Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church/Archive 8
WP Policy states that the proper name of the body referred to must appear in the first line of the text. It also states that the name used should be the one that the organisation uses of itself, no matter whether other groups consider it is entitled to use that name or not. So the bottom ine is not just what is agreeable to whoever turns up, it is also a matter of getting across clear facts. Catholics have already made a big concession by agreeing to the article being titled RCC. However the impression cannot be given that this is the proper name of the Church. That impression IS given if the wording used is fudged as in "The Roman Catholic Church, which prefers to call itself the Catholic Church in official documents,..." Compare: "Mr Brown, who prefers to call himself Lord Somerset in official documents,..." The impression given is that the first name used is the rightful name, and the other one is a pretence or conceit. If Mr Brown is an imposter that sentence is closer to the truth, if however Mr Brown is not an imposter, the sentence "Mr Brown, officially known as Lord Somerset," is more truthful and accurate. Mr Brown may also occasionally be known as "Johnny B", but that is of no relevance to the information that needs to be presented to comply with the essential facts. That is why a properly uinequivocal statement of the Church's actual name is needed here, not "calls itself" or "prefers". Xandar 01:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I disagree with your interpretation of the implications of "calls itself" or "prefers" but that seems to be the kind of thing that is not provable (I can't prove you wrong and you can't prove me wrong). But, I would like to remind you that these phrases are not currently the lead candidates for a proposed compromise.
I will also point out that WP:LEAD is a guideline, not a policy and therefore there can be commonsense exceptions.
Policies and guidelines express standards that have community consensus. Both need to be approached with common sense: adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and be prepared to ignore the rules on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia. Those who edit in good faith, are civil, seek consensus, and work towards the goal of creating a great encyclopedia should find a welcoming environment.
Let's also be clear on what WP:LEAD actually says...
The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?"
If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations. If its subject is amenable to definition, then the first sentence should give a concise definition...
2.4.1 Format of the first sentence
Shortcut: WP:BOLDTITLE
As a general rule, the first (and only the first) appearance of the page title should be as early as possible in the first sentence and should be in boldface:
Now, it does say that the page title should be "as early as possible in the first sentence" but it also says the "page title should be the subject of the first sentence". Why can we not agree that commonsense dictates that the proper/official/preferred name of the church should go first and that the subject of the sentence should be the compound phrase "The Catholic Church also known as the Roman Catholic Church"?
We're not far from what WP:LEAD asks for and the slight deviation can be chalked up to "commonsense".
I feel like you are arguing against a proposed wording that is no longer on the table.
--Richard (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Richard, changing the article page name was not an issue of this mediation. Also, because the article page name was a huge issue that was hashed out by many editors in favor of the present form and agreed to be kept in that form by another later group of many editors (our recent consensus), we are not interested in undoing that which has already been decided by much sweat and tears. NancyHeise talk 02:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- AS I said earlier, personally starting with "Catholic Church" would suit me. But this has two problems 1 minor: untidiness, the 2nd potentially deal-breaking, and that is the Wikipedia guidelines. Richard, you might argue now that these can be treated flexibly as a "slight deviation.". Having been through four point five Feature Article submission processes with this article, I know that the FA process treats these matters, and even matters that aren't explicit in the guidelines, very rigidly. We have had objections on the structure of the lead sentences in previous FAs. I am 98% certain that if we go to FA with the structure you suggest, it will become a MAJOR bone of contention there. All it will do is bring the whole debate up again, with a different cast of players. The first sentence needs to contain the page title, (as early as possible, ie. first), other principal names and a brief statement of notability/definition. To do this job the first sentence has to be concise and directly informative, not hedged around with over-qualifications. And if we did qualify "Catholic", we would also need to qualify "Roman Catholic". Xandar 11:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I suspect that having a lead sentence which only presents one voice on a topic while excluding other voices might be a bigger problem than the MOS guideline. Gimmetrow 14:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Gimmetrow. A lead sentence that starts with "Roman catholic church" is hardly "presenting only one voice" on this issue. This comment of yours is more nonsense. What you seem to want is for the referenced catholic voice to be excluded. Kindly stop sniping, and actually come up with some solid reason why you are stonewalling my proposal. Xandar 14:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I assume you mean the "in official usage" phrase? While that's techically true - the term appears in official documents - it fails by omission since the church uses other terms, too. Xandar, you know some people in the church really say "Roman Catholic Church" is the proper and official name. The bishop of Brixen and those who supported him are one example. The writer in the AER is another example. Personally, I just see personal opinions in all of it - only the church itself can determine its official name, and it appears from lack of sources that the church has never determined this. I think the entire "official name" thing is a huge sidetrack. But if you wish to affirm special treatment for one term, you need to deal with these other legitimate voices. Drop "official" out of the lead line and things would become a lot simpler, though. Gimmetrow 15:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Xandar, I'm not too keen on "in official usage". Aside from shifting from essence ("name") to behaviour ("usage"), it doesn't seem to me all that different from the existing text. It's not at all obvious that "Catholic Church" is the most common way the church refers to itself in its own official documents. (Remember: in Lumen Genium it appears 6 times, only narrowly beating "Church of Christ" (5) and "Church of God" (4), and another phrase is used more frequently.) Also, "official usage" could mean church usage or secular usage, or both. But perhaps a decent note could resolve these issues. What would the note contain with this lead sentence, Xandar? Gimmetrow 18:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I assume you mean the "in official usage" phrase? While that's techically true - the term appears in official documents - it fails by omission since the church uses other terms, too. Xandar, you know some people in the church really say "Roman Catholic Church" is the proper and official name. The bishop of Brixen and those who supported him are one example. The writer in the AER is another example. Personally, I just see personal opinions in all of it - only the church itself can determine its official name, and it appears from lack of sources that the church has never determined this. I think the entire "official name" thing is a huge sidetrack. But if you wish to affirm special treatment for one term, you need to deal with these other legitimate voices. Drop "official" out of the lead line and things would become a lot simpler, though. Gimmetrow 15:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Gimmetrow. A lead sentence that starts with "Roman catholic church" is hardly "presenting only one voice" on this issue. This comment of yours is more nonsense. What you seem to want is for the referenced catholic voice to be excluded. Kindly stop sniping, and actually come up with some solid reason why you are stonewalling my proposal. Xandar 14:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I suspect that having a lead sentence which only presents one voice on a topic while excluding other voices might be a bigger problem than the MOS guideline. Gimmetrow 14:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- AS I said earlier, personally starting with "Catholic Church" would suit me. But this has two problems 1 minor: untidiness, the 2nd potentially deal-breaking, and that is the Wikipedia guidelines. Richard, you might argue now that these can be treated flexibly as a "slight deviation.". Having been through four point five Feature Article submission processes with this article, I know that the FA process treats these matters, and even matters that aren't explicit in the guidelines, very rigidly. We have had objections on the structure of the lead sentences in previous FAs. I am 98% certain that if we go to FA with the structure you suggest, it will become a MAJOR bone of contention there. All it will do is bring the whole debate up again, with a different cast of players. The first sentence needs to contain the page title, (as early as possible, ie. first), other principal names and a brief statement of notability/definition. To do this job the first sentence has to be concise and directly informative, not hedged around with over-qualifications. And if we did qualify "Catholic", we would also need to qualify "Roman Catholic". Xandar 11:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Whoa! Despite an increasing desire to gnaw my arm off to escape the bear-trap that this mediation is starting to feel like, I am still watching this page and I wonder if Xandar and Gimmetrow are talking at cross-purposes. There is incendiary language being used where none may be required. Xandar, what is the proposal that you claim Gimmetrow is "stonewaling"? Is it "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church..."? If so, I think Gimmetrow et al might be able to support this. I would ask everyone to ignore Nancy's objections for the moment and see if there is room to form a near-consensus on a compromise wording. (I say "near-consensus" because a true consensus cannot be formed without her.)
And, please, let's focus on the proposal and try to avoid sniping at each other with incendiary language.
--Richard (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Gimmetrow, do you have any WP:RS reliable sources (we can't use opinion pieces remember) that say the Church has other official names besides Catholic Church? Can you please provide a link here for us? NancyHeise talk 16:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Richard, can you please read WP:name here [1] and understand why the article was overwhelmingly decided to be named Roman Catholic Church instead of Catholic Church? NancyHeise talk 16:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- I will not repeat sources already provided multiple times. But based on Nancy's statement that "we can't use opinion pieces", I expect Nancy to provide one actual, real, genuine document where the church states that it is "officially known as the Catholic Church". Opinions of any writer other than the church are, consistent with Nancy's own statement, not usable. Gimmetrow 16:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Nancy apparently rejects the New Oxford Dictionary as an out-of-date opinion piece, while simultaneously accepting the nearly-as-old Britannica's opinion. If one is an opinion, so is the other. One of the mediation issues is explicitly listed as the seemingly inconsistent application of WP:RS. None of the sources provided actually cite any official document of the church. Indeed, the only thing that comes close is the scholarly report of the view of the Bishop of Brixen at Vatican I, which was, at least, part of the actual proceedings of a church council. Gimmetrow 17:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Gimmetrow, if a scholarly source rejects something as unreliable, we are not supposed to use that source. Catholic Encyclopedia, a scholarly work, specifically mentions Oxford Dictionary in just such a manner. If you can find some scholarly work that rejects Encyclopedia Brittancia's 11th edition (one of the most highly praised editions) then we could reject it. NancyHeise talk 17:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Gee, the Catholic Encyclopedia refers to the New Oxford Dictionary as "the highest existing authority upon questions of English philology". But that's fine. Since you've declared the 1911 EB one of your top scholarly sources, surely you will have no problem if we model parts of the article on it, and use other texts from it, right? Gimmetrow 18:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, Catholic Encyclopedia states of Oxford English's definition : "Although the account thus given in the Oxford Dictionary is in substance correct, it cannot be considered satisfactory." and goes into a very long explanation of how Protestants coined the term Roman Catholic and Catholics rejected it. It is true that in official legal usage in England the Church must use the term Roman Catholic because it is forced to do so by the English government, something we have explained in our note. Do you reject that this is the case? Being an expert in English language (phililogy) does not make one an expert on Roman Catholic Church issues and Catholic Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Brittanica, Academic American Encyclopedia are all in agreement Roman Catholic as not the official name but rather one "tolerated". NancyHeise talk 18:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Since you've declared the 1911 EB one of your top scholarly sources, surely you will have no problem if we model parts of the article on it, and use other texts from it, right? Gimmetrow 18:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- OK, your non-answer is enough of an answer. What I'm trying to point out is the inconsistent way you've been treating sources. You seem to uncritically accept the one statement from the EB that you like, but I somehow doubt you would uncritically accept any other statements from the EB that I might bring up. If you were really interested in "putting facts on a page", the text in the article would either avoid saying anything (because everything here is opinion without reference to official documents), or would have reflected the various views in the argument. The bishop at Vatican I represents a fairly significant view on the matter. (It was even voted on and approved by the bishops at Vatican I - how's that for peer review!) But the current article says nothing about this. It *only* relates one side of the argument because you have systematically excluded all other views. Gimmetrow 19:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Gimmetrow, Vatican I bishops are documented as voting exactly the opposite of the way you say they voted, Whitehead documents this. Academic American Encyclopedia supports Whitehead. You keep talking about one bishop at Vatican I but we have so many sources that state the outcome of Vatican I that shows the final vote (the only opinion in the Church that counts) decided on the term "Catholic Church" without the prefix "Roman". Please stop bringing up your one bishop whose personal argument was ultimately rejected as evidenced by our WP:RS sources. NancyHeise talk 19:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wrong. Stop misrepresenting the source. The bishops agreed with that view, and "Catholic Church" did not replace "Roman Catholic Church" in the document. An academic report of the events explicitly disagrees with you (and, in fact, you've even misinterpreted Whitehead). Gimmetrow 19:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Gimmetrow, it is hard for you to call me wrong when I have 7 top sources supporting me and you persistently fail to post any links to your supposed sources. What specific source, with either link or actual book info do you have that supports your statement?NancyHeise talk 20:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Some, at least, of Nancy's "7 top sources" say no more than that "Catholic Church" has been used as an official name, but do not say it is the only official name. Defteri (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Nancy, it's very easy to call you wrong when you are wrong. You've been provided the sources. That you choose to ignore them is the reason we are at mediation. Gimmetrow 20:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Gimmetrow, it is hard for you to call me wrong when I have 7 top sources supporting me and you persistently fail to post any links to your supposed sources. What specific source, with either link or actual book info do you have that supports your statement?NancyHeise talk 20:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wrong. Stop misrepresenting the source. The bishops agreed with that view, and "Catholic Church" did not replace "Roman Catholic Church" in the document. An academic report of the events explicitly disagrees with you (and, in fact, you've even misinterpreted Whitehead). Gimmetrow 19:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Gimmetrow, Vatican I bishops are documented as voting exactly the opposite of the way you say they voted, Whitehead documents this. Academic American Encyclopedia supports Whitehead. You keep talking about one bishop at Vatican I but we have so many sources that state the outcome of Vatican I that shows the final vote (the only opinion in the Church that counts) decided on the term "Catholic Church" without the prefix "Roman". Please stop bringing up your one bishop whose personal argument was ultimately rejected as evidenced by our WP:RS sources. NancyHeise talk 19:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, Catholic Encyclopedia states of Oxford English's definition : "Although the account thus given in the Oxford Dictionary is in substance correct, it cannot be considered satisfactory." and goes into a very long explanation of how Protestants coined the term Roman Catholic and Catholics rejected it. It is true that in official legal usage in England the Church must use the term Roman Catholic because it is forced to do so by the English government, something we have explained in our note. Do you reject that this is the case? Being an expert in English language (phililogy) does not make one an expert on Roman Catholic Church issues and Catholic Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Brittanica, Academic American Encyclopedia are all in agreement Roman Catholic as not the official name but rather one "tolerated". NancyHeise talk 18:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Gee, the Catholic Encyclopedia refers to the New Oxford Dictionary as "the highest existing authority upon questions of English philology". But that's fine. Since you've declared the 1911 EB one of your top scholarly sources, surely you will have no problem if we model parts of the article on it, and use other texts from it, right? Gimmetrow 18:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Gimmetrow, if a scholarly source rejects something as unreliable, we are not supposed to use that source. Catholic Encyclopedia, a scholarly work, specifically mentions Oxford Dictionary in just such a manner. If you can find some scholarly work that rejects Encyclopedia Brittancia's 11th edition (one of the most highly praised editions) then we could reject it. NancyHeise talk 17:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Nancy, please point out where in Whitehead [2] he says that Vatican I 'decided on the term "Catholic Church" without the prefix "Roman"'? This seems like that old statement, which also used to be in the article, saying that the prefix "Roman" was "rejected". Gimmetrow 20:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)