WikiProject iconChristianity: Catholicism Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by WikiProject Catholicism.

Introduction[edit]

Please note that this naming convention was drafted on a WP:Bold basis. It is still hatnoted and categorised as a proposal. In the end it is, like nothing on Wikipedia, "written in stone". Nevertheless, obviously there are already multiple personal essays or essay-like documents on the subject floating around, and tt's not clear how yet another one would help.

It is a nisched subject, really, but still pertains to general Wikipedia policies. As such, the intiative echoes that of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints), arguably no less merited for a collected consideration of arguments recurring in sometimes contentious discussions previously scattered in numerous talk pages and archives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicbyaccident (talk • contribs) 11:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As of 3 October 2017, I would say the draft is finished for evaluation. Thanks for the collaboration. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Background section[edit]

As much as consensus has tended to lean towards Catholic rather than Roman Catholic, this does remain objected from time to time. However, whereas objections 1) to WP:Primarytopic has tended to be refuted on the basis of sheer number estimations, the objections 2) referring to scholarly support of "Roman Catholic" has been refuted for other reasons. To what degree the refutation of objection #2 is valid - ostensibly, arguably by scholarly support being associated with the WP:Fringe policy (echoing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints)) - is pretty much a key issue of the discussion, hence the background to this centralised article.

The association to WP:Fringe, mirroring equivalent terminology in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Latter_Day_Saints) on which it was built, could naturally be a subject of discussion. There is a lack of academic research on how Wikipedia talk pages work it that we can refer to, although it would be interesting. In this regard, the meta level discussion on Wikipedia naming conventions naturally don't exactly follow the rules of the content of article content. However, better way of describing how related arguments have been refuted is still welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicbyaccident (talk • contribs) 06:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the edit by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs), and the remark made by TSP (talk · contribs) below the RfC. Please note the deleted hatnote information in question was not intended as consideration of the general discussion of the article's subject, but as a destillation of how arguments tend to be exchanged on talk pages. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overview of recurrents viewpoints throughout talk pages[edit]

1. Isn't "Roman Catholic Church" the WP:COMMONNAME?

2. Isn't "Catholic Church" too ambiguous?

3. What about ambiguity in relation to 1) Anglo-Catholicism, 2) Independent Catholicism (Old Catholicism), 3) Avignon Papacy..?

4. What about the implicated assertion that "Roman Catholic" is the most neutral alternative by prominent authors A, B, and C?

5. What about the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches?

6. Hasn't Latin Church sometimes been called "Roman Catholic Church"?

7. Haven't authorities of the Catholic Church themselves applied "Roman Catholic Church" on occations?

8. Is branch theory considered WP:FRINGE?

9. "Roman Catholic Church", is/is not offensive, derogatory, right?

10. What if "Roman Catholic" is the prevailing custom in my town/diocese/country/culture for parishes/dioceses/organisations/national polities?

11. Do we really need to apply WP:Consistency to these issues?

12. Does this "FAQ" indicate a WP:OWN issue?

13. Shouldn't X, Y, and Z should be changed in these naming conventions?

Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you want discussion, I will note that the initial point (wikipedia uses it therefore it is common usage therefore wikipedia should use it) is a prime example of a circular argument. Since most of the rest of this "faq" follows on from that first point, it doesn't merit more detailed analysis. Rhialto (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is in reference to WP:Consensus, and ultimately to Wikipedia:Five pillars. That said, how would your assumed inverted position not qualify for a tu quoque concern, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia cannot be a source for itself. That's one of the core policies. By using wikipedia's own content to set the terms for how it should be written, that is exactly what you are proposing - that wikipedia should be a source for itself. Rhialto (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was on a meta level in a contentious talk pages-wide subject, as applied by WP:Consensus. Although I agree that the risk of the WP:Consensus policy itself implicating circular reasoning is an interesting question. Chicbyaccident (talk) 05:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although above comments were modified after a reply, it's a legitimate refactor IMO and provided Rhialto does not object, all good.

But more of a problem IMO is the idea that an Overview of recurrents viewpoints throughout talk pages can be focused on branch theory. Not all of those who consider ourselves part of the true church but not under the authority of the Pope are Anglicans. Andrewa (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Church - "Roman Catholic"?[edit]

@TonyBallioni: Like or not like, I just don't see the arguments for the Latin Catholic entities specifically being called "Roman Catholic". But it's good that you bring it up, though, since it has been touched upon priorly. Would you mind giving your arguments? Chicbyaccident (talk) 06:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it is used in reliable sourcing, especially in Eastern Europe and to some extent South Asia, as a way to distinguish from Greek Catholics or some other sui iuris church, and in English the usage sometimes reflects this. My addition of that to this proposed guideline doesn't require that Wikipedia use it, but points out we deal with those cases on an individual basis: i.e. you'd be free to argue against it and I'd be free to argue for it. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide some of those sources? Every one I've found (Oxford English Dictionary, Catholic Encyclopedia, the Vatican's own site) seems to use "Roman Catholic" - when it is used at all - as synonymous with "Catholic", and never to mean "Latin Rite". TSP (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, here is a randomly selected group of books from the Google Book search "Roman Catholic" AND "Greek Catholic" [1],[2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. There are plenty more on that Gbooks search, and I didn't have the time to do a search in the South Asian context, where it is also used. Regardless of whether or not it should be used, it is a common usage in English-language publications when dealing with regions that have sizable populations of multiple sui iuris particular churches. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. For WP:Consistency, the Category:Latin Church category tree ought to follow a coherent nomenclature, right? So whether regional synonyms may be referenced, what would be the arguments to let these variations override parent category tree nomenclature, effectively violating category tree coherence, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the sources establish that it does get used in that way. However, I think it is clear (per OED, Vatican, Catholic Encyclopedia) that that usage is a minority usage in English; the usual English meaning of "Roman Catholic" (the only one found in any of those sources) is "that part of the Christian Church which acknowledges the Pope as its head" (OED). So I think there might be cases to say "We should specifically not use Roman Catholic in this case because use is ambiguous in relation to this country"; but I would suggest that we should never use "Roman Catholic" to mean "Latin Rite Catholic", because that is not the usual meaning of that term in English. TSP (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty strongly disagree on that point. Rite vs. Church is a difficult distinction, but if we use them as easy synonyms in this case we see that Roman is a much more common usage to distinguish the various rites than Latin is [7]. Latin Church is a technical term that is rarely used in English even in Catholic Church circles. There is no question that Roman Catholic primarily refers to the Catholic Church as a whole, but it is also the most common usage to refer to a member of the Latin Church as being distinct from a non-Latin Catholic. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a useful graph, I don't think, because Roman Rite doesn't mean that. Our usual usage here on Wikipedia seems to be Latin Church. TSP (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was using it because the English usage often varies: rite != sui iuris church, but it is often used incorrectly in English to mean it that way. You'll often hear people refer to themselves as "Roman Rite Catholics", when there is no such thing officially. See this example of a reliable source incorrectly using the term that way.
Yes: the correct name for the article particular church sui iurison Wikipedia is Latin Church. That's not what we are discussing. The question is in any of the articles on local Catholic subjects whether or not Roman is a valid disambiguator as compared to the very rarely used Latin in this context.
My point is that the relationship between the Eastern Churches and the Latin Church is very complex and nuanced, and the naming usages used in English are equally complex. I think you'd find that most reliable sources refer to Roman Catholics rather than Latin Catholics when used in comparison to Eastern Churches, and that article titles where this might occur should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, which is exactly what we do with diocese in countries where the the Catholic Church is a minority in an otherwise majority Christian nation. This is not calling for its usage, just recognizing that there are cases where it may be the preferred disambiguating term, and that each RM or talk page should weight the factors accordingly. Outlawing Roman Catholic in this usage would be acting against reliable sourcing in an area where naming conventions are very complex and shouldn't be handled across the board. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are related discussions at:

not to mention:

-and this doesn't include all the discussions regarding categories.

I am perplexed. I'm not even entirely sure this is the right page to post this. After reading all these, there seems to be some degree of confusion among the terms "catholic", "catholicism", and " catholicity; conflation of "church" vs. "rite"; and the issue of when to use/not use the qualifier "Roman" (apparently never). To quote Walter, "The discussion has become too involved." (ya think?!)

Please stop and take a breath. What is the issue/issues? What is the plan? Can anyone outline the approach to be taken to address them? (Preferably one at a time). Respectfully yours, Thank you. Mannanan51 (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what this attempt of a centralised discussion hub is for, right? Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then it doesn't appear to be quite working, right? (Also, Talk:Anglican–Catholic dialogue (9/25/17)) Mannanan51 (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Usage on en.wiki has been trending towards using Catholic Church or Catholic, and Roman is becoming increasingly less frequent. This is not universal, however, and while Cuchullain does have a fair point at that talk page (I'd likely agree with them), the naming convention when dealing with Anglicanism is more complex because of the existence of Anglo-Catholics. My general view on this guideline is that it should be something along the lines of Usage of Roman is not common on the English Wikipedia, but there are cases where discussion on the talk page might determine it is needed because of individual circumstances involving relationships between different Christian bodies. In some of these cases, Roman may be used as a disambiguating adjective.
Something like that would recognize that our naming conventions are shifting towards Catholic over Roman Catholic, but that in some circumstances Roman can be justified with consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Anglican–Catholic dialogue move (done in a week based on exactly two votes in favour) seems like a particularly poor one. This is an example of a field where the Catholic Church itself accepts the need to use "Roman Catholic" for clarity and lack of offence (cf. Anglican–Roman Catholic International Commission etc.). It seems odd that we don't accept the same. TSP (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point. Andrewa (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dioceses[edit]

As for dioceses, the naming convention text currently states that "Notably, for article names of Catholic dioceses located in historically Catholic-minority, Christian regions, though, consensus seems unclear". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicbyaccident (talk • contribs) 06:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just use what they call themselves? Mannanan51 (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is what we typically do in RMs, which means that Roman is often used. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No Italian dioceses ever uses the 'Roman' part, yet ALL of the wiki pages for those do? Why so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Eccekevin (talk • contribs) 20:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because it doesn't matter what the name is in Italian. It matters what the common English name is for each see. I'm not arguing in favour of it in these cases. I'm simply saying that like we do with all article titles, we make a judgement on each case on their own. Typically this means for general purpose Catholicism related pages, we don't use Roman. For things that are more local, we sometimes do. It depends, and it is difficult to create a hard rule. The only question is to what the most common English-language name is for the subject. Argue from that in individual RMs. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dioceses: part 2

I agree that the WP for the Catholic Archdiocese of New York should be called Catholic Archdiocese of New York City' to differentiate from non Catholic dioceses such as the Episcopal one. But why 'Roman'? The official name of the diocese, what they call themselves, is the 'Archdiocese of New York City'. Again, I agree to add the 'Catholic' part, but why the 'Roman'?

This goes for all dioceses pages. I see no ambiguity that is solved by the word Roman. There is no (non-Roman) Catholic dioceses page, even the Old Catholic one is called Old Catholic Archdiocese of Utrecht.

I propose removing the 'Roman' form every Catholic dioceses title. Eccekevin (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Universities in the USA[edit]

I believe Catholic universities in the USA should use the term 'Catholic' or 'Catholic Church' to describe affiliation since no ambiguity is present that would need 'Roman'. This is in line with the page policy. If anyone disagrees, please discussEccekevin (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • What pages are you talking about? You haven't linked to anything that I can see. My guess is that you are discussing infoboxes. That is a MOS issue and not a naming conventions issue. Universities almost always go by their proper name as their title, so this proposal doesn't serve a purpose for a naming conventions page. Also, this is a proposed naming conventions guideline, not an actual guideline. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to make this request/argument and even to boldly edit a few articles. But don't edit articles and claim that this "policy" supports your edits when (a) this is a proposed policy, (b) it's only 2-weeks old, and (c) it applies to the names of articles.
Please seek further input and find consensus for these contested edits. I recommend posting a note at WT:UNI at a bare minimum. ElKevbo (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: should this page be made a naming convention[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus was reached to reject the proposal. Rhialto (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a sub-section since this is what Chicbyaccident seemed to be trying to do. This is a request for comment on the following question: Should the proposed naming conventions guideline located at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Catholic Church) be made an official naming convention guideline? TonyBallioni (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the term 'Catholic Church' has a common use that corresponds to the definition you propose as designating a particular Christian denomination (and where there is no ambiguity, there is no reason not to use it so in Wikipedia). But that is not the sense in which the term was 'originally coined' or is applied in authoritative patristic sources. As here http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310118.htm ; where Rome is not mentioned at all. Nor is it strictly the application of the term in Vatican usage. In classic Vatican formulations it has been maintained that, contingently, the 'Catholic Church' according to the above patristic understanding, and the 'Catholic Church' as churches in communion with Rome are one and the same. But this is a confessional claim rather than a statement of fact, and so should not be applied as a Wikipedia convention; as many other Christian denominations may (and do) make counterpart claims. In practice, the Vatican has no difficulty in recognising that 'Catholicism' may be observed as one Christian denomination amongst many, and where that is the context, has no difficulty in the term 'Roman Catholic' to refer to that denominational group. TomHennell (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I may have been unclear. I am talking about the term "Roman Catholic", not the term "Catholic Church". I agree with you entirely about the term "Catholic Church". My issue is with, as I think Rhialto was suggesting, using "Roman Catholic" to mean the Latin Church as distinct from the Eastern Catholic Churches; rather than to mean the entire body described by the Wikipedia article now called Catholic Church (though for many years called Roman Catholic Church). TSP (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources use it to mean both, and that is one of the larger issues with this proposed guideline: it doesn't fully take into account that valid usage which we do use on Wikipedia: most English-language sourcing that deals with both the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Latin Church prefers Roman Catholic unless it is discussing liturgy. This is not to the exclusion of the term being used to mean the entire body, but in addition to it. Discussion above and in other venues on dioceses is probably the best example of this usage. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. As initiator of the drafted text in question, I myself didn't open this proposal, neither did I call for it. Yet, if anything, it pretty much conformed with earlier expressed concern about terminology in Catholic articles.
For the rest, this polemic is not likely to disappear any soon. That's part of the reason why I attempted to draft this text, merely echoing a perceived de facto article-wide consensus on terminological integrity, so to speak, within the scope of articles realm pertaining to the Catholic Church. Multiple users above and even more might express their disapproval of that. However, with time, introductions of "Roman Catholic" seem unlikely to persist in articles pertaining to the Catholic Church, met with recurrent opposition. That's why a sort of "cuius regio, eius religio" style policy, indeed with WP:Consensus, seem to be the most beneficial for WP:Consistency throughout Wikipedia's article realm, as well as for harmony on its talk pages. While assembled, I'll be happy to get the perspectives from the Roman Catholic posse on these thoughts? Chicbyaccident (talk) 05:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Follow-on discussion[edit]

Post hoc comment: Some aspects of this (the consistency and clarity material) could be resurrected in a new proposal, without the anti-"Roman" PoV.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  21:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Cuius regio, eius religio"

Further information: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Catholic_Church) § Cuius_regio.2C_eius_religio
@SMcCandlish: I'm positive, but how should we go about that, you think? Again, from extensive research in the related talk pages throughout the years, my perception is that a sort of "cuius regio, eius religio" style policy would bring about most harmony over time. With this, I mean that articles preeminently pertaining to the Catholic Church may retain their "Catholic" terminological integrity, while the rest of the article realm might be dealt with in other fashions. I'm afraid it seems anything less than that would simply bring about recurring disruptive exchanges of WP:POV mutual assertions and worse. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of encouraging a broader level of interest from across the editor community, it may be worth sticking to English terms only, or at least using only the absolute most common Latin terms that see usage in general contexts (such as e.g. and i.e.). Rhialto (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but in this case the terms were linked for clarification. Chicbyaccident (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. I think with that approach, much of this material seems salvageable. I don't know enough about the subject to take an editing pass at and create a new draft; I just showed up (late to the part) as an MoS and naming conventions "regular".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  06:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So how should we go about, please? Also the input of TSP (talk · contribs) would be welcome. Chicbyaccident (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While it's a bit of an odd way to express it, I broadly agree with the conclusion of cuius regio, eius religio. (Though I wouldn't tend to express it like that, as that could be taken to imply a sort of ownership - it is certainly not the case that articles about a particular religion should express the POV of that religion; all articles should follow NPOV.)
That is to say: Within articles which are entirely about the organisation described in the article Catholic Church, "Catholic Church", "Catholic", "Catholicism" etc. are reasonably unambiguous - from my point of view, anyway - User:TonyBallioni has a separate and independent set of concerns.
Within articles which also cover other viewpoints, that isn't necessarily the case, because the term and concept "Catholic" has a long and complicated history in Christianity and is used in different churches to mean different things. I think that the discussion above has rejected the idea of a rigid enforcement of "Catholic" terminology across the whole of Wikipedia; and Anglican-Catholic dialogue, being a topic that explicitly lies across the boundaries of two churches, is a prime example of a place where it shouldn't have been applied.
In article naming, I would suggest also that the terms do not have equal levels of unambiguity - I would suggest as often as possible using "Catholic Church" as a phrase; I think "Catholic ceremonies" or "Ceremonies in Catholicism" are more ambiguous than "Ceremonies of the Catholic Church", for example.
On a rather narrower point, I have to say that I've found it hard to engage with this page because of the narrative that has been added to it. Anglicanism is not a fringe belief, and people who oppose the changing of "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic" in certain cases are not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. A vital part of any attempt to make it into a workable naming convention would be to remove the narrative which frankly insults other editors, including the current hatnote. TSP (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is a bit odd, but we're also having an odd situation. Arguably this in fact seeks a middle ground towards you and other "Roman Catholic" proponents. I am sure there are a lot of "Catholic" proponents who wouldn't agree out of the WP:Consistency concern that you indeed righteously measure in. Either way, ownership no, but rather, should we say, contextual terminological application of WP:NPOV? For the rest, I'm trying to limit the discussion a little. Anglicanism is not a fringe belief, nor have I ever implied that or even mentioned it in reference to WP:Fringe objections to petitions for naming conventions. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify that. For other concerns regarding the nutshell, please consider addressing the below relevant heading. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK; I think this is the problem with your application of policies in discussions here. You seem to throw them around like blunt instruments, as if the existence of a policy on a vaguely-related topic automatically decides the debate in your favour. Below you've said that when you cited (with no explanation) the policy "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point", you were not accusing anyone of disrupting Wikipedia. Now you are saying that in citing (with no explanation) the policy "Fringe theories", you were not describing anything as a fringe theory. If you didn't mean those things, I find it hard to see how anyone could work out what you did mean. I think you need to take a great deal more care with your use of policies, and explain what you actually mean, rather than just throwing around things like "along WP:IDONTLIKEIT/WP:POINT/WP:FRINGE lines". TSP (talk) 11:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anglo-Catholics are probably the largest consideration here for groups not in communion with the Holy See (phrasing it that way to remain neutral in this territory), IMO, at least as far as sorting out the common name vs. precision issue.
The Eastern Catholicism issue is very thorny. This has been brought up at Talk:Catholic Church, WT:CATHOLIC, and this page. The issue there is that the Catholic Church (as understood in that wikilink), is a communion of 23 equal sui iuris particular churches, all under the authority of the Holy See. The Latin Church is the most prominent of the sui iuris churches both in that it is overwhelmingly the largest (98% give or take), and in that it is directly governed by the Holy See and subject to the pope as head of the particular church in addition to his role as Supreme Pontiff (this used to be expressed as Patriarch of the West, but Benedict XVI ended using that title in 2006 for ecumenical reasons.)
Because of the complexity in the relationships between the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches and the relationship between the Holy See, particular churches sui iuris, and even particular diocese and eparchies within a sui iuris church, the naming conventions of subunits of each sui iuris church present many complexities as well. There are often multiple hierarchies in countries, with dioceses and eparchies based out of the same city. Both equally being Catholic (in the sense of in full communion with the Holy See), but each distinct. It would be a gross violation of NPOV principles to call the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago while the Syro-Malabar eparchy that is based there was distinguished by the name of its sui iuris church
That leads to the question of what is to be done: I think Roman is appropriate in these cases for Latin dioceses: it is the common name for the Latin Church in reliable sources when comparing demographics with Eastern Catholics and it is also the common name for the sui iuris church in idiomatic English. On top of that, in many English language regions we have dioceses that incorporate themselves as such and refer to themselves as Roman.
tl;dr: Anglo-Catholicism is the best example of complexities outside of the churches in full communion with the Holy See. For particular churches sui iuris that are in communion with the Holy See, its very complex, but Roman is often used to refer to the Latin Church, and there is no reason we shouldn't use that practice for the purpose of disambiguation. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nutshell

In fact, I've gone and removed the summary. WP:POINT in particular refers solely to malicious harmful editing in bad faith; therefore flinging around references to it without a specific reason is an unacceptable violation of WP:AGF. Please don't do it. TSP (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I disagree with and regret your interpretation of it. It's not aimed to be prescriptive but descriptive of past disputes. Will refrain though from reaction until we have the evaluation of SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) and/or other reasonable third part perspectives. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have never explained which part of past disputes you considered to constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I do wonder whether you have simply misread the policy, as I can't understand what you intend to mean by repeatedly linking to it. TSP (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that invoking WP:POINT might be perceived as a bit confrontational, which wasn't my intentionen. That page goes on about warnings of blocking disruptive editing and what not. I have no reason to blame you or any other participants for that. I was merely trying to summarise something of a combination of light interpretations of WP:POINT, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as argued here. Hope this serves as clarification from any misunderstanding. Feel free to reply to linked post here if you prefer. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, WP:POINT is specifically, explicitly, and solely about disruptive editing - it is right there in the title of the page. Every time you have cited it, that is what you have appeared to be accusing other editors of. It sounds like that isn't what you meant; in which case you should take a good deal more care with which policies you choose to cite and how you explain your meaning.
I can see a bit more where you're going with WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS; but even then, most of the guidelines you've been citing are pretty similar - WP:POINT is "don't disruptively push points you don't really believe"; WP:FRINGE is "don't give too much prominence to obscure fringe theories over mainstream generally-accepted ones"; WP:IDONTLIKEIT is "don't suggest edits if you have nothing to back them up other than personal preference"; WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is "don't edit to further a cause rather than improve the encyclopedia".
Essentially this all feels like circular logic. These policies are all ones against using bad arguments; so saying "These arguments have been dismissed along WP:POINT/WP:FRINGE lines" means barely more than "These arguments are bad and should be rejected because Wikipedia policy says we should reject bad arguments". They do nothing to justify why your arguments are right and those arguments wrong. Citing policies like these only really makes sense if you start with the assumption that your viewpoint is the correct one and all others are disruptive, irrelevant, or fringe.
A lot of them are also pretty insulting to other editors. Citing WP:POINT, as I've said, seems to assert that you think editors who disagree with you are deliberately disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems to suggest you think editors who disagree with you (most of whom have explained their thinking in some detail) have offered no reason for their votes other than personal preference; while WP:FRINGE suggests you think Anglicanism/Protestantism is a fringe theory vs Catholicism being a mainstream one.
I think you need to take an attitude that is a good deal more accepting of the idea that others, who have also read Wikipedia policy, may disagree with you, and that doesn't mean they are ignoring Wikipedia policy or their arguments are invalid; they just disagree with you. (WP:TIGERS may also be informative.)
Coming back to what we should be saying, as far as I'm aware none of those policies has actually been cited regularly in Catholic Church naming debates in the past, so they are useful as a summary of previous discussions. The policies that actually decided the Catholic Church renaming debates were policies like WP:COMMONNAME balanced against policies like WP:NDESC; not policies like WP:POINT. These are a lot more nuanced than blunt instruments like WP:POINT; but that's where we are. You are dealing with other intelligent editors who have policy-based reasons for disagreeing with you, not with ones who need to be stopped from disrupting the encyclopedia. You need to engage with policies like those and explain your thinking in terms of them, not leap straight to the disruptive editing policies. TSP (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None is indicating any other participant here is a disruptive vandal, please. The intention was to anchor objections in discussion to Wikipedia advices of most relevance for the issue, purely addressing article name policy considerations. In that regard, actually the sentences that you provided summarises pretty well my perception of how people throughout the years has tended to refute the validity of certain considerations of WP:Article name, which was the whole point. But then again, it's nothing more alarming about it than that. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK; you may not believe that repeatedly linking to a policy whose title is "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" is suggesting that others are disrupting Wikipedia... but hopefully you can understand how it might give that impression? User:Amakuru, on Talk:Anglican–Roman Catholic dialogue, echoed my interpretation of it [11], and supported my request that you stop using it; despite being an editor who initially supported your viewpoint in that discussion.
As for the rest... well, I don't know what to do with that. Previous debates I've been involved in have been based around different readings of Wikipedia's core content policies and how they apply to this subject, and interpretations of different usage in the world. You seem to be saying that, in your view, none of these viewpoints other than yours can be considered as anything but disruption, fringe views, or completely unjustified personal opinion; and that you think they should be described as such in a Wikipedia content guideline.
If that's the case, I find it hard to see how anyone else can collaboratively work with you on making these policies. As has been shown by the WP:SNOWBALL result above, most editors do not agree with the absolutist viewpoint expressed in your draft of these conventions. If you can't accept, despite this, that others might have valid arguments that need to be considered, then perhaps it's time to take a step back and let others make these policies, drawing on your work and that of others? WP:TIGERS remains relevant. TSP (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This WP:Article name issue has been settled 2009 per 1) WP:COMMONNAME in combination with 2) acclaimed self-designation. Proponents of this conclusion supports it in reference to policy comme-il-faut, and refutes objections accordingly. Article name considerations boiling down to appeal for tact to ecumenical counterparts as asserted by individual users, no matter how favourable in any other context, at best qualify as secondary considerations per WP:Idontlikeit. When repeating such an objection borders on WP:Point or WP:Right great wrongs in the long run, I may as well leave to others. I'm not saying you're disruptive, I just cannot exclude right for anyone to evaluate arguments with policies.Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The naming of the Catholic Church article was decided long ago (though I'm interested to know exactly which 2009 decision you consider to have set this in stone). That said, it had been decided on several previous occasions to leave it at Roman Catholic Church, so taking a "Wikipedia decisions must stand in stone for ever" approach may not work in your favour - on the whole, everything on Wikipedia is mutable and decided by consensus at the time, not by a consensus that may have existed in the past.
The attempt with this proposed convention to assert that this terminology must be applied to every Wikipedia article, meanwhile, also seems to been settled; in the overwhelming negative.
WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies to people literally using arguments like "I don't like this". None of the disagreements with you have been doing this; they have all offered reasons for their view; just reasons you disagreed with. If you keep attempting to use policies which simply do not apply to the situation, it's very hard to engage with you. An argument you disagree with is not the same as an argument which doesn't exist; if you disagree with their arguments, fine, show the policies by which you disagree; don't leap straight to the policies for dealing with disruptive behaviour.
WP:COMMONNAME is one part of the Wikipedia policy on naming, and WP:CONSISTENCY is another; but there are several others it must be balanced with, like Precision and Neutrality, and the balance may not come down on the same side for every article. To quote the Article Titles policy: "Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; there is often some reason for inconsistencies in common usage. For example, Wikipedia has articles on both the Battle of Stalingrad and on Volgograd, which is the current name of Stalingrad." TSP (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Minor correction: The attempt with this proposed convention was to reflect a de facto established WP:Consistent terminology applied to Wikipedia articles pertaining to the Catholic Church. That initiatve has now be transformed into a "WP:Cuius regio eius religio" styled idea that we're now evaluating above. For the rest, in order to not repeat myself, I'll leave you with the above arguments as a conclusion of our different perspectives, if you don't mind. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move debate at Talk:Anglican–Catholic_dialogue (previously Anglican–Roman Catholic dialogue)[edit]

I'm not sure where else it has been publicised, but people taking part in the discussion here may also be interested in the move debate at Talk:Anglican–Catholic_dialogue#Requested_move_26_September_2017. TSP (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revision proposals[edit]

The below content was posted by User:Chicbyaccident on the Naming Convention page itself. As it all appears to be discussion and proposals, not actual naming conventions (there are some possible naming conventions within it, but they are expressed in terms of arguments for those conventions) this content seems more appropriate for a talk page than a naming convention. TSP (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Working out a central point of reference

Anyone doing an extensive research on the naming issue on "Catholic"/"Roman Catholic" in talk pages relating to the Catholic Church throughout the years, discovers much disagreement. For a more detailed background, see positively the most significant culmination in Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 30 (January-July 2009), procedurally reevaluted in Talk:Catholic_Church/Archive_34#Requested_Move (August 2009).

This conflict is occationally reactivitated throughout individual talk pages. Other than occational references to User:Vaquero100/CC vs. RCC and Wikipedia:Catholic or Roman Catholic?, the two main prexisting essays on either side of the argument, years of significant contention have lacked a hitherto central point of reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicbyaccident (talk • contribs)

Catholic Church

In light of the above, as for naming conventions for articles pertaining to the Catholic Church, it is suggested that its policy would be edited taking into a account the previously referred essays on the subject: User:Vaquero100/CC vs. RCC for general overview, and User:Pseudo-Richard/Names of the Catholic Church for a collection of sources on self-designation. Possibly with the addition of a merge from Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicbyaccident (talk • contribs)

Cuius regio, eius religio[edit]

Perhaps a "cuius regio, eius religio" equivalent style policy (Latin for "whose realm, his religion") in the spirit of the Peace of Augsburg (1555), while tolerating a level of dissonance, could inspire more harmony over time also digitally on Wikipedia today? Relief for constructive editing rather than repetitions of arguments ad nauseum throughout individual talkpages would be one incitament.

Arguably, time has already the article realm pretty much de facto conform to this spirit per WP:Consistency since the key discussions in 2009 linked above.

Thus articles pertaining to the Catholic Church would retain their terminological integrity, while articles pertaining to other denominations may apply theirs.

Examples:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicbyaccident (talk • contribs)

Strong disagree. When reading those article titles, it is absolutely unclear to me which Catholic church each article is discussing, as by adopting the terminology of the respective church, they are inherently using pov terminology. While a reader who is unaware that multiple Churches claim the name "Catholic" might well assume the one based in Rome is the intent, for any reader who is aware that multiple Churches claim the descriptor "Catholic" for themselves (either as an exclusive or as a shared claim), the article title alone must be enough to disambiguate between them. Rhialto (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renewed call for centralised discussion[edit]

At Talk:Catholic_Church_art, Andrewa has made a new call for a centralised discussion about the matter. The user published a personal essay at User talk:Andrewa/Roman or catholic on 18 April 2018, and has advocated establishing a Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Catholicism) with the argument "no sense reinventing the wheel". Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Catholicism) says (more recently), I am not proposing to move User:Andrewa/Roman or catholic here as it is. It's possible that with input from others, it might become a suitable proposal. Or, a fresh proposal using points made in it and other past proposals might be better. So input either at User talk:Andrewa/Roman or catholic or Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Catholicism) is particularly welcome, or here.
Chicbyaccident has argued forcefully that more discussion on this talk page is desirable. But I'm not convinced that this proposal can be revived. The RfC that rejected this proposal gives me little hope of that, but we can and should learn from it.
It is a sensitive area obviously, and I'm disclosing my COI as a member of a Protestant church, and my strong feelings on the matter as a consequence. I have I think disclosed these feelings too on the talk page! We should not assume that all who are interested in contributing to this discussion have such COIs, but many of us will have, and probably most of those contributing to the articles such a naming convention would affect. Can we develop a useful consensus regardless? I hope (Gk:pistuo) so.
But that will not happen without a good deal of patience. Those of us who believe in prayer should all pray that we all receive this. Andrewa (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Categories