Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Catholic Church

Progess

@Mar vin kaiser: Thanks for your updates in the article realm. Would you be willing to give a helping hand to the progress of this manual of stle proposal, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chicbyaccident: How can I help? --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop by changing Roman Catholic to just Catholic. The Common Name is the former. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Objecting to the assertion of Walter Görlitz as seen below. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To which assertion in particular are you objecting? Why did you not discuss it below? Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your common name assertion, as seen in the heading below. Chicbyaccident (talk) 06:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Cuius regio, eius religio"

@Literaturegeek:, @Walter Görlitz: Mar vin kaiser is right insofar as the user assist in consistency along established convention in Catholic Church-related articles. For non-related articles, however the criticism is partly correct since there is no established convention. Here is a solution to that: Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_naming_conventions_(Catholic_Church)#Cuius_regio,_eius_religio. I would go so far as to say that said link is not only normatively correct but even descriptively. In summary, Catholic Church-related articles tend to emply "Catholic" rather than "Roman Catholic" for the whole church in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. The contributions of Mar vin kaiser in this realm is commendable. Thanks for helping out! But please also consider helping working towards a formally accepted "Cuius regio, eius religio". Much of the groundwork has been done, as seen in the pretty much finished proposals (there are currently three). With your help, at least one of them could finally be realised, while filing a formal request (or perhaps a little more discussion about it). Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you're wrong. It's not partly correct, it's entirely correct to criticize and revert.

Those links are entirely incorrect. The Christianity project has repeatedly stated that outside of Latin rite article, the term should be "Roman Catholic" as that is its common name. Anything short of that is not going to pass. Take it to the project, not side discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Christianity has been informed about the convention proposals. One of the proposals was refuted in its then state, the two others are in progress. Catholic Church title and text convention is stable since a long time. That convention now applies to all Catholic Church-related articles. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Walter. Chicbyaccident, you are arguing with no policies or guidelines to support your position. I still think the changes are a bad idea. The vast majority of these changes were to articles where no Latin rite is practiced such as Northern Ireland articles and many others. Latin rite was one of the reasons for making the changes. To me it smacks of POV pushing - the failed manual of styles summarise the failed to pass guidelines as stating claims of Catholic Church by branch theory (code for Protestant theology) can be dismissed as FRINGE - sounds like a failed attempt to POV push. I do not believe these changes are encyclopaedic at all and instead could introduce potential confusion to our readers. I am certainly no religious scholar or professor, it is possible I am missing something, perhaps. My ears are open.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz and Literaturegeek: Thanks for the discussion guys. If it was my mistake to think that there was an established convention already in Wikipedia (as all article entry names don't have the word "Roman" aside from dioceses using the Roman rite), then I admit that. I merely thought that since all entries were standardized to not have "Roman" (since I understand the ambiguities and its connection to only one of the many rites of the Catholic Church), that all entry text can also be standardized automatically. Just wondering though, when Walter said that "outside of Latin rite article, the term should be "Roman Catholic"", what do you mean? In Church usage, especially among Eastern Catholics, the term "Roman Catholic" is only proper inside the Latin rite, not outside, as it refers to Catholics that use the Roman rite (one of the Latin liturgical rites). Same confusion with what Literaturegeek said, about the "Latin rite" not being practiced in Northern Ireland, when the predominant rite in Northern Ireland is the Roman rite (one of the Latin rites). Please clarify. Thanks! --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've made that argument with article titles in many instances (though not universally), but prose is very different. In standard English prose within North America and the UK, RC==C and the two are used interchangably. In other regions, it very much means something different. In articles about those regions, the usage is very complex and needs to be handled delicately. In most other regions, you can use either in prose. Titles are different because of the theological nature of some of these articles, and the implications that RC theology could somehow be different than Eastern Catholic theology on certain points, consistency with the main article, etc. For prose, though, we can usually use either. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My comment, on the RC v. C issue within articles, which I said on the Christianity noticeboard: usage within an article should be stable and consistent and should not be changed without good reason. There are added complexities in certain geographic regions (and if there is a dispute, please post on WT:CATHOLIC to get more eyes), but it does no good to start changing the phrasing within article prose.
This is different than the RMs that Chicbyaccident has been doing for a while (not sure if he's still actively doing them) and to be honest, isn't really that related. Either term is acceptable in prose, and it's more disruptive than it is worth to change it. Use your judgement if you're adding the term to an article, and if it is an article where you are using the term for the first time, use whichever one is most appropriate given the circumstances. If they are equally appropriate, it's a purely stylistic choice, so go with whatever you prefer. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mar vin kaiser in fact follows a practice well established since years for Catholic Church-pertaining entries. If "Catholic" is unambiguous enough for an article name, then so is this designation in its text content. Chicbyaccident (talk) 06:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article “Catholic Church” states in the first that it is also known as the Roman Catholic Church, so it is not a fair comparison. It is not like Mar vin kaiser is going about changing text to “Catholic Church also known as Roman Catholic Church”. He is deleting Roman from many articles where it introduces a degree of confusion.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that can't be denied. But, as its article name and text content demonstrates, that is clearly not the name convention Wikipedia applies. From this accepted convention follows logically other equivalent article names and content. It's all pretty clear. And again, no, if "Catholic" is unambiguous enough for an article name, so is it in its text content. Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]