Request Information

Request made by: Hyphen5 07:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

Talk:Roman Catholic Church#REQUESTED MOVE to Catholic Church

Who's involved?

Me, User:JohnnyBGood, User:TSP, User:Lima, User:KHM03, User:JzG, User:Pollinator, User:Csernica, User:Philip Baird Shearer, User:WikiCats, User:Ihcoyc, User:DJ Clayworth

What's going on?

This is not a behavioral dispute, or an edit war. There has been no editorial misconduct. I don't even know if Mediation Cabal is the right place to take this issue. But we're arguing about whether Roman Catholic Church should be moved to Catholic Church, and in my opinion:

• It should.
• I've made a strong case based on the naming conventions that we are creating a double standard by keeping Roman Catholic Church where it is.
• Nobody is listening to my actual case. It seems like everyone has an agenda, whereas objectively speaking, my case is stronger.
• Editors are simply ignoring the naming conventions and voting based on their own agendas.

What would you like to change about that?

I guess I want to see Roman Catholic Church moved to Catholic Church. Short of that, I want editors to stop relying on subjective criteria and make a case, based on the naming conventions, either that (1) the most common usage of "Catholic Church" in English does not refer to that Church of which the Pope is head, or (2) that Church of which the Pope is head does not claim the title "Catholic Church", or (3) we have some other good, objective reason not to call the Catholic Church the Catholic Church, when we do call other religions and churches by their claimed names.

If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?

My talk page.

Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case?

Maybe eventually, but not at the moment.

Mediator response

I am in the process of the reading the extensive debates/discussions and performing additional research in the matter. Joelito 16:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My first recommendation is to either stop the edit war or request a temporary editing block of Roman Catholic Church and Catholic Church. The latter is probably the best solution at the moment since it will be unlikely that the edits will stop. This block would promote the communication process. Joelito 04:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would request a temporary editing block on the understanding that it be protected as a disambig page as opposed to a redirect (as it is now again), in keeping with the consensus already established conerning the meanings of Roman Catholic and Catholic. Fishhead64 06:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fishhead, if anything, Catholic Church should be protected as a redirect. It has been a redirect for months, until your friend JzG changed it the other day. You cannot claim there is a consensus about making Catholic Church a disambig; indeed, you are losing that survey vote right now at Talk:Roman Catholic Church. --Hyphen5 16:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't strike you as contradictory that the consensus is that Catholic Church is not synonymous with Roman Catholic Church, yet the two pages are synonymous? That is untenable. My understanding of the rationale that some have been offering in the survey is that it shouldn't be a temporary disambig, but we should merge the articles now and be done with it. Is there any reason why I shouldn't proceed to do this by the end of this week, in accord with what seems to be a consensus with which you and others agree? Fishhead64 16:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To do so would violate WP policy, since the consensus went the other way, clearly in support of no change. KHM03 (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was that Roman Catholic Church should not be renamed Catholic Church. Having Catholic Church redirect to Roman Catholic Church accomplishes the very purpose which was opposed. Fishhead64 17:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was that Roman Catholic Church should not be renamed to Catholic Church. The status quo was PRESERVED. Now you have begun a vote requesting a change in the status quo (i.e., the creation of a disambiguation page at Catholic Church), and you are LOSING that vote. And you are trying to tell me that you should be allowed to preempt the vote and create a disambig page anyway? Give me a break; that's totally against the rules. The reason for the redirect is that CN|the naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conflict direct us to take "common usage" of these terms into account. The overwhelming majority of people who type "Catholic Church" are looking for our article at Roman Catholic Church. There was even a disambig link at the top. But since you are acting deceitfully and against the rules, I totally withdraw my support for your "compromise" that you tried to strongarm everyone into. --Hyphen5 12:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I checked, three people unambiguously opposed my proposal, five people (including me) supported it, and two people opposed it because they want it to do the merge immediately. That sounds like an emerging consensus in favour of my proposal. Don't be churlish. Fishhead64 16:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is laughable. First of all, you're breaking down only the opposed side by variations in reasoning, but you're not doing the same for the support side. Second, you're counting ME as one of the "two" who supposedly halfway support you. And I obviously do not support you at all any longer. Third, a "consensus" is defined by a supermajority, which even if we accept your count you do not have. In any event, the fact is five people are opposed to your proposal and five are supportive. That is not a consensus. --Hyphen5 20:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of peace from Hyphen5's constant pushing, why not let material from the other three articles (continue to) be added to Catholic Church? He seems now to demand no more than that (and the consequent turning of the other three into redirect pages) in order to withdraw his previously insistent request that "Roman Catholic Church" be moved to "Catholic Church", the request that this page (and many more) is about. Then at last, relative tranquillity (I hope). Lima 11:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a temporary editing block to promote the communication process. --WikiCats 12:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final response

The first step toward a solution is for both sides to stop the ongoing edit war and to completely remove yourselves from editing both Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Church. Also the personal attacks must be stopped and each side must listen to the other sides arguments. Afterwards discuss each of the points clearly and make a coherent proposal before voting or surveys. My suggestion is that the debates be tackled individually. Example would be 1.should Catholic Church be a disambiguation?, 2.if so should pages be merged into Catholic Church? 3.if so, which pages should be merged?

Lastly everyone must remember that Wikipedia is written in a NPOV manner. Hyphen5, I must ask you to take a NPOV stance for this subject. Statements such as "our article at Roman Catholic Church" clearly reflect a POV which is undesirable. Also calling proposals "laughable" certainly isn't helping. I must ask you stop the disrupting behavior you have taken in this matter. Examples: supporting and then removing your support for compromises, etc..

Finally, if none of this works then, as I have suggested above, blocking the editing of the article might help the communication process. Also this issue might have to eventually be taken to WP:RfC or WP:CS. Joelito 20:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per your suggestion, I will not tinker with Catholic Church, but have listed the current survey over at WP:RfC and WP:CS for additional input. Fishhead64 01:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which User:WikiCats summarily removed. I've replaced it again. Fishhead64 02:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

Compromise offers

• The offer has been made to create a new article Catholic Church, merge the material in Catholicism, Catholic, and One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and begin the article with the notation that the term "Catholic Church" is often used interchangably with "Roman Catholic Church," with perhaps a very brief description of both the rationale offered for this and the controversy associated with it. I gather the requester supports the broad notion of this proposal, so why don't we work from there? Fishhead64 03:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I largely agree with this compromise proposal. --Hyphen5 00:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fishhead64 proposes two articles: one on "Roman Catholic Church", the other (to be called "Catholic Church"), a combination of three other articles (whose merging has been resisted in the past), with a notation pointing to the "Roman Catholic Church" article. Hyphen5 says he "largely agrees" with this. Does this mean Hyphen5 withdraws his own proposal, or only that either he or I misunderstand Fishhead64's proposal? Lima 04:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your summary of my proposal is correct. I understand your reservations, Lima, and I am not entirely sanguine about the ultimate success of this plan, should there be consensus to proceed. Indeed, I feel a little like the naïve boy innocently poking a stick at a hornet's nest. However, if we create a temporary page with a draft merged article, then place a merge proposal tag on the three articles in question, along with a pointer on their talk pages to the temporary article for review, evaluation and further editing, then no one can fault us for trying to find a solution that might at least go some way to satisfying the disparate opinions. Fishhead64 06:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am angry that you went ahead and changed Catholic Church without first merging the three other articles, and--for that matter--without much discussion about your proposal here. That is exactly what I don't want: just another article added to our labyrinth of articles on "Catholic" semantics. If you change Catholic Church first without using the others as leverage, people will become invested in it, like thay are with the others, and you will find it impossible to consolidate any of them. --Hyphen5 14:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only change I made to it was linking the three articles proposed for merger. If you're talking about removing the redirect, since your edit restored it, that wasn't me (as can be easily deduced from the edit history). BTW, I mentioned the fact that I had linked those three articles on the Talk:Roman Catholic Church page and nobody said boo - including you. Fishhead64 16:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that there's no consensus for any of this, and any changes are liley to be reverted. Please review WP:CON. KHM03 (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarity, would Hyphen kindly inform us whether, if the three articles were merged with Catholic Church, he would then accept that Roman Catholic Church should remain Roman Catholic Church. Lima 18:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would accept that. That's what I thought I was accepting, but I don't want to have Catholic Church simply become another article redundant with Catholic, Catholicism, Catholicism (disambiguation), and One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. If these were consolidated, I would accept that Roman Catholic Church would stay where it is. --Hyphen5 23:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC) I have withdrawn my support because of Fishhead64's aggressive behavior that violates WP policies. --Hyphen5 12:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is "(Roman)Catholic Church" an acceptable compromise? It would be used merely as the Page Name. This is consistent with accrued concensus, conforms to the policy that "concensus does not trump NPOV", reflects the POV that the given Page Name is not NPOV, and does not used unacceptable keystrokes. --Gazzetta 14:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others

• Hyphen5 called for a vote on his proposal, and lost, as a significant consensus developed. He requested mediation, and his request was rejected by the mediators. He's desperately trying to get around WP:CON at this point, violating WP:POINT. KHM03 (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the second mediation request for a WP:RM move which currently has a wikipedia:consensus not to move the page from "Roman Catholic Church" to "Catholic Church". Currently in the survey section 15 editors have expressed an opinion not to move the article and 3 are in support. This is not the only request for mediation that User:Hyphen5, who proposed the move, has put forward See also Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rejected 3#Roman Catholic Church. See further comments on Talk:Roman Catholic Church#Mediation --Philip Baird Shearer 14:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The consensus to keep this article at Roman Catholic Church precedes Hyphen5's involvement in this matter, and is likely to outlast him. The first talk page archive shows that this is a fairly old issue. There has never been a consensus to move this page despite more than a year of lobbying. It isn't that no one is listening to Hyphen5: it's just that we've heard it all before and he's beating a dead horse.

  I make no secret of the fact that my personal PoV on the matter is that Roman Catholics wish to omit the "Roman" to identify their particular corporate body with its claim to most completely embody the universal Church; and, perhaps, to deflect attention from the claimed authority of the Pope. "Roman Catholic Church" is necessary for both specificity and neutrality. — Smerdis of Tlön 15:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Catholic" refers to the universal Christian Church. "Roman Catholic" refers to a visible, structure - an organization. To make them synonomous is to make the POV claim that one can only be a Christian within the confines of the "Roman Catholic" organization. There's no dispute that Roman Catholics, on occasion, make this claim, but it is a POV claim that does not fit in Wikipedia. My Presbyterian friend says, "You don't have to be Presbyterian to go to heaven, but why take chances?" That's quite a bit less POV than the conflation of "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic," but it still would not be appropriate for the Wikipedia article on Presbyterianism. (And I want to emphasize that my position does NOT arise from any hostility toward Roman Catholics whatsoever.) Pollinator 18:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's be honest, by this stage Hyphen is beating the bloody smear where the body of the dead horse once lay. Just zis Guy you know? 21:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, don't be a dick. --Hyphen5 01:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I commend to you the following: WP:POINT, WP:CON. Just how much of the community's time do you feel it necessary to waste before you recognise that there is no consensus for this? Just zis Guy you know? 17:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hyphen5 has been back to my talk page repeating again the same arguements that failed to convince before. Hyphen5, I request that you drop this, because this browbeating is beginning to feel like harrassment. If you continue, I'm going to request a non-involved admin to consider giving you a Wikivacation. Pollinator 20:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I thought a consensus had emerged that a new article, Catholic Church, be created merging the information contained in Catholicism, Catholic, and One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, one that would begin by citing the interchangability of "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic" among some? The article's talk page indicates that this is a proposal that the requester supports, and would seem to negate the original proposal to retitle Roman Catholic Church. Am I wrong? Fishhead64 03:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any such move. -Just a couple proposals. Frankly the consensus has been (long before the current tempest) to leave things pretty much as they are. I suggest we put the whole thing to rest for awhile. Pollinator 04:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unhappy with Catholic Church as it stands. As a temporary measure, I've (hopefully uncontroversially) added links to the three articles I cited above. In the long run, however, I'd still strongly argue for merging them all into this one to eliminate the redundancy and produce greater clarity. I'd like to hear what others think. Fishhead64 06:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• I would just like to question why this is being brought here? Hypen has now shopped this debate (which I might add has a solid consensus developing on the RCC talk page albiet against him) to 5 different dispute resolution forums. At this point he's just shopping for support to attempt to overturn a very solid consensus. JohnnyBGood 18:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This case hasn't even been taken up yet. Nobody asked for your comments yet. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean you should go around on all these talk pages bad-mouthing me. None of you on the pro-status quo side have made a case from the naming conventions that the article should remain where it is. I have pointed out inconsistencies and you have all ignored them. I am trying to mediate the dispute because that's what one is supposed to do. This is a perennial dispute, and it's not going away, because the title of Roman Catholic Church is simply and flat-out wrong, no matter how many of you vote otherwise. If you stopped being so obstructionist, and so hostile, maybe we could come to an agreement. MEDIATION is COOPERATIVE. You clearly have no interest in cooperating in any of this. --Hyphen5 03:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who is badmouthing? You HAVE shopped this to multiple dispute resolution boards and have been very impatient. That is not badmouthing, it's a fact. Step back and take a breath and remember, no one is under any obligation to agree with you and you're not always right. You've presented your arguments, a fair vote has been taken, and you lost handily. Accept it and move on to adding to the encyclopedia.JohnnyBGood 18:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please see my lengthy response to TCC below for an explanation of why I feel that this has not been a fair vote. --Hyphen5 02:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend a WP:RFC or WP:CS, not mediation. --Fasten 14:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fasten, I've already done RFC. I don't know what else to do anymore. I am confident that if there were some neutral panel of Wikipedians well-versed in the policies like WP:NC and Wikipedia:Naming conflict, my arguments would carry the day. Unfortunately, this is turning out to be a nightmare because everybody has an axe to grind. And there's nobody to appeal to! If this is how Wikipedia is, I don't know if I want to stick around. --Hyphen5 15:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphen5, no one gets his own way on Wikipedia all the time. You don't. I certainly don't. Not even Jimbo does. You may find your arguments convincing, but clearly they are not persuasive to a consensus of editors involved, not even those editors you specifically recruited in the hopes they'd support your proposal, and probably still would not even if you allowed the vote to run its course. (Which it has not yet done; voting usually takes a week or longer.) Appealing to rules against the consensus is rarely effective either: not only are the rules themselves by and large a product of consensus, there's always WP:IAR which applies in situations where it seems to make sense to most Wikipedians. I therefore ask you to stop pushing this, and instead devote your not inconsiderable energy and intelligence to improving the encyclopedia's content. That's really what we're all here for, after all. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TCC, I see little point in continuing to edit, or even read, an encyclopedia with editors like this. Just read all these comments on this page. This process has been vile. Instead of addressing my points, based on the naming conventions, or proposing compromises, the editors simply repeated their objections over and over like schoolchildren. Now you say that the rules don't matter anyway. What a sham, and a waste of time. --Hyphen5 01:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You never gave anyone a reason to compromise, and you refused to back down in the face of overwhelming community opposition. That has made for a certain amount of weariness and attendant hard feelings.

But your points have been addressed, repeatedly. That you will not acknowledge this is part of the reason for the reaction you're getting. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? What is the difference between Catholic Church, where we refuse to follow common usage, and Church of Christ, where we follow common usage in spite of ambiguity? Nobody's answered that. If there were a political party called The Best Party, would we disambiguate to all the other parties claiming to be "best"? Nobody's answered that. What about my point-by-point application of WP:NC(CN), Wikipedia:Naming conflict, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) that you can find at Talk:Roman Catholic Church#Discussion. Nobody's answered that except JzG, who simply dismisses everything I say in one sentence. Nobody has answered my charge that they're relying on "moral rights" claims that are specifically discredited in Wikipedia:Naming conflict. Nobody has answered my claim that it is inherently POV to keep the article at Roman Catholic Church, which can be found at the bottom of Talk:Roman Catholic Church#An Alternate Resolution.

Nobody has offered a successful alternative to my application of the Google test. Even if you control for all possible variations, "Catholic Church" is still the most commonly used term, and it is most commonly employed to refer to that Church of which the Pope is head. (Search for "Catholic Church" -Roman -Liberal -Anglican -Old -Ecumenical = 13 million hits. Search for "Roman Catholic Church" -Liberal -Anglican -Old -Ecumenical = 4 million hits. The fact that these other groups qualify their use of "Catholic Church" -- as in Old Catholic Church or Liberal Catholic Church -- reinforces my argument that the unqualified "Catholic Church" refers most commonly to that Church of which the Pope is head. We should give those their own pages, as we have, according to their actual names, and we should not use them to delegitimize and confuse the proper name of the unqualified Catholic Church.)

Nobody has answered any of these. Much less "repeatedly". Are they so absurd and unreasonable to not merit a response? Please go back and read the discussion, and point me to where any of these have been addressed by anyone. Read the votes; they all repeat the same point that I have repeatedly gone out of my way to respond to: "there are other Churches that claim to be Catholic!" I know that; but that's not the point, especially under the guidance of the policies and precedents already cited. So, forgive me if I feel like people haven't been listening to me. The substantive case for keeping the article where it is, as far as I can tell, ultimately rests on your telling suggestion of WP:IAR in order to create a double standard. --Hyphen5 01:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my post in this section where I try to answer these points. I don't wholly agree, but I don't think it's unreasonable for this to be seen as a different situation from Best Party or Church of Christ. TSP 14:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]