him," —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.71.91 (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Was this another repetition by Xandar? Whoever it was ignored what I now put in bold and also the note that she/he preferred to omit. To avoid explaining them, he/she just repeated the same thing, which doesn't at all make it true. Here is the text: "This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth". This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him (Dicitur. Sancta (catholica apostolica) Romana Ecclesia : in Prof. fidei Trid., 1. c. et Concl. Vat. I, Sess. III, Const. dogm. de fide cath.: Denz. 1782 (3001)." Soidi (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I notice that in an English translation of the First Vatican Council text (Denzinger 1782 in the old numbering) several commas have been added: "The holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church", but the original, official Latin (Denzinger 3001 in the new numbering) has "Sancta catholica apostolica Romana ecclesia". I suppose all that the English bishops obtained was to keep "catholica" and "Romana" from being put side by side in this name for the Church. In any case, it is the Church as a whole, the one that "believes and confesses that there is one, true, living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, omnipotent, eternal, ...", that is called Roman by the First Vatican Council. You don't need to call an ecumenical council to declare what the Church in the city of Rome believes. So the Second Vatican Council did cite correctly the First Vatican Council. Soidi (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This gets more surreal by the minute! Is Soidi actually trying to claim that the Church is called the Church of Christ??? And if someone doesn't know the difference between a description, ( one, holy, catholic and apostolic) and a name, (Catholic Church,) there really isn't much point trying to argue seriously with them. What, for example, is the Church's one official manual of doctrine and teaching called - The Catechism of the Catholic Church. So let's stop trying to argue that the grass is pink shall we? Xandar 00:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Soidi does not claim that the name of the Church is "Church of Christ", in the way that Xandar claims that "Catholic Church" is the name. Soidi only says that the Church calls itself by several names, and that even in the very text that Xandar quoted as showing that the name of the Church is "Catholic Church" the Church applies to itself two other names, one of which had been used in a dogmatic constitution of another ecumenical council and, in a modified form, in yet another ecumenical council. The text presents this name, which thus has the support of three ecumenical councils, not as a description but as what the Church is called ("dicitur"), while on the contrary there is reason to interpret the same text as using "catholic Church" as a description, not a name. Now, abandoning Lumen gentium, Xandar argues that, because the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses "Catholic Church" in its title, we must conclude that "Catholic Church" is the one and only name for the Church. Very poor logic. The title of the book proves that the Church calls itself the Catholic Church. It does not show that the Church calls itself nothing else but the Catholic Church.

In circumstances when the Church is distinguishing itself from other Christian groups, it usually, but not always (take for instance the name referred to above that has the support of three ecumenical councils), calls itself either "Catholic Church" or (less frequently) "Roman Catholic Church". But these are by no means the only names by which it calls itself. Soidi (talk) 08:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break

The addition of the note does not satisfy my concerns. The word "properly" describes an opinion, and proper attribution means that the opinion holder needs to be defined in the article text (not in a footnote). That will sound really bad in the article, though (The Roman Catholic Church, according to so and so properly known as the Catholic Church...). The word "properly" needs to be removed. Why not something more simple: The Roman Catholic Church, or Catholic Church,....? Karanacs (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems a very sensible option to me. I note that the first sentence has again returned to being entirely about terminology. Surely we can agree that this isn't the most important thing to confront readers of the page with? Again, WP:LEAD - 'The article should begin with a straightforward, declarative sentence that, as briefly as possible, provides the reader who knows nothing at all about the article's subject with the answer to two questions: "What (or who) is it?" and "Why is this subject notable?".' TSP (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a lot better. --Kraftlos (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. Soidi (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The important thing is that whatever form of words is used has to state clearly that the name of the Church, as used by the Church itself is the Catholic Church. Because, for other reasons, the proper name is not used as the title, this must be done in the first sentence. Saying "Roman Catholic Church or Catholic Church," does not impart this necessary information, so does not meet the requirement. I think my suggestion, repeated just above, quite happily satisfies any genuine concerns as to wording. Xandar 00:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Soidi and Karanacs and TSP on the suggestion to make the lead sentence "The Roman Catholic Church or Catholic Church. This takes all possible POV attacks out of the lead sentence because it places the names side by side with no information - leaving all relevant info in the note. This really is the most encyclopedic way to handle this and after reading other encyclopedia articles on the RCC, it seems to be the standard way of handling it. We have to remember that most readers to the page could care less about what the Church's official name is and if they do care, the info is in the note, easily accessible with links to supporting documentation. NancyHeise ^talk 03:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Church redirect is not working even though it appears at the top of the page

If you type in Catholic Church into the search it goes to the disambiguation page. user:Deusveritasest has made it so both Catholic Church searches end up at disambiguation instead of here. He has been warned numerous times to stop doing this edit. I do not know how to fix the redirect and I would like to ask some administrator to please consider blocking this user, it is a constant problem that he does not seem to care if we are perpetually pestered with. NancyHeise ^talk 07:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. --Phenylalanine (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

We recently had an argument about this. And I addressed and defended the view that the redirect to this article is a violation of NPOV. And ultimately the debate stopped when people simply discontinued responding to me. If you all are going to suppress my substantial arguments on this matter by ignoring me, then I think I will simply have to seek intervention in this matter. Deusveritasest (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Should the Article Title be returned to Catholic Church?

Following the long-running wrangle about a title phrase stating the official name of the Catholic Church, I have been taking a look at Wikipedia:Naming conflict. This leads me to believe that the best solution, in line with WP policies might be to rename the whole article Catholic Church with Roman Catholic Church as the alternate.

• The guidline states:

Suppose that the people of the fictional country of Maputa oppose the use of the term "Cabindan" as a self-identification by another ethnic group. The Maputans oppose this usage because they believe that the Cabindans have no moral or historical right to use the term.

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.

• It also advises The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Wikipedia" (as we want to see what other people are using, not our own usage). Note which is the most commonly used term.

Using this, I have 4.4 Million English language results for Roman catholic Church and 18.1 Million pages for "Catholic Church". Catholic Church actually comes out top by a long way. Xandar 00:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, I read Wikipedia article name and I think that we need to follow Karanacs suggestion here. "Roman Catholic Church or Catholic Church is the world's....." for several reasons. We can not use the lead sentence as the place to battle out POV's and we can avoid all of these arguements by saying nothing in the lead sentence, leaving all relevant info in the note already attached. I am not willing to lose the FAC process over this relatively unimportant battle and I think it is in the article's best interest both now and in the future to avoid the entire arguement all over again if we just leave the lead sentence as bare as possible. Make it devoid of all information except for the note. "Roman Catholic Church or Catholic Church puts the names side by side with no information to suggest POV either way. If Reader wants to know more, the note will tell him but I suspect that most readers of the page could'nt care less about that issue. NancyHeise ^talk 03:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Bravo, Nancy. And I hope that the note will be neutral on disputed matters. Soidi (talk) 08:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Search test: Google web - RCC @ 4.5m vs CC @ 24m, Google news archives - RCC @ 300k vs CC 1.6m, Search.com - RCC 225k vs CC 384k, yahoo.com - RCC @ 59m vs CC @ 90m, live.com - RCC @ 2.9m vs CC @ 12.6. There is clearly more instances of Catholic Church than Roman Catholic Church, however the reason Roman Catholic is used in many cases is because Catholic doesn't merely refer to the church of rome. These hits for "Catholic Church" might also refer to varieties of eastern orthodox and the term is found in early church creeds and other early writings. It would be impossible to determined the context for all these millions hits for Catholic Church, so this test isn't really going to get us a clear picture of which is more common.

It appears that four of us agree to this most recent approach which really doesn't weigh in as to which name is preferred. And as stated above, leaving the title Roman Catholic Church is merely to distinguish from other uses of Catholic church and makes it clear that the church is being discussed in the article, not the term catholic church. --Kraftlos (talk) 05:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Or" is NOT acceptable, since it does not clearly state the Church's actual name, a very necessary part of any article on such a subject. I have restored, "formally known as", which states the facts in line with WP policies. Xandar 13:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with formally or officially, I don't think these are a statement of opinion. "More properly" as proposed earlier is however a POV statement. I don't see the problem with "or" though, that seems simple enough to just read the note if there's any confusion about the name. This doesn't violate any WP policies. --Kraftlos (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Note about the names

The note now in the article says that in common usage "catholic" refers to members of the Roman Catholic Church. The source cited in support of this statement says instead that, though "Catholic" is "regularly" used in opposition to "Orthodox" since 1054 and in opposition to "Protestant" since 1529, "in common usage the matter is not quite so straightforward".

The note cites a claim by a pseudonymous writer in the American Ecclesiastical Review as proof that the question of the Church's name was reviewed twice in the nineteenth century and decided in favour of "Catholic Church". (One of the alleged "reviews" was presumably the opposition by the English-speaking bishops to the inclusion of the phrase "Catholica Romana" in a document of the First Vatican Council. The phrase was included in the draft, but in view of this opposition it was decided to alter the order of words so as not to place "catholica" immediately beside "Romana". This decision about a single document was scarcely a "review" of the question and a declaration that the name of the Church was "Catholic Church", especially since the name actually chosen was instead "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church"! I have no idea to what other occasion the anonymous writer applied the word "review", a word that begs the question of the previous existence of a decision on an alleged sole name for the Church, for which no evidence is offered.) The note presents this pseudonymous writer as a reliable source verifying its statement, while ignoring the named writer, H.J. Hughes, who in the same publication said on the contrary that "the name 'Roman' has been adopted by the Church herself and recognized by the world at large as the proper appellation of the only religion which has any claim to true Catholicism".

The note then adds: "The Church herself, in her most authoritative and self-defining documents such as those of Vatican I and Vatican II uses the name 'Catholic Church'". (In reality, in their "most authoritative and self-defining documents" both these councils used other names also.) To bolster its statement, the note cites two sources, the first of which merely quotes some instances when the Church has used the name "Catholic Church", and says that "the term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself", a claim disproved by the several documents in which the Church does use the term; and the other says much the same about the situation in 1889. Soidi (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The name the Church uses of itself, and which is commonly used by most persons across the world is "Catholic Church." There is no serious controversy about that. Soidi is not getting away with his tactics here and supressing the actual name of the Church. We used "officially", for the best part of the year, then we used "properly" to try to satisfy him, but nothing but his own way will please him. I am not prepared to suppress this information to please Soidi, (very few people will read a footnote) and so I have restored the third option "formally" known as, which no-one has invented an objection to yet. Xandar 13:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine that it will attract similar objections to 'officially' - that, clearly, the church is formally known by many names. "Or" did appear to be attracting widespread support, but we'll see if other editors pop their heads up with other views. TSP (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Soidi's arguments above. We clearly have sources supporting article text in the note - sources put forth by three Catholic media outlets supporting it. Soidi is doing WP:original research in determining the inaccuracy of these sources which Wikipedia does not allow. Soidi does not cite any source that allies with Soidi's position to verify Soidi's personal conclusions. I like Karanacs suggestion as the best one offered and I would like to conduct a new vote to find the form of sentence most desired by most editors. NancyHeise ^talk 17:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Quoting the actual words of Walsh, and quoting Hughes and the two Vatican Councils, is less "Original Research" than attributing to Walsh what he did not say, and quoting a pseudonymous writer as an authority. Soidi (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

New Consensus sought

We need to know what most editors of the page would like to see in the first sentence of the article. We have two new propositions, please place your support vote under the appropriate sentence and please do not write a book worth of comments underneath to tell us all why you voted that way. We just want to know which sentence is preferred. We already know everyone's positions.

Sentence 1

Sentence Number One " "The Roman Catholic Church, formally known as the Catholic Church[note 1] is the world's largest Christian Church..."

• Support Frankly, I don't really care much anymore if it provokes disagreement. It is the truth. Sentence 2 is pretty much exactly what Soidi wanted originally. How does one person change the consensus of a dozen others? Farsight001 (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Much better than the unacceptable alternative. But worse than were we came from. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Don't like this what % of our readers will read this as "... formerly known as the Catholic Church..." ? Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think we should appease towards readers dislexia. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. The church hasn't changed its name. Oppose If anything, it's now more inclined that it had been to refer to itself as "the Catholic Church". Majoreditor (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone could infer that the church has changed its name. --Kraftlos (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my tired old eyes read it as "formerly" rather than "formally". I'm striking strong oppose and replacing it with oppose. Majoreditor (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support This is a final attempt to provide a formula that gives the Church's real and official name in the text, and answer those who have objected to previous formulations. If this is not satisfactory. We must go back to "officially".

Sentence 2

Sentence Number Two "The Roman Catholic Church, or Catholic Church[note 1] is the world's largest Christian Church ...."

• Support NancyHeise ^talk 17:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Marauder40 (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. If there are complications people feel are unexplained then they can go in the note, or maybe in a fuller explanation elsewhere in the article; I just don't think they need to go in the opening sentence. TSP (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a misuse of notes to use them as an attempt to correct wrongful information given or implied in the text. Notes should support what is in the main text, not correct it. Xandar 10:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to correct. This phrasing simply states that the church is known by both names. That is provable and utterly uncontroversial. The details of who uses which name and when are omitted, not stated incorrectly. TSP (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I think this is simpler and is less likely in the long run to provoke disagreement.. I think we might also need an entire article on Naming of the Roman Catholic Church (but then we'll have to argue over the title of that article!). Karanacs (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I can't think of a more neutral sentence and so simple...we should have thought of it sooner. --^StormRider 18:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You can't have a "neutral" sentence on a fact which is NOT neutral, ie, the official name of the Church. It's like having a "neutral" sentence that says "the Capital of France is Rouen or Paris." It may be neutral but it provides misleading information. The alleged "neutrality" is also challenged by the fact that the article is titled Roman Catholic Church, so the impression is not neutral at all - but clearly in favour of RCC as the official name. This is non-encyclopedic, and contrary to WP policy and practice. Xandar 10:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support This dead horse has been beaten into the ground.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

On what basis then are you voting to subvert the long-standing status quo that Roman Catholic Church is used in the title providing that it is clearly explained that the official name is Catholic Church? You are giving new life to the flogging. Xandar 10:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. The contents of the note are not in what has been presented for voting. It is obvious that at least I would oppose its present contents. I support what is said below by Farsight, whom I understand to propose that the "Roman Catholic Church" article would simply refer the reader to a specific article on the name(s) of the Church. This would finally relieve the "Roman Catholic Church" article of this problem that has long been weighing on it. Perhaps even Xandar would agree to this. The only problem might be the conflict between the two proposals that have been put forward here for the title of the article: "Naming the Roman Catholic Church" and "Naming of the Catholic Church". Soidi (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support This is the best option, the general readership isn't concerned about which is the official name and those interested can still view the note. --Kraftlos (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The general readership deserves not to be misled, as the proposed structure will do, that the proper name of the Church is Roman Catholic Church. Consigning the referenced fact to a footnote nobody will read is a POV action. Xandar 10:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely reject. This sentence includes the ugly form of linking two different names with "or" without indicating it is the names that are linked this way. The subject of the article is not one or the other but it is one item which may be called by different names. I insist that at least the words "also called" or something to that effect is included. It also gives no indication of what the proper, official name of the entity is (unless it is in the footnote - where is the text of that?). Str1977 ^(talk) 18:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The note explains that Catholic Church is the official name, why is it so important to have that in the opening line? Option two is NPOV and doesn't take sides, I think that makes a much better compromise. --Kraftlos (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen the note yet. And my main objection, one which I will not take back, is that this "RCC or CC" is unacceptable because the word "called" is missing. This article doesn't have two topics but one merely called by different names. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I presume nobody who supports this sentence would object to the modification Str1977 suggests: "also called the", instead of "or". At least, I don't object. The punctuation needs in any case to be adjusted by adding a comma. Soidi (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope so. What I forgot is that we'd also need a definite article in front of CC. If, according to Soidi, these changes are taken into account I will yield to the consensus should it prefer this version. BTW, I'd still like to read the note, where can I find it? Str1977 ^(talk) 20:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Go to the main article first sentence and click on "Note 1" or go to the bottom of the page directly. Marauder40 (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the "also called" and the "or" solution would make any difference, if you'd support "also called" then I'd support that too. --Kraftlos (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

To me and all who dislike the corruption of language it is a huge deal. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know what you mean by "corruption of language". This is going to be a compromise, it has to be NPOV --Kraftlos (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not support anything other than "or" because "also called" is not factual. The name of the Church is Catholic Church also called Roman Catholic Church, not the other way around. I think "or" is the best and most NPOV compromise yet. NancyHeise ^talk 02:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Take note that I will oppose a version simply saying RCC or CC. Why? Because it is a clumsy, ugly way of stating things. A statement like "The RCC or CC is the largest Christian denomination" is just plain wrong as it seems to talk about two entities when there is only one. That this ugly wording is common in the English-speaking world doesn't make it better. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Don't like this As we know people have strong views on this & we should not just leave the matter vague and open. Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

John, could you please clarify what you don't like? Is it sentence 2? If so, it should be moved there. Thanks. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sentence 2. This is here, no? Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support, although changing the name of the article to Catholic Church would be even better. Majoreditor (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Sentence 2 Bewareofdog 22:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose this sentence is an unacceptable attempt to censor the real name of the Church to passify some POV warriors, particularly Soldi. Some of the people voting to support this I have never seen on this article before. The sentence is totally unacceptable since it fails to identify the actual name of church in the article text. This is one of the priorities of a Wikipedia article on any subject. Stating "or" leaves the status of the name of the Church in doubt. A footnote that will be read by a tiny percentage of readers is in no way sufficient. Xandar 23:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything that would indicate that the name of the church is in doubt, and the note says exactly the opposite. No one here is a "POV warrior", most editors try to follow Wikipedia policy which includes adhering to a neutral point of view. --Kraftlos (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Soidi is certainly a POV warrior on this issue, having been obsessed with this issue since the first day he appeared on this page not long ago. You came in as someone invited by him, with no experience of this article. The name of the Church as used by the Church itself, historically and now is the Catholic Church. The formulation No 2 would break encyclopedic policy by making an equivalence between both names and failing to indicate what the Church is actually called. As has already been pointed out, indicating the name that a body calls itself is IN NO WAY a breach of neutral point of view. Censoring this information IS a breach of Neutral Point of View. That is why option 2 is unacceptable. Xandar 23:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

True he invited me, but I've never worked with him before. I'm not dealing with what happened before, I'm discussing the article as I see it. I'm treating it the same way I'd treat any other page that I've edited. I have no bias for or against the church itself, I'm simply trying to support the option that I see as being the least controversial and most effective. I don't dispute that the church calls itself the catholic church, but the church of Rome doesn't have a monopoly on that term (as demonstrated by the disambiguation page). I believe the compromise with the note lets people know that the church is formally/offically known as the Catholic church but lets readers know that both names are used to describe the church. --Kraftlos (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

However your position conflicts with Wikipedia guidelines, particularly Wikipedia:Naming conflict which states that usage of the name a body self-identifies with is policy, while opposing use of the self-identified name because other people think they have a right to use the term is POV. See the illustration from the policy re: Cabinda, which I posted above. The "compromise" you speak of is no compromise, since it follows Soidi's desire to censor the vital information as to what the Church is actually called. Burying it in a footnote does not comply with the policy, is misleading, and therefore unacceptable. There is no reason to bury this information in a footnote unless to appease a POV faction. Doing that is against WP policy. Xandar 00:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I usually agree with you Xandar on almost everything but I have to differ here. I took notice of how other encyclopedias categorize the Church and they always use the term "Roman Catholic Church" and then explain the Church name later on. No facts are omitted in this article and there is absolutely zero POV implied in putting "Roman Catholic Church or Catholic Church [note1]". NancyHeise ^talk 00:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias don't matter here as other encyclopedias don't conform to a WP policy like NPOV. And in their non-neutrality towards the church they chose to call it by something else than its actual name. And that Soidi is a POV warrior is clear from his behaviour, including his not actually being satisfied with "sentence 2" - though he claims to endorse it by his "support" vote. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason for opposing "formally called" or "officially called" unless there is a purpose to HIDE the fact that the Church is actually called the Catholic Church. This is unencyclopedic, contrary to policy, and I am disappointed in you for caving into pressure like this. The word "or" is inaccurate since it is hiding important information that appears in virtually every other wikipedia article in the first line, namely the actual name of the body concerned. This concealment in order to appease pressure groups, is, as the guidelines say, a form of POV. An article concealing this information could not be worthy of featured status. I am not defending any particular form of wording, but there must be wording that makes clear that the official name of the Church is the Catholic Church. Xandar 01:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I am very upset that you are upset. I did not in any way wish for any ill will on anyone's part. I just want to see what the most editors support. We all have opinions and I do not think we are hiding anything by placing information into a note directly attached to the word Catholic Church. So far here there are 9 supports for sentence number two and three supports for sentence number one. Why would we want to force a version of sentence unsupported by most editors? NancyHeise ^talk 01:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Previously we had loads of supports for the other version, but that didn't stop the POVers. The current vote you have currently set up is very confused, some people seem unsure what is being voted on. In addition this "vote" seems to include a lot of people who have not been editors of the article and seem to have been bussed in to push this view. Many supporters of the Catholic opinion are not present. A consensus, in any event, is not a vote, and this change to the standing position of the article will not be forced through by such methods. There has been no discussion on what options should be up for debate, or how each complies with WP policy and practice. As such I see no consensus being formed. A consensus is not a suspect snap vote on limited options, but an agreement of most of the involved editors, and one which complies with WP policy, which the decision to suppress the information on the proper name of the church does not. Xandar 02:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

All of the people "pinged" by me were people who participated in this debate over the past two pages. I did ping Bewareofdog because he was welcoming someone to Wikiproject Catholicism and I felt he must be Catholic and I wanted to know which form he preferred. As such, we have all discussed this at length and have now voted. NancyHeise ^talk 03:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we have voted and we have voted before. And we can vote again. And IMHO one editor have not honestly as they first claim to support one option and then turn around and renew their attacks on the very same version to achieve absolute POV victory. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, Nancy, but you seem to seriously misunderstand the concept of consensus among editors of the article. Consensus is A) Not a head-count taken at a moment in time on a limited choice of options without understanding, . B) Not the decision to remove long-standing and verified information by a by POV-driven group of people who have been "pinged" or bussed-in for the purpose. C) In any event such a "vote" cannot alter basic Wikipedia policy that the proper name of the organisation as self-identified must be made clear in the text, whatever other, point-of-view-driven groups may think about it.

There is no justification for the current dishonest attempt to remove this referenced informatiuon and hide it in a footnote. The article will give a clear false impression unless the footnote is read. Footnotes are not designed to reverse or correct false information given by the main text, but to provide additional information in support of the main text. The proposed change is therefore also a misuse of footnotes. I suppose we can do that with any other "controversial" information. Why not put the Inquisition in a footnote too? I am sorry, I repeat, this attempt to overturn a long-standing consensus overnight, and break WP policy in the process is unacceptable - as I have said since the notion was raised by Soidi. Xandar 09:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - though I know not if my vote is on time. Gabr-el 05:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Note 1

One question, will "Note 1" be identical in both versions or will there be any modifications based on which sentence is chosen? Marauder40 (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The note is identical, it explains everything everyone is arguing about here. NancyHeise ^talk 17:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Re the note (thanks for the heads up, Marauder), I think that "but in common usage it refers to members of the Roman Catholic Church" should be changed to "but in common usage it refers to the body also known as Roman Catholic Church and its members". Otherwise it implies from the get-go that the actual name is RCC when it's not. As for the rest, IMHO we should first state that "The Church herself, in her most authoritative and self-defining documents such as those of Vatican I and Vatican II uses the name "Catholic Church"." and then add that the prefix Roman was rejected, without going into as much detail as currently present.

Two more things:

• I don't mind using "it" to refer to the Church (though "her" would be better) but either way we have to remain consistent.
• The note should be converted into a proper footnote. Why make it different from the others? (The same goes for the other "notes" though the "note 2" is highly superfluous anyway).

Str1977 ^(talk) 22:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, fellow editors, please place your vote under the options and not as the end of the section. Don't post discussion in such a way as it hurts the flow of the vote. Unfortunately wrongly-placed votes have already been built upon and hence I think the easieast way out is to move the "note" discussion to a separate sub-section, create sub-sections and to indent another discussion that sticks out. I hope no one minds that. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Naming of the Catholic Church - new article

I'm just curious what you guys think of this. For the evolution article, there is a separate article explaining in detail exactly how it is both a theory and a fact. evolution as theory and fact It was made because people just never stopped complaining about the main evolution article calling it a fact. The naming of this article was an issue a while ago. It is an issue again, and it probably will be again in the future. So, what if we made a new article that works kind of like the evolution as a theory and fact article. It's sole purpose would be to explain why both names are acceptable, where the names came from, how the "Roman" was once an insult, that it usually refers only to the Latin rite, etc, etc, etc. That way, in the future, when someone inevitably complains again, people can just direct them to that article. God knows there's enough information for one. Farsight001 (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As title, would "Naming the (Roman) Catholic Church" be acceptable to all? Soidi (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that this type of article would be very useful. Karanacs (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Catholicism is probably the place for this. I have long ago given up urging people to add to that article instead of here. Johnbod (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this would be a good idea for an article considering some people's strong views on this. However, there is not much in the way of scholarly sources that discuss the issue. I think we are all way too emotional over this, most readers are not going to care what the formal name is, they are coming to the page to learn facts about the Church. The name facts are already in the note in this article's first sentence with links to probably the only sources that discuss the issue. NancyHeise ^talk 19:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Church is the preferred term. Roman Catholic fails to take into account the millions of Eastern Catholics in the various Eastern Catholic Churches (Maronite, Melkite, Ukranian, etc.) who are also part of the Catholic church. Majoreditor (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Roman refers to the See of Rome and those in communion with it as the mark of unity, rather than the liturgical rite of Rome. Thus, Eastern Catholics are included under the term "Roman Catholic". Deusveritasest (talk) 06:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

In some contexts, but not in others. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Problems with or linked to the "notes"

I see a few problems with the notes or linked to them

• Note 2 seems totally superfluous. The main text "one of the oldest" is already NPOV enough.

I agree that it may not be necessary but it was brought up by a non-Catholic reviewer of the page and I think it makes the page more NPOV, that is why I would prefer to keep it.NancyHeise ^talk 23:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why Buddhist monasteries need to be discussed here. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It is necessary because otherwise we were accused of POV by inserting the information that the Church is the oldest institution. I would like to leave it since it was inserted by the editor who was offended by our claim to oldest. NancyHeise ^talk 22:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note 3. The main text says the words of instituion is in the Gospels. It is also in 1 Cor 11,24.

We are also trying to be concise. We had the part about Corinthians but it was eliminated in the trim in an effort to make the page size something on the side of reasonable. Do you think it is really absolutely necessary to have all of this information? We can always add it. Let me know. NancyHeise ^talk 23:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding a short reference to the note shouldn't hurt the conciseness. However, adding quotes surely does. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you took care of this already and excellently done too. I appreciate your help. NancyHeise ^talk 22:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note 4. "Although this form was superseded by the ordinary as the primary form after the Second Vatican Council, it continued to be offered by an indult since Pope John Paul II's 1988 motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei[110] and can now be said by any Roman rite priest according to Pope Benedict XVI's 2007 motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum." In fact it was contuned to be offered since 1969/70 (and we should be more specific than "after tthe Second Vatican Council" to avoid the common misconception that the Council changed the liturgy) - the John Paul's MP merely formalised the continued offering (outside of England, where already Paul VI had issued similar regulations).

I do not understand what is wrong with the article text. I thought it covered the issue without going into too much detail (leaving that to daughter article). Do you have a wording to suggest here?

What is wrong (and it already goes into much detail) is that it claims that the "old mass" was continued after the MP of 1988 when in fact it was never completely stopped. Also wrong is the possible implication that Vatican II changed the liturgy - we should be wary of this especially since it is a common misconception. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you took care of this too. Thank you. NancyHeise ^talk 22:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note 4: "The Church tradition of abstinence traces its beginnings to both Jesus, who encouraged his apostles to be celibate if they were able to do so, and to St. Paul" - Apart from abstinence and celibacy being used interchangeably (which we should avoid), the clause in italics is problematic if presented as a fact. And why is Christ's own celibacy not mentioned?

OK, I made a lot of changes to the sentence per all your comments here. You are right, this needed to be tweaked a bit. Please see the sentence again and thanks for taking the time to help here. NancyHeise ^talk 02:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Your changes don't work. We still have "Jesus encourages his apostles to be celibate if ..." and merely puting "believed" in front of it only hurts the article languagewise.

I suggest the following:

Based on the Christ's example and his teaching as given in Matthew 19:11-12[144], and to St. Paul, who wrote of the advantages celibacy allowed a man in serving the Lord[145], celibacy was "held in high esteem" from the Church's beginnings. It is considered a kind of spiritual marriage with Christ, a concept further popularized by the early Christian theologian Origen.[146] Clerical celibacy began to be demanded in the 4th century, including papal decretals beginning with Pope Siricius.[146] In the 11th century, mandatory celibacy was enforced as part of efforts to reform the medieval church.[147]

Why?

• It was not merely "clerical" celibacy that was held in high esteem. The "spiritual marriage" however is no necessary ingredient from the get-go (and bishops were considered married to their respective church - hence the ban of transferring to another).
• Clerical celibacy was not merely a papal issue. A Spanish synod decreed that all (Spanish) clerics should be celibate. It was a point of debate at Nicea (even though the synod did not impose anything on the clerics) - Siricius' decretals (that did hardly "enforce" anything) must be put into this context.
• And in the 11th century: I sincerely doubt that one can pinpoint this to a particular year. There was popular demand for celibate priests and hence one should not paint this as a top to bottom ordinance. "Medieval corruption" seems an unwarranted topos to me.

Str1977 ^(talk) 08:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you took care of this too. Well done too. Thanks for your help. NancyHeise ^talk 22:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note 5 shouldn't use the term "apologize" - the Pope asked for forgiveness.

The source referencing the article text uses the term "apologize". NancyHeise ^talk 01:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that "apologize" is here used in its sloppy modern sense while the Pope did not use it. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the note is not needed at all. JP2 has asked forgiveness for a lot of things - shall we mention that each time? Str1977 ^(talk)

I think this is important and another editor asked for its inclusion. I am trying to respect everyone's comments and I don't think it takes anything away in terms of the article's "brilliance" ; ) NancyHeise ^talk 22:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

All these notes should be converted in proper footnotes. There is no reason to give them special treatment. Don't say they contain additional information and not just references as our footnotes contain additional information too.Str1977 ^(talk) 22:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This was a format suggested by our most respected peer reviewer, Ealdgyth. I do not see why these need to be converted to footnotes because they are entirely different. Footnotes contain the quotes from actual references, these notes contain additional article text that is then referenced. The reason why we had to move some article text to these notes was to help keep page size down. The formal wikipedia calculation tool does not count information in the notes section and I am in agreement with this structure. NancyHeise ^talk 23:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason for this format. Footnotes give references and additional information. I agree with keeping the page size down (though I don't care about any calculation tools) but this can be achieved just as much by making these into footnotes. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This format is relatively new, but it has already appeared in numerous FAs. In an article with a very large number of citation-focused footnotes, it is very useful to the reader to delineate which notes actually contain a separate explanation rather than a citation. Otherwise, a reader cannot tell if this is one of the 300+ citations or a note that is useful in understanding this sentence. Karanacs (talk) 15:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the notes and I would like to keep them. NancyHeise ^talk 22:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Liturgy

Matters are worse than I imagined regarding the note on liturgy:

"An alternate or extraordinary form of Mass, called the Tridentine Mass, is celebrated primarily in Latin. It was standardized at the Council of Trent, which reaffirmed that the Mass is the same sacrifice of Jesus' death as the one he suffered on Calvary, contrary to Protestant belief.[107] [note 2]"

Problems are:

• This characterizes the "Tridentine Mass" as extraordinary from the get-go when in fact it was the ordinary until 1970.
• It says that it is "celebrated primarily in Latin" - wrong on two accounts:
  • The Tridentine Mass is only celebrated in Latin and in no other language.
  • The Novus Ordo which replaced it can be just as much celebrated in Latin as well. The text implies that Latin is a specific of the Tridentine Mass. Since this is a common misconception we must be extra careful not to support it.
• The sentence about Christ's sacrifice is not specific to the Tridentine Mass either. Though the emphasis is much stronger than it is in the Novus Ordo, it is present in either form and contrary to Protestant belief in either form.

Str1977 ^(talk) 16:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with much of this, but "celebrated primarily in Latin" means the readings were in the vernacular - though our article seems to say only from 1962, which I find very surprising. The article also says Church Slavonic was used in Croatia. I never liked the last sentence, and it would be better have something like: "The form of Mass was standardized at the Council of Trent to the Tridentine Mass, celebrated in Latin except for the readings.[note expanding? If it really was only from 1962, "except.." bit to be dropped] This was the only form in normal use until after Vatican II, and is still preferred by some Catholics today." - just a rough draft, but I think these are the points to include. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

but "celebrated primarily in Latin" means the readings were in the vernacular - though our article seems to say only from 1962, which I find very surprising.

Surprising maybe but true. Or rather, I don't know when things actually changed but in the "old mass" readings were always in latin, later supplemented (but never replaced) by vernacular translations.

I am afraid I cannot see the merit of any "except for the readings" and cannot accept it. The minuteness of the exception does not justify adding it into this article.

I agree about adding a note about "the only form until 1969/1970 (never however "after Vatican II" - this would lend supported to the misconception that the council changed the liturgy). It is however not easy to combine this with the recent ordinary vs. extraordinary terminology, languagewise. I will try. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Str1977 ^(talk)

I am afraid the whole passage needed an overhaul. I basically reorganized it and left nothing out except the most trivial information about the length of mass - do we really need that here?

Apart from the things mentioned above:

• Liturgical varioations exist not only in the East, though in the West the Roman rite is by far the largest.
• Today it exists in two forms but one should be careful not to write as if what today is called "extraordinary" has always been extraordinary.
• The belief in the re-presentation of the sacrifice on the Cross in each Mass is part of the basic things about Mass - it is not some aside to the Tridentine Mass.
• The latin rite is not a celebration of the Eucharist but a part of the Church, namely the greater part that traditionally used latin. The Roman rite is largest rite within that area.

Str1977 ^(talk) 17:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you already made these changes and I think they are an improvement. Thanks for taking the time to help out. Much Appreciated! I have been kind of busy today with Halloween activities. Sorry I was not around to help out but it looks like you didn't need me anyway. :) NancyHeise ^talk 22:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Yes, I was giving my argument and editing side by side. Glad you like it. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus sought on note

We now need to know if we have consensus for note 1 which, as you know follows the lead sentence like this "Roman Catholic Church or Catholic Church (note1)" These references are the best ones that I could find on the subject. The Kenneth Whitehead reference is from a book he wrote whose excerpt is featured both in the Our Sunday Visitor, a very old and respected Catholic newspaper, and on Eternal Word Television Network, the only Catholic television station in all of the English and Spanish speaking world. In both of these Catholic media venues, Whitehead's explanation of the Church's name was featured as the answer to reader and viewer's questions about the Church's name. The other references are to a book that TSP found, written by an ex-Jesuit and to one I found, American Ecclesiastical Review, an academic journal for priests that was published by Catholic University of America, the only pontifical university in the US (pontifical university is one under direct authority to the pope). Soidi intends to challenge our use of these sources in an effort to force us to eliminate all reference to the Church's name being more officially "Catholic Church". My intention in asking for consensus here is to find out if others support his view or this note. Please vote Support if you feel these references support the article text they reference or Oppose if you feel they do not. Thanks. Here's the actual note and the links

"The Greek word "catholic" means "universal" and was first used to describe the Church by Ignatius in the late first, early second century. Many different Christian denominations describe themselves as "catholic" but in common usage it refers to the body also known as Roman Catholic Church and its members. The Church herself, in her most authoritative and self-defining documents such as those of Vatican I and Vatican II uses the name "Catholic Church", the prefix "Roman" was rejected. "NancyHeise ^talk 03:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• SupportNancyHeise ^talk 03:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I found this link: [20] Is it helpful? --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think the sources do support the text. The Holy See uses the name Roman catholic Church here. [21] Bewareofdog 03:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Beware, the context in that link is different; it was a COMMUNIQUÉ from a joint meeting between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. Yes, the term Roman Catholic is used by the Church on occaision, but when speaking in normal dialogue, she recognizes herself as the Catholic Church. Does this make sense to you? --^StormRider 04:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Storm and Beware, while the citation given was from a joint meeting between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox at an unofficial level, there are abundant documents of the Church in which, "speaking in normal dialogue", the Church recognizes herself as the Roman Catholic Church. The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity is the body in charge of "normal dialogue" with other Christians, and its section of the Holy See website gives the text of many documents, including declarations signed by the Pope personally, that use "Roman Catholic Church". See, for instance, those linked to from this page. The Popes have used "Roman Catholic Church" even in documents addressed exclusively to members of their own Church, and not in dialogue with others. Examples have been given in the discussion above. Soidi (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support: That this continues to be an issue is perplexing to me. In addition to the references above, I just reviewed some basic documents. For example, the Catechism carries the proper name of the Church, "Catechism of the Catholic Church".[22], [23] I don't think there is any question that the Church calls itself the "Catholic Church". Does anyone question this? She may call herself by other names, but that does not negate the validity of this label that she uses to describe herself on her most fundamental document of faith. How many references are necessary? Let's move on...quickly. --^StormRider 03:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

So why then have you voted to wrongfully censor this information from the article. I find your position perplexing. Or are you confused upon what you are voting on above? Xandar 09:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, my main objective is to move this article forward to FA status. I wonder if you would be more comfortable is the sentence read, "The Catholic Church, or Roman Catholic Church,[note 1] is the world's largest Christian Church. That puts the emphasis on the proper name of the Church. Of course, I think this opens other "cans", but it may be the more appropriate way to write the satement. Thoughts? --^StormRider 15:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Any sentence linking the two simply by "or" is utterly unacceptable. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• SupportGabr-el 05:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The note, as it stands, contravenes several Wikipedia guidelines; it attributes to a source what that source in no way supports but instead contradicts, and it suppresses citations of reliable sources that do not agree with the editor's view. I appeal to the two editors above who have indicated support for the present text of the note to examine what I have written below under the heading "Serious defects in the note". Soidi (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Enough is enough! The information is referenced and accurate. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Correct, and needs to be said in the article. Johnbod (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support The information is correct as is. I think having it in the note instead of the actual article isn't great, but it is a good compromise. Marauder40 (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not utterly sure what the question is. Support the idea that the note is pretty much OK as it is. Oppose any idea that it's a good thing to lock down whole parts of the article by votes as decided by consensus and not open to bold change by the normal Wikipedia procedures. I think the note is fine; but if anyone comes along and improves it, it should definitely not be reverted simply because it is different from what was once voted on on the talk page. Every edit deserves to be evaluated; if it is worse than what preceded it, of course change it back (or to some compound version with the merits of both versions). I think it is a bad idea, and contrary to Wikipedia's principles, to declare any part of the article to be fixed by a vote and not open to the normal process of incremental change and improvement without some special consensus-changing procedure; so if that is the intention of this vote, I can't agree. TSP (talk) 14:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that as the purpose of this "vote". I assume the reason this is being done is because there are people holding back moving this article on to FA status. This is just a concensus to "move on". Marauder40 (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Marauder40 is correct. The purpose of the vote in not to prevent anyone from improving it is to prevent anyone from preventing the article moving forward to FA by falsly claiming that there is something wrong with either the opening sentence or the note. I appreciate everyone's help in both of these endeavors. The result of the conversation below and the vote above is utter rejection of Soidi's unsourced position and the result of the vote on which sentence to use in lead shows us what the vast majority (by a 3:1 margin) wants to lead sentence to be. I will make those changes now and I sincerely appreciate everyone's civil cooperation in this endeavor! NancyHeise ^talk 14:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That's cool, just as long as we're clear what's being said. I've been involved with some other articles, particularly FAs, where there's been an attitude that "this exact wording was agreed on the talk page"/"this passed FA","you can't possibly change it". Editors of all articles, particularly FAs, need to be aware that Wikpedia editing is always an incremental process - being an FA means it is an example of the best articles on Wikipedia, not that the current version is the best it could possibly ever be. The same goes for any consensus on the talk page - consensus is good for deciding how people feel between some options offered at the time, but shouldn't be used to deter people from making changes in future that may be still better. As long as we agree on that there's no problem :-) TSP (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support The references support this note and the note is essential to this article. More sources would be even better, but this is adequate. --Kraftlos (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Voting Results

• There were 11 editors who supported Sentence number 2 "Roman Catholic Church or Catholic Church (note1)" and 3 who supported sentence number 1 "Roman Catholic Church formally called Catholic Church (note)". That is almost a 4:1 margin of support for Sentence number 2.
• The note had the support of 9 editors with only one editor objecting. It seems clear that there is substantial support for the new lead sentence and the note. I am making this change and I want to thank everyone for your time and thoughts in this important matter. NancyHeise ^talk 14:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The change is NOT a consensus. A trick vote of several people who have had nothing to do with the article taken over a brief operiod is illegitimate. Such an attempt to steam-roller a particular position through is NOT a consensus, which is an informed agreement among the editoprs who have been working on the article over a period. In addition the option to censor the name of the Church is against Wikipedia policy, it misuses footnotes for the purpose of hiding the true name of the Church and is unacceptable. Consensus is NOT decided by a vote of any group of POV-minded people, that happens to decide to turn up on an article at any particular time. The "vote" in any event did not include all options and all editors. Since there can also be no "vote" that decides to ignore WP guidelines and policies, as this one does, the whole alleged process is invalid. I will change the sentence back to one that represents the pre-existing long-term consensus, until there is a proper discussion of the options leading to agreement. Xandar 15:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Xandar that the straw poll should be kept open longer - usually they last from 7 to 30 days to make sure that people who aren't online daily can also participate. I disagree, however, that consensus should be limited to only the opinions of the regular editors of the article. Consensus can change, and often does when more opinions are sought. That is what an RfC is - getting outside opinions so that we don't get unnecessarily focused on one option that might not have broad support outside a small group of people (or to validate that the small group reflects a larger consensus). Karanacs (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I can only say WP is NOT a democracy. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Per Jimbo Wales quoted at WP:Consensus "Consensus is a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. —Jimbo Wales " We are allowed to discover what most editors want. I have asked the editors of this page (interested parties), who have participated in name issues to vote. I have not prohibited anyone from voting and someone else submitted it for RFC. No one is prohibited from future responses. I have acted on what consensus is so far and that seems to be with the only people on Wikipedia who have actively taken part in the conversation to date. NancyHeise ^talk 16:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you overlooking that before the "vote" there was a consensus (minus Soidi of course) for the opposite and that his vote notwithstanding Soidi opposes both versions by opposing the note. Will this go on and on and on no matter what you do to appease him? Str1977 ^(talk) 17:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the RFC submission is from Soidi. However on WP:Consensus, overnight votes of random people who happen to be about at the time are not the means to establish this. WP policy is quite clear:

In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority. New users who are not yet familiar with consensus should realize that polls (if held) are often more likely to be the start of a discussion rather than the end of one. Editors decide outcomes during discussion. Polls are structured discussions, not votes... Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons.

We have had a long-standing consensus on naming issues, and before that is altered, we need genuine, cool-headed and open-minded discussion on the proposed changes and their applicability to fairness, factual content and WP policies. The guidelines on consensus also say: "Consensus decisions in specific cases do not automatically override consensus on a wider scale - for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. " Xandar 20:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, if you feel so strongly about "official" then why dont you conduct another vote here and compare the current consensus sentence ("or") with the "official" sentence. Leave a message on everyones page who voted on the FAC as well as those who voted on this talk page. I will abstain from voting either way but will agree to whatever consensus decides. NancyHeise ^talk 02:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I am being addressed here, but I most certainly am not a new editor nor an uninterested party member. My vote is impartial. I just don't really bother to tear myself over an issue that I may say is less important than many others. There is a difference between not editing/participating and being a low participator. Gabr-el 03:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Gabr-el, If you are not interested in the topic, then "voting" may not be advisable. If you are genuinely interested in the article and the subject at issue, then by all means input toward gaining a real consensus on the issues. Xandar 11:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I am interested in the article, as I have stated. Its just that I am not feeling so strong about either position. The second sentence to me is more appealing. Gabr-el 17:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Defining the Naming Issue

Gaining consensus is not about holding votes, it's about working out a general agreement about what is acceptable, complies with the rules, and fits the facts. As the WP guidelines say, votes are a tool for discussion, not a "solution". Nor do I feel that circulating random objectors, or other people only tangentially involved in the article is helpful. Thefore could we have a poll please, just for information, on the various alternative descriptors that have been put forward. This is just to find out which of the descriptive words put forward for the first sentence, people object to strongly. If you opbject to a term strongly, it might be helpful to briefly add why. Just place a signed post below indicating which words you strongly oppose.

The descriptors are: "The Roman Catholic Church..."

• ..officially known as the Catholic Church. (the last agreed consensus)
• ..formally known as the Catholic Church
• ..actually actually called the Catholic Church
• ..properly and commonly called the Catholic Church
• ..or the Catholic Church

I strongly oppose "or" since it fails to provide the necessary information in the text as to what the Church actually calls itself, and is properly known as. With "Roman Catholic Church" as the article title and also the first term of the lead, the overwhelming and false impression given by "or" on its own is that "Roman Catholic Church" is the official name. I am also not that keen on "formally", since it can be confused with "formerly". "Properly", although directly referenced, has raised issues of being an opinion rather than a fact. Xandar 11:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Essentially agree with Xandar, and "actually" is no use - too vague altogether. I was ok with "properly", though "commonly" adds nothing to it. I think "officially" remains the best option; despite the occasional use of "RCC" officially in some contexts, "CC" is overwhelmingly the standard internal official name used, and not to recognise this is a breach of WP:UNDUE imo. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree with "properly" as I believe it is not NPOV, and I don't believe that "actually" is correct, as many people actually call the organization the Roman Catholic Church. I also think that "officially" can get us into trouble because a) the church's official language is Latin, so an English term is not official, and b) others have brought forward sources that show that sometimes the church does call itself "Roman" - this makes "officially" controversial. I also disagree with the notion that only regular editors of the page should have their opinion count - this issue comes up over and over and over, and we need to solicit external opinions now so that we can put it to bed once and for all. Karanacs (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Official names also exist in other langauges. What sources are you talking about - the imagined documents of Vatican I and II? Str1977 ^(talk) 16:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Again I point to the first line of Italy :" Italy [ˈɪtəli]^ⓘ (Italian: Italia), officially the Italian Republic, (Italian: Repubblica Italiana), is located on ..." - the way to do it. Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with one of your comments about why "officially" can't be used. As an example, what is the official name of Wikipedia? Can the owners of Wikipedia refer to it as Wiki if they want? Can they refer to it using a joke name? Does that change the official name to something else? Does the shorthand version of the name then become an official name? Just because a Pope in one document may refer to it as the Roman Catholic Church doesn't make it the official name. Now whether the Latin name vs. the English name is the official name, that is a different matter, but people keep argueing whether the Latin name even belongs in the English wikipedia. Marauder40 (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the trademark used by the Wikimedia foundation, so in this case there is no question about the official name. We don't have anything similar about the RCC/CC (that I know of) which is why the matter of the official name is a controversial topic (hence it gets brought up repeatedly). Karanacs (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The difference is, if members of the Wikimedia foundation refer to Wikipedia as Wiki or something else in an official document does that make Wiki a new official name. This is a parallel to an argument proposded by Soidi that since a Pope referred to the Catholic church as the Roman Catholic church that now makes it the official name. Yes I realize parallels aren't going to be exact since trademarks didn't exist 2000 years ago. Marauder40 (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

There are legal documents today, too. I did a quick check of the US 501(c)3 charity listings, and there are dozens of congregations listed as "Roman Catholic Church" and a lot listed as "Catholic Church". That implies to me that there is disagreement over what the official name is (or at least disagreement over the naming conventions that should be used in legal documents). Karanacs (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You are mixing apples and oranges here. Just because someone locally may call their church one thing doesn't make it the official name of the church as a whole. If you see "St. Whatever Roman Catholic Church" you immediately know it is a latin-rite Catholic church as opposed to a Byzantine-rite (which is still part of the Catholic church), or another rite of the Catholic church. You also know it isn't one of the many other churches trying to lay claim to the word Catholic. That still doesn't change the official name of the overall church. Marauder40 (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to a couple of Karanacs points: The people who should come to consensus should be editors of or involved in the page - I'm not saying this should be defined too strictly, but people with an interest in the page and the topic should be discussing this, not random people called-in from FAC or anywhere else. On "official", the principal official documents of the Church including Lumen Gentium and the Catechism use Catholic Church in a defining and self-identifying way as the name of the church. Xandar 16:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• This may be simplifying something a little to much but why can't we do something similar to what is done for countries (i.e. In article Mexico. The first line states, "The United Mexican States[5] (Spanish: Estados Unidos Mexicanos?·i), commonly known as Mexico" Couldn't it become for this article "The Catholic Church (Latin: name in latin), commonly known as the Roman Catholic Church." And Yes I noticed the arguements about "commonly known" in the past but they usually had the statement in reverse. Or proposed changing the article name. In the case of the Mexico article they didn't do that. Proper name is the same as what they call themselves, common names is "unoffical" name. Marauder40 (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid this would require evidence that the CC is "commonly" called RCC. Sure it is called that but not more commonly than CC. Also, it would require us to move the article to Catholic Church.Str1977 ^(talk) 16:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

They didn't move the Mexico article to become "The United Mexican States". As for proof of commonly all we have to do is ask Soidi ;) Marauder40 (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

My problem with "commonly known" is that it could indicate a nickname. Such as "Woolworths, commonly known as Woolies." Interestingly India and Brazil use "officially the Republic of India/Brazil," while the United States article starts with the official name, even though it is different from the article title. "The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America)". The United Kingdom article uses the same formula. However these are not featured articles. That formula used to be followed on this article, which once read "The Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church", leading with Catholic. But does that follow the rules for naming? Xandar 16:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Technically "Roman Catholic Church" is a nickname. Yes people in the Church refer to it as such, but it isn't the official name or even a preferred name, but it is a name that has been accepted by members of the Church.Marauder40 (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• I can agree with "officially" and "formally" - properly does create problems but it is still better than feigning equality between the two term. "Or" as I said is linguistically horrid. I can't even understand why this is brought up again and again. Does noone notice that only this one option lacks a verb (be it known or called). Str1977 ^(talk) 16:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think the term "official" is the better terminology. Forgive me, but this is not an area of personal expertise resulting in a few questions as I review references and sources. Would it be proper to say that for the Western Church, the official name is Catholic Church and when speaking specifically about the main church outside of the 22 smaller Eastern rites a common title is Roman Catholic Church? The smaller Eastern rite churches use different church names, but they are appropriately members of the Catholic Church, but one would not say they are Roman Catholics. If someone was to ask who is the mother church of orthodox Christianity I would respond the Roman Catholic Church. If someone asked me what the official name of the church is I would have to say Catholic Church because so many other churches fall under her wings. Do members see this type distinction or do members of the Eastern rites see this distinction or have I simply got it wrong? --^StormRider 17:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This link (even though it can't be used as an official source)that I provided earlier is good at explaining the relationship of the various rites to the Catholic church in general. Most eastern rite Catholic that I know refer to themselves similar to Byzantine Catholics or Byzantine-rite Catholics and they say the overall church is the Catholic church. Marauder40 (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

So far not too much disagreement. I have reminded some of the other contributors who have not spoken yet, to come here if they wish. Xandar 02:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me give my two cents here. Properly and commonly will be almost impossible to cite. What is "proper"? That which is most well spoken or that which is official? Strike this one out, its redundant - we have to define what proper is. Formally and officially are almost identical. Formally suggest some sort of POV; why is it formal? Isn't the Catholic Church suppose to always act formally? Official suggest what it calls itself, and this can be found in its official documents. A slight thumbs up there. However, someone pointed out inconsistency between Roman Catholic and then just Catholic. If there are multiple sources with both suggesting one or the other, then we really will have to stick to or. Gabr-el 06:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Very very few documents of the Church use the term "Roman Catholic" anbd these are largely ones which engage Ecumenically with other religious bodies where use of Catholic Church might cause problems. The overwhelming majority of important documents and pronouncements use "Catholic Church" including the catechism and the infallible "Lumen Gentium", as stated in the discussion above. There have even been pronouncements against the use of the term "Roman Catholic." An attempt has been made to muddy the waters by listing usages of the word "Roman" in official documents, but these usages are not as a name, or in the form "Roman Catholic", but separately as in "Holy Catholic, Apostolic and Roman," to describe attributes of the church. "or" has been used previously in the article, but only when it was referred immediately to a Terminology section at the top of the article. I'm not sure we want to have a terminology section back at this stage. Xandar 16:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oh heavens... my penny's worth, as an ex-catholic with fond memories of the church: split the difference. Lead with "The Catholic (sometimes Roman Catholic) church...", and for the note, use "The word "catholic" derives from the Greek word for "universal". It was first used to describe the Church by Ignatius in the late first or early second century. Many different Christian denominations describe themselves as "catholic", but in common usage it refers to the Papal body based in Rome, or to the adherents of its faith.[1] Certain central documents of that church, such as those of Vatican I and Vatican II, eschew the use of 'Roman' and use the name "Catholic Church", while the term 'Roman' is a prominent feature of other documents, such as the Profession of Faith." --Ludwigs2 09:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

About a year ago the article started with the words "The Catholic Church" even though the title was Roman Catholic Church. But this got changed for some reason. The MoS Wikipedia:Lead section seems to allow a difference between title and the name first used in the Lead in some circumstances, giving the example United Kingdom, but doing that could raise issues. Xandar 16:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

well, in my (admittedly different) view, names are often more a source of contention than a source of clarification. 'Catholic Church' and 'Roman Catholic Church' are both fairly clear about what they point to, and neither is a derogatory phrase. plus, I kinda suspect that if you asked your local bishop which was correct, he'd wonder why you were worrying about that rather than about saving your divine soul. With a dispute like this, I always think that the people involved should just settle on some compromise that pleases no one, and move on to discussing the thing itself rather than what it's called. in fact, most of the time when you do that, you can come back to the name in a week or so and it will all be much clearer. --Ludwigs2 00:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Note to the Johhny-come-lateleys

If you're going to add to the article:

• Have a reliable source.
• Make sure it's pertinent. The material and the source.
• If you hate the church or religion or the pope or anybody Catholic, and want to make a point write a letter to your local newspaper editor, don't publish it here.

If you do add a source, make sure it's formatted consistently with the style of the article and doesn't look like a bag of crap.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Shimmelpfenig sentence

I note that Str deleted the sentence I put in to accommodate vassyana's concerns on Featured Article Candidate review. This was in Roman Empire on the issue of when Papal Primacy was recognised. I think it is important to have something like this sentence to accommodate Wikipedia policy that all significant viewpoints are represented in the article. Since this is a significant or minority viewpoint, it is arguable that we need to mention it as a point of view to meet Featured Article criteria. I had assumed that what went before the new sentence amounted to the standard or contrary view, but if people object, please state here, or perhaps suggest an additional sentence (short) that can be referenced, to specify the majority POV on this matter? I will replace the sentence while people respond since I have written on the FAC page that I have inserted the statement. We can alter after you respond if you are still opposed to this. Xandar 15:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I replaced you edit with a note to Str1977 explaining that you were answering a FAC comment. The new sentence represents and extreme minority view, one that we could get by without even adding but I think we should keep so we are not accused of POV. NancyHeise ^talk 15:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the Shimmelpfenig (or whatever the spelling is) passage was that it gave one particular view from a larger discussion while no other view was given. Yes, the sentences before talked in general terms about the papacy but in a very balanced fashion. In comes Shimmelpfenig with his "not accepted in the 5th century" when before that no one had claimed that. In order to retain Shimmelpfenig we'd have to give space to his opponents and frankly I think the overall article on the RCC is not the place for that. And finally, Shimelpfenig's claims are also problematic in content as the events surrounding the Council of Chalcedon show. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with this viewpoint either, but it IS an academic viewpoint, even if a minority one, and not just held by whatever this guy's name is, as Vassyana has provided evidence for. Wikipedia rules say that we have to represent significant minority viewpoints. So the best solution is not to remove the quote but to prvide a balancing sentence or clause if that is considered necessary. I shall attempt this. Xandar 17:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I see I broke the supreme rule, never mention anything but your one major point. Again, minority viewpoint or no, that doesn't matter as we have thus far not included any discussion on this (and space constraints and focus advise against us doing so). If we include Mr S we would also have to include opposing viewpoints and thus far we have none. The immediately preceding passage is a very general and uncontroversial statement. As for "significant" - it is not significant here hence all the evidence in the world cannot change my position as it is simply not an issue of evidence. Hope my point is now clearer. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not insert the passage because it is such a minority viewpoint that it warrants zero space but I would like to respect other editors efforts here and I did not see anything wrong with Xandars sentence. Please remember Str, we are trying everything we can do to show we are being NPOV - because we really are! NancyHeise ^talk 19:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

We can overdo that by simply yielding to any demand. The preceding sentence is already NPOV and to add an extreme minority view without also adding the opposition does make it POV.

Also, several people on FAC have noted an imbalance in the article, stating that it focus on some things to a great details while others are glossed over or not mentioned at all. I appreciate all your efforts but I agree that this imbalance does exists and I also know the reason - it is the immediate reaction to objections by adding and adding more. This way some passages grow and grow while others shrink in relation - and it is mostly not the important passage that grow but the controversial ones. The tendency of yielding also led to the muddle regarding the name.

My priority is to a have a well-written and well-organised, NPOV and accurate article, regardless of whether it gets the official stamp. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

My priority is the same. However I do believe that there IS a genuine historical controversy about papal Primacy. It is an important issue to Orthodox and Protestants as well as Catholics, so we are not safe in ignoring that controversy. I certainly don't advocate yielding to every demand. Look at the history of this and the past couple of FACs where we have resisted a lot of calls to rewrite sections of the article on the Dark AGes, Latin America, the Reformation and sinilar topics. We have also tried to exclude debates in this article about minor points such as the Curia and the Papal States. But if challenged, I don't think we can justify leaving this debate out. It's a referenced statement so it shouldn't really be removed without discussion, and I'd like to see whether its inclusion settles the matter with reference to those objections. I don't feel the statement is a threat since it just mentions an opinion, and there are many academic opinions that don't hold much water - such as that the Apostles just made the entire New Testament up. However these sort of theories have to be dealt with if a significant minority of academic opinion holds them. Xandar 20:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure there is controversy. The trouble is after your addition, we first have a general and neutral statement that the papacy was "increasingly recognized " over time followed by the POV that primacy (is he really talking about primacy, BTW? This seems so glaringly against what Chalcedon taught!) was not accepted in the fifth. Where is this the POV that it was accepted in the 5th or earlier? That's the POV imbalance your edit is creating. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

"Increasingly recognised" is all that these sources say as far as I can see. No one has said that full-blown infallible Papal Primacy was recognised from day one. It may well have done so. But I can't find anyone explicitly saying that. Remember that Chalcedon was later than the period we are talking about. And the Shimmelpfenig quote does not say "was not accepted" but "may not have been". The main problem with everything about the early period is lack of written evidence prior to Diocletian's persecutions, which pretty much trashed 90% of Church records. If you have sources that back a stronger statement, please add that. But removing the controversy and just placing a bland statement there is not really on. Xandar 23:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You are still not getting the point. Your edit includes one POV in a controversial debate (Schimmelpfennig) but not anyone contradicting him. The preceding passage however is general and uncontroversial. I don't want to add a stronger statement but ensure balance in our treatment. Hence, the extremist should go!

Chalcedon was not later than the period but was in the middle of the 5th century. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

We're talking here about 2nd -5th Century. I'm afraid a lot of this is academic judgement (ie POV) since the documents that would prove things either way no longer exist. What we CAN'T do, whatever your views, is eliminate a significant POV - and its not just Shimmelpfenig, he is just an exemplar of a school of thought common among Protestants and Orthodox. And I don't see his viewpoint as that extreme, since many people don't accept Papal Primacy NOW. If you have a scholarly source that reflects a stronger POV in support of your position, certainly we can add that, but references have been supplied for SPs viewpoint and I don't think we can exclude it. Another thought is that the Church's own explicit position on Papal Primacy could be added in a sentence, since it isn't actually stated in the discussion. What do others think? Xandar 10:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, the first statement (since the 2nd century) is uncontroversial and general and even Schimmelpfennig could be subsumed under it. And then you add Schimmelpfennig's POV without balancing it by any other view. His view is extreme since papal primacy was largely accepted during the proceedings of the Council of Ephesus, the Robber Synod (though bullied out during that Synod) and the Council of Chalcedon. And no, whether many people don't accept it NOW is totally irrelevant - most people today are either not Christians at all or Protestants. The acceptance issue then and now is naturally restricted to certain churches. Also what the average Joe-Know-Nothings accepts or not is irrelevant too, as this is about scholarly views (which I grant, Schimmelpfennig seems to be one - the problem is not him but the lack of balance created by adding him). Str1977 ^(talk) 14:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering where everyone is on the name issue

Thanks to all for the discussion but what we really need is some conclusion here. These are the sentences we have to choose from. I have agreed to insert whatever consensus decides. Please post your support and signature below the one you like best. Do not post oppose or comments directly in the voting area because it clutters up the vote. If you wish to continue discussion please do , just do it below the voting area. NancyHeise ^talk 14:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC) The descriptors are: "The Roman Catholic Church..."

• ..officially known as the Catholic Church. (the last agreed consensus)

• ..or the Catholic Church

Poll area

• Officially.Xandar 16:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Officially. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Officially - reasons given above. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Officially. --^StormRider 18:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Officially Marauder40 (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Officially Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Officially Farsight001 (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Officially - I think this has been established as fact. --Kraftlos (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• Or - per my above arguments with regards to the ambiguity. And don't attack my position because its opposing others. I don't think its something that one should tear themselves about, but this is my opinion.Gabr-el 19:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
• "Officially", if understood in the sense of being the official name of the Church, as defended above, is based only on original research, i.e. unsourced personal interpretation of the undisputed fact that in its official documents "Catholic Church" is used more frequently than names such as "Roman Catholic Church" (a name, however, which official documents of the Church have in great number used in that precise form, leaving aside similar expressions such as the name "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church", which was used by two ecumenical councils). On the other hand, sources exist that affirm explicitly, without need of interpretation, that the official name of the Church is "Roman Catholic Church". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soidi (talk • contribs)

This is the vote area. Not the discussion area. Furtermore, unsigned votes usually don't count so be more careful. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Officially --SynKobiety (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Officially Shenme (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Neither. Gimmetrow 05:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Officially NancyHeise ^talk 03:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion area

Again I'm not entirely sure a straight-out vote will resolve this, but lets hope it will help get us there. The last time "or" was used in the article it was referred directly to a terminology section at the top of the article, which explained the position in detail. I'm not sure we really want that at this time. Officially, however is defensible, referenced and follows the well defined path of articles like Italy, India and Brazil. Xandar 16:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Another vote, still the same view. Officially fits the matter as Xandar explained. There might be other solutions but "or" is unacceptable and I am beginning to get angry that it still is proposed. I for my part will never accept it. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Str, I had to include "or" because it was the last consensus vote that supported its use. If this vote documents a preference for "official" we can then prove that consensus prefers "official" as opposed to "or". NancyHeise ^talk 19:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Not it wasn't. The last consensus was "officially". "Or" was never the consensus (even though you claimed this on various pages - a vote doesn't make consensus) but only the result of your vote in which "officially" was conspicuous by its absence. I hope for the result you describe but nothing can change my unyielding opposition to the uglifying "or". Str1977 ^(talk) 19:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the changes to the lead by 75.196.246.37 and I wasn't sure about totally reverting them but I at least changed the glaring issues with it. Marauder40 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I could live with either, but prefer "officially". Majoreditor (talk) 05:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I could live with either also, but I think "offically" is a better than "more properly". --Kraftlos (talk) 05:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Properly is derivative word. It doesn't mean anything - what is it to mean proper? Officially and formally are not clear cut with regards to what the Church officially calls itself, sometimes as the Catholic Church and sometimes as the Roman Catholic Church (if this is not the case, then why are we debating this). Forget the fact that "or" is ugly, its the most truthful wording. Judging from my experiences, Catholic and Roman Catholic are synonymous that both Bishop and layman have no qualms talking about interchangeably. Gabr-el 06:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Gabr-el. You are wrong to suggest that the church officially calls itself Roman Catholic. In fact Councils have rejected the term. Check the Vatican website, the Catechism, other official documents. Many Catholics, particularly Eastern Catholics strongly reject the term. Your experience is a local one where the term, (invented by protestants) has been habitually used for so long that it has gained some acceptance. However that does not make it a proper name. "Or" is inaccurate since it implies RCC is the proper name. When used in the past it required a Terminology section of the article to explain it. 92.40.13.152 (talk) 10:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Just another repetition of the same unfounded claims. "Councils have rejected the term 'Roman Catholic'." What Councils? By what decrees? "The Vatican website, the Catechism and other official documents" have not rejected the term. You will find on the Vatican website many official documents that do use the term. "Many Catholics reject the term." Nonetheless the Popes and departments of the Holy See do in fact use it. The claim is frequently repeated that "Roman Catholic" was invented by English Protestants; but the earliest example that the Catholic Encyclopedia article "Roman Catholic" gives of the use of these two adjectives in English to describe the Church is by a Catholic, not a Protestant, and in 1575, while the earliest example the article gives of the use of "Roman Catholic" (in that order) by a Protestant is dated 1588 or 1581 (the latter only if, as I believe, "1801" is a mistake for "1581"). Not only that, the article says that the use of the order "Catholic Roman" by an English-speaking Catholic in 1575 was because this phraseology, with the adjectives in that order, was even then common both in Latin and in the Romance languages, as it still is the normal phraseology today in Latin ("Ecclesia Catholica Romana") and in French ("l'Eglise catholique romaine"). Editors like - I forbear to mention their names - have only been repeating statements like "The official name is 'Catholic Church'" without once backing up their statements by sources. It is a peculiar form of logic that from the fact that the Church does refer to herself as the Catholic Church in certain official documents draws the conclusion that there can be no official documents in which the Church refers to herself by any other name. Soidi (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Soidi is right on one point: Councils have not rejected the point. They surely have better things to do than to state the obvious, that the name of the church is the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church", or Catholic Church for short. What Councils haven't done either is call the church "Roman" Catholic Church. Documents by Councils use Catholic Church. The rest has been discussed and Soidi pulling another few examples from his hat cannot change the overwhelming, almost exclusively usage of CC. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Lets just assume for a minute that you're right Soidi - it doesn't matter. Consensus is against you. Very strongly against you. An agreement has been reached. The issue should be over. And you certainly are not supposed to go ahead and edit the article your way just after we agreed to make it the other way.Farsight001 (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mind what I said just above in response to the nth repetion of these phrases. It would be more helpful if, by providing a reliable source that says so, you would show that the statement that CC is the (only) official name is not mere original research. Also, "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys may actually impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, if at all, and will not be treated as binding" (WP:DEMOCRACY). Soidi (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mind that you bring up single occurence after single occurence that don't affect the overall usage by a long shot. Never mind that your example fraudulently also contain other phrases ("Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church" might be similar to RCC, but it is also similar to CC. Furthermore, as I have shown that phrase does not refer to the CC but to the papacy). Never mind that you not only lack consensus for your changes, you also lack any substantial basis for your claims. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You have nothing but your own original research to "prove" that the phrase that the First Vatican Council used meant the papacy and not the Church as a whole; you should instead cite some source to counterbalance the cited source (a declaration by the Second Vatican Council) that says the phrase meant the Church governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him. Even one case is enough to prove unfounded the statement that the only name used officially is CC. Any way, as I said, apart from the use of this particular name by two ecumenical councils, there are many official documents of the Church in which it refers to itself - not just to a part of itself, or to a single local Church - as the RCC. Even one instance would be enough; here you have much more than enough to show that CC is not the only name.

Once again you attribute to me what I am by no means aware of having said. Did I really claim consensus for some unidentified changes of mine? I fear this may be like when you attributed to me a denial that Walsh said that Catholic is used to refer to the Church; what I denied - and proved by quoting Walsh - was that Walsh said that in common usage CC refers to the Church. I thought this accusation so outrageous that someone else would have responded, so I provisionally to wait until the battle between others on another field continue without had cooled down before raising again the corrections needed in note 1. But I have now been invited into this field and have responded. Soidi (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing but my OR? Well, if you read the actual text you see that it refers to that. But what you have? Simply your claim that it refers to the Catholic Church. Also the Vatican II document does not identify it either as the CC. Finally, it is a quote from a profession of faith worded at the Tridentine Council.

I am sick and tired of your spewing POV here and attacking other editors and your constantly misrepresenting both facts and views. It is your strawman that CC must be the only name used! No one else claims that! But it is the official name of the Church, whether you like it or not! Str1977 ^(talk) 17:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You have just stated the hub of the problem: your still unsourced claim that CC is "the official name". You thus controversially deny that there is any other official name. What about indicating a reliable source for this claim, instead of just declaring that it is so, or using OR? Whether I like it or not is of no importance. What is important is to back it up with a reliable source. Other statements would be less controversial. If you cannot accept "an official name", what about "the official name most often used" or something like that?

[BTW, the name used by I Vat (which is not exactly the phrase in the Trent Profession of Faith), is applied by II Vat to the Church "governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him". Have you not noticed how often I have quoted this? Is this some Church other than the (R)CC?] Soidi (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

1. The claim that CC is the official name, has been sourced repeatedly.

2. I have seen no Vatican II document at all where this is contained. Thus far you only claim and claim but never link.

3. When if Vatican II used it that way, this hardly makes your case as

a) this would still only be one occurence.

b) Vatican I and Trient used it in the way I described.

c) it is a quote and hence the wording is governed by its original context.

d) it is not your cherished POV-driven "Roman Catholic Church" anyway. Are you now suggesting we move the article to "Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church".

Str1977 ^(talk) 20:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

We do not need to go back and forth with Soidi, we have consensus per here [24]. No one is in agreement with Soidi and even after we have tried our very hardest to please him, he eventually is asking us to do something that no source supports - we don't have to keep defending our position. NancyHeise ^talk 22:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Answering myself, Roman Catholic is frequently used by Churches and Schools and its not a Protestant POV - Rome is glorified by the East:

Blessed are you, O Rome renowned, O city of Kings, handmaid of the Heavenly bridegroom! Two true preachers were settled in you as a harbor: Peter, the head of the Apostls, and Paul, the one Chosen and sent, and the builder of the churches of Christ. By their prayers may we find refuge, that mercies and compassion may be granted our souls. - The Syriac Feast of St Peter and St Paul.

Far outside of the Roman Empire, deep within hostile Sassanid Persian territory, the Assyrian Church of the East had been praising the Church of Rome as the prime Church, thus Roman Catholic is not the 20th century Protestant attack many might think. Gabr-el 23:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And what has that to do with the term "Roman Catholic"? Str1977 ^(talk) 08:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well did you not see the word "Rome" in the Syriac poem I just typed in? Its kinda of like the 5th word!!! Rome-> Roman; so Roman Catholic is not in fact a Protestant wording. Gabr-el 16:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I saw it. Only that is not what you claimed above. I grant you that no Protestant was involved when the city of Rome received that name and (contrary to some mythmaking) no Protestant was involved when Peter and Paul came to Rome. However that poem does not speak of "Roman Catholic Church" at all and any further attempts to use it in that regard IMHO are offensive POV pushing. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You accuse me of "offensive POV pushing", considering 1) I myself am a devout Catholic and 2) I don't have strong feelings either way. People, please stop getting hot in the debate and calm yourselves. People have different views, and if they're based on reasonable thoughts/assumptions/sources, then treat us with reason as well and accept that fact that we have a difference of opinion, rather than accusing us of POV pushing. Gabr-el 01:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of anything (but I am wondering why so often people don't read what other wrote.)

I said that if you persisted with this strange line of argument, I would have to consider it that.

And it is a strange line of argument to use the poem above as a support for "Roman Catholic". If you can't see that, I can't help you. And no, it is not a matter of "different views .... based on different sources" or a "difference of opinion". The poem simply does not give anything in that regard. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

tweaking spree

Xandar and Str1977, I appreciate your tweaking spree very much, it improved the wordings of some areas and I think they were well done. I thank you very much for taking the time and effort to improve it. I am hoping you are finished because we need the article to be stable - it is part of FAC criteria. Do you have any more changes to make? NancyHeise ^talk 02:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly I am not "finished". There is a major conflict going on above as you well know. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as a major conflict, if you mean the Papal Primacy passage. We have to work on scholarly sources, so produce a scholarly source that rebalances the passage if that is necessary. We COULD add the Church's own explicit view on Papal Primacy, if you can find a source for that, since it is not expressly stated in the passage. Xandar 10:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

In any case, I don't see the need to rush. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What major conflict? I will offer some excerpts from my scholarly sources to help here. NancyHeise ^talk 20:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about the Schimmelpfennig issue. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You guys are both correct. Please see the sentences again. I trimmed them because we don't need to list all the scholars. There is no scholarly disagreement. One sentence is discussing when papal primacy began to be accepted by other churches and the other says that it wasnt fully accepted even by the 5th century. These facts are all correct. No one is disputing either one. NancyHeise ^talk 22:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong, Nancy. Schimmelpfennig's view is NOT A FACT. It is a relatively extreme view (given the acceptance of papal primacy surrounding the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon - note that primacy is not supremacy in the style of Vatican I) while the first sentence is uncontroversial. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Note problems

Note (not footnote) #2 is rather screwed up. Besides "The Tridentine" repeated at the start, a typo of "contined", and a double "was", there are grammatical errors in the sentence. It looks as if there was a bad splice of two independent clauses. Given the multiple errors, I do not know, and cannot correct to, the appropriate wording. -- Michael Devore (talk) 07:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

There should be no problem to removing words that accidentally appear twice. Certainly no reason to insert invisible text. What is especially out of order is false claims attacking another editor by name. No one did attempt to remove these problems and was reverted by me. Finally, the place to discuss edits is this talk page, NOT the invisible text of the article page. How am I or anyone to respond to such invisible complaints?! Str1977 ^(talk) 14:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a clue as to what you are talking about here. If you would like to address my remarks on the problematic note, and not go off on a weird rant about "invisible text", false claims, and editor attacks completely unrelated to my comment here on the problematic note, that would be productive. -- Michael Devore (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I am talking about the "invisible text" inserted into the article, which (before I removed it) could only be seen when one opened it for editing. I don't know right now who put it there but it was no way to proceed. If it wasn't you, I am sorry if you felt addressed. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes SandyGeorgia leaves us messages in the article text. I'm not sure she did this time but just a heads up. NancyHeise ^talk 22:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It was Defteri who did it ([25]). It certainly is not a proper form. Invisible notes should be placed when there is a recurring problem with an accepted text and a prospective editor needs to be advised before changing it again. It is not meant for a discussion of conflicts. Certainly not as a replacement for the talk page as it was used in this case. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Location of the Mary page

Just thought people might be interested to know, either may. IMO the current title is awkward and in violation of WP:COMMON. Talk:Mary_(mother_of_Jesus)#Requested_move. - Victory's Spear (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ignatius and "catholic church"

What is so wrong with the following triply sourced sentence that it should be deleted out of hand?

The word "catholic", derived from a Greek word meaning "universal" or "general",<ref>Cross, F.L. and Livingstone, E.A., editors, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford University Press. 2005. ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3: ''Catholic''</ref> was used by Ignatius of Antioch, soon after the year 100,<ref>Cross, F.L. and Livingstone, E.A., editors, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Oxford University Press. 2005. ISBN 978-0-19-280290-3: ''Ignatius, St''</ref> to designate all Christians.<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: ''St. Ignatius of Antioch''</ref> Soidi (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Who deleted it? Soidi, it is nonsense what you say about "all Christians" - he was talking about the Catholic Church of his time, not simply all Christians. But your recents edits spamming your POV into notes in the article borders on vandalism. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Farsight deleted it, as Str1977 has deleted my explanatory questioning of the defective text of the note, instead of either giving sources for questioned statements or adjusting the text, which I think is what Wikipedia editors are asked to do. Soidi (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You should have been clearer that you meant specific parts and not the whole text you posted.

I agree about the "about the year 100" bit - this is more accurate than "late 1st century" and simpler than "late 1st, early 2nd".

I totally disagree with the nitpicking about "the Greek word Catholic".

And I already stated that "all Christians" is nonsense. Even then there were a few Christians outside of the Catholic Church, the Ebionites for instance. There is no need to explain "church" in this passage. Your aim in that regard creates only problems which you then proclaim to be solving. Don't create the problems in the first place.

Finally, this tendency to sparkle our article with comments, even invisible ones, has to stop. We have a talk page to discuss things.

Str1977 ^(talk) 19:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

"Catholic" is a Greek-derived English word, not a Greek word. For the meaning of the Greek word from which the English word is derived, a source should be given. You may think that "all Christians" is nonsense, but it has the Catholic Encyclopedia as its reliable (?) source. Just find a reliable source to back up another view of what Ignatius meant. I too think that the Catholic Encyclopedia expression is inaccurate. But my experience-based expectation that certain editors were bound to delete my edits out of hand forced me to use a sourced expression, even if I personally did not agree with it, so as to be able to defend myself against the expected accusation of only inserting my own ideas (an accusation that has repeatedly issued from the keyboards of certain editors). If only there had been signs of some willingness to cooperate, I would have used what I consider a more accurate expression, but for which I did not then find a source. May I perhaps now count on it not being immediately deleted on the principle that anything that Soidi writes much be wrong? Soidi (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So you edited dishonestly by adding something you didn't accept? My reply above is enough to address your claims. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not a nice thing to call a fellow-editor dishonest. Especially for not having pushed his personal POV and for giving preference to a view that was not his own but for which there was a source that is generally considered reliable in the field. Soidi (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of things were not nice, most of them coming from you. But I didn't call you "dishonest" - I referref to your edit. And, yes I think it out of line, I think it toying with the article and your fellow editors. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So I am not personally dishonest, only my actions are! Soidi puts his own views on the Talk page, but if he puts in the article not his own views but what seems to be reliable sourced views, that is dishonest. If Soidi were to put his own views in the article, that would be POV-pushing. Unlike the English sovereign, who in law can do no wrong, Soidi can do no right. A view of which I was already aware, and that shows an unwillingness to cooperate towards reaching an agreed text. Soidi (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What reply above? Does it give a sourced explanation of what Ignatius meant when he spoke of the "catholic church"? Does it give a sourced explanation of the meaning of the Greek word from which "catholic" is derived? What do you mean when you speak of my claims? What claims? Soidi (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The reply immediately above. It doesn't give an explanation to the problem you (and only you) want to create. You know what your claims are! Str1977 ^(talk) 21:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Not very collaborative. Soidi (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, no one agrees with your position. You need to have consensus to add your stuff here. Consensus is soundly against your unsourced positions which are blatantly POV. NancyHeise ^talk 22:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, what is the position under discussion here with which you say nobody agrees? I am sorry to see that the principle on which you too are acting is that anything that Soidi says must be wrong.

The question here is: "What is so wrong with the following triply sourced sentence that it should be deleted out of hand? The word "catholic", derived from a Greek word meaning "universal" or "general" [source 1 cited], was used by Ignatius of Antioch, soon after the year 100 [source 2 cited], to designate all Christians" [source 3 cited].

Well, what is wrong with it? What is POV about it? I deliberately kept out of it my own POV, an action that Str1977 called dishonest. Now you too deny my good faith.

As a result of Str1977's questioning I have changed my own view and have come to accept that of the Catholic Encyclopedia, which Str1977 and perhaps you too oppose without support from any source whatever. The Catholic Encyclopedia says that Ignatius used the phrase "catholic church" to designate all Christians. I thought then somewhat like Str1977, who says that "even then there were heretics outside the Catholic Church". I must have been influenced by the headings added to chapters 4 and 7 of Ignatius's text, which speak of "heretics". I find now that in Ignatius's text itself the word "heretic" does not appear. The Gnostics against whom he wrote he considers not to be Christians at all: he refers to them as "certain unbelievers (who)maintain, that (Jesus) only seemed to suffer, as they themselves only seem to be [Christians]" (New Advent). In other words, it seems that for Ignatius the Gnostics weren't Christians, and "catholic church" did apply to all Christians. This is what is said by the reliable source, whose exactitude I first doubted but have now come to accept. I wish others would be equally prepared to consider that what such sources say may well be true, rather than working on the principle that anyone who cites sources that disagree with their fixed ideas is pushing a mere POV.

I trust nobody else will simply imitate Str1977 and say, on the basis of their own personal opinion alone, that Ignatius could not possible have meant what the Catholic Encyclopedia says he did.)

So now, will you, Nancy, please consider indicating what, if anything, makes the sentence above unacceptable?

I indicated with "citation needed" tags what is wrong with the present text. Str1977 has admitted above that the present text is incorrect, but on the article page he just removed all the tags without either providing the citation or modifying the text. If nobody, not even you, Nancy, deigns to discuss the substance of the matter here, what can I do but put the tags back in? Soidi (talk) 05:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Where does Ignatius speak of "all Christians"? His words are:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

I see bishop, I see multitude, I see not "all Christians". Str1977 ^(talk) 08:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Interpreting a text, rather than just quoting it, is Original Research. How about backing up your personal opinion with a citation? Soidi (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Where's the interpretation? The quote says "Catholic Church". Are you actually trying to imply that it is a personal interpretation of ours in our understanding that the phrase "Catholic Church" actually means "Catholic Church"?Farsight001 (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not interpret a text. I merely quoted it to show that he does not speak of "all Christians". He does not speak of people at all but of a church that is called the "Catholic Church". Hence anything about the occurence of merely "Catholic" would be irrelvant if it were true as the article is about the church and the note is to explain how come the church is called by that epithet. Now, before you ask why then the note merely says "catholic", let me tell you that it says "Catholic was first used to describe to the church" - it talks about the decription of the church as catholic and hence cannot ever refer to "all Christians". Finally and again, you are inventing a problem out of thin air and offer nonsensical solutions. There is no need to further define the church Ignatius talked about. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

A reliable source (Catholic Encyclopedia: St. Ignatius of Antioch) says that by "catholic Church" Ignatius designated "all Christians". Str1977 denies that, thus claiming that by "catholic Church" Ignatius meant "not all Christians". Str1977 has cited no reliable source that says that. He has dropped his first argument/interpretation, and now argues that, since Ignatius spoke of a church that he described as "catholic" - a word that in the language he used meant "universal" i.e. all - he did not speak of people at all (! - what else is the Church but people, including Christ its head?). Str1977 still has cited no reliable source that disagrees with the Catholic Encyclopedia's statement. He has only opposed to the Catholic Encyclopedia his own interpretation of what Ignatius meant. Soidi (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Haven't you read what Ignatius wrote?

Furthermore, the CE does not say what you claim - it says:

"just as in Smyrn., viii, we meet for the first time the phrase "Catholic Church", used to designate all Christians"

it does not say that Ignatius uses it to designate all Christians, it says the phrase is used (by someone, not necessarily by Ignatius) to designate all Christians. The two are separated by a comma. Ignatius certainly does not use it that way nor can the CE's expression be pressed to mean what you are trying to make of it. And no "universal" does not mean "all" - here we are at the root of what is either your misunderstood or your conscious attempt to POV this even further.

Finally, I consider your allegations that I dropped something incivil. I have said the same over and over again. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have read what Ignatius wrote: "Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Smyrnaeans, 8). CE says that in chapter 8 of the Letter to the Smyrnaeans we meet for the first time the phrase "Catholic Church", used to designate all Christians: who, but Ignatius, do you think wrote chapter 8 of Smyrnaeans? Who, but Ignatius, do you think used it there to designate all Christians? Soidi (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you have not read what Ignatius wrote. Or you chose to ignore him.

BTW, why do you lie in edit summaries?

With people who do that there is no point in discussing as they apparently do not care for the reasons of their opposition. 08:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be better if Str1977 would search for a reliable source that supports his view, instead of trying to distract attention from his failure to do so by making these nonsensical statements.

"Apparently you have not read what Ignatius wrote", he says, although he knows I have quoted here Ignatius's words in English translation. Does he perhaps think I wrote the words without reading them? Does he perhaps mean I haven't read Ignatius's original words. I have read them. Here they are: Ὅπου ἂν φανῇ ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, ἐκεῖ τὸ πλῆθος ἔστω· ὥσπερ ὅπου ἂν ᾖ Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς ἐκεῖ ἡ καθολικὴ Ἐκκλησία.

These are the exact words that Ignatius used in Smyrnaeans 8: "ἡ καθολικὴ Ἐκκλησία". Anyone can see that Ignatius used Greek words, not words derived from Greek. Then how can Str1977 accuse me of lying (of bad faith) when I said just that in my edit summary? Soidi (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Because the changes you made to the article had nothing to do with the summary you gave.Farsight001 (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? So the change from "The word 'catholic', derived from a Greek word meaning 'universal' or 'general', was first used ... by Ignatius of Antioch" to "The word 'catholic', whose meaning in Greek is 'universal' or 'general', was used by Ignatius of Antioch" had nothing to do with the edit summary: "The word that Ignatius used was not derived from a Greek word: it was a Greek word"? What nonsense! The previous text said that Ignatius used a word derived from a Greek word, and therefore a word in a language other than Greek; the corrected text avoided that mistake: Greek was the language in which Ignatius wrote - as the edit summary pointed out. Soidi (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oye. Perhaps I didn't word it right. The change you made is flat out wrong. Look at the sentences again. "The word 'catholic', derived from a Greek word meaning 'universal'" is quite right. The word catholic is derived from the Greek word Katholikos (or something like that), which means universal. Your version says "The word 'catholic', whose meaning in Greek is'universal' is incorrect simply because the word catholic is not Greek and does not have a Greek meaning. The word catholic is derived from the Greek word Katholikos(?), and the Greek word Katholikos(?) means universal. The word Ignatius used was Katholikos(?), which is Greek, but the paragraph in question does not use Katholikos(?). It uses catholic. Hence, it was right the first time, and the phrase in your edit summary "The word that Ignatius used was not derived from a Greek word: it was a Greek word", had nothing to do with the paragraph. Farsight001 (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oigo. Yes, it is quite right to say: "The word 'catholic' is derived from a Greek word meaning 'universal'" But it not right to say that "The word 'catholic', derived from a Greek word meaning 'universal', was used by Ignatius", since he used no word derived from Greek." My edit summary, "The word that Ignatius used was not derived from a Greek word: it was a Greek word", is not a lie.

Thank you for your cooperation in indicating an improvement you feel needs to be made in the text of the article. I have responded by adjusting the text. Soidi (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Last minute detail inserting

I am quite worried by the way this FAC is going. I laud Nancy's intention of getting this article to FA status but I cannot agree with the way this proceeds. This article has certainly come a long way (and thanks to those involved) but it is certainly not perfect. However, it is not improved by these quick reactions to comments at FAC. Editor A on FAC says "This detail is missing!" and it gets added. Editor B says "Here this is POV. Add this!" and it gets added. The result is a unbalanced article focusing with undue weight on many details, often hurting POV in a different way. And then, we are also told that some badly written passage must be reinserted because it sailed through FAC - yes, because the passage (dealing with liturgy) and its liturgy (simplistic, false identification, "or") didn't concern the POV of those assembled at FAC (as opposed to the evil Catholic small pox, the invention of slavery by Nicholas V etc.) I really wish the FA intentions well but under the circumstances one can only hope for a quick end to the FAC so that real comprehensive editing can resume. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Str, FAC requires nominators to respond positively to reviewers requests. Several reviewers have pointed out some items they think will make the article better and I am responding to their requests - positively if I can. What do you consider to be out of balance due to FAC comments? My intention here is to create and article that answers those questions people have about the Church. If we don't insert these items on their minds, what good is the article going to be? I am glad to have the new info on slavery because it seems to be a source of misinformation about the Church that some reviewer had in mind. I personally do not mind your rewording of the liturgy section but when it appeard to cause controversy, I put it back the way it was. I was not trying to upset you. I see that you have replaced your rewording and that there seems to be no more controversy. Great! Please respect that several of us have worked for months on this article and gone through several FACs and peer reviews to get to this point. I do not think it fair of you to criticize our process when we have followed all protocol before bringing this to FAC again. We could have used your help while we were still in peer review but are grateful for it now. NancyHeise ^talk 17:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I know that you are trying your best but the effect is still the same.

The problems are that in the history section some topics are treated with undue weight, e.g. slavery, Pius XII and the war, the Spanish Inquisition etc. There is also an inflation of "believed" - there must be better ways of neutral wording.

I have also spotted various small but significant errors of fact and judgement in the history section and will now go through them. I will report later on this. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems in the history section

I fixed the following errors in the history section, starting with the Middle Ages:

• Competition between Arians and Catholics did not begin after 476 (an artificial date anyway, nothing ended then but the life of Orestes and the short public career of his son Romulus) but was constant throughout the migration period.

The use of the term "migration period" may be correct in some circles, but very few people have an idea what it means. (The comments below labelled 92.41.7.104 are also by me. I got logged out while responding.) Xandar 10:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• it should be clear that iconoclasm was an Eastern issue
• the dispute was not resolved in 787
• the dispute directly led to the estrangement of Pope and Emperor. The Emperor tried to have the opposing Pope arrested (again) but his lieutenants were either unwilling or unable to achieve that. The Emperor "changed" ecclesiastical boundaries in Southern Italy in retaliation. The Emperor could no longer be trusted to protect Roman Catholics from the Lombards, so the Pope looked for different allies, finding the Franks who defeated the Lombards. The Papal States were created (but no clear date exists) and Charlemagne eventually crowned, but not in some plan to unite Europe (motives on all sides for the coronation is very much a matter of disagreement) and improve education (this was one of Charlemagne's policies and probably pleasing to the Pope as well but no coordianted policy and in no way relevant for a history of the CC).

Surely the educational programme was run by churchmen?

• Estrangement between Eastern and Western Churches occured not since the 8th but since the 9th century (as the Iconoclast party doesn't really count). Issues were the "changed" boundaries in Italy, Bulgaria (which switched between two sees back and forth) and Photius. If anyone was "the extreme" one in that dispute it was Ignatius, a diehard iconodule. Photius was more moderate. But that plays no actual role in the dispute with the Pope. The Emperor deposed Ignatius in favour of the scholar Photius (neither of the two was "elected") and both parties adressed the Pope, who sided with Ignatius. The Emperor sided with Photius of course, voila the schism. Political changes later led to the return of Ignatius and the end of the schism, and later still to the uncontroversial return of Photius.
• It is a common misconception that in 1054 two churches excommunicated each other. In fact, the Pope supposedly excommunicated the Patriarch, who answered likewise. (Supposedly, because the Pope was dead at the time and his document when delivered therfore null and void.) The whole even is overrated and was of no real importance around 1100 or throughout the 12th century. The sack of 1204 was much more important.

It was over Sicily that the final 1054 breach took place according to my source. That this was "of no real importance" is a matter of opinion. 92.41.7.104 (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I only changed things that could easily be changed. In the upper part the mentioning of "Celtic Churches" is also problematic. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Followed by the High Middle Ages:

• Reform efforts preceded the crusades chronologically and logically (a pre-reform papacy could not have called the Crusade). The Dicatus Papae was not a proclamation but an internal document and did not focus on the Investiture struggle. Lay investiture is not the (s)election of bishops but the rite of them being installed in their possessions. The struggle did not last 150 years but roughly 50. The Concordat of Worms did not simply decree "according to canon law" (canon law is a given anyway) but constituted a compromise with the Emperor.

All obscure minor points on a level of detail a bit high for a broad brush treatment like this. And whatever the technicalities, I'm sure the lay investiture qualrrel was not about a ceremony but what lay behind it - who was chosen and who they were loyal to. 92.41.7.104 (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Reconciliation was not a major goal of the crusads as there was no schism to reconcile.
• I think "without papal authorisation" is more accurate. One might add that the Pope had already excommunicated the crusaders for a similar exploit against Zara.
• Military orders did not originate with Bernard, who only influenced the Templars by writing their rule and advertising for them. The Kingdom of Prussia mostly denotes the whole of Hohenzollern rule which reached from Königsberg to the Rhineland, hence mentioning it here is not appropriate. And there is no reason to dance around the term "Prussia" - it was called that then.

The article doesn't say that Bernard founded the orders. Historic and geographic Prussia is the area on the Baltic lying between Stettin and Konigsberg (which both have modern Slavic names I can't spell). You are talking about territories acquired by the later Kingdom of that name in the 18th century. The Hohemzollerns are descended from the last Master of the Knights who "became" protestant and then ruled the area as his own civilian realm. 92.41.7.104 (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• What are the 8 orders mentioned? All influenced by Bernard? Hardly!

Bernard was very influential. The founding of 8 orders is not incredible. Many times that number have been founded in the last fifty years. 92.41.7.104 (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• The suppression of the Templars was no actual inquisition. Hence it is better placed either with the military orders or with the French dominance after 1300.

It is listed where it is as an example of state coercive power in religion forerunning the Spanish Inquisition. Fitting it in anywhere else would lose that connection and require a new topic in the section. It can't go in with the founding of the knights (wrong era). I'm also very loth to disrupt the Inquisition section after so much trouble went into stabilising it. 92.41.7.104 (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• The Mendicant orders (in itself a new thing, not new orders) are quite different from the military orders. The universities and scholasticism should also be moved here as these orders carried it.

Again that's an opinion about article sequencing. I'm not sure there would be any benefit. 92.41.7.104 (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• The move to Avignon was not due to Italian instability but due to French dominance after Boniface VIII (who was conspiculous by his absence) and the fortifications were not the reasons for the move. IT was close to France, who thus could easily control the Pope. The idea of French dominance was completely missing.

That used to be in the article, but must have got removed in one of the trims. 92.41.7.104 (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• The Cathars did not advocate suicide unless we specify this to be "suicide by self-starvation".

Same thing. 92.41.7.104 (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Catherine of Siena's role is overestimated.

That's an opinion. 92.41.7.104 (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• The schism goes to much into detail. Not the cardinals deposed the three claimants but the council deposed two popes (one who didn't show up) while the third (the Roman) resigned.

You're saying too much detail, but adding more! And were they Popes or were they claimants? 92.41.7.104 (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, the Spanish Inquisition is way overdone. This should restricted to one or two sentences as it is more Spanish than Church history. And BTW, why is it placed under High Middle Ages? Str1977 ^(talk) 21:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The Spanish Inquisition is one of those issues that is a bugbear. Prominent coverage is demanded by a lot of people who have huge misconceptions about what it was and what went on. It therefore needs significant coverage for us not to be accused of a "cover-up" and in order to provide the scholarly facts about it rather than the legend. On the other hand we don't want to give it undue weight simply because it is notorious. This is a difficult balance and the current structure has been negotiated with a lot of editors. Any change would also be a LOT of work and would probably have to be negotiated here virtually word by word. 92.41.7.104 (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh my, the "late MA and renaissance" section is so out of line that I can't continue this now. You are not seriously include all nine years of the Schmakaldic War? I already commented on the slave trade issue. It is probably more reasonable to state what should be in the section:

• (going on from the Council of Constance) the failed attempts at church reform
• the fall of constantinople (harking back to crusades), possibly side by side with the conquest of Granada and that possibly linked to Spanish Inquisition (one or two sentences)
• the renaissance and its cultural and religious impact
• the discoveries (Americas)
• the reformation
• the counterreformation/catholic reform

Major errors include the claim Luther's theses protested key Catholic doctrine (they were basically legitimate Catholic points of dispute and have no bearing whatsoever on Protestantism - Luther later was asked not to renounce 95 but 2 theses). The outlook on the French Religious Wars is simplistic (it sounds like "the Catholics and the Hugenots beat on each other but after the massacre the survivors - Caths and Hugs alike - gathered around Henry who became a tolerant Catholic") The thirty years war should topically be mentioned alongside of it.

Indulgences, {but not the abuse of them,} were and are Catholic doctrine. Luther railed against the doctrine itself, and therefore also against Purgatory and similar issues. He was also highly polemical in the theses and also stirred up violent anger against papal authority (another key doctrine) and the sending of German money to Rome. French civil war coverage has to be "simplistic" here. A policy of toleration actually began earlier, under Catherine de Medici, but it wasn't successful, merely allowing the establishment of rival war-camps. Again there is no room for all this here. We decided to feature reformation consequences by major country, rather than chronologically. Doing it another way would be confusing IMO. 92.41.7.104 (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection at all about the English paragraph (it is detailed but I take it that there is a certain focus due to this being the English WP) or about the Council of Trent paragraph, except in order: the baroque style should not precede the orders as it was not merely an expression of counterreformation but one of post-war joy as well. Only the last sentence about the Habsburgs is not appropriate IMHO.

And BTW, despite the title the section include late middle ages (however, part of these are in the preceding section), renaissance and parts the early modern period. Reformation does not belong to Renaissance. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The periodization has been very problematic here. Historical movements did not fit into neat little packages. The Reformation period was particularly hard to title. We did not want to call the section "Reformation and Counter reformation" because the section covered much more. The "Tudor-Stewart Period" could have suited but was too England-specific. "The Sixteenth-17th Century" was too tightly-drawn. The "Early Modern period" was too confusing. 92.41.7.104 (talk) 10:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Str,, you are contradicting yourself. First you condemn hurried changes made in response to FAC criticisms. Then you start to propose a wholesale re-write of the History section! Now is NOT the time for such an endeavour. I have had to copy-edit your changes to the Iconoclasm section, since the prose was very rough. Most of the other points you make are very minor or matters of opinion. We do not need big changes to the article while it is at FAC. The sections on the Crusades, Inquisitions etc. have been made what they are by a very long and difficult process of negotiation, consensus and compromise. Wholesale change would open a vast can of worms which we do not need atm. In any event, please do not make such wholesale changes without discussion and consensus here first. Xandar 23:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not criticize the "hurried changes" but the way the changes are made in response to FAC, bit by bit, not caring about the article as a whole.

If "now" is not the time, then when would be the time? After the FAC is concluded? Well, if it succeeds others will surely tell me that an FA has special protected status and may not be changed without discussing matters for weeks on talk.

If you think my points very minor, so be it. I don't consider it minor when false information is included. And actually, I don't care about negotiations when the result is wrong or unduly weighed. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Str, I have watched your changes to the text and they seem to be fine so far but I am not in complete agreement with some of those you list above. I would like to work together with you but I think we need to have a better tone and working relationship here. We all need to respect each other a little more. Str, I feel as if you just showed up out of nowhere unaware of the collaboration that has gone into the article and disrespectful of our ability to present the facts as stated in our sources. I am appreciative of your help but please, lets be a little more respectful, thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 23:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, I respect you and your effort but my focus is on the quality of the article and not on procedure of how it is improved. I don't cheer for disimproving the article just because someone at FAC suggested something. I did not show up out of nowhere though I have been little involved in this article. But you may remember me from Christianity. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

But diving in and changing a LOT of minor points isn't going to help quality of the article at this point. We can discuss the points above, but don't go altering the article solo on what in total would produce a major disruption to the text. As with all such lists there is some good and some bad there, and a lot which is unnecessary to alter IMO. I will comment on some of the points. 92.41.7.104 (talk) 09:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Switch from Saturday to Sunday worship

I was quite curious about this, but the article is very vague. Do we know no more than this? Was it never "officially" ratified in some way? I had thought Paul was instrumental in this, but then I'm horribly ignorant. --Dweller (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There never was a switch from Saturday to Sunday worship. The first Christians as Jews of course kept the Sabbath as a free day but already the New Testaments speaks of them assembling on the first day of the week (i.e. Sunday), probably in the night from Saturday to Sunday (days beginning at sundown) or on early Sunday morning. Gentile Christians did that as well but without keeping the Sabbath which was never demanded from them. In the 4th century Constantine made Sunday, the first day of the week, a weekly free day for markets, craftsmen and public authorities. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

? That's not what the article says. --Dweller (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats because its got less to do with the Roman Catholic Church and more to do with Christians in general. Gabr-el 21:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I now see. The article indeed says something like that which however misrepresents things a bit. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The material in the rticle is referenced to specialist sources. Constantine's creation of a public holiday on Sunday has little relevance to the actual change to Sunday worship which came very much earlier. Xandar 23:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

This reference which supports our article text explains the matter well [26] and I think any changes to the article text would border on undue for this issue. We already have a whole sentence. The issue of worship on Sunday per this source is that it began in Apostolic times because it was respected as the day of his Resurrection. Sunday worship is part of the Apostolic tradition respected by the Catholic Church as part of equation that makes up the deposit of faith. NancyHeise ^talk 23:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The link is no reference.

My posting above was not suggesting a change to the article but explaining mattes to someone who asked. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - was the day of worship ever "officially" (doctrinally?) noted as being Sunday, and if so, when? It would have been quite a big shift for converts from Judaism, so I'm surprised it seems to have happened so organically, without a push. I gather it happens at some point after Jesus' death, so he would have observed Saturday as the day of rest too, making the switch all the more puzzling. --Dweller (talk) 10:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Simple answer: I don't think we know. If an early synod was held on the issue by the persecuted church it is now lost. We just know that Sunday was established very early. Many historians assume that 70 AD and the destruction of the temple was a big breaking point between Christians and non-Christian Jews. The anti-Christian anathemas of the Jewish pharisees at Jamnia around the year 100 also made a full breach inevitable. We just do not have more than a fraction of writings produced before 300 AD when Diocletian ordered the destruction of Churches and the burning of all Christian writings across the Roman Empire. Xandar 10:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Great answer. If any of that has sources, it'd be good to add it to the article. Perhaps because of SIZE concerns, it could just note that the details of when the change took place are lost to history? --Dweller (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The changes took place during the lifetime of the first Apostles. The New Testament records them meeting "on the Lord's day" which historians have verified as Sunday. There are some things about our religion that come from the traditions of the Apostles, Sunday worship is one of those. Our article text I thought made this clear but perhaps we need to reword? NancyHeise ^talk 16:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think it needs to be mentioned at all. The development of the divergence of Christian practices from Jewish ones is a huge and complicated area we shouldn't get into at all. This is a relatively minor aspect. Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, I think a more in depth coverage would be better on another article like Roman Catholic Theology or Christianity.NancyHeise ^talk 21:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The general subject is covered in Jewish Christians (with Circumcision controversy in early Christianity on one aspect), Sabbath in Christianity, Antinomianism and History of Christianity, though I don't think any of these cover the Saturday/Sunday issue very fully, unless I've missed one - but certainly they can give it a fuller treatment than we can here. Johnbod (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Serious defects in the note

Recent talk page consensus documents rejection of points 2,3, and 4 listed below. See[27]—Preceding unsigned comment added by NancyHeise (talk • contribs)

The voting in favour of the note did not mean that, for instance, the note's affirmation that in "common usage" the Church is called the Catholic Church (a statement that I am not saying is false) is in reality backed up by a source that actually denies this (something that is not only false but ridiculous).

1. Weasel-type use of "the Church" in the phrase "The Greek word 'catholic' ... was first used to describe the Church ..." In this article "the Church" is used, I think always, to mean the Roman Catholic Church. When the Eastern bishop Ignatius wrote of "the catholic Church", he did not mean to exclude what is now the Eastern Orthodox Church: he was not using the word "catholic" to describe specifically the Roman Catholic Church, as the note can be understood to say.

This defect seems to have been remedied (cf. #Ignatius and "catholic church". Soidi (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

2. The note cites Walsh as a source for its statement that "in common usage" the word "catholic" refers to the body also known as the Roman Catholic Church. Walsh actually contradicts the statement that is thus attributed to him: he says that "in common usage ... the matter is not quite so straightforward" (page 18).

3. The note gives no source for its claim that "the prefix 'Roman' was rejected". Even if it did back this up with a source, NPOV rules require mention of the fact that reliable sources state the opposite: "The name 'Roman' has been adopted by the Church herself" (H.J. Hughes in American Ecclesiastical Review, September 1902); "It (namely "the catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him") is called the "holy catholic apostolic Roman Church" (Lumen gentium, 8, footnote 13, which in turn cites the Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent, and the dogmatic constitution de fide catholica of the First Vatican Council – thus, three reliable sources, rather than just one).

4. Even if shorn of this obviously false claim, the expression "The Church herself, in her most authoritative and self-defining documents such as those of Vatican I and Vatican II uses the name 'Catholic Church'" suggests that the Church (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church) uses no other name but "Catholic Church" in her most authoritative and self-defining documents. The sources given under number 3 indicate that, while she does use "Catholic Church", she also uses other names even in those documents. For NPOV balance, not to speak of encyclopedic objectivity, this fact needs to be mentioned.

Why not admit that there is more than one view on this question, and that the article should not claim that there is only one? Soidi (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

1. There is no "Weasel-type use" at all. When Ignatius wrote there was no distinction between Eastern and Western Church and bot Churches consider themselves the continuation of this one church and more or less are that continuation. Hence it nonsensical to disclaim Ignatius for the (R)CC. Furthermore, the passage does not engage in weasel words as it merely points out the first occurence of the word "CC" - that this must refer to the (R)CC is you inference and WP is not here to accomodate problematic inferences by you. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you agree that "both Churches consider themselves the continuation of this one church and more or less are that continuation" and hence it would be nonsensical to disclaim Ignatius for either church, may we change to the NPOV expression: "The Greek word 'catholic' means 'universal' and was first used to describe the then undivided Church by Ignatius ..."? Soidi (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

2. Re your criticism of Walsh. It is you who is abusing the source as Walsh is clearly saying that the term Catholic (without any other epithet) is in practice used to refer to the (R)CC. That Walsh disagrees with this usage doesn't change that. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"CC" is in practice used to refer to (R)CC. I suppose nobody denies that. But Walsh does not say that it is so used "in common usage". He cannot be quoted as supporting this last statement, which is what the note says. Not only does Walsh not make the statement: he contradicts it! A different source must be sought for the statement. Soidi (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

3. How you can use LG which doesn't use the term "Roman Catholic Church" (take a close look at your citation) is beyond me. You clearly seem an a POV-driven bent to insert the word "Roman" which makes you blind for what you are actually quoting. "Roman Catholic Church" does not appear in any of the documents you name. Your citation has "Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church", which I did not find in LG. It does appear in "Dei Filius" (Vatican I) twice as "Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church". However, the first occurence continues with "the mother and mistress of all the Churches" which makes it clear that at least here it refers to the local church of Rome of which the Pope is bishop. Whether it does that in the second occurence ("The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection.") is unclear - as it makes no difference to the content of the document - and hence cannot serve as a basis for Soidi. There are also occurences of "Roman Church" and "Holy Roman Church" and these again refer to the local Roman church. I did not find the phrase in the Trent documents I searched either. In any case, citations do not make independent sources. IF Trent used the term and another council cited Trent, the only source would still be Trent. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that "Roman Catholic Church" appears in LG. Read again what I said. I said that "Roman" appears in LG, which moreover declares that the Church governed by Peter's successor and by the bishops in communion with him is called "Roman" in a First Vatican Council document and in the Profession of Faith of Trent. I presume you will accept LG as a source at least as reliable and citable-in-Wikipedia as Walsh or Whitehead and that what it says of Vatican I and Trent can therefore be put in Wikipedia unless an opposing source of greater weight can be cited. Your opinion is not a source of greater weight. Soidi (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

4."Even if shorn of this obviously false claim, the expression "The Church herself, in her most authoritative and self-defining documents such as those of Vatican I and Vatican II uses the name 'Catholic Church'" suggests that the Church (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church) uses no other name but "Catholic Church" in her most authoritative and self-defining documents." - these documents are in given in whose name? Str1977 ^(talk) 08:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, one of them is LG, which does call the Church, the whole Church ("governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him"), Roman. Soidi (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

4. "The sources given under number 3 indicate that, while she does use "Catholic Church", she also uses other names even in those documents." - Yes. How about noting "Body of Christ", "City of God" etc. etc.? Str1977 ^(talk) 08:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

So we both agree that the Church uses many other names, appart from CC and RCC? Soidi (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

4. And please don't talk about "encyclopedic objectivity" as this has been a lie since the first encyclopedia. WP's NPOV policy has exactly been developed to avoid the hipocrisy of such a supposed objectivity. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Str1977 ipse dixit. Soidi (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. I now have found "Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church" in the profession of Faith of the Council of Trent, in which it clearly refers to the local church of the Pope as the centre of the church.

"I acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church as the mother and mistress of all churches; and I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ."

It also has "I, .. , with a firm faith believe and profess each and everything which is contained in the Creed which the Holy Roman Church makes use of."

Again, using the local Roman church and its usage as a rule for all others. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

To quote Nancy, That is Original Research, so find a reliable source that says that and cite it. Soidi (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC) I forgot to comment that it is the opening "the Holy Roman Church" in the Profession of Faith that LG considers to refer to the Church that is governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him; by putting "catholic apostolic" in brackets, LG indicated that only one of the two sources had the full phrase, the other source (the Profession of Faith) had only the first and the last adjectives. In any case, the essential point remains that your opinion (which is contrary to that of LG) is not citable in Wikipedia as proof that this is a reference to the local Church in Rome alone. Soidi (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

And BTW, though the Irish constitution or any other secular document has no bearing whatsoever on the matter, the phrase used in there again was a quotation of Trent's profession of faith [28]. It was a misquote because it failed to realise that the profession here did not refer to the entire church but to the local Roman church. The culprit are the then-Archbishop and President deValera. But this is merely an aside. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou Str1977 for further rebuttal of Soidi's misguided arguyments that Roman Catholic Church is the church's proper name. This adds further strength to opposition against the proposede bowdlerising of the article opening sentence to satisfy Soidi and others. Xandar 09:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Soidi does not have any support for his position which has been soundly rejected by consensus per here [29] and [30]. NancyHeise ^talk 14:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Does the consensus of Str, Xandar and Nancy, or any number of editors, suffice to justify making a Wikipedia article suggest that Ignatius thought only the Western Church was catholic; attributing to a particular writer, as its only source, an idea that he explicitly rejected; preserving a questioned unsourced statement that the Church governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him is not called Roman (against what reliable sources say); and suggesting, against the evidence of the documents themselves, that the only name that this Church applies to itself in important documents is CC? Soidi (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Your strawman beating arguments are just as much bogus as your citations above. No one here claimed that Ignatius only thought of the Western Church (nobody here talks about a Western Church) - it is you inferred that the reference implied RCC and nobody else. It is you who wants to disclaim a relationship between Ignatius and the Catholic Church. Your claim that Walsh was used wrongly is also bogus, as he says that Catholic is used to refer to the so-called RCC (his disagreement notwithstanding). You RS are all dreamed up by you. And nobody talks about "only name" - this has been your obsession all along and quite frankly I am sick and tired of your ever changing, even relentless POV crusade to rid the Catholic Church of its actual name. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think point 1 has been fixed. Now on to point 2. Soidi (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, your arguments have been discussed over and over and over again with no one agreeing with you. This [31] documents our most recent consensus against your position which was acheived only a few days ago. I am replacing the Walsh source that you deleted against this documented consensus. Please, unless you gain consensus, do not remove information that documented consensus on this talk page has agreed upon. NancyHeise ^talk 02:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed strange that any intelligent person can think it important to keep as "proof" of a statement in the article the citation of a source that disagrees with the statement! I can only suppose that the editor who has this attitude has not bothered to look at the substance. Look at it, and you will see that the statement is: "In common usage ('catholic') refers to the body also known as Roman Catholic Church". And you will see that the cited book says: "'Catholic' is regularly also (i.e. in addition to its use in the sense in which "all Christians can express belief in the Catholic Church") used in opposition to 'Protestant', and it is used also in opposition to the term 'Orthodox' ... In common usage, however, the matter is not quite so straightforward. ..." Think it over for a bit. Do you really believe that the book supports the statement? Then perhaps undo your restoring of this ridiculous self-contradiction. Soidi (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

A lot of editors have looked at the source and decided by consensus vote here [32] that all of these refs support the article text, including the one you disagree with. NancyHeise ^talk 19:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I fear that a lot of editors voted without bothering to look at the text. Have you yourself read page 18 of Walsh's book, from which the above quotations come? Please click on this link and read the lower half of the page. Soidi (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and on the following page of the same book here [33] he admits that the name Catholic in common usage refers to Roman Catholics even though he states his personal disagreement with its appropriateness. We kept this reference because it shows agreement between people of various POV's that Catholic in common usage means Roman Catholics. Kenneth Whitehead also confirms this. Thus we have two opposing POV's in agreement on this topic which means that there is no dispute over the issue.NancyHeise ^talk 03:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Marskell/Ealdgyth Changes

Some of the stuff being added in consultation with the above FAC editors may need discussion here, especially if it is of dubious accuracy or balance. I don't think printing or paper came to Europe from China (Paper is an Egyptian word), however these are less relevant points. Did the Galileo affair really set back science in some countries? There was no shortage of productive scientists in Catholic countries like Italy and France at any period. I hope an anti-catholic bias is not slipping in here. We need to be sure claims are correct. Xandar 22:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence about paper and printing, which was nothing specifically to do with the church (for once in the Middle Ages). Johnbod (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I know this isn't your primary concern, but paper as we think of it now (vs papyrus/parchment) was created by the Chinese. It's one of the Four Great Inventions of ancient China. I would be very surprised as well, if the Galileo affair did not set back some areas of scientific research, especially astronomy. Karanacs (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

And here is a source that mentions at least a serious effect on science in Italy as a result of the Galileo trial:

from Ronald A. Schorn, Planetary Astronomy: From Ancient Times to the Third Millenium, published 1998 by Texas A&M University Press p 22 "Galileo's treatment had a serious effect in Catholic countries, but it seems that only in Italy was research on the new system of the world seriously affected. " Karanacs (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I am placing the exact quote from the source used for Cultural Influence paragraph on science. From page 593 of the university textbook entitled Western Civilization, The Continuing Experiment authored by professors of history Thomas Noble of Univ of Notre Dame, Barry Strauss of Cornell Univ. Duane Osheim of Univ of Virginia, William Cohen of Indiana Univ., David Roberts of Univ of Georgia and Rachel Fuchs of Arizona State Univ.

"Scientists and scientific thought also remained closely tied to religion in both practical and institutional ways during the seventeenth century. Both religion and the Catholic Church as an institution were involved with scientific advancement from the time of Copernicus. Copernicus himself was a cleric, as were many philosophers and scientists after him. This is not surprising, for most research in the sciences to this point had occurred within universities sponsored and staffed by members of religious orders, who had the education, time, and resources necessary for scientific investigation. Some of Descartes's closest collaborators were clerics, as were certain of Galileo's aristocratic patrons and his own proteges. Moreover, religious and metaphysical concerns were central to the work of virtually every scientist. The entire Cartesian edifice of reasoning about the world, for example, was grounded in Descartes's certainty about God. Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, and others perceived God's purpose in the mathematical regularity of nature. The notion that religion was the opponent of science in this era is a result of Galileo's trial, and represents a distortion even of that event. It is true that the new astronomy and mechanics challenged traditional interpretations of Scripture, as well as the fundamentals of physics and metaphysics that were taught in universities. Thus, in its sponsorship of universities, the church was literally invested in the old views, even though individual clerics investigated and taught Copernican ideas. ....(goes into detail about trial of Galileo and its mainly political causes)...The condemnation of Gallileo shocked many clerics, including the three who had voted for leniency at his trial. Clerics who were also scientists continued to study and teach the new science where and when they could. Copernicanism was taught by Catholic missionaries abroad. To be sure, Gallileo's trial did have a chilling effect on scientific investigation in most Catholic regions of Europe. "

Also, Karanacs is right on the paper issue, it did come from China, that issue came from the same source as above. I dont think it needs to absolutely be in the cultural influence section, it does seem off topic but I think Marskell was striving for trying to make the paragraph not sound like the Church did all the cultural exchanging. I am neutral on its inclusion. NancyHeise ^talk 01:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Both woodblock printing (initially on fabric) and paper reached Europe via the Arab world, most likely Spain (see Missal of Silos), so I'm not really sure what the point is supposed to be. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Gutenberg (who was the prime mover in this respect) got his ideas from the Chinese or even had much contact with China. Xandar 16:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

We dont need to include mention of paper, I reworded a sentence to meet what the FAC reviewer who had asked for it was trying to do. He wanted to somehow show that cultural exchange was not a one way street addressing POV concerns. NancyHeise ^talk 00:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I must say even this seems to show a PC bias to me. It was precisely at this period that cultural influences became a one-way street. Despite their best efforts, the Jesuits were unable to find anything new in Chinese science to interest or affect the development of Western science. Let alone in Africa or the Americas. I am becoming concerned over the way the history sections from the High Middle Ages on are increasingly reflecting the concerns of a particular modern view of political history rather than church history. It is more and more about those aspects of the Church's effects on the world that excite a particular liberal world view, with very little indeed on the historical development of the Church itself, or the issues that were regarded as important by contemporaries, or are by historians of the church. I took out what had become a stranded, and very misleadingly phrased, sentence on the fall of the Byzantine Empire, but this does need to be mentioned. A possible draft: (From start of section):

As the Ottoman Empire encircled Constantinople, a brief official union betweeen the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy was achieved by the Council of Florence (1431-1445), but this was never accepted by the mass of Orthodox believers and collapsed with the Fall of Constantinople in 1453. It was in this context that Pope Nicholas V granted Portugal the right to subdue and even enslave Muslims, pagans and other unbelievers in the papal bull Dum Diversas (1452).[289]....

There should be no difficulty referencing this. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I like it. I am going to check my refs and put it into the article the way you have it reworded here. Great job, much better than before. Thanks Johnbod. NancyHeise ^talk 18:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

papal "guilt"

The quote alleging that the Pope apologised for helping cause the holocaust is simply NOT TRUE - as discussed previously. It is also unnecessary, since there is a long enough sentence devoted to papal apologies already there. Xandar 16:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Xandar, our best source, Bokenkotter's A Concise History of the Catholic Church page 484 says this:

"He(Pope John Paul II) has been especially insistent on acknowledging the Church's being guilty of anti-Semitism and notes often that the Second Vatican Council condemned anti-Semitism and called for brotherly dialogue between Catholics and Jews on biblical and theological issues. The papal letter "We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah," urged Catholics to repent for what they did to help cause the Holocaust and to become more aware of their own faith's Hebrew roots. The pope has continued to make extraordinary efforts toward reconciliation with the Jewish community. ... "

NancyHeise ^talk 19:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The section of history that this quote references (WWII and Pius XII) contains other information referenced to this same book, (the most oft used university textbook on the history of the Church). That other information was considered by another editor to be too favorable to the Church. You are saying this is too unfavorable to the Church. I think that the whole paragraph is very NPOV because it does not hide facts - it just puts them side by side in the same paragraph. NancyHeise ^talk 19:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally think "urged Catholics to repent for what they did to help cause the Holocaust" without the context of the letter or the rest of the section in the book is inserting POV. If you go into detail, it says the reasons Catholics need to repent is due to a collective guilt. Without it being in context it makes it sound like all Catholics are guilty for causing the Holocaust. Marauder40 (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, good point - I completely agree. I already saw your changes to the sentences and I think they are fine. NancyHeise ^talk 19:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

See Also section

Someone just added this see also section recently. I am wondering if this is necessary since we have all those links at the top of the page under the picture of St. Peter's Basilica and also at the very bottom of the page. There has to be a hundred links between those two. Isn't a See Also section going overboard? Thoughts? NancyHeise ^talk 00:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes - and neither link is likely to be very helpful really. The categories do this much better. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed it already. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 02:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)