Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:11, 14 June 2009

Mediation Outcome

Overview

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

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

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

Relevant policy and guidelines on naming

The policy on naming conventions states: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity..." .

The following convention applies: "Except where other accepted Misplaced Pages naming conventions give a different indication, title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article..."

The section of the policy on Controversial names specifically refers to Roman Catholic Church vs. Catholic Church and refers one to the guideline on naming conflicts. The guideline states: "Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles."

The guideline sets the following standards for making a choice among controversial names:

• "If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and one or more English-language equivalents exists, use the most common English-language name."

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

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

Findings

• Google searches show that "Catholic Church" is the most common of the two names used on the Vatican website.
• The name "Catholic Church", rather than "Roman Catholic Church", is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents. It appears in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is also the term that Pope Paul VI used when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council (see "Explanatory note").
• "Roman Catholic Church" is used primarily for communications with other churches.

Action plan

1. Change lead sentence

The lead sentence will be modified to read as follows:

"The Catholic Church also known as the Roman Catholic Church...

2. Add new explanatory note

The note will be modified to the following:

"There is some ambiguity about the title "Catholic Church", since the Church is not the only institution to claim catholicity. The Church is referred to and refers to itself in various ways, in part depending upon circumstance. The Greek word καθολικός (katholikos), from which we get "Catholic", means "universal". It was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early second century. After the East-West Schism, the Western Church took the name "Catholic", while the Eastern Church took the name "Orthodox". Following the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the church in communion with the Bishop of Rome used the name "Catholic" to distinguish itself from the various Protestant churches.

The name "Catholic Church", rather than "Roman Catholic Church", is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents. It appears in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is also the term that Pope Paul VI used when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council. Especially in English-speaking countries, the Church is regularly referred to as the "Roman" Catholic Church; occasionally, it refers to itself in the same way. At times, this can help distinguish the Church from other churches that also claim catholicity. Hence this has been the title used in some documents involving ecumenical relations. However, the name "Roman Catholic Church" is disliked by many Catholics as a label applied to them by Protestants to suggest that theirs is only one of several catholic Churches, and to imply that Catholic allegiance to the Pope renders them in some way untrustworthy. Within the Church, the name "Roman Church," in the strictest sense, refers to the Diocese of Rome."

1. "Concise Oxford English Dictionary" (online version). Oxford University Press. 2005. Retrieved 10 April 2009.
2. Marthaler, Berard (1993). "The Creed". Twenty-Third Publications. Retrieved 9 May 2008. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dateformat= ignored (help) p. 303
3. ^ McBrien, Richard (2008). The Church. Harper Collins. p. xvii. Online version available here. Quote: The use of the adjective "Catholic" as a modifier of "Church" became divisive only after the East-West Schism ... and the Protestant Reformation ... In the former case, the West claimed for itself the title Catholic Church, while the East appropriated the name Holy Orthodox Church. In the latter case, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome retained the adjective "Catholic", while the churches that broke with the Papacy were called Protestant.
4. Libreria Editrice Vaticana (2003). "Catechism of the Catholic Church." Retrieved on: 2009-05-01.
5. The Vatican. Documents of the II Vatican Council. Retrieved on: 2009-05-04. Note: The Pope's signature appears in the Latin version.
6. Declaration on Christian Formation, published by National Catholic Welfare Conference, Washington DC 1965, page 13
7. Whitehead, Kenneth (1996). ""How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?" Eternal Word Television Network. Retrieved on 9 May 2008.
8. Example: 1977 Agreement with Archbishop Donald Coggan of Canterbury
9. Walsh, Michael (2005). Roman Catholicism. Routledge. p. 19. Online version available here
10. Beal, John (2002). "New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law". Paulist Press. Retrieved 13 May 2008. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dateformat= ignored (help) p. 468
11. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: "There is a further aspect of the term Roman Catholic that needs consideration. The Roman Church can be used to refer, not to the Church universal insofar as it possesses a primate who is bishop of Rome, but to the local Church of Rome, which has the privilege of its bishop being also the primate of the whole Church."

3. Rename the article

In light of the fact that "Catholic Church" is not only the most common name, but the name most commonly used by the Church to describe itself, it is the consensus of participants to rename the article "Catholic Church."

Consultation process

This summary and action plan are posted to the article talk page for community consultation. Shell Kinney and I will be facilitating the discussion, which will close at 12:00 noon, UTC, on June 26, 2009. The participants in the mediation welcome discussion regarding the action plan. Sunray (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This plan and its discussion has been moved to a subpage to avoid disrupting other on-going discussions. As issues are discussed and resolved, they will be archived or collapsed. Shell 17:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Question about the note

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

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

POV in the new note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can Misplaced Pages endorse one Church as uniquely vailid over others?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systematic Argument for the proposal

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

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