Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church/Archive 9

Straw poll

The proposal is "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church..."

There are many places on this page to discuss things such as "the official name" of the church and "other official names" of the church. Please do not enter into long discussions of those topics in this section. The proposed text deliberately does not say anything about either name being "official". It seeks to forge a compromise by establishing that both are names of the church and that the "Catholic Church" is preferred by dint of its position in the sentence and that "Roman Catholic Church" is secondary in preference by dint of the phrase "also known as". It completely ducks the "official name" issues. These issues could be discussed in a Note. --Richard (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support per explanation above. --Richard (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I agree that it would be good to omit all mention of the word "official", but I doubt if those who maintain that somehow somewhere somewhen the Church has decided it would have just one single official name are prepared to accept this, and this particular proposal seems, so far, to have drawn only opposition, even from people who might be expected to favour putting "Catholic Church" in first place. If it were proposed in a wider forum than this, I think it would inevitably stir up even more opposition. Defteri (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Defteri, why oppose a proposed solution that you personally would accept just because you think that others might oppose it? Let them speak for themselves. If you are amenable to the proposed solution, please support it. If you're right, the proposal will fail anyway but let's get a good read on who opposes it and why. --Richard (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that I was not clear enough: As I said, I agree it would be good to omit all mention of the word "official", but I did not at all say that I accept it would be good to put "Catholic Church" in first place, as in your concrete proposal, which I called "this particular proposal". In fact, I do not accept it. If you look at the history, you will see that that order was attempted a number of times in the past, but it never lasted more than a few hours or days. I see no reason why it should be different the next time. Defteri (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is obvious that neither he, nor Gimmetrow wish to come to compromise - that is why I am proposing closing the mediation. NancyHeise ^talk 17:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

! Defteri (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmetrow has already expressed support for the proposed solution "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church,..." as has Xandar. I think Defteri and Soidi might also support it and I am flummoxed by Defteri's "oppose because the other side won't agree" !vote. If Xandar, Defteri, Soidi, Gimmetrow and myself supported "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church,...", would you support it also? --Richard (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC) (This, I think, is addressed to Nancy. Defteri (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The content seems non-controversial and it avoids stating disputed views in the name of the encyclopedia. There are precedents for starting the article with a phrase different from the article's title. For instance, some biographical articles, including some featured articles, are located at a nickname or stage name but the lead itself starts with the personal (given) name, with the nickname or stage name following. Gimmetrow 18:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Defteri above. Part of the reason various rewording attempts never lasted very long in the article is that some editors would revert, referring to an alleged consensus that never discussed these options. Gimmetrow 20:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]