Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

FAC

All comments have been addressed both in the peer review and on this talk page. I think the page is ready for FAC and I would like to submit now. Are there any objections to this before I go ahead? NancyHeise ^talk 15:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

IMO there is work still required to clarify which beliefs are Christian and which exclusively Catholic. In the absence of this distinction, a reader who is unfamiliar with the Christian religion might form the impression that all Christians subscribe to dogma which are uniquely Catholic. I came across an example in the section "Jesus, sin and penance", i.e. the distinction between 'venial' and 'mortal' sins. N.B. It may be difficult for editors brought up in the Catholic tradition to identify such distinctions. --TraceyR (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is completely impossible to make these distinctions in an article of this length, and to attempt to do so partially, except in odd places, just adds to the confusion. There are very few beliefs that are actually "exclusively Catholic". I imagine "the distinction between 'venial' and 'mortal' sins" is shared at least by Old Catholics, many Anglo-Catholics, and doubtless others - I don't know the Orthodox position. Similar positions exist with regard to almost everything except Papal Infallibility. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod, the article is not Christianity, but specifically about one church and the Beleifs section is refereced and worded to specific Roman Catholic sources. It is incorrect to change wording when all of this was already agreed in the very recent article trim and peer review. TraceyR, I respect your opinions but you were already overruled on this issue recently on this talk page - we have to respect consensus. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 15:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that "consensus" in this case is not necessarily neutral. I would like to remind you of a recent comment on this talk page under the headline "NPOV":

"I recovered a Critical Section for the External Links portion. Kindly read Wikipedia:NPOV#Balance, I think no one would like to see wikipedia become an official RC sites. We already have New Advent. 210.0.212.58 (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)"

Please note that whoever wrote that was speaking as a Catholic who found the article at least in danger of breaching WP:NPOV. This should not be swept under the carpet; it is important that the article be clear on matters where major differences exist. As for the Anglo-Catholics and Old Catholic, they are small factions which by and large toe the official Catholic line; but by all means mention them if you see fit. --TraceyR (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"by and large toe the official Catholic line" is a very strange way of putting it, & hardly accurate. Oh, and the Orthodox? It is just not possible to divide Christian doctrines into "Catholic" and "other Christian" beliefs, the situation is far too complicated. The articles on the individual subjects do this, and that is where people must go for that analysis. Johnbod (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the "strange way of putting it" is really the strange position of the Anglo-Catholics within the Anglican communion - "neither fully one thing nor the other" would perhaps be a (strange?) way of describing it. Perhaps the same could be said of the 'Old Catholics' - I know next to nothing about this group.

But my point was the danger, observed by a fellow Catholic, of wikipedia (maybe just this article was meant?) "becoming an official RC site". The purpose of wikipedia, as I understand it, is to provide accurate, encyclopedic information written from a neutral point of view and backed up by reliable 3rd party published sources. For the article to be accurate, it is imperative to point out where core RC beliefs, dogma etc differ from those held by the rest of Christendom - papal infallibilty and authority being two areas which automatically spring to mind, but there are no doubt others. It is not an immense amount of work to go through the article and check whether a statement would be more accurate with e.g. "the Church believes" or "Christians in general believe". I expect that this is the sort of thing which will be checked during the FAC approval process. --TraceyR (talk) 07:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's practical to separate things ou to that extent. Different Christian groups agree on much yes, but they call the same concepts by different names, and equally, not mean the smae thing when they use a different term. Look at how long it's taken ARCIC to try and work out common ground between RC and Anglican positions. I don't think that it's unreasonable to use this article to set out the RC position and say that it is such. Make it clear, by all means, that much dogma is common, to a greater or lesser extent, and probably the only really unique one, as others have said, is papal infallibility (that was the final straw for the Old Catholics as I understand it). There's enough to cram in with out going into fine theological detail. David Underdown (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely "unreasonable to use this article to set out the RC position"; WP is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox (however carefully phrased). An interested reader should be able to come here and find a succinct description of the RC church in the context of Christendom as a whole. As an example: "Theologically, Roman Catholicism differs from other Christian churches with regard to its understanding of the sources of revelation and the channels of grace. Since the time of the Reformation, Protestants have held that Scripture alone can be the basis of Christian belief and the normative guide both for Christian behaviour and church polity. Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, believes that although scripture holds a special place of authority in the realm of revelation, tradition is revelatory as well and must be recognized as one of the sources of the deposit of faith". This is from the Encyclopedia Britannica 15th ed. 1986, which shows a completely different, and IMO a more 'encyclopedic', approach. The issue of article size is being discussed elsewhere on this page, so I'll not mention that here, other than to venture an opinion that less would be more in this case. --TraceyR (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

When this issue was raised in the last FAC, it was pointed out that other FAs on faiths: Bahá'í Faith, Islam, Sikhism, do not go into all the differences between them and other related faiths. Some of these points were at least mentioned until the latest trimmings. But I reiterate that the division of Christian beliefs into "Catholic" and "other" is not a simple matter and cannot be done briefly. The EB quote above, for example, magnificently ignores Orthodoxy, which actually tends to give Christian tradition considerably more emphasis than the RCC, and if it intends to include all Protestant churches, is incorrect (or using the word in an unusually restricted sense). "Other Christian churches" is pure WP:WEASEL, as your "Christians in general believe" will also be in the sort of contrasting-with-RCC contexts where you want it placed. Johnbod (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The comparison with articles on other faiths is not relevant here, since the discussion is about different denominations within one faith. Perhaps you could elaborate on the 'Weasel' nature of the statement "other Christian churches"; for me it means just what is says: other churches within Christendom. My suggestion is to let the reader know whether a particular dogma or belief is common across Christian churches in general, e.g. the Virgin Birth, the sacrificial nature of the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, etc., or exclusively Catholic (the subject of this article), e.g. the authority of the papacy, perhaps the ability of priests to give Absolution (which AFAIK is not claimed within the Protestant churches), etc. By all means submit the article to FA scrutiny; I'm just responding to the request for comments about what needs to be changed to get it ready for that process. --TraceyR (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

For the third time, this division can't easily be made, except for Papal Infallibility. Absolution is an excellent example - you clearly haven't read the article, which spends several thousand words explaining the meanings of the term in the different churches. The Catholic position is shared by the Orthodox and at least some Anglicans. Johnbod (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Are we looking at different articles? Absolution is mentioned twice only in this article; it is not even linked to the article Absolution (which would be worth doing). Perhaps it is time for editors to review the current state of the article before submission. --TraceyR (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Not this article, Absolution. This is heavy going, Tracey. That's how it woreks - this article just mentions it twice, the main article goes into the details. I agree the link should be added, and also think it might be good to say that Infallibility is the main doctrinal issue that separates the RCC from everyone else. But then you have exhausted what can be said quickly & accurately about RCC/other divisions, unless we bring back the old bit on sola scriptura, which I think was taken out for consistency over not covering these issues. Johnbod (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) the article is not setting out to say that the RC position is the "correct" one - that would be POV, but it is perfectly neutral to layout as clearly and accurately as possible what the church's own view of its own doctrine is, and to label it as such. If we start trying to decide what is "Christian" and what is RC, then they we really are getting into POV territory - and it's something that even many of the churches can't really agree on - "Christian" according to which groups - some more extreme Protestant groups still deny that RC is Christian, where do we drawthe line on what is "Christian", does it include the Church of the Latter Day Saints (for example). Perhaps we can say something like "many of these beliefs are shared with other Christian communities", but as we've tried to point out, even if something is called the same, the deep theological understnading of it within a particualr group maybe rather different. David Underdown (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oldest institution

I've changed the statement that it's the world's oldest institution to say one of the oldest. The previous statement would be disputed, not only by Eastern & Oriental Orthodox & Church of the East, who'd @ best recognize it as part of the historic Church, but also by Jains & Buddhists, whose monastic orders are centuries older. Peter jackson (talk) 10:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese monarchy often gets mentioned (see above), and the Egyptian tax service has arguably far better claims than any of these - successive waves of invaders were unable to understand their quadruple-entry book-keeping system & recalled the old staff after a few weeks; it is still largely run by Copts 1400 years after the Muslim conquest. The third oldest profession I suppose :). This is one of the phrasings contested recurrently & I think it's best to let it go. Johnbod (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I reverted Peter Jackson's edit because the sentence is referenced to two different historical scholarly sources. There are no scholarly sources that suggeset that the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Church are the world's oldest institutions, I checked. Neither are there any making that claim for any of the others listed. I encourage you to try to find a source to support anything other than what we have in our article text. NancyHeise ^talk 13:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Bechert & Gombrich, World of Buddhism, Thames & Hudson, 1984, page 7: "... the Sangha, the Order of Buddhist monks and nuns. The Sangha is not the oldest institution of its kind, for the monastic order of the Jains ... is surely far older."

Are you going to insist on an ultra-literal approach that only recognizes explicit claims that something else is the oldest? Even when the above plainly calls the Sangha an institution & other sources (or the same source on another page) say it's centuries BC? Are you going to call that OR?

The common sense view is that a statement cannot stand as fact if its truth is even brought into question by another source.

I didn't say the EOC &c would claim to be the oldest. I said they'd deny the RCC is. Peter jackson (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"The monastic practice or the Sangha in Buddhism is the oldest religious institution in the world." —Buddhist Monasticism in Theory and Practice, page 52. There are dozens of claims to the "oldest institution in the world" (mainly depending on how you define "institution"). I can give cited references for all of the following as well: caste, family, marriage, political government, Cairo University, the sabbath. Kaldari (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

We are clearly talking about "institution" in the sense of "organization", which none of those are except Cairo University, who were founded in 1908. No doubt you meant the religious Al-Azhar University, whose claim seems clearly nonsense, however cited - perhaps it is "educational institution" although some Chinese schools claim much earlier foundations (and see University of Al-Karaouine). Anyway, the whole area is a can of worms, & best left alone. Johnbod (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If we limit the meaning of institution to organizations, the monastic order of the Sangha still beats the Catholic church. We can state that the Catholic church is the oldest institution in the Western world without much controversy, however, as many sources do. I have updated the sentence in question to say "Western world". I have also added a note, complete with references, to explain the competing claims of "oldest institution in the world". I hope that this will eliminate the controversy. Kaldari (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it eliminates the problem, unless Western is understood narrowly so as to exclude Eastern Europe. Clearly, "the" Christian Church is about 2000 years old. RCC's claim to that age is interchangeable with its claim to "be" that Church. Plainly, that claim is disputed.

What in general do we mean when we say an institution is so old? We're plainly claiming it's the "same" as it was @ the start. What does that mean? Anything? How old is the British monarchy? 1921, when the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland came into existence? 1707, when the kingdoms of England & Scotland formed the original UK? 1603, when James VI of Scotland became James I of England? Or what? Most people vaguely think it's a lot older than that, but before then there was no British monarchy, there were only separate English and Scottish monarchies. Does any such statement have a clear meaning?

From my knowledge of church history, it seems to me that, in so far as anyone can claim to "be" the original Christian Church, it's RCC, simply because of continuity of leadership. EOC might claim to be the Church on the grounds of including 4 of the 5 ancient patriarchates, but I personally think that's dubious: there were originally only 3 patriarchates:

1. Rome, obviously RCC
2. Alexandria, which became the Coptic Church: Oriental Orthodox, not Eastern
3. Antioch, which rejoined Rome in 1724 after a period of being in communion simultaneously with Rome & Constantinople

So EOC actually represents only the 2 later patriarchates

This just illustrates the complexities of the concepts involved, & reinforces the suggestion that the whole thing be deleted. Peter jackson (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I tend to agree, Wikipedia policies forbid original research. In the absence of more sources discrediting the claims regarding the Roman Catholic church, some editors are going to insist on including them. So far we have found sources to discredit the "oldest institution in the world" claim, but not the "oldest institution in the Western world". Regarding your question on the meaning of "institution" it is indeed a vague term, although I would posit that even if the RC couldn't claim the church itself was a continuous institution, thy could reasonably claim that the papacy is. Kaldari (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"one of the oldest institutions in the world", as it was briefly, is surely uncontroversial? How the papacy could be older than the church I don't understand at all, but never mind. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think "one of the oldest institutions in the world" would be acceptable and uncontroversial, personally. Nancy, however, didn't seem to think it was a good solution. What are other people's opinions? Kaldari (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Totally Disputed Tag

The cultural influence section is completely inappropriate. It is wildly pro-Catholic, and makes absolutely laughable claims such that the Church ended slavery or that it promotes female equality. What's next, are we going to claim that the Nazis provided free housing to Jews?Heqwm2 (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Read it again, because it's not saying quite what you think it is. It's also overly sourced, and there was no dispute regarding that section on the talk page until just now, so the disputed tag is completely inappropriate. You might be able to make an argument for it being slightly POV, but I find even that in doubt. Farsight001 (talk) 00:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Mere gainsaying does not constitutue an argument. It's not sourced AT ALL other than a last name and a quote about the Aztec Empire (this is an article about the RCC, NOT about the Aztecs). There's absolutely no doubt that it is POV, and the only way you could disagree is if you're incredibly biased towards the RCC. As for the fact that no one has complained before-- what the hell kind of argument is that supposed to be?Heqwm2 (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have also queried this section. I think it currently has a distinct pro-church slant, minimising opposing views. Sourcing isn't everything - see for example WP:WTA for the way that bias can be introduced by the way well-sourced facts are presented. The problem is this isn't easy to fix, as someone needs to go out and find the opposing viewpoints currently missing. I'd be interested to see what MacMurray's book (currently mentioned somewhat dismissively) actually says, for example. TSP (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think it's not sourced, you REALLY need to look at that section again. It's got at least half a dozen sources. So don't call it unsourced or even poorly sourced. Again, it might be slightly POV, but that does not mean you get to blanket out whole paragraphs with multiple sources because of it. If it's POV, you FIX the POV, not remove it. Farsight001 (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Name one source. As for the POV, I tried to add other points of view, and they were deleted.Heqwm2 (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Name a source? Did you see those little numbers in brackets? Those are sources. I see 16 of them in that little section. That's actually quite a bit in such a small space. And no, you didn't add any points. I checked. All you did was delete. Try again. Farsight001 (talk) 05:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You obviously DIDN'T check, as I quite obviously did add points in my first edit: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Roman_Catholic_Church&oldid=244412509 Heqwm2 (talk) 07:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

First, that's not the edit we were talking about a moment ago. Second, it's one or two poorly written sentences, completely out of place, the source was an opinion article, and I'm fairly certain not WP:RS. But still, not an excuse to blank out over a dozen other sources without consensus. According to Wikipedia: Vandalism, you are "blanking". And you need to stop or you will be blocked from editing. Again. Farsight001 (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You might want to actually READ that page.

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.

Furthermore, the NPOV page specifically says that NPOV takes precedence over other rules. Neither consensus nor citing can override the requirement.Heqwm2 (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

And you blanked a section multiple times and after being told you're not supposed to do that. Hence, it was not on good faith, as you performed an action after being informed that you're not supposed to, hence NOT a good faith edit. As for the NPOV page - read the whole thing. It is obvious that you are applying here only the parts of it that you want. Farsight001 (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Completely Unacceptable Cites

Where the hell did you people get the idea that a last name and a page number is acceptable? The BARE MINIMUM is a FULL name of the author, the name of the work, and page number. It's also good to have a quote or a link to the work. I will consider any adding or re-adding of claims without valid cites to be vandalism.Heqwm2 (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The last name and page number is a sufficient cite - you refer to the list of references at the end of the page. This system is used on most featured articles. You also removed references which included quotes, so your argument is rather undermined. Gimmetrow 21:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is an acceptable cite. It could be better, but cites are acceptable based on their credibility, not on how complete the bibliography is. And again - do not remove citations or cited sentences. If they're biased, fix the bias, but never remove sourced material without finding consensus on the talk page first. As well, accusing someone of vandalizing something that doesn't qualify as vandalism to wikipedia is actually considered a personal attack. I'd read those rules again if I were you. These are wikipedia basics. Farsight001 (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As I already pointed out, the quote is regarding the Aztecs, and this article is not about the Aztecs. And considering all the personal attacks from other editors, and you deleting the dispute tag, AND you basically accusing me of lying, you are hardly one to talk about WP policies.Heqwm2 (talk) 04:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Heqwm2, countering POV with even more POV is, well, counter-productive. What WP requires is NPOV, not a collusion of different POVs. If you have an issue with how the article is worded (and trust me, I have my own reservations about it), then please be sure that the sources/citations are not made ineffective (i.e. the new content reflecting ideas not found in the sources) Nautical Mongoose (talk) 05:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Are we even talking about the same thing anymore? What Aztecs? What are you talking about? As for the dispute tag - they are to be added only when there is a huge dispute on the talk page. This is not a huge dispute and you added it before any of this discussion even began. So I removed it per wiki policies. No where did I accuse you of lying and no one has made personal attacks against you. I'm sorry that you don't like the way the article is, but it has become this way through thousands of edits from hundreds of contributors. The longer this dispute goes, the more convinced I am that the section is actually neutral. It says what the church did, what it was for and against, provides sources, and leaves that up to the reader to decide if it's good or bad. It just so happens that almost everyone thinks slavery and human sacrifice are bad, and thus view the section as positive. For someone who wants to bring slavery back, they would view this as a negative aspect of the Church. Farsight001 (talk) 05:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You're raising a number of valid points, Heqwm2, but please do not resort to profane language to express your point, as it makes you appear antagonistic. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"What WP requires is NPOV, not a collusion of different POVs." You obviously have no understanding of NPOV. "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly." "What Aztecs? What are you talking about?" There's a giant section dealing with the Aztecs, apparently to excuse the Catholic conquest of America on the basis that it was occupied by bad people. How in the world is that appropriate? "So I removed it per wiki policies." Please cite the policy. "No where did I accuse you of lying and no one has made personal attacks against you." You said that I was making "patently flase claims". And I've been told that I am making "unconstructive edits", etc. "It says what the church did, what it was for and against, provides sources, and leaves that up to the reader to decide if it's good or bad." It does no such thing. The Church did not end slavery, and it does not promote female equality. I suppose there are contorted interpretations of the claims which are true, but it's still wildly dishonest. I also find it disturbing that polygamy is put in the same category as slavery and infanticide.Heqwm2 (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Heqwm, you might want to try a more interactive form on communication. You are rather aggressive and I suspect you often elicit a similar response when you edit in a similar manner. Please stop it. I am not Catholic so I do not have a pony in this race. One problem is you judge history from the perspective of today's moral lens. What is fact is that the RCC was instrumental in stopping slavery because she taught against it. In addition, when she taught against female infanticide, it was seeing each life, all life, in equal terms; that is the essence of female equality. At the time she acted in this manner and in the cultures where she was speaking, she was most certainly promoting female equality.

When you judge by today's secular standards it is possible to say she did not go far enough, that some RS think to fully engage in female equality then both sexes should function in all capacities including the priesthood. What you are talking about is a matter of degrees, not absolutes as you make it sound. More importantly, your position is POV because the RCC does believe that the sexes are equal, but that they serve in different capacities, not one in front of the other, but in harmony walking side-by-side. You have every right to reject that position, but please do not say it is a question of honesty; honesty has nothing to do with it. It has to do with opinion and perspective. That is an unacceptably arrogant position for Wikipedia that conflicts with the fundamental position of NPOV.

It is odd to wrap these slavery, infanticide, and polygamy in one sentence. However, if that is the reference, it is a bit jarring. IMHO, infanticide is infinitely worse than the other two. Slavery is so close to indentured servitude and has been practiced for so long that only in America does it cause such a violent reaction. Slavery exists today in Africa and some Asian countries. I digress; returning to the topic, it is odd, but I can see some logic in it. Again, it is a matter of degrees. Please try a little honey in your tone; the vinegar is not working well. Cheers. --^StormRider 08:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You will notice that both views should be presented FAIRLY, not equally. There is a difference. The view you wish to insert comes close to a fringe view - something that should not be mentioned at all. Also, there is ONE mention of the Aztecs in the article - specifically a picture caption, not a huge section. It doesn't matter, as it wasn't because they were Catholics that they tried any conquest. A neutral source would not label them as such, unless their being Catholic had an obvious role in their motivations for conquest. That's just journalism 101 right there. As for the policy violation, there's multiple ones. What your tag-without-reason is called is a "driveby". There should be a pre-existing discussion on the subject for a dispute tag to be added in the first place. The "totally disputed" tag is ONLY for sections that aren't sourced. You can see wiki's section on factual accuracy and disputes for that. It was also in the tutorial you were supposed to read when you got a screen name. Considering your main issue with the section is cited to a book written by multiple reputable professors and this discussion already occurred near the top of the talk page and a consensus was reached long ago, you have no leg to stand on. Your repeated edits without consensus, proper reason, good citations, or even discussion along with your repeated section blanking is vandalism. Stop. Now. Farsight001 (talk) 08:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"What is fact is that the RCC was instrumental in stopping slavery because she taught against it." That is not a fact. Slavery existed for thousands of years after the RCC was founded, Catholics participated in the slave trade, and the Church's teaching were not "instrumental" in stopping it. That the RCC played an important role is an opinion, one not supported by any facts here present.

"At the time she acted in this manner and in the cultures where she was speaking, she was most certainly promoting female equality." If the justification for the claim that the Church promoted female equality is that at one time, compared to one culture, it had a more progressive view, that is clearly undue weight, and, at the very LEAST, demands mention of the fact that its stances TODAY, rather two thousand years ago, denigrate women.

"More importantly, your position is POV because the RCC does believe that the sexes are equal, but that they serve in different capacities, not one in front of the other, but in harmony walking side-by-side." There is clearly a hegemonic relationship between men and women in the Church's structure. The Church clearly does NOT think that the sexes are equal. "Equal" means "the same" as in "every attribute one has, the other has as well". Now, the idea that this is bad for women is, I suppose, a POV, but so is the idea that it is not. And the NPOV principle clearly demands that both POVs be at least mentioned.

"You have every right to reject that position, but please do not say it is a question of honesty; honesty has nothing to do with it." It is a question of honesty. Refusing to acknowledge the effects one's doctrines have on female equality today and instead insisting on focusing on the effects thousands of years ago is dishonest.

"That is an unacceptably arrogant position for Wikipedia that conflicts with the fundamental position of NPOV." I'm saying both views should be presented or neither. You're saying that only one view should be presented. How exactly am I the one who is being arrogant?

"The view you wish to insert comes close to a fringe view - something that should not be mentioned at all." That is absurd. The idea that Catholicism oppresses women is NOT a "fringe" view. And that the Catholic Church allowed slavery for thousands of years is not a view at all; it is a flat-out fact.

"It doesn't matter, as it wasn't because they were Catholics that they tried any conquest." And it wasn't because they were Catholics that they stopped human sacrifices. Why is okay to make a huge deal about the fact that the human sacrifices were stopped, in part, by Catholics, but not okay to mention that the conquest and enslavement of the populace was also by Catholics? That's obvious favoritism.

"Your repeated edits without consensus, proper reason, good citations, or even discussion along with your repeated section blanking is vandalism." It is extremely arrogant to simply state that I don't have "proper reason", I was the one who STARTED the discussion, and accusing someone of vandalism is clear civility violation.Heqwm2 (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

For the interest of anyone else wanting to participate in this discussion, I am applying WP:SHUN here myself. I suggest you do the same. (though that is of course up to you) Farsight001 (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the consensus of editors is against Heqwm2 not only in this talk page section but also per the peer review where the article information and sources were vetted by the Wikipedia community and approved. NancyHeise ^talk 07:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus sought

Do we want more elaboration on these issues? Article size is of concern and these are already wikilinked in the article. Please let me know your thoughts so we can come to full agreement and consensus, thanks.

• Roman curia
• Papal states

NancyHeise ^talk 07:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I already added info on papal states creation and eventual loss. NancyHeise ^talk 10:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As I've said on the FAC, the subject here is the whole church, not the Vatican etc, but I think the start of cardinals is worth mentioning quickly, and, somewhere, the distinctively centralised nature of the RCC. The rest of the topic is too specialised given our space constraints. Johnbod (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I added mention of college of cardinals creation. Don't you think the centralised nature of RCC is evident from the first paragraph of the lead? Roman Curia centralisation is already mentioned in History at the council of Trent area of Reformation. It is also mentioned and wikilinked in Church Organisation opening paragraph. Do you think we need to add any more mention? NancyHeise ^talk 16:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have also added more information on Roman Curia but I put it in Note 6 which is an amendment to one of the council of Trent sentences in Late Medieval and Renaissance section of History. This way it does not increase page size per "Readable prose" definition and it still includes the information Vassyana requested at FAC NancyHeise ^talk 17:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the additional material on the Papal States. On the curia, I see a little more information has also been added. Unless a good case is made for more, that is probably enough. Xandar 20:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ref cleanup

Part of the dates were delinked, part were linked, so I cleaned up the date formatting in the citations to a consistently delinked style. While I was there, I saw a Newsmax source (can that be replaced by something better?) and two books that are out of print and missing ISBNs (are there any newer sources for the same info? I flagged them in the references for doublechecking); I also noticed some missing publication dates on a quick scan, so other refs might be checked for dates.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And, I located the problem here; turns out that cite encyclopedia doesn't yet support accessdaymonth, so I had to move that one outside of the cite template and do it manually. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Xandar 20:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The two books seem reliable enough. They are both cited in other scholarly works and both are cited only as sources for notes (thus they are not especially important to the article). Kaldari (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sometimes afraid to offer suggestions here, as my suggestions are often interpreted literally. I am not saying that any source lacking an ISBN must be replaced; I merely queried if any of the older sources could be replaced by newer, more easily accessed sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

In the case of the Thapa book, I much preferred it to the current citation. Thapa's book is a purely academic work (which is why it didn't have an ISBN) rather than a popular work for public consumption (like the new citation); it was written after 8 years of research by Thapa while he was a research fellow at the Academy of Korean Studies; it is cited by other academic papers and seems to be something of an authoritative English-language source on the Sangha (the subject of the citation); it states much more assertively and directly what we are citing it for stating. Do we really want to favor accessibility over academic rigor and relevance? Kaldari (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

We should always use the best sources available, regardless of accessibility (mose medical journal articles aren't available online, but they're still the best sources for medical articles); I didn't intend to imply that something lacking an ISBN wasn't a good source, just ask that they be checked since I noticed them when I was doing the cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

If no one objects, I will change it back to the original citation. Kaldari (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Great timing. I spend an hour on cleanup, and they finally fix the cite template to delink dates. <grrrrr ...> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not object to your replacement of the Thapa book - sorry I changed it, I thought I was doing the right thing by finding a source with ISBN. Thanks for your help here. NancyHeise ^talk 23:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Doublecheck this sentence pls

In the US, where the vast majority of sex abuse cases occurred ... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3142511.ece and http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay/index.html

Can you all please doublecheck this wording? I'm getting at the distinction between "occurred" and "were reported". The second source is only a US study, so doesn't address abuse that may occur outside of the US, and the first source doesn't appear to address the issue either (rather is based on the second report). I can't find anything in these sources to support this wording. Do you all have any evidence that most cases "occurred" in the US, as compared to more cases in the US "were reported"? It would be pretty unusual for abuse by a priest to be reported in Latin America, for example, for sociocultural norms. In fact, maybe the issue can be addressed by ... "majority of the reported sex abuse cases occurred ... " Is that sentence supported by sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, ref number 363 to the Timesonline source gives a breakdown of the number of sex abuse cases by country at the end of the article that reveals the stark difference between US and other countries. I am fine with changing "ocurred" to "were reported". I don't like your second suggestion, it is too wordy and could be misconstrued as suggesting something that the references do not state. NancyHeise ^talk 23:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, do you mean http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3142511.ece  ? The article is so slow to load, that I can't get to ref 363 easily. I don't see a breakdown by country there: can you point me directly to it? I only see Irish and US. Also, I didn't see that it specifically addressed whether this had been looked at by country, or if they are just discussing what is "reported" by country (which varies due to sociocultural norms in each country). The current wording seems to go beyond what the sources say, and imply that sexual abuse among priests is more common in the US than, for example, in Latin America. Has that question really been assessed by any sources ? The current wording seems misleading, but I'm not aware if there is additional scholarship in this area. I just don't find it in the sources, but perhaps I'm looking at the wrong source. It you have a source that reports stats, than the word "reported" seems more accurate than "occurred". Also, not sure what you mean by "too wordy", since my suggestion adds only one word to the current text: reported. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, [2] this is ref 363. The last part of the article gives Church sex abuse stats that list US abuse, Irish and Australian. These are the countries with the most notable instances of abuse and financial settlements. Forget my comment about wordy, I already changed "occured" to "reported" per your comments here. NancyHeise ^talk 23:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, yes, we're looking at the same source. It doesn't state that most priest sex abuse "occurred" in the United States. It gives cases reported in three countries, and doesn't even address the issue of where most sex abuse occurs (which would be a harder question to assess academically). So, I think adding the word "reported" should help clarify my concern that the text was subtly misleading. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think "reported" is a better word to use here, it has already been changed per your comments. NancyHeise ^talk 03:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to be precise, you should say "where the vast majority of reported sex abuse cases occurred". Switching from "occurred" to "were reported" suggests that perhaps that only the reporting, and not the cases themselves, occurred in the the US.Heqwm2 (talk) 05:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not think this would be an improvement in prose or help Reader's understanding. Sandy is correct, the sources support use of the word "reported" more than the word "occurred". No one can say, unless they are psychic where most sex abuse cases "occurred" because some were not reported. On the flip side, one could argue also that US laws and media coverage make it easy for someone to make false accusations and walk away with a large settlement - a charge brought forth by author Philip Jenkins. This article only deals with facts, not original research or speculation so we are stuck with article text that reflects the sources provided. NancyHeise ^talk 18:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Acually, Heqwm2's wording was exactly my suggestion, and is very concise, added only one word for clarity (reported). I think the suggested wording addresses Nancy's concerns as well: have another look Nancy, and I think you will see the proposed wording actually covers your concerns, my concerns and Heqwm2's point. All we know is that the US is where most "reported" cases occurred. We don't know any more than that (unless you all have some other research I'm not aware of). The proposed wording doesn't pretent to know where most cases occurred: it only speaks to where most "reported" cases occurred. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you read Heqwn2's wording he is suggesting the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. He is suggesting to change it "occured" instead of "were reported".Marauder40 (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No. The initial text said: ... majority of the sex abuse cases occurred. I questioned "occurred" (none of the sources presented here deal with that or back that text) and I suggested adding one word: ... majority of the reported sex abuse cases occurred. Which appears to be just what Heqwm2 is suggesting. I should note that neither statement is accurately sourced, since none of the sources actually presents an analysis of sex abuse cases reported worldwide. Most of us presume most cases were reported in the US, but where's the data ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"were reported" in addition to, not instead of, "occured". "where the vast majority of REPORTED sex abuse cases OCCURED".Heqwm2 (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Since none of the sources actually use the words "occurred" or "reported", I changed the sentence so it now reads "In the US, the country with the vast majority of sex abuse cases, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops commissioned a comprehensive study that found that four percent of all priests who served in the US from 1950 to 2002 faced some sort of sexual accusation." Does this satisfy everyone's concerns? I do not think we even need to mention either "occurred" or "reported" and I think this version is more true to sources. NancyHeise ^talk 21:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask...

Does identifying the Roman Church as "the Catholic Church" in the plain, objective, and unqualified manner, as is done in this article, not amount to claiming that the Eastern Orthodox Church is not the Catholic Church? Deusveritasest (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No because we are using the term used by all of our scholarly sources. The article is entitled Roman Catholic Church which is really a name used only in English speaking countries, all other countries and the church herself use the name Catholic Church. There is no other Church in the world, not even the Eastern Orthodox, who call themselves just the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox are often called just Orthodox Church, also used by the same scholars calling the Catholic Church just Catholic Church. No POV rules have been broken in our usage here, this has already been vetted by a very large consensus of both Catholic and non-Catholic (including Eastern Orthodox) Wikipedia editors. NancyHeise ^talk 23:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's incorrect. There are a number of official Eastern Orthodox documents that call the EOC "the Catholic Church". Deusveritasest (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that "catholic Church", or "Catholic Church"? There is a difference, just in case you didn't know. "Catholic Church" is an official title. "catholic Church" just means THE universal church, which of course the Orthodox believe themselves to be. :) Farsight001 (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the Church would make such a distinction. "Catholic" strictly refers to the universal church, and in pre-ecumenist documents, Orthodox theologians would always refrain from attributing the word "Catholic" to the Roman Church, as to do so would be to denigrate the Catholicity. But yes, when I've seen it, it's been written as "Catholic Church". Deusveritasest (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Deusveritasest, if you would like to provide a link to a number of these official Eastern Orthodox documents I would be glad to see them. Also, if you can find a scholar who refers to the Eastern Orthodox as the Catholic Church, I would be interested to see that too. We are just trying to reflect in our article, the official name of the Church as she calls herself and what she is called by a vast array of scholars throughout history, as well as the common person on the street. It might be interesting to note that the Catholic Church considers the East. Ortho. to be the Catholic Church also, that is why the Church has sought for centuries to reunite with them. I can't remember the exact quote but I think JPII referred to them as the "other lung". Our article mentions these efforts at reconciliation and also the similarities in beliefs and the respect that Catholic Church has for EO celebration of the Mass as a "true sacrament", one in which intercommunion with them is possible in certain instances. NancyHeise ^talk 03:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to the text of the "Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs". The first five paragraphs are clear enough. The "Confession of Dositheus" likewise makes it quite clear throughout that Orthodox authorities regard us as "the Catholic Church". The "Longer Catechism of The Orthodox Church", written by Metropolitan Philaret, also uses the terms "Orthodox Church" and "Catholic Church" interchangably to both refer to the Byzantine Church out of communion with Rome (see question 242). Deusveritasest (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Deusveritasest, The Catholic Church is in agreement with the Eastern Orthodox that they too are the Catholic Church. (Although the Eastern Orthodox never have the name "Catholic Church" on any of their church signs) Does that mean we can't use the term "Catholic Church" in our article? It is not only the official name of the Church but also the common name applied to it by people all over the world. It is the name used by all of our scholarly sources throughout their books and it would quite strange and an invitation to accusations of POV if we were to suddenly require each mention of the Church to use Roman Catholic Church, it would also be improper use of the English language which allows a shortened version of a name to be used after the subject has been introduced. NancyHeise ^talk 18:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "in agreement"? That "we too are the Catholic Church" is not the belief of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Our belief is that we are the Catholic Church and that you are not. The documents I posted made it quite clear that we consider the Catholic Church to be exclusively the EOC. How then, does labeling the RCC "the Catholic Church" not positioning an opinion against that of the EOC?

Also, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make by saying that "we never have the name 'Catholic Church' on any of our church signs". The fact that we regard ourselves first as "the Orthodox Church" and that is the first adjective we use to describe ourselves has nothing to do with the reality of what we regard to be the Catholic Church.

And yes, I am trying to argue the idea that using the most commonly used and official title of the Roman Church is a violation of NPOV. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Nancy may be inexact on some points, as when she says that the name "Roman Catholic Church" is used only in English-speaking countries, or that "Catholic Church" is the only name that the Church itself uses officially. But I fully agree with her that the shorter name by which it is so commonly known may quite legitimately be used in this article, once the identity of the "Catholic Church" it speaks of has been established at the beginning. The Greek Orthodox Church prefers the term "ρωμαιοκαθολική εκκλησία" but Greek newspapers may write "καθολική εκκλησία". I don't see why this article cannot do the same. The context of this article makes it obvious which Church is meant, though in other Wikipedia articles this may not at all be true. Soidi (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just looking through the Interwiki links should make it clear that "Roman" is not added only in English. Among the links written in alphabets I can read, we have: af:Rooms-Katolieke Kerk, roa-rup:Bisearica Romacatholicã, frp:Égllése catolica romana, az:Roma-Katolik Kilsəsi, bs:Rimokatoličanstvo, br:Iliz katolik roman, bg:Римокатолическа църква (first word is Rimokatolicheska), ca:Església Catòlica Romana, cs:Římskokatolická církev, cy:Yr Eglwys Gatholig Rufeinig, da:Romerskkatolske kirke, de:Römisch-katholische Kirche, eo:Romkatolikismo, eu:Eliza Katoliko Erromatarra, fr:Église catholique romaine, ga:Eaglais Chaitliceach Rómhánach, gl:Igrexa Católica Romana, ko:로마 가톨릭 교회 (the first word is Roma), hr:Rimokatolička Crkva, id:Gereja Katolik Roma, is:Rómversk-kaþólska kirkjan, kw:Eglos Katholik Romanek, la:Ecclesia Catholica Romana, lv:Romas Katoļu baznīca, lt:Romos katalikų bažnyčia, li:Roems-Kattelieke Kèrk, mk:Римокатоличка црква (first word is Rimokatolichka), ms:Gereja Katolik Rom, nl:Rooms-katholieke Kerk, ne:रोमन क्याथोलिक चर्च (first word is Roman), no:Den romersk-katolske kirke, nn:Den romersk-katolske kyrkja, nds:Röömsch-kathoolsche Kark, ru:Римско-католическая церковь (first word is Rimsko-katolicheskaya), sco:Roman Catholic kirk, sq:Kisha Katolike Romake, scn:Chiesa Cattòlica Rumana, simple:Roman Catholicism, sk:Rímskokatolícka cirkev, sl:Rimskokatoliška cerkev, sr:Римокатоличка црква (first word is Rimokatolichka), szl:Kośćou řimskokatolicki, sv:Romersk-katolska kyrkan, tl:Simbahang Katoliko Romano, vi:Giáo hội Công giáo Rôma, uk:Римо-Католицька Церква (first word is Rimo-Katolits'ka), cbk-zam:Iglesia Romano Catolico. Interestingly, many of these languages are themselves spoken primarily by Roman Catholics (Arpetan, Breton, Catalan, Czech, Basque, French, Irish, Croatian, Lithuanian, Sicilian, Slovak, Slovene, Silesian). At the very least, this suggests that the tension regarding inclusion vs. exclusion of the word "Roman" is worldwide and is not restricted to English-speakers. —Angr 14:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Angr but I have been chastised by others when I tried to use Wikipedia as a source to refute someone's position. I was told that only a solid (non-Wikipedia) reference is what can be used to prove someone wrong. I have added the quotes to the actual sources used to support the article text use of the word "official name" (see below). It was a compromise to call the entire article "Roman Catholic Church" and have the redirect for Catholic Church go to this page. It was also proper use of the redirect per Wikipedia policy. We are not suggesting changing the name of the article to Catholic Church, as all other Wikipedia articles on this subject are using the qualification of "Roman" so do we so there should not be a problem here. NancyHeise ^talk 16:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition, many of the smaller wikis habitually just translate or precis the English wiki, right or wrong. Angr does not mention many larger wikis, not all from Cathoilic countries, that just use the equivalent of "Catholic Church" - Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, Finnish etc. At least no one except the Latin wiki seems to use the Latin. WP:UNDUE clearly comes into play here. Johnbod (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how it's clear that the Roman Church is not the only ecclesiastical group that regards itself as "the Catholic Church", yes there is a problem, given that redirecting from "Catholic Church" to here and referring to the Roman Church simply as "the Catholic Church" in numerous articles is clearly a violation of NPOV. I've already provided you the evidence that there are other ecclesiastical groups that official consider themselves exclusively "the Catholic Church". These actions by you monopolists of Catholicity are clearly pushing a RC opinion and suppressing that of others who claim to the Catholicity (particularly those who claim to exclusively hold the Catholicity). Deusveritasest (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that the Eastern Orthodox Church considers itself to be the Catholic Church of Saint Ignatius of Antioch and the early ecumenical councils. It is also clear that, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, it is not accustomed to call itself simply "the Catholic Church": it uses phrases like "The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church", as in the title of the Catechism of St. Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow. It is also clear that in common parlance "Catholic Church" is understood to mean the Roman Catholic Church, but never the Eastern Orthodox Church. Thus, following this usage in the body of the article gives rise to no real ambiguity. Soidi (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, Angr was not defending or attacking anything in a Wikipedia article, for which a self-reference to Wikipedia could obviously not be used as a source. It was in relation to a statement made here on this Talk page, claiming that "Roman Catholic Church" is a name used only in English-speaking countries, that he pointed to the articles in non-English Wikipedias as examples of the use in those languages of "Roman Catholic Church". You could get even more examples by Googling the names of the articles. In fact, "Roman Catholic Church" is used in even more languages, and so by no means in English alone. Soidi (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Read those documents again. All three identify the Eastern Orthodox Church as simply "the Catholic Church". Deusveritasest (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So unless someone is going to prove otherwise, I think I've clearly established that this approach to "Catholic Church" is a clear violation of NPOV, and as such I think the redirect for the "Catholic Church" article should be moved to "Catholic Church (disambiguation)". Deusveritasest (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see below, there is not such consensus and I believe that Gimmetrow and others have warned you against touching the redirect and provided on your talk page, a link to the ultimate conversation where this was decided. NancyHeise ^talk 01:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I first asked if this was not a violation of NPOV. Your response was that it was not because the EOC does not officially identify itself as "the Catholic Church". I provided you evidence that it in fact does. Now the logical conclusion from that is that your defense was down stricken and now thus my opinion that it is a violation of NPOV has prevailed. I will avoid shifting the redirect for about a week, and I will expect a substantial rebuttal in that time. If no one will have done so in a week, I will assume that the violation of NPOV has been defined and thus change the redirect accordingly. Deusveritasest (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi, I attempted to add an archive bot to this talkpage and was just immediately reverted. May I ask what the issues are? This page seems to be a good candidate for a bot, as the page is scrolling quite rapidly and seems to require frequent archiving. Some editors' browsers have trouble with anything over 32K, and this page is currently at a whopping 250K. --Elonka 00:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Issues in particular (here) or in general (everywhere with automated archiving)? Automated archiving distorts the order of archives so you can't find things in the order they occurred. Specifically, when articles are on the path to FAC, editors often want to archive around specific dates, like DYK, GAN, FAC, PR, etc. If the page is currently too large, the regular editors here can decide which parts are unrelated to the current FAC and manually archive them. Once the FAC closes, it's unlikely the page will get such high volume. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, manual archiving often mimics exactly what a bot would do, meaning it's just a big copy/paste of whatever the "inactive" threads are, to the archive. If folks would rather do it with more precision, that's fine, but I recommend at least reducing the size of this page to 100K or less. There are several threads here which have been inactive for weeks. If there's really a need to refer to them, a good way to handle it is just to add a {{sidebox}} that says something like, "Previous discussions can be seen at (link)". That makes the information easily accessible, but keeps the "live" talkpage from growing to an unmanageable size. --Elonka 00:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

More specifically, on this page, there is very little that isn't relevant to the current FAC. Archiving the month of September won't make much of a dent, but Nancy et al may want to do that. Otherwise, I suggest seeking consensus from regular page editors on archiving methods and decisions. I personally hate the way automated archiving makes it hard to find things in archives, and prefer to maintain manual control, but that decision here is up to the regular editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to wait until FAC closes to archive since the entire page reflects our work and collaboration with many editors during the peer review where we reached consensus on all issues before submitting the article to FAC. I think it is important to have that info laid out for whomever is coming to see the page and comment at FAC. NancyHeise ^talk 03:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This page is currently over 300K, which is enormous by any standard, and the likelihood that anyone is actually going to read all of this information is extremely low. There is really no need to maintain all of these threads on one page. I strongly urge archiving of the inactive threads, and/or providing a pointer to archives where they can be read. --Elonka 04:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope you can appreciate the irony in referring to a "whopping 250KB" talk page, while proposing to set up a whopping 250KB archive,[3] (which would leave the same readers unable to access the archives) or concern for readers who "have trouble with anything over 32K" considering the size of the article itself. Anyway, Nancy, would you like for me to help you do a partial archive of the resolved sections pre-FAC? You can always add to that archive later. I don't recommend archiving off the entire page during a FAC, nor do I think bot archiving is the best option for this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

250K is only a suggested size for archives, and is easily changeable. Personally I like archives to be around 100K, but every article has different needs. --Elonka 04:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"official name"

There is a problem with the statement at the start of the article: "The Roman Catholic Church, officially known as the Catholic Church (Catholicae Ecclesiae)". Leaving aside the curious "Catholicae Ecclesiae" (genitive singular? nominative plural?!), the Church is certainly not "officially known" as the Catholic Church in, for instance, Australian legislation. "Roman Catholic" is found in the national constitutions of Argentina, Canada, Costa Rica, Malta, and Poland, which is surely an official use of the term. Presumably what the article is meant to say is that "Catholic Church" is the name that the Church itself officially uses. But this is not what the article does say.

Even if the expression were remedied to make it say what it is presumably meant to say, questions could still be raised. There is no doubt that the Church in question does refer to itself as the Catholic Church, and that, except for the name "the Church", "the Catholic Church" is the name by which it most often refers to itself. There is no dispute about that. What is in dispute is whether this is the only name by which the Church refers to itself officially.

The article gives two sources in support of its suggestion that the Church's official name for itself is "Catholic Church". (To say that this is an official name, one of several, would be a different matter.) The first is an article by Kenneth D. Whitehead, who argues that the "proper" name is "Catholic Church", but who quotes no statement by the Church itself about its "official" name. He gives examples of official use of "Catholic Church" by the Church (again, nobody denies this), and says: "The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself" (but, on the contrary, this latter term is sometimes used by the Church in official documents). The other source (a very old one, I think) says that "Roman Catholic Church" is not "the official name used by the authorities of the Church–who rather dislike it", but of no one name does it say that it is the official name they use: it only says that instead of "Roman Catholic Church" they substitute "Catholic Church" or "Holy Catholic Church". Indeed they do, and other names too. But have they declared any of those names to be the official name?

Reliable sources show – what can be a more reliable source about the Church's official use than the Church's own official documents? – that the Church uses other names as well as "Catholic Church", and that "Roman Catholic Church" is one of them. To take just one very simple straightforward example, the document Notes on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in preaching and catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church is an official document of the Holy See. In its title it does call the Church the Roman Catholic Church. Soidi (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, you have brought this up before and consensus of editors disagrees with your argument. Further, you provide no solid reference to refute the two solid references we have used to source the article text in support of "official name". Are there any references that you can find that say "The Catholic Church is not the official name of the Catholic Church" ? We have two that say otherwise. One of those is written by a Protestant and the other is from a book whose excerpt is showcased on both the Our Sunday Visitor official Catholic Newspaper for the Midwestern US and Eternal Word Television Network (official Catholic Television station for the US). I'm not sure how much more solid we have to get but WP:RS has been met as well as WP:consensus. NancyHeise ^talk 17:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My deep respect and warm admiration for Nancy does not keep me from asking her to be so good as to consider the points:

• Neither of the two "solid" sources in the article says: "The Catholic Church is the official name of the Church"; it is questionable whether either of them even says it is an official name of the Church.
• The Church does give itself names other than "Catholic Church" in its official documents.
• The Church is "officially known" as the "Roman Catholic Church" in, for instance, the constitutions of Poland and (with reference to its faithful rather than directly to the Church in itself) Canada.
• For these reasons, perhaps especially the first, the statement in the article that the Church is "officially known as the Catholic Church (Catholicae Ecclesiae)" calls for a "citation needed" tag. Soidi (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Soidi, the sources do say it is the official name and use the term "official". This has been vetted by other editors who agree with my presentation, that is why I stated that this issue has already met the requirements of WP:RS and WP:consensus in favor of the present article text. Both of the references discuss instances of when the Catholic Church uses Roman Catholic in some specific documents - specifically, to be polite in ecumenical dealings and when it is required (forced) by the specific country (England) that they do so. NancyHeise ^talk 19:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It is undeniable that in virtually every official document produced by the Vatican, the Church refers to itself as the Catholic Church, with no qualifier. True, in a very small number of documents, generally engaging with other religious traditions, the term Roman Catholic Church has been used. However, as was stated when this issue was raised before, the use of the qualifier "Roman" has been either out of politeness or the desire to remove uncertainty. Government usage in a few countries, (often of anglocentric heritage,) is not relevant to the matter of what the Church calls itself. Reams of material have been written on this subject if anyone cares to look back in the archives and read it all. The upshot is that no solution satisfies everyone. The agreed compromise has been to use the term "Roman Catholic Church" in the article title, to avoid confusion and to be as specific as possible, but to redirect from "Catholic Church" (the term most likely to be searched for) and to immediately explain that the official name of the Church is the Catholic Church. The compromise has been acceptable to the large majority of editors, and any attempt to alter it now would not only be inaccurate but simply reignite an endless war over nomenclature. Xandar 22:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, please quote from either source the part where it says that "Catholic Church" is the official name of the Church. This idea seems to be merely an interpretation of the source, and so a form of original research.

Xandar, what you call the compromise is by no means based on the false statement about the "official" name of the Church. The compromise was agreed on long before the false statement was inserted. Far from objecting to the compromise, I support it, and have defended it above, under "Let me ask..." "The Catholic Church", the name that the Church itself most frequently uses, after simply "the Church", is not the only name that is officially used, even by the Church itself. Soidi (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "officially known as the Catholic Church" was for the first time introduced into the article by Xandar on 22 April 2008 with the rather disingenuous edit summary "restored 'Catholic Church' information". What the article had before was: "often referred to as the Catholic Church". Variants of this phrase, such as "also called the Catholic Church", had been in the article since 2005, and "Catholic Church" has been freely used in the body of the article since that year, without having to depend on the unfounded Xandar claim that it is the only official name. Soidi (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, as requested by Soidi, these are the actual quotes from the two references that support use of the word "official name" in our article text:

• 1)" It is not, by the way, properly called the Roman Catholic Church, but simply the Catholic Church. The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language. The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council's official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included. Similarly, nowhere in the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council will you find the term Roman Catholic. Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as "I, Paul. Bishop of the Catholic Church." Simply that -- Catholic Church. There are references to the Roman curia, the Roman missal, the Roman rite, etc., but when the adjective Roman is applied to the Church herself, it refers to the Diocese of Rome!" An excerpt from Kenneth Whitehead's book "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic" published by Eternal Word Television Network and Our Sunday Visitor, both of which are Catholic News and Catholic programming organizations in the US. I am sure we could find more excerpts in many different languages in other worldwide newspapers and TV programs but we are limited to English speaking sources on English Wikipedia.

• 2)"The name may be found in a number of Roman Catholic writers, and is generally used in the constitution of those states in which the Roman Catholic Church is recognized as one of the recognized or tolerated State churches. It is, however, not the official name used by the authorities of the Church—who rather dislike it, and substitute for it the name 'Catholic' or 'Holy Catholic' Church. The name 'Roman Church' is applied, in the language of the Church, to the Church or diocese of the Bishop of Rome." From p71 of McClintock, John (1889). Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. Harper & Brothers, original from Harvard University. NancyHeise ^talk 16:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself – even if it were true, it does not state that "Catholic Church" is the one and only name officially used by the Church.

It is a relatively modern term – does not state that "Catholic Church" is the one and only name officially used by the Church.

And one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language – even if it were true, it does not state that "Catholic Church" is the one and only name officially used by the Church.

Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as "I, Paul. Bishop of the Catholic Church" – does not state that no other name is officially used by the Church.

It is, however, not the official name used by the authorities of the Church—who rather dislike it, and substitute for it the name "Catholic" or "Holy Catholic" Church – this does not say that either "Catholic Church" or "Holy Catholic Church" was the official name in 1889 or that either of them was then the only official name.

Nobody denies that "Catholic Church" is used officially. But the idea that no other name is used officially is in fact unsourced. Your interpretation of these two writings disagrees with mine. But that is all it is – an interpretation. Soidi (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, the consensus of editors disagrees with your interpretation of these quotes. If you will check previous discussions on this, you will find that this issue was already discussed and vetted by a multitude of editors who find that these quotes do in fact directly support the article text and that they meet WP:RS and WP:reliable source examples. I have not seen anyone provide any quote, even from an unreliable source to refute that Catholic Church is not the official name. NancyHeise ^talk 21:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Soldi, your objection seems to have shrunk to the cavil that "Catholic Church" may not be "the one and only name officially used by the Church." Sources and other references are more than enough to conclusively prove to any reasonable person that Catholic Church is the name officially used by the Church in its actions, documents and pronouncements. Striving to provide yet further proofs to satisfy you personally is not an exercise that editors need to perform. The current wording has been the consensus accepted in LENGTHY debates on this matter over many months, and there is no good purpose in going through those same debates yet again for your benefit. They are all in the archives. Before the current wording came into use and acceptance, there was constant edit-warring between those insisting on either Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church in the Lead. The current wording is factual, accurate and was significant in stopping the edit-wars. Xandar 21:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The article has for over 24 hours been free of the unsourced and misleading adverb "officially". My thanks go to all who have kept it so, thus solving the problem. Soidi (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the word "officially" because talk page consensus agrees with its inclusion, it went through peer review, the two sources support use of the word and someone deleted it without agreement on this talk page to do so. NancyHeise ^talk 14:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Soidi seems to argue against "Catholic Church is the only official name" but that is a straw man. The article merely stated that the church was officially called by that name.

I think it a bit patronising to refer to some documents of state law (e.g. this or that constitution) as the issue of what the Church calls itself is not for governments to decide. They simply have no say in it. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Str1977 I agree. NancyHeise ^talk 15:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If Str1977 or someone else can show that the expression at present in the article suggests that "Catholic Church" is only one of the names officially used by the Church, I will be quite happy. But both Nancy and Xandar hold on the contrary that it expresses the view that it is the only name. I mentioned civil legislation merely to show that "officially known" is too all-embracing and needs to be made more precise. (I most certainly do not hold that the State can dictate to the Church how the Church is to view her own identity.) Xandar seems to have noticed only now that I never denied that "Catholic Church" is officially used as a name for the Church, and that I have been saying only that it is not the one and only name that the Church uses officially. The Church does in fact refer to herself officially also by other names, even if less frequently than "the Catholic Church" and still less frequently that "the Church". Why not count how many times "Catholic Church" is used in, for instance, Gaudium et spes (once) in comparison to the number of times the document uses "the Church"? Xandar and Nancy both refuse to address the simple straightforward example that I gave of official use by the Holy See of another name. Other examples could be given. But even one example is enough to show the falsehood of their claim. A pity they are unwilling to accept something like "The Roman Catholic Church, commonly known as the Catholic Church, a name used officially by the Church itself ..." Soidi (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

How about "also known officially as the Catholic Church" rather than "officially known as the Catholic Church"? Does that make it clearer that Catholic Church is one name used in official contexts, but not the only one? —Angr 17:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it will just leave people confused. To include in the lead that the Church itself, in contexts dealing with outside entities, occasionally uses RCC, or that governments etc use it, or that other bodies may use the term for themselves (but not in English as a title) is WP:UNDUE. The note refers to where all this is covered. Johnbod (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Angr's suggestion seems good enough to me. Better, because simpler, than adding at the end of my previous suggestion: "in preference to 'Roman Catholic Church'" - which was another thought that came to my mind. I don't think Angr's suggestion carries with it all that baggage that Johnbod attributes to it. Soidi (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod. Clearly this talk page (including peer review) documents that a consensus of editors agrees with article text use of the term "officially" - all qualifications of this are located in the references, one of which provides a quote, the other a link where Reader may find explanation of the exceptions. Soidi has provided no reference to back up his/her position. He/she changed the lead even after this talk page discussion resulted (once again) in favor of use of "official". I deleted his/her reference that he/she placed in the lead because it did not support the text he/she placed in the article. (this is the reference [4] which does not support his/her change to the lead) Any changes without consensus need to have a solid reference, one that meets WP:RS and one that supports any changes. Presently, we have references to support our text, references that meet WP:RS and are in English (also required by English Wikipedia).NancyHeise ^talk 00:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, why not address the example given, which shows that "Catholic Church" is not the only name that the Church actually uses? I tried quietly on your Talk page to get you to examine this, but in vain. You only said that the sources you quote explain why the example is not an exception; they don't. They don't even state that the Church uses no name but one. I am trying, it seems in vain, to get you to do so here. It only remains for me to raise the question on your peer review, which I wanted to avoid.

Why not at least comment on the proposals made here to overcome the difficulty created by your demonstrably false claim that there is only name that the Church uses officially?

You have falsely accused me of changing the lead with regard to its claim about the "official" name. I tagged the word, and you have now removed the tag without responding to my request for a source that does indicate that "Catholic Church" is the one official name. (The tag also raised the question of the choice of an expression that would cover official use by bodies other than the Church, and you have not responded to that either.) The other change that I made to the lead, doing so separately, was to give the Latin for "Roman Catholic Church", something for which there is as much reason as there was for giving the Latin of "Catholic Church". On what grounds did you delete that? Soidi (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Soidi, your tag was a citation needed tag placed onto a sentence that clearly has two references supporting the text. Not only is the sentence referenced but we have had a peer review of the page and discussion of the text where consensus was gained in support of the wording with which you disagree. You can not place a tag on such a sentence. I eliminated the latin for Roman Catholic Church because it is clearly a POV statement and confrontational edit. The official language of the Catholic Church is Latin, it does not call itself Ecclesia Catholica Romana but Ecclesia Catholica. You have no reference to support your insertions as well as no talk page consensus, please stop trying to shove your ideas down our throats. You need references or your edits may be validly deleted. NancyHeise ^talk 15:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You say the Church does not call itself "Ecclesia Catholica Romana". So which other Church was Pius XI's encyclical referring to? (Yet another reference, but one is enough.) Soidi (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are seeing things in your link that do not exist, I checked. I even checked the English language version. Besides, our two refs discuss instances when the Church uses the term Roman Catholic and specifically state that this is not the official name but Catholic Church is. NancyHeise ^talk 20:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I presume that by "my link" you mean the link to the encyclical Divini illius Magistri, which includes the sentence "Idque accidit propterea quod in Sancta Ecclesia Catholica Romana, Civitate Dei, bonus civis unum idemque est ac vir probus." It is not the only papal encyclical with "Ecclesia Catholica Romana". There is a more famous one by Pius XII.

The English version has this translation of the sentence: "This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. Soidi (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The encyclical is not signed I, Pius XI, of the Roman Catholic Church but only of the Catholic Church. Please, Soidi, none of what you are offering refutes "official name" especially when the two references supporting article text discuss instances of when the Church uses Roman but specifically state that is not the official name but Catholic Church is. NancyHeise ^talk 02:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Wouldn't it just be easier to rename the article "Catholic Church"? The artcile could start as "The Catholic Church, sometimes referred to as the Roman Catholic Church ...." Just a thought. Majoreditor (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the encyclical is not signed "I, Pius XI, of the Holy Roman Catholic Church". Nor is it signed "I, Pius XI, of the Catholic Church". It is signed "Pius Papa XI" (Pope Pius XI). What follows from that? (And yes, I do know that in the actual signature "Papa" is abbreviated as "Pp.")

The Church, which in its official documents refers to itself by various names, has never declared any name to be its one official name. Not even your two sources say it has. The first shows something different, namely that "Catholic Church" has been used officially (as has "Roman Catholic Church") and argues that "Catholic Church" is the "proper" name. Only in your imagination/interpretation does that first source claim that "Catholic Church" is the one and only official name of the Church. The other source says that, in 1889, the Church authorities disliked "Roman Catholic Church", did not use it officially, and replaced it with one or other of two expressions. Perhaps that was true in 1889. It is obviously not true for later years with regard to official use of the name "Roman Catholic Church", as dozens of Church documents show. Take for example the simple example I gave you at the beginning: 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. Only in your imagination/interpretation did this 1889 writing say that "Catholic Church" was the one and only name used officially by the Church.

The Church's own documents are of far greater significance than the opinions of writers of 1889 or even later. That is why I have not considered it important to mention that there are also writers who - speaking expressly about the "official name" of the Church, and so not needing to be interpreted as doing so - state that the official name of the Church is "Roman Catholic Church". Take 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); or, if you want something more recent (in any case, 1950 is decidedly modern in comparison to 1889), 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 its official name. (It isn't my fault that this morning Google is no longer showing texts from this book, as it did a couple of weeks ago, when I first found it and took note of the page number; if you have access to a library, you can probably check that it is so.) Surely that is enough to show that Wikipedia cannot, on the basis of opinions expressed by some but not all writers, present your view, a view that flies in the face of the Church's actual usage, as fact rather than opinion. Soidi (talk) 08:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry the fact is that the name the Church uses Officially is catholic Church. End of story. saying the church is "known as" the Catholic Church is innaccurate. You could as easily say the church is "known as" the church of Rome or the "one true church". Those aren't its official names. Xandar 12:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider this declaration by Xandar, that the official name of the Church is "Catholic Church" and nothing else, to be more authoritative than the view of Lamprecht and of Piepkorn, Secker and Kolb, that the official name is "Roman Catholic Church" and, it seems, nothing else. Personally, I agree with neither side. Soidi (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Both of my references give an official name: Catholic Church. Xandar is just one of many editors of the page in agreement with this. I guess we just have to keep arguing with you until you realize that you do not represent a consensus. NancyHeise ^talk 19:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Xandar and the rest of "the many" (to judge by the links you put on the other page, they were nine or perhaps ten; two who intervened were clearly of the opposite opinion) are, like me, not sources that can be cited for Wikipedia articles. You prefer to ignore not only the official documents of the Church but also the other sources that have been cited, treating them all as having no importance whatever, not even enough to merit a hint in the article of the existence of another point of view. I don't think this is in accordance with Wikipedia principles. How can we obtain clarity? Perhaps by a Request for Comment, so as to bring others in? Soidi (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not read the whole discussion as it is too long. I believe the Roman Catholic Church recognise itself as the only legitimate catholic church, which means the official name used in Vatican should be "Catholic Church". As a roman catholic myself, I normally referred the church as "catholic" informally. But for the sake of other catholic churches (of which anglican lay claims), please do not change the title/"official name". Let it stays "Roman Catholic", because I, myself, search the article using this word "roman catholic". Regarding regional uses, in Indonesia, it is known by several names: "Kristen Katolik", "Katolik Roma", and "Katolik". I believe in the law, they use the name of "Katolik", which refers to the church headed by the pope or commonly called Paus. See also: Roman Catholicism in Indonesia
w_tanoto (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Apostolic Succession

"The Church believes it to be the continuation, through apostolic succession, of the Christian community founded by Jesus"

was changed to:

"The Church and many historians believe it to be the continuation, through apostolic succession, of the Christian community founded by Jesus"

The latter gives a suggestion of this being a historical claim, which I find inappropriate. Whether or not the RCC is a "continuation" is purely a matter of opinion, and perhaps theology.

The original, however, isn't quite right either, as it should be ""The Church considers itself to be the continuation, through apostolic succession, of the Christian community founded by Jesus"Heqwm2 (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

We can all see you find many, if not most, things in the article "inappropriate". This is not however a basis for inclusion or exclusion. There are problems with the phrasing though - "continuation" is a historical question, or rather has a historical level, and one a great number of historians accept, but "apostolic succession" is indeed a theological concept, and not as such in the historian's province. I think a rephrasing is desirable to split the two ideas. Johnbod (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that is not exactly correct either because some of our sources do indicate that apostolic succession is recognized by historians. I would say that the National Geographic source quote supports this view when it states that "once the position was institutionalized, historians looked back and saw Peter as the first pope of the church of Rome". This source is giving Reader the view that many historians, throughout the centuries, agreed with this concept of one bishop handing authority down to others and so on - not necessarily a strictly theological concept. NancyHeise ^talk 20:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

ISBN at worldcat.org

You do not need to remove soures without an ISBN listed.

The ISBN for all books can be found at www.worldcat.org/advancedsearch.--Carlaude ^(talk) 23:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Carlaude brought up the issue of where to categorize this article and deleted its inclusion in the Christianity category placing it into the Christian groups and movements category. I think this is very unhelpful to Readers who will be hindered from finding this article and is incorrect use of the Categorization tools. Per Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories which states "If, however, the topic article and the similarly named category come to be placed in the same parent category, the fact that the article is a member of this subcategory is not a reason for it to be excluded from the parent category. Here, the double listing tells users that there is an article about the topic, and there are also more articles to be found in the subcategory of the same name. It makes it easier to find main topic articles (by eliminating the need to go to the subcategory). It also creates a complete listing of articles at the higher level category. It points readers of the topic article to the category and vice versa." I would like to know what other editors think on this issue so we may come to consensus. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 15:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is that no other Church/denomination is in the main Christianity cat. The issue with categorization, as I see it, is not really where the article is, but where Category:Roman Catholic Church is - this was not in the Christian groups and movements top-level category until I added it just now, to join what is probably an excessive number of Protestant sub-categories. Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have felt that Christianity categories and even the Christianity page do not adequately help Reader discern that the overwhelming number of Christians in the world are Roman Catholics. It seems to be a fact that is somehow deemed POV when I think it is a very important, notable fact to communicate to Reader. NancyHeise ^talk 15:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The article says "over half of all Christians" are Roman Catholics, but it doesn't say how much more than half. I think if it's less than 80% or so, then it's inaccurate to say that "the overwhelming [emphasis added] number of Christians in the world are Roman Catholics". However much the Catholic Church dislikes being considered one Christian denomination among many, it would be a severe violation of NPOV for Wikipedia to treat it otherwise. If the articles Eastern Orthodox Church and Anglicanism and Lutheranism and so on are not included directly inside Category:Christianity but rather are in a subcategory, then Roman Catholic Church should be in that same subcategory. Contrariwise, if the article Roman Catholic Church belongs directly in Category:Christianity, then so do the others. Basically, as the topic article for Category:Roman Catholic Church, the article Roman Catholic Church should be in all the same categories as Category:Roman Catholic Church is in; currently, that's Category:Christianity Portal pages, Category:Christian denominations, Category:Religious organizations established in the 1st century, Category:Christian denominational families, and Category:Christian groups and movements, but not Category:Christianity. —Angr 16:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Every major Christianity page has a link directly to the Roman Catholic Church. People do not need to quickly find the Roman Catholic Church via the system of categories as well.

Yes the issue is that no other Church/denomination is in the main Christianity category... and that we can not fit all the others Churchs/denominations under the main Christianity category. If you wanted to claim that a certain group is the biggest and thus should go in the main Christianity category... that is not how the category system works.

By the way, there are also too many Christian denominations to fit them all under Category:Christian groups and movements or even the Category:Christian denominations. They are listed under sub-cats of Christian denominations, e.g. Category:Methodist denominations.--Carlaude ^(talk) 16:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Angr is correct. However, Categories exist on Wikipedia to help Reader find things and if the overwhelming majority of Christians consist of only three categories: Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox, then those three categories should be listed in the Christianity category. NancyHeise ^talk 16:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Nancy, I see some merit and some problems with this proposal-- but more importantly, this is not the forum for that discussion. The\best place to bring it up would be Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Christianity.--Carlaude ^(talk) 16:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

At the top of Category:Christianity, it says "Most articles about Christian people, churches, organizations, and so on are organized under the respective communion or tradition in Category:Christian denominations or geographically within Category:Christianity by region, so Category:Christian denominations (where this article really does belong) is only one click away. I don't think it's asking too much of the reader to make him click once more to find this article. —Angr 16:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If Angr is OK with present categorization, then I am fine with it too. NancyHeise ^talk 17:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

At this moment the article is only Category:Roman Catholic Church, which is not sufficient. It should also be in Category:Christianity Portal pages, Category:Christian denominations, Category:Religious organizations established in the 1st century, Category:Christian denominational families, and Category:Christian groups and movements. —Angr 20:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. This article should be in every category to which it pertains unless it is grouped within a subcategory of parallel phenomenons, i.e. it should not be placed within Cat:Christianity if no other denominations are included but should go with these into the subcat:Christian denominations. However, the Cat:Roman Catholic Church is different because the Category's topic is identical to this article and hence doesn't really count. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding these categories are not necessary nor recomended because the Category:Roman Catholic Church itself is put in these categories. --Carlaude ^(talk) 05:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, that is exactly the reason why it should be in those categories. See what Nancy quoted above: "If, however, the topic article and the similarly named category come to be placed in the same parent category, the fact that the article is a member of this subcategory is not a reason for it to be excluded from the parent category. Here, the double listing tells users that there is an article about the topic, and there are also more articles to be found in the subcategory of the same name. It makes it easier to find main topic articles (by eliminating the need to go to the subcategory). It also creates a complete listing of articles at the higher level category. It points readers of the topic article to the category and vice versa." Since this is the topic article for Category:Roman Catholic Church, there is no reason for it to be excluded from the parent categories of that category, for all the reasons given. What should not happen, at least not for such a broad topic as this one, is for an article to be located in only one category, especially not when that one category covers the exact same topic as the article itself. —Angr 05:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added the article to three of the cats - not groups and movements, which doesn't have other big denominations. On a wider issue, there are too many layers in these categories: Category:Christian denominations, Category:Christian denominational families, and Category:Christian groups and movements. I'd recommend taking denominations out of "groups and movements" entirely, & maybe merging denominations into denominational families. But that is a discussion to take to the project. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's help in getting the categories straightened out. I don't know how to fix them myself so I'm sure they would have remained unchanged without your involvement here. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 15:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What Nancy quoted above, and did not make clear, is not a policy to put article in the same category as the subcategory that they share a name with. It is rather a partial exception to the normal policy Wikipedia:Category#Some_general_guidelines, guideline #3:

"do not place an article directly into a category if it belongs more appropriately in one of its subcategories"

Setting aside the other categories for the time being, if you read the examples on actors on the page that Nancy quotes you will see that this does not apply to the RCC and Category:Christian denominations because it is not a mostly comprehensive lists of all articles on denominations.Eveyone seemed to agreed with this except Johnbod so I amreversing his edit.--Carlaude ^(talk) 18:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with taking it out of that one, though Angr (above) wants it in. Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason and no possible justification to remove the RCC from the category of christian denominations. I insist on its inclusion and cannot understand the urge to push its removal further and further. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. The category denominations should include as elements all denominations. Denominations are not necessarily single church bodies (e.g. the Methodist Church of Palm Springs) but the groupings. In some cases however a denomination is also a single united body. The RCC is one example.

PPS. Anyone can argue his case on the talk page but please do not insert such arguments into the article text, especially if they are a onesided presentation of simply your opinion. It is your opinion and not fact, Carlaude, that "official" encompasses the usage by political bodies and that it implies that there can be no other officially used names. The fallacy in the latter case is clear, and in the former case your insinuation is appalling: governments have absolutely no business in decided what the Catholic Church should officially call itself. If it wanted to call itself "blue horse stable" no secular lawbook could gainsay it. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus agrees with Str1977, Carlaude, please do not remove Roman Catholic Church from Category:Christian denominations. We all have to follow the Wikipedia policies. NancyHeise ^talk 00:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Nancy, Str1977 et al. Let's not forget that the Catholic church is actually made up of several churches. Drill down and you'll find category: "Roman Catholic" includes the Maronite Church, the Melkite Catholic Church, etc. Majoreditor (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Gabr-el 02:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)