Jump to content

Talk:Anglican–Roman Catholic dialogue

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anglican–Roman Catholic dialogue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anglican–Roman Catholic dialogue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 September 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Anglican–Catholic dialogue  — Amakuru (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Anglican–Roman Catholic dialogue → Catholic–Anglican dialogue – Per WP:Consistency with Catholic–Lutheran dialogue (Talk:Catholic–Lutheran dialogue#Requested move 8 August 2017), and Category:Catholic–Protestant ecumenism. See also relevant discussions: Talk:Theological differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Talk:Ecclesiastical differences between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Order by size, also in accordance with previously mentioned comparable examples. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Anglican–Catholic dialogue title

[edit]

Now that the article has been renamed Anglican–Catholic dialogue, the text needs to match. The "Roman" verbiage is increasingly deprecated on Wikipedia and serves no real purpose here - no one is confused by what "Catholic" refers to in this context. It's also consistent with the main Catholic Church article and many of its other sub-articles.--Cúchullain t/c 15:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a convenient shorthand, but are you aware that the Anglican church is still a catholic church? This isn't helped by WP having terms like catholicism as a redirect to the article on the Roman Catholic church.
It's a fine distinction. But in an article on this distinction, it matters. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well aware, thanks, but it's irrelevant. Whether something is technically a "catholic church" has no bearing on the way terms are used in the real world. It's clear what "Catholic" and especially "Catholic Church" mean in this context and no one is likely to be confused.--Cúchullain t/c 15:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is the possibility for confusion. The isn't a word limit to articles: nothing is lost by using Roman Catholic (which is standard for British English) and clarification is gained. If this was an article about French-American relations, and "the President" was used to who would it be referring? Roman is not a bad word, it has no negative connotations, it is simply descriptive. While the Roman Catholic Church may claim to be THE Catholic Church, the are other churches and traditions that use it to. When an article concerns two (or more) of these claimants it simply makes sense to use the longer form of Roman Catholic when talking about the Roman Catholic Church. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 16:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Real world use is more important than the subjects' claims on the term. In this case, context is clear that "Catholic" and "Catholic Church" refer to, well the Catholic Church. This is perfectly acceptable in British English and has already been adopted at articles with a much greater potential for confusion, such as Catholic Church in the United Kingdom, Catholic Church in Scotland, and Catholic Church in England and Wales.--Cúchullain t/c 16:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the common name for the Roman Catholic church in British English is the Roman Catholic Church. The examples you have given are specifically about the RCC. This is an article about two churches, therefore there should be an effort to distinguish between them. To continue my analogy from earlier, and in President of the United States we know who "the president" refers to so there is no need for clarification. I'm guessing from your userpage that you are American; assumedly in the US there is no other church the Catholic Church could refer to, but in the UK there is. It is not an offensive description to the best of my knowledge (are you offended by it?), it's a disambiguating term that is regularly used in the UK and so should be used in this article and every British English article where there may be confusion. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of what's being disambiguated. "Anglican-Catholic dialogue" pretty clearly refers to the Anglican and Catholic churches. Perhaps "Roman" could be used in some later passages (not in the introductory sentence) where there might be confusion with Anglo-Catholicism or similar. But no one, in the UK or elsewhere, sees the phrase "Catholic Church" and thinks of the Anglican Church.--Cúchullain t/c 01:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've had two people (Brits) point out there could be confusion. Another issue is that there are many Anglo-Catholics who use Anglican Catholic, so there IS confusion in the article name. For the moment, as you suggested here, I'm going to go through and add Roman to the appropriate places (except the lead, so that it reflects the (possibly confusing) article title). Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 19:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, scrap that. Given that "International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission" and "Anglican–Roman Catholic International Commission" are official names, there is no reason to use the shortened "Catholic Church" here. Even the officaio website is titled "Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue"! Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 19:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 September 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved DrStrauss talk 21:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Anglican–Catholic dialogue → Anglican–Roman Catholic dialogue – To prevent any confusion with Anglo-Catholicism and due to the fact that the official organisations involved with Anglican-Roman Catholic relations use the longer form (therefore WP:COMMONNAME): "Anglican–Roman Catholic International Commission, "Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue", "International Anglican-Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission", etc. This is an article that mainly deals with the UK and is therefore written in British English: in British English, Roman Catholic is standard use due to the possibility of confusion. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 20:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be arguing that, if we were take this line of argument, Anglicanism would need to be a page about all the different churches that call themselves Anglican, not just the Anglican Communion?
Uh... it is! Multiple churches call themselves Anglican; so the Anglicanism page is about all of them, even though the Anglican Communion is by far the largest; whereas Catholicism, is a redirect to Catholic Church. You seem to be arguing that such a disparity would be unreasonable? If you want to change Catholicism back to a page describing all the churches that call themselves Catholic, as it until recently was.... don't let me stop you.
The Anglicanism page even mentions the Personal Ordinariates, even though they don't call themselves Anglican (you tried to add that to the Anglicanism page, and no-one there agreed, because of the many, many sources in which they clearly say they are not Anglican). Whereas Anglican churches most certainly call themselves Catholic - it isn't something that only happened in the 19th century; it is on the Church of England website right now[1], and in the names of modern organisations like the Society of Catholic Priests and Affirming Catholicism.
As to your more relevant points, use of "Roman Catholic" by the Vatican in ecumenical contexts is vastly wider than the name of ARCIC - the Lutheran-Roman Catholic Commission on Unity; the Joint Working Group between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches; the International Roman Catholic-Old Catholic Dialogue Commission; the Evangelical - Roman Catholic Dialogue on Mission.
Which is the important distinction here. Wikipedia does not have to use the same term in every context. In internal contexts, 'Catholic' may generally be reasonably clear, unambiguous, and inoffensive. But in certain ecumenical contexts, the Church itself apparently accepts that, to avoid both ambiguity and offence, Roman Catholic is an acceptable and preferable term; as do the majority of users in this RFC (whether or not brought by a post which, thankfully, fulfilled none of the criteria of WP:CANVAS).
This terminology was, accordingly, at one point used on Wikipedia in a reasonably wide range of places related to Roman Catholic relations with other churches. These have decreased lately, often, as in the previous RFC here, as a result of discussions with barely a handful of people involved. Now, a wider audience seems to be disagreeing with it in this particular case. If you think it is odd that the terminology be used here and in so few other places, perhaps decisions should be revisited in those other places, rather than editors not being free to make that decision here.... TSP (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, none is asking to change the name of the article Anglican–Roman Catholic International Commission, but yet again, that is another article. Now, if we limit the discussion to the subject in question, I am asking for more sound arguments for invoking an exceptionate WP:Article name singular convention in this case. WP:Consensus is not only about quantity of supporters, but also strength in arguments, per Wikipedia:NOTDEMOCRACY.
That said, the Anglican–Roman Catholic International Commission is a joint set-up by the Anglican Communion - which as indicated is merely a part of what is addessed in this article - and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Now, to make things worse, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity is merely a pontifical council presided over independently by an individual president, giving advises through the Roman Curia to the papacy for his ecumenical endeavours (and certainly not on naming of the church, which is at question here). For extensive related arguments on ARCIC from back in 2006, see here: Talk:Catholic_Church/Archive_6#Terminology_Section. See also Catholic Church and ecumenism#The Anglican Communion, of which this article is WP:Forked.
All these steps make for an advisory chain that can hardly be taken into account even on the most sympathetic terms as an official endorsement of the Holy See for "Roman Catholic Church" as name here or elsewhere. Mind the background with the general discussion and WP:Consensus on self-designation matters as a whole throughout Wikipedia's related talk pages. This clarification applies even if this article solely would have pertained to the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion only, which in any case it demonstratively does not. Yes, background research in talk pages makes clear your opposition througout the years to the current article name of Catholic Church, but that doesn't really make your point stronger here. No, "Wikipedia does not have to use the same term in every context", but advocacy for exceptions against WP:Consistency need prevailing arguments for that.
To add to this, there is the problem of Latin Church#Name, see Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation), which indicate that some of the Latin Church's over 1 billion members (we don't know how many) perceive "Roman Catholic Church" as an alternate designation for their individual particular church sui iuris, and not the Catholic Church as a whole. The Latin Church is neither the sole counterparty in this subject.
All in all, proposed "Roman Catholic" in this case 1) confusingly follows misplaced association to the Anglican–Roman Catholic International Commission, 2) even if that association would be rock hard, invokes its nomenclature in a disputed way, 3) is against WP:Consistency on equivalent generic articles, 4) risks creating more confusion and ambiguity than "Catholic". Chicbyaccident (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly valid argument for derivation from WP:Consistency: Wikipedia is not a platform for communication between denominations, nor is that the basis of its article naming conventions, as pointed out above by Amakuru (talk · contribs). There has been lengthy talk page discussions throughout the years about this matter. I still don't see any sound arguments here for exceptionate treating of this article name, such as "Protestant Anglican-Roman Catholic" or any such exceptionate wording, disapproved per WP:Point. WP:I don't like it is not on the money here. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Chicbyaccident: you have been citing WP:POINT an awful lot lately (I see it is now in the introduction to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Catholic Church) also, accompanying the assertion that Anglicanism is a fringe belief). Given that WP:AGF is a core principle of Wikipedia, and citing WP:POINT explicitly accuses other editors of acting in bad faith, could I ask you to stop it unless you have some very good reasoning to back it up? TSP (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do I value yours and any other users' positive contributions? Yes. With all due respect for that concern generally, I merely ask for more valid grounds for WP:Article name than invoking sensitivity in ecumenical relations in a Wikipedia article. No less so when that sensitivity invocation is due to refuse the other counterpart its otherwise consistent grounds of article naming in accordance with its accepted self-designation. It is this incoherence in the argument that has tended to be refuted along WP:Point and WP:Fringe lines throughout the years. Nothing else. Thanks for bothering to address the concern for more resiliant arguments! Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall anyone ever invoking either WP:POINT or WP:FRINGE in any of these discussions before you did; and I don't think either is relevant.
You mentioned WP:POINT above when you said: "Why don't we see above individuals arguing to disambiguate Anglican, both that article per se as well as the adjective indicated in this article title, for consistency? Pushing for one but not the other arguably borders WP:POINT." As I explained, Anglican is already an article about all bodies that describe themselves as Anglican; unlike Catholicism, which is not an article about all bodies that describe themselves as Catholic. So your argument seems to be simply untrue, and if anything, would seem to indict you rather than anyone else. You didn't seem to address this in your reply when I pointed this out, so I still don't at all understand what you mean by citing WP:POINT. You have talked about "Protestant Anglican", so I guess this might be a continuation of the argument that the Personal Ordinariates assert that they are Anglican? As I said on Talk:Anglicanism, they simply don't assert that - they do not call themselves Anglican and are very clear that they are not Anglican - so there is no argument to be made there.
Coming to WP:FRINGE, that policy is about where there is one view that is generally agreed by experts in the field, and another that departs from it significantly and is accepted by very few people. Generally it's only really relevant in science - that the earth is roughly spherical and orbits the sun is mainstream, that the earth is flat or is orbited by the sun is fringe. It isn't generally applicable to naming conventions, and doesn't apply well to religious topics and other areas of essential unprovability. The vast majority of people are not Hindus, say; but we don't apply WP:FRINGE to say "Vishnu is an alleged god that most people think doesn't exist", or make most of the Vishnu article be about Christian views of Vishnu because there are more Christians than Hindus. Yes, some faith bodies are bigger than others; but I think to read Wikipedia policy in a way that says that the largest religions' beliefs should therefore be treated as 'mainstream' and other religions' beliefs are 'fringe' is severely problematic. WP:FRINGE is not a core Wikipedia policy; WP:NPOV is.
Stick to WP:COMMONNAME, which is the basis on which Catholic Church was moved, and has served it well. With WP:FRINGE and WP:POINT, you are stretching the limits of Wikipedia policy and of acceptable politeness to other editors. TSP (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith circumfer emphasising a multitude of perspectives, and I don't have any reason but to assume your good faith. I'm just asking for more steady arguments than sensitivity to arbitrary individual positions in nisched affairs external to WP:Article name policies. Even more so for arguments boiling down to WP:I don't like it, since none of the "Roman Catholic" proponents here can be mistaken of what "Catholic" counterpart refers to here, despite contrary assertions. I recall WP:POINT concerns about such reasoning in previous related discussions, although I may be mistaken (edit: for example here). As for WP:FRINGE, the comparison mirrored a summary of equivalent discussions on article naming in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints), neither referring to anything but grounds for WP:Article name. I don't intend any offense and would be open though should you have better ways to summarise how the arguments of you and your proponents have been refuted in previous lengthy discussions throughout the years in Talk:Catholic Church and beyond. Still, if sensitivity to arbitrary positions of individuals in ecumenical endeavours external to the grounds of WP:Article name relative to one counterpart is exceptionately accepted here, I am afraid this result will be contested in time, and for good reasons. I do recognise that full satisfaction for both sides of the argument may be hard to be accomplish. Yet, exceptionately overriding self-designation consistency for the other counterpart on grounds of sensitivity for the first one, what does that make out of the validity of the sensitivity argument per se, please?
I have tried to propose a few arguments whereas I'm afraid you are starting to retreat to counter these under the cover of WP:AGF loaded question. Would you mind if we ask for instance SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) and other experienced users for third part evaluation of our arguments? This user has initially indicated sympathy for your stance, but I am confident he is also able to help us to seek better mutual understanding. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the valid point made by Jonathunder about the communications with other churches, I'll withdraw my oppose above. I'll stay neutral for now, because I'm not really convinced that it's necessary to spell out the "Roman Catholic" in full, but the proposal looks to have consensus now anyway, and it does to some extent follow common usage. Also agree with TSP about the invoking of WP:POINT... "disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point" is an accusation of deliberate malicious behaviour on the part of Wikipedians, and I think we're very far from anything like that, this has been a friendly debate so far. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: needed to distinguish from Anglican Catholic. Jonathunder (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Category

[edit]

I see that one of the minority voices in the discussion above, User:Chicbyaccident, has just created Category:Catholic–Anglican ecumenism, with this as one of only two articles in it; when we have surely just spent two weeks deciding that, in a basically identical context, "Roman Catholic" is more appropriate (I'm not that fussed about the order)? Do we need to go through all this again? TSP (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Introduced per WP:Consistency with Category:Catholic–Protestant ecumenism, and ultimately Category:Catholic ecumenism. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move Request: Lutheran-Catholic dialogue to Lutheran-Roman Catholic dialogue

[edit]

There is a discussion taking place at Talk:Catholic–Lutheran dialogue#Requested move 22 October 2017 that editors of this article might be interested in. All are invited to participate. –Zfish118⋉talk 13:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion finished with the result Catholic–Lutheran dialogue. It would be interesting to see the percussions of this result related to this article, which does not follow WP:Consistency. Chicbyaccident (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One could quote from Emerson's essay Self-Reliance or simply acknowledge the complexity of different cases. Jonathunder (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 April 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 19:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anglican–Roman Catholic dialogue → Anglican–Catholic relations – Harmonisation with Catholic–Protestant relations and Catholic–Eastern Orthodox relations. Also, "Roman Catholic" is not used anymore on WP's titles, only "Catholic". Veverve (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Relisting. 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:15, 19 April 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anglican–Roman_Catholic_dialogue&oldid=1204868313"