Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Also known as "Roman Catholic Church"

The Western Rite of the Catholic Church is often referred to as the "Roman Catholic Church". Yet, there is more than one rite of Catholicism. The Roman rite is the largest, but there is also Byzantine Catholicism, Chaldean Catholicism, etc. None of these are Roman Catholic, but they are still Catholic. The Catholic Church is not, as the lead says, "also known as the Roman Catholic Church". The latter is instead a part of the former. Thus, if this article is to refer to the global Church, shouldn't we remove or revise the part in the lead that specifically links the whole Church to one particular part of it? Display name 99 (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

no, since it is a synonym for most people and in most occasions. The rites divide into latin, byzantine and whatsoever.Nillurcheier (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

"Roman Catholic Church" does not refer to neither the Latin Church, nor the Roman rite. Please see Roman Catholic (term). Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Plugging 'name' into the second search box above gets 122 hits on pages in archives and on sub-pages. 54 of those hits are on archives here (the number of archives!), and sure some are not about the page name or uses thereof, but take even half or a third of 54 and that's a lot of archived conversations to check to be sure this is not an exact/near repeat of a previous (and likely contentious) discussion. Consider the sub-pages and proposals about the many aspects of this page's name. Consider that arguments about other pages' names have used this article as precedent! What I'm on about is just seeing that there are 54 archives listed at top should give anyone pause about any proposal to change the name or even how referenced internally. I would be astonished to be shown this topic hasn't been mentioned before.

At top of page we see a hatnote to Catholic Church (disambiguation), which itself has links to both Catholic (disambiguation) and Church catholic. If there is any question in the reader's mind of what using the page title in the page means, they have been pointed to avenues to explore. I can appreciate the impulse to not introduce, to not allow, ambiguity or misdirection. But names and names as terms are almost hopelessly contentious. Any formulation will at first glance offend/mislead/confuse some readers.

We have no choice but to let the text of an article, and related articles linked from it, inform the reader as to meanings and nuances. "Patience is required" for anything of great complexity. Shenme (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure about what is your opinion, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that tweaks like the proposed are futile and counter-productive, because they will always be 'wrong' according to a large proportion of people, and will not sufficiently disambiguate 'Catholic'. That multiply-used word is so intertwined with all the other usages that no one ordering/ranking will work. You want to foster deep understanding of a complex topic by just changing a few words here? No. Understanding will come only by reading the background of these usages. Shenme (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Chicbyaccident: I would suggest that you read the article you cited to see that "Roman Catholic" can indeed refer to the Latin Church or Roman Rite. And using it to refer to the Latin Church is indeed the most common widespread use here on Wikipedia. For example, the whole tree of categories separated into "Roman Catholic X" and "Eastern Catholic X" or "<name of sui iuris Church> Catholic X". Many of the instances of "Roman Catholic" that you have been systematically removing from articles were in fact useful, in that they intended to refer to the Latin Church. This is also my preferred usage. If I say that I am a Roman Catholic I am implying that I am not a Byzantine Catholic. So it would seem to me that in order to retain the useful distinction we should not indiscriminately remove "Roman Catholic" from articles but instead discern the intended meaning first. If we intend to refer to the whole communion of Churches then we say "Catholic Church". Et cetera. What do you think? Elizium23 (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It is understandible why people are puzzled by this terminology. It is rather complicated. Strictly speaking, however, Eastern Catholics aren't any less "Roman" than other members of the Catholic Church insofar as full communion denotes. Yes, the category tree needs more care than Wikipedia users are unfortunately currently able to provide. Yes, the article on Roman Catholic does mention the reccuring habit among some people. This referring may be done for good intentions and none would likely take any offence or even bother to address it. None of this, however, provide ultimate arguments for the custom. Unless we can provide an official endorsement by church authorities of the Latin Church for that naming, it is at best a good intent misunderstanding which doesn't need emergant corrections, but at worst an invalid attribution bordering WP:Original research in both article contents and categorisation. Chicbyaccident (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Endorsement by the church itself would be a primary source and unsuitable for use. What we need is third-party sources on the topic. Per Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources: "Any publication put out by an organization is clearly not independent of any topic that organization has an interest in promoting." Dimadick (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not a carte blanche to attribute objectivity to your favorite Protestant ecclesiologue either, unfortunately. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

There is only the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church has many rites. The one that is most recognized is the Latin Rite. This issue is found in no other language other than English and is an accident of the English Reformation.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Catholic which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

How strange, that was in June 2016. Why did the bot think it 'recent'? Shenme (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It's referring to the discussion that was started on December 15. I just modified the link to use {{no redirect}}. So please click on the link again and you'll see the discussion that I closed. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The strangest thing is that it doesn't redirect to Catholic Church. If I write "X is a Catholic bishop" in article, then why shouldn't "Catholic" redirect to Catholic Church? It should be quite obvious per WP:Common! However, I have already opened that proposal which wasn't carried out, so I can't do much more in that issue. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Names, meanings and relativism by audience

I was trying to figure out why one of the many Wikipedia 'bot' accounts would do something weird, like mention a discussion that was 6 months old. I summarized what I found here at that bot's talk page. (I'm not going to blame you for a bot's confusion, hopefully something they can fix).

But I did make me wonder at the original change to the redirect at Catholic, where you changed the redirect from Catholicism to Catholic Church. Something to consider always when thinking about a word or a term here is 'who' is asking a question by searching for the word/term. I'm thinking of three different ways that word could be used:

• "They are 'catholic'."
• "Oh, that's a 'catholic' teaching."
• "That building is 'catholic'." or more likely "That is a 'catholic church'."

I believe if you consider how the term is commonly used by the public, relative to the English-speaking world, it would be something like the first two, describing either a person or some text being read. Even when saying "Is the Pope 'catholic'?" I would think the better reference would be 'Catholicism' rather than 'Catholic Church', because it gets to the root question better - "What is this about?"

I think you must be considering these terms according to the 'correctness' of the definitions, rather than how the terms are used by people. It is a subtle difference, from worrying about the correctness of word usage to instead worrying about how people will navigate Wikipedia, in spite of the fact they perhaps use words 'wrongly'. A term that can be used as a generalization ought to go to a generalized article.

I think elsewhere you even argue that "Catholic Church" should be applied to the more general category of "all catholic churches". But again, my worry is how a regular person will use Wikipedia. In most of the English-speaking world, "Catholic Church" is commonly used to mean the "Roman Catholic Church". It is how a word/term is commonly used, how people will encounter the word/term/phrase, that should most influence how articles are named. The academic person will persist in research, but my neighbor will only look at the first article that appears. That first article should be the best possible for an ordinary person.

Please consider how words are commonly used (outside of a dictionary :-) ) as an independent reason to name articles, quite apart from strict academically correct meanings. Shenme (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Consensus on Wikipedia on groupings of Christian denominations

I opened a discussion on groupings in Christianity, of which there currently seems to lack a consensus on Wikipedia. The discussion might be of interest for followers of this talk page. Please see: Talk:Christianity#Denominations. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Contention of inability to ordain women

What I meant is the Catholic Church contends it is unable to ordain women, not the critics contend their criticisms; it was my attempt to add balance to the article. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but don't restore a reversion before there is an agreement to do so. That's how Wikipedia is meant to work. Yahboo (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no dispute that it is not contended; it is contended. All of the criticisms are contended. That's not the point. The point is that it would be tedious to read "Is contended by the Catholic Church" after each item listed. It's about improving the readability. Put a final "it's contended" at the end if you really must, but IMHO it's superfluous. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Founded date

The Founded date is not in the Timeline of the Catholic Church, which you keep linking to. It is also totally un-verifably in that based on Catholic theology. To ask when it was founded asks "what is the Catholic Church"? No one (outside the Catholic Church) considers the Church of Rome to be founded in Jerusalem. tahc ^chat 18:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I take no issue with your use of both wikilinks. --Zfish118^⋉talk 19:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I regret to revert again, but your previous edit was inappropriate. It is not necessary and also disruptive to specify "according to Catholic tradition" over every point of the infobox, and the Timeline of the Catholic Church article is not itself based on Catholic Tradition, and thus inapropriate to wikilink/pipe to under as Catholic Tradition. This article is not about the "Church of Rome", but the entire organization. Your edit summaries, which is where the majority of your arguments were made, seem to confound the name "Catholic Church" with the founding of the organization itself. An organization can exist for many years, move, expand, change names, etc, and still be the same organization. I would welcome additional commentary and sources in the history section that clarify and support your claims regard scholarly consensus on the Catholic Church founding. Providing such sources would make this a productive conversation. --Zfish118^⋉talk 07:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The claims of fact that are without a historical basis do need to be indicated that they are "according to Catholic tradition"-- or removed.

Maybe you also indicating why you want to link to Timeline of the Catholic Church at all. It does nothing to discuss what the founding of the Catholic Church was, what Catholic Church says the Catholic Church is, or (as far as I can tell) any other related fact.

In this mean time please stop introducing Catholic theology into an info box as if they are facts. tahc ^chat 17:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

As a compromise, would you please work towards a more precise description on available main sources and their perspectives in the very article content on that question, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking here. Are you asking me to help improve Timeline of the Catholic Church or help improve Catholic Church or some other thing? tahc ^chat 18:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Final Warning: This is unacceptable editing behavior. Please discus major changes to the infobox to build consensus, and introduce reliable sources to support your proposals. As I stated above, it is not appropriate to repeat the same phrase throughout the infobox, and it is disruptive to keep restoring such inappropriate edits. --Zfish118^⋉talk 21:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources for your facts. That is my point.

Why are you unwilling to discuss it here?

There is also no requirement to avoid certain phrases. If you want to avoid certain phrases, that is your preference, but we can only do so with a suitable alternative. tahc ^chat 21:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

source

Why do you want a "source" for a "fact" that you you yourself object to adding to the article? tahc ^chat 17:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• I share some of your concern regarding the historical claims. I do not appreciate being accused of adding "doctrine" in lieu of historical claims. I challenged adding "Jesus" as founder when the infobox was originally created. The consensus was the single disclaimer. Adding disclaimers after every disputed point is tedious. I do not understand your concerns regarding 1st Century Judea. Christianity was undoubtedly founded in Judea, a Roman province, and spread to the capital of the empire. Christianity in Rome eventually became the institution that exists today. Where is the historical dispute? What major event breaks this continuity? Please, cite your sources, as I do not understand you position, and claiming I have no sources is not an argument. I do not oppose adding any facts that can be directly traced to a reliable source. My opposition to changing the original wikilink should not be construed to mean anything other than opposing the change in Wikilink. I was making no historical or theological argument in opposing a change in the Wikilink. I simply do not believe the change is necessary. --Zfish118^⋉talk 17:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no dispute that it is not contended; it is contended. All of the criticisms are contended. That's not the point. The point is that it would be tedious to read "Is contended by the Catholic Church" after each item listed. It's about improving the readability. Put a final "it's contended" at the end if you really must, but IMHO it's superfluous. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Laurel Lodged, I moved this here thinking that you posted it elsewhere by mistake... but now I am not so sure. If you did not intent it here I did not any error in putting it here. tahc ^chat 03:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Your view is well stated, Laurel Lodged.

All these statements about the founding about the Catholic Church are contended and it may say tedious say "...is contended by the Catholic Church" after each one, but some statements are more "contended" than others.

There is really no need to have any other these statements in the info box. The info box is for things that are fairly un-contended. This is foundational to Wikipedia policy writing from a WP:Neutral point of view. If a Wikipedia article says the Catholic Church was founded in Jerusalem of Judea, then that implies it is fact from a neutral point of view. Any article about Catholic Church ideas or Catholic Church theology can be written much more from the Catholic point of view-- but this article is not that situation.

In fact, Christianity itself is not even normally assumed to have begun in Judea. Jesus spent nearly all his ministry in Galilee, and nearly all the apostles were from Galilee.

To state the Catholic Church began at a certain time and place implies there was something around then that can rightful be called what today we call the Catholic Church. Even the term "catholic church" was not used until the early 2nd century-- but was not used to mean the body we have today. Even then, there were no people who called themselves members of the Catholic Church.

There were the Christians in the city of Rome, and thus a church (of a certain meaning) of Rome, but it was quite awhile before it had one bishop ruling over one organization, and centuries before churches far away considered the bishop of Rome the leader of the whole church.

The Catholic Church sometimes considers its beginning to be the Jesus statements at the Confession of Peter, but this was at Caesarea Philippi, also outside Judea.

How many people really need quick-reference info on (Wikipedia's view of) when and where the Catholic Church was founded? It seems much better to only talk about it in complete sentences in the body of the article. Many such articles do not bother including statements.

For example, Islam theology considers Islam to predate Muhammad-- to date back Adam-- and only re-established by Muhammad. History, of course, cannot verify such ideas and does not try. That article does not state its founding in an info box.

While the Catholic Church considers itself the only "real" or "true" church (as some other churches also do), to define the Catholic Church as founded (outside Rome) wherever Christianity was founded is to say that all the "real" or "true" Christians were always what we call the Catholic Church. That is not a neutral point of view. tahc ^chat 02:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I really appreciate your input here. My only concern was that I did not think that "Timeline of the Catholic Church" was an inappropriate wikilink, and that having repeated disclaimers was at best sloppy. I have raised similar concerns as you do here when the infobox was created, and got nowhere, so have worked to make the infobox at least orderly, if not yet perfect. I have had my head bitten off for removing far more egregious content from this infobox, and apologize for effectively doing the same to you. I do not wish to impede in anyway making this article more fair and neutral to all sides. --Zfish118^⋉talk 07:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments requested at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_19#Category:Persecution_by_atheists

Page: Category:Persecution by atheists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_19#Category:Persecution_by_atheists

Deletion of Category:Persecution by atheists has been requested for review. Please share your comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_19#Category:Persecution_by_atheists, regardless of your opinion. The atheism article Talk page has also received a notification. Eliko007 (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC) (Reworded for policy compliance. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC))

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

References

I recently added 3 references to support the origin of the Church in the first century, but only one made it. The other two were removed because they were unreliable. Is it because one is primary source? To the best of my knowledge, primary sources can be used to supplement secondary sources. Are the references not explicit enough? The idea that the Church existed in the first century is found in the source material. Those references are:

1.http://historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistoriesResponsive.asp?historyid=ac65#c2840 [A secondary source]

2.https://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/HUGHHIST.TXT [A primary source]

1. states that: The pope is the bishop of Rome. The name derives from a Greek word pappas, meaning father, and Rome's bishop is seen as the father figure of the early church because of the link with St Peter. Jesus is believed to have appointed Peter as the rock on which the church will be built; and Peter is believed to have been martyred in Rome. As the capital of the empire, Rome is also a natural centre for the growing church. Unlike any other Christian see, Rome can put at least a name to every bishop in an unbroken line back to the 1st century of the Christian era and to St Peter himself as the first pope. The papacy, though not recognized as such until later centuries, has impressive credentials.

2. states: St. Ignatius, born about the year 60, in all probability a disciple of St. John, was the third Bishop of Antioch... St. Ignatius, looking beyond the local churches to the one great Church which in their unity they compose, has found for that unity the name which henceforth it will for ever retain -- the Catholic Church... St. Ignatius was thrown to the beasts in a Roman circus somewhere about the year 107. In the three quarters of a century which are all that separate his martyrdom from Our Lord's Ascension, the ecclesia is visibly and evidently the Catholic Church. It is spreading throughout the Roman world. It is increasingly a gentile thing; it is a federation of communities united in belief, united in their mode of government, united in their acceptance of the belief as a thing regulated by authority, united, too, in their worship. It has received its historic name-the Catholic Church -- and the rule of the Church at Rome is already foreshadowed in writing and in action, the continuation in time of the chieftainship conferred by Christ on Peter.Tachyon1010101010 (talk) 06:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not certain who removed the sources, so my comments are only my observations. The first entry appears to be self-published, so may not be, strictly speaking, a WP:Reliable source. The second, EWTN, is already extensively cited in the article, so may be redundant. --Zfish118^⋉talk 00:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

History section at bottom?

Why is the History section exceptionally placed in the bottom in this article, contrary to typical arrangement? Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

No idea. I agree it would be better higher up - probably first. I'm not sure what to do about the 'Name' section - it's usual to have this quite high up; but then most articles don't feel the need to have a Name section that's 7 paragraphs long.... TSP (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the history section is at the bottom of the article because it is almost as long as the rest of the article. --Zfish118^⋉talk 16:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Name section

For the original text of the "Name" section, see User:TonyBallioni/CatholicName.

I've trimmed the name section. Some of those paragraphs were tangentially related (the Donation of Constantine one in particular), or were quite rambling. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The name section evolved due to the on-going saga of "Roman Catholic" versus "Catholic". Few organization have a naming history as complex as this one! --Zfish118^⋉talk 16:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but I think the bit about the Donation of Constantine is overkill here, and comparing the naming conventions of the Eastern Church and the Western Church can be described in detail later in the article. A concise description of the etymology of the term and acknowledging the Catholic vs. Roman Catholic uses should be enough for a naming section. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the original edits cut a bit too much out. I restored the section, but preserved a few key edits. I could definitely see more being cut out or clarified, but would strongly prefer to keep the East-West,Protestant,Roman after western fall discussion kept (though some of the rambling examples of "Roman" could be removed). --Zfish118^⋉talk 16:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

That's fair, I tend to edit based on WP:BRD, and the environment on this talk page has been very collegial compared to many others on Wikipedia, so I assumed that if there was an issue, there would be a good discussion concerning it. Don't mind the reverts at all, and I see your point on the Orthodox/Catholic/Protestant paragraph. After your new edits, the only thing I feel somewhat strongly about cutting would be the section discussing ecclesia, which seems like a bit of overkill on the etymology section. I don't feel a need to describe the etymology of the Christian word Church when this article is about one specific church and its name. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the entire second paragraph of the section could go - I added (from Greek καθολικός (katholikos), "universal") after "Catholic" to replace this paragraph, but we now seem to have both. This isn't Wiktionary, and Catholic (term) exists; I don't think it's necessary to define 'church' or to explore the etymology of 'Catholic' any further than the brief note at the start. TSP (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done I went ahead and removed it, though I am fine with it being reverted if we need further discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

That's indeed some bold moves. No, this isn't Wiktionary, but the Name section has been carefully carved out over the years. Extended information about its name here is relevant. The diminish it so violently would merit some more discussion. Where did disappeared parts of text of the section get moved to, to start with? Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Zfish118 restored most of the initial trim, and then removed the Donation of Constantine bit along with a few other Roman examples. I just removed the second paragraph mentioned by TSP because it largely duplicates the first paragraph with some additional Greek and Hebrew etymology around ecclesia. I think the changes that have been made as the article stands now convey the message of the seven paragraph section more concisely and make it easier for the reader to understand the issues surrounding the name. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. In fact your trims then weren't the controversial ones, but TSP's changes to the section's content. That content may be improved but should first be restored. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Could you be specific as to what you would like to see restored? I did a larger trim earlier, but like I said, that was restored by Zfish, and the version that is now active has been reduced since then by Zfish and myself. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the concession part, please, in order to be improved. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to put a copy of the unmodified Name section here on the talkpage (I'm on Mobile or would do it myself). The Concession part seemed to complex for this section (citing it as an authoritative example of early use of Roman, then discussing it's authenticity got confusing for me) --Zfish118^⋉talk 21:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It's about 10k bytes, so I think it would be a bit tough for it to be seen here. I've copied the original version to User:TonyBallioni/CatholicName if anyone wants to look at it for easier reference than going through diffs or old versions in the article history. I agree with you on the Concession being confusing. I don't really think it has a place in the name section, and discussing the authenticity of a medieval forgery there seems to muddy the waters. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure which of my edits is particularly controversial? I've made five, but most of them were small tweaks or rearrangements. TSP (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm pausing any more changes for the moment to avoid muddying the waters while debate goes on, but I would note that the current revision is incoherent ('The name "Catholic Church" is the most common designation used in official church documents, and only the website of the Holy See.'). TSP (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I fixed that for clarity, but other than that I agree that more edits shouldn't be made so as not to muddy the waters. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Your amendment (which I think was originally my amendment) to the words "and only the website of the Holy See" was objected to on grounds of accuracy. I've removed this clause completely - I don't think it's ever had a source, and if we can't even work out what it's meant to mean I don't think we can leave it there. Anyone who knows what these words were intended to mean is welcome to put back an accurate version. TSP (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation. I think the section looks better now. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I am generally content with how the section looks now, but I agree with TSP that the website line should probably be omitted as failing WP:V. A quick Google search shows that it fails verification [1] at worst, and it is ambiguous at best. Unless there is a secondary source for it, I think it should be removed. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Then it might as well be removed. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Removed. TSP (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

My only two concerns left are that after the citation needed template was placed after the Pius XII claim, while it appears to be true, it also appears to be WP:OR as I can't find any secondary sourcing on it. The claim that Catholic Church is the most common used in Church documents seems to be cited to the CCC table of contents, and while also appearing to be true, I can't find secondary sourcing on. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I am familiar enough with the Catechism to be confident that it does not use "Roman Catholic" in any context except perhaps a quote from an older document. However, I am concerned that the inclusion of the statement here would imply some sort of editorial decision to downplay the term, especially when combined with the statement about no papal documents using the term since the 1950's. It would seem to border pretty close to WP:Synthesis, using two trivial facts to demonstrate conclusion beyond either fact's context alone. --Zfish118^⋉talk 16:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that CCC does not use Roman Catholic except in what might be a footnote reference from Vatican I. I'm also confident that CCC says nowhere in it the most used name for the Church in official documents is the Catholic Church. Using the entirety of the Catechism as a citation for that claim is bad sourcing. I also tend to lean that this is synthesis, but also original research of primary source documents. I'm willing to believe that the last papal document was HG in 1950, but I can't find that claim in secondary sources outside of the document. It poses a verifiability problem for Wikipedia, because in order to disprove the claim, you'd have to go through all the papal documents issued from 1950s both in English and non-English sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

@TonyBallioni: Regarding the inclusion of the "Electoral College" in the infobox, I am concern that the infobox is already too clutter and complicated. The infobox should contain only readily understandable quick information, and it is already weighed down with complex terms such as "Churches sui iuris", and I'd like to avoid adding more ambiguous parameters. With regard to the particulars here, the "Electoral College" wikilink only mentions one line in the article about the Catholic Church. The entry refers to "College of Cardinals", who do meet regularly, but only elect a pope once in a generation. The number following is awkwardly placed. In most entries, it is the number of entries (number of dioceses, number of priests, etc. Here, "225" looks like the number of colleges of cardinals, rather than the number of cardinals. An entry for Cardinals might be a better fit, but again, I hoping to trim. There have been a lot of contentious discussion over this template to get it to this point, and I wish to avoid that contention here. --Zfish118^⋉talk 03:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with taking the 225 number out as I agree it is confusing. The college meets more than once every 25 years, though, in the papal consistory. They don't do the electing then, but it is then that new electors are appointed and other tasks of governance are done. I think the college should be in the infobox, but if electoral college is the best phrase, I am unsure. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Zfish118:, I like your administration simplification, I was actually just about to suggest it. I've also BOLDly removed Worldwide as its region, and Vatican City as the headquarters. I could go either way on the headquarters bit being in the infobox, but the entire planet Earth isn't really a region until we find life on Mars. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree on removing "Worldwide" (I've proposed that one before, actually). I disagree removing Vatican City as headquarters. I think that is a clear and succinct, and geographically places the central bureaucracy (of note, because further down, it states the was founded in Jerusalem). I appreciate your thoughts and support on these matters. --Zfish118^⋉talk 05:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

My only reason for removing Vatican City is that it is painfully obvious and with the picture of St. Peter's and a caption that mentions Vatican City, I don't really think it adds much value. That and you could get into an equally painful argument as to whether it is actually headquartered in Vatican City. If someone wants to restore it I won't object. Worldwide I feel very strongly should be removed since, like I mentioned, Planet Earth is not a region. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I was not a fan of the double tagging of Vatican City either. I will be BOLD and add a stronger geographical tag to the caption "near Rome, Italy", along with the headquarters as Vatican City (I am not strongly attached to this language either, should it be objectionable). I will also add prose to the lead to describe the situation. --Zfish118^⋉talk 06:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Good improvements. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I am also not sure about how I feel having Churches sui iuris in the infobox now that I think about it. In my mind, the infobox should contain information that most people would readily understand simply by looking, and I don't think this is the case here. It also make the sui juris Churches seem like administrative subdivisions in my mind, which isn't entirely accurate. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I am neutral on this topic. A year ago I quietly added them, and a few weeks later quietly removed them. Someone objected and put them back. I concur they are a bit technical, and the article overall discusses churches sui juris in more detail than equivalent articles in other encyclopedias. Other the other hand, though not perfectly analogous, an infobox created for the Eastern Orthodox would almost certainly list the number of autocephalous member churches of the communion. I could go either way on whether to include the sui iuris in the infobox.--Zfish118^⋉talk 02:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. The autocephalous comparison is apt. I think the distinction I would draw is that the sui juris Churches are not as independent as autocephalous Churches in practice but at the same time very much more independent than dioceses. Leaving them in the odd place between the two. I'll remove from the infobox for now, but if it is reverted I won't contest. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I oppose the removal. The information is of importance for its global organisation and identity. Moreover, with the ongoing events in the Middle East, this should not be considered of less importance than before. Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I suppose my concern is that an infobox is a terrible place to try to explain the concept of a sui iuris particular Church. Including them alongside diocese also feels inaccurate to me in terms of portrayal: it's not like they are divisions of a global NGO with the pope at the top and diocese and eparchies below them as departments. I think the information is better conveyed and handled in the article text rather than by a number in the infobox. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure referring to a perceived deficit of common knowledge is sufficient argument to reduce this variable from the infobox, a variable which very much reflects the church's constitution and well indicates its composition. Compare for instance equivalently necessary variable in infobox of Syriac Orthodox Church. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I actually think the Syriac Orthodox article is a good example about how infoboxes can be confusing and unclear, and it only has one similar situation, not twenty-four. I'm all for having an expansive section in the article text on it, but I don't think having it in the infobox really helps people understand the Church's structure, and I think there are some down sides to trying to highlight the nuanced relationship between the Holy See and the sui iuris particular churches in such a visible place with not much room. At the same time, I don't feel too strongly about this, so if you do feel strongly, please go ahead and reinsert it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I concur that the Syrian article is not strong example to emulate. Prior to browsing the articles today, I was completely unfamiliar with the structure of the Syrian church, and I had to click through several articles to discern the relationship of Catholicos and the mother church; anyone not already familiar a church sui juris may face a similar stumbling block. Building on the nuanced relationship of the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Pope; In the original infobox, we listed we listed the sui juris churches, but also included "Roman Curia" in the hierarchy. Yet, the Eastern churches are not directly subject to the Curia, except to the extend that the Curia is organ of the Apostolic See. The Patriarchal Eastern churches, in fact, can appoint a procurator to the Curia, the Court of the Bishop of Rome. This is an ancient prerogative exercised by the ancient Eastern Churches since before the Great Schism. The Curia manages the Pope's relations with the Eastern Catholic Churches, but does not govern the them directly (like it does the Latin Church). The infobox as written prior would seem suggest a much more top down approach, when it is rather nuanced. –Zfish118^⋉talk 23:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

"Particular churches sui iuris" section

There are a couple of points in the "Particular churches sui iuris" section that I am not comfortable with. For instance, the language "communion [of 24 churches]" is not used in the cited source, and I have not seen it described as a "communion" in other sources I have reviewed. The Eastern churches are certainly in communion [adjective] with the Holy See, but the Catholic Church is not described as a communion [noun] in the sources I've seen. I also think the section also needs to elaborate on the relationship between Eastern Catholic churches and the Latin church authorities, as it has historically been complicated, and the current status really only formally came about in 1990 with the publishing of the CCEO. As I've discussed in the infobox talkpage section, care needs to be taken to portray these churches as not mere administrative divisions, but fundamentally independent approaches to Christianity that have managed to coexist in communion with the majority Latin/western tradition. –Zfish118^⋉talk 10:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

In terms of the first sentence, perhaps something like The Catholic Church consists of 24 autonomous particular Churches [...] that are in full communion with the Holy See? I'll look further at the rest of the section later. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

If it helps, in es:Iglesia católica we agreed this introduction: "The Catholic Church is composed of 24 sui iuris churches: the Latin Church and 23 Eastern Churches, which are in full communion with the pope." --Grabado (talk) 09:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense in the lead

"and from the Middle Ages until the Modern Age acted as the principal force of unity in the Western world", that seriously needs needs a citation and I am not sure one can be found considering the background of the protestant reformation. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, the early modern era started in the 16th century (around the time Protestantism emerged) so it would be accurate. Ltwin (talk)

I would have no issue if you changed modern age to early modern era as they have very different meanings since modern age includes contemporary history. What is there now is erroneous. 2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Ltwin you seem like a knowledgeable person about the subject. Not sure why changing it to early modern era is a problem. This is an encyclopedia, or is at least supposed to be. Encyclopedia's have precision of language to be concise and clear. I agree that the catholic church was the principle force of unity from the beginning of the Middle Ages until the beginning of the Modern Age. Why is is a problem to be clear, concise, correct and non vague by changing it to "and from the beginning of Middle Ages until the early modern era acted as the principal force of unity in the Western world"? 2602:304:788B:DF50:E4B2:7FEA:8B64:85B5 (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, nothing should be in the lead of the article without being in the body of the article(and sourced). So, where in the body of the article does it show/state/refer, "...and from the Middle Ages until the Modern Age acted as the principal force of unity in the Western world"??

"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."[2]--Kansas Bear (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no issue with the removal of that part of the sentence, just to be clear. As I put in the section title, it is obviously nonsense as written, but the article is locked. My first request was for removal or to provide a source. Ltwin defended it as written and I was trying to engage. 2602:304:788B:DF50:E4B2:7FEA:8B64:85B5 (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@2602:304:788B:DF50:E4B2:7FEA:8B64:85B5: Just to be clear, I don't edit this article, so I don't really have an objection for removing the sentence. Just pointing out that given that the "Modern Age" began in the 16th century, the sentence as written isn't "nonsense." Ltwin (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

It is nonsense, and others seem to agree. If you don't want to edit the article, why comment in defense? 2602:304:788B:DF50:E4B2:7FEA:8B64:85B5 (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Kansas is correct. If the body does not support it then it should be deleted in its entirety. There is not discussion about this type of thing given that it has long been settled format. --^StormRider 18:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

So to come full circle, no one disagrees anymore, would someone please delete the offending sentence? 2602:304:788B:DF50:E4B2:7FEA:8B64:85B5 (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Disagree! Please review the first sentence and its source in the Medieval and Renaissance periods section. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I am neutral towards removing the sentence, but rather strongly disagree with lengthening it to "'early' modern period". Lead should be tightly written, and a single vague adjective does not change an inappropriate sentence to appropriate. –Zfish118^⋉talk 21:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Saints

While the article talks about the doctrines and devotions regarding the Virgin Mary, should it also have a subsection explaining the Catholic beliefs and practices regarding saints? (i.e. Beatification, Canonization, Litany of the Saints, Veneration, Intercession of saints, Patron saint, etc.) -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 July 2017

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. There is consensus that these moves should go ahead, and I don't think it's paramount that we defer it until we can move everything related to this. Looking at Category:History_of_Roman_Catholicism_by_country, there's already a lot of inconsistency.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

---

• History of Roman Catholicism in Venezuela → History of the Catholic Church in Venezuela
• History of Roman Catholicism in Mexico → History of the Catholic Church in Mexico
• History of Roman Catholicism in Cuba → History of the Catholic Church in Cuba
• History of Roman Catholicism in France → History of the Catholic Church in France
• History of Roman Catholicism in Belize → History of the Catholic Church in Belize
• History of Roman Catholicism in Germany → History of the Catholic Church in Germany
• History of the Catholic Church in the United States → History of the Catholic Church in the United States (disambiguation)
• History of Roman Catholicism in the United States → History of the Catholic Church in the United States

– Per WP:Consistency in accordance with Catholic Church, Category:Catholic Church, Talk:Catholic Church, Talk:Catholic Church in Armenia, History of the Catholic Church, History of the Catholic Church in Spain, History of the Catholic Church in Brazil, History of the Catholic Church in Japan, etc. (Note: Don't know how to avoid the first incorrect line of proposal which inappropriate addresses this very article) Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the struck-through parenthesized note above, I edited the content above to reflect the apparent intent. I hope I did that correctly. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 04:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support these make sense. The Catholic Church in these countries is largely confined to the Latin Church, and even in places like the United States where there are sizable populations of Eastern Catholic diaspora that can be included in the main article as a history of the Catholic Church in that nation. I see no reason to use the largely deprecated Roman Catholicism to refer to the broader history of the Catholic Church in a given nation. Note, I consider this different than the conversation above about particular churches and church buildings where I still think Roman serves as a valid disambiguator. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support. --Grabado (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support, per nom and above. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Jee 02:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, renaming these is necessary to rename the category "History of Roman Catholicism in X", which itself could only be accomplished by renaming all the associated articles. The amount of effort require to rename hundreds of articles is not worth the benefits of "consistency". –Zfish118^⋉talk 04:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Additionally: If this proposal goes through, we will have a conflicting of daughter article names. "Catholicism in Cuba" will have sub-articles "Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Havana", etc. This is not necessarily desirable, and should be at least understood (and perhaps addressed) before a precedent is set that will trigger other article renames. I have written about this issue before here: WP:Catholic or Roman Catholic?. –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support: over 50 years ago the Catholic Bishops took measures to weaken the "Roman" elements and to point out that the Catholic church was now truly a world religion, with liturgies in the vernacular and Synodal procedures for governance, along with various ecumenical initiatives. It seems due time we recognize this. Jzsj (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Please provide resources to backup this assertion. Major changes must be based on solid research. –Zfish118^⋉talk 17:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Marcocapelle (talk · contribs), TonyBallioni (talk · contribs), Grabado (talk · contribs), Randy Kryn (talk · contribs), Jzsj (talk · contribs), Jkadavoor (talk · contribs): The above proposals are all related to the general Catholic Church perspective (thus not related to the Latin/Roman rite/Roman Catholic ongoing issue in sections further above). I made sure that the same perspective (avoiding the Latin/Roman rite/Roman Catholic issue) should apply also to my proposals at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_2. So I am rather surprised of the lack of equivalent support there. The disamibuguation issue of Latin/Roman rite can be sorted out in a later phase. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

My objections have to do with consistency, not Roman/Latin disambiguation. If these changes are made based on the argument of consistency, dozens of other articles will become inconsistent. I have yet to see a comprehensive plan to address this, and making these changes without a comprehensive plan only fragments the existing article naming conventions. It is also disingenuous to state that these changes have nothing to do with Latin/Roman disambiguation in the middle of a major discuss about Latin/Roman disambiguation, when both discussions have as their aim deciding the appropriate use of the term "Roman" on Wikipedia. –Zfish118^⋉talk 19:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your concern about WP:Consistency. I haven't seen anyone proposing an overall policy, but if you want to do that, feel free. Until, I suppose the case by case method is better than nothing. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree with the case-by-case approach. I believe those who wish to change article and category names should have the burden of introducing a comprehensive plan. My position is that article names should be left alone without compelling reasons for a particular article. I do not find "consistently" to be a compelling, especially when a proposal will leave related articles less consistent. Your proposals here will potentially effect thousands of articles. It will be painful and tedious to discuss each in isolation. I argue against rote consistency in the very essay that you coincidentally proposed for deletion. I would much prefer to see a plan developed and submitted to a project-wide RFC. Perhaps, instead of proposing to delete my essay, develop your own and submit it for feedback and potential community support. Grabado (talk · contribs) appears willing to search through the category tree and look for specific problematic areas. He also pointed out that you had promised to withdraw conflicting discussions to allow time for a specific plan to be developed. I am disappointed these proposals are still active despite your promise. I am editing by phone most often these days, and it is impossible for me to keep track and meaningfully participate in every discussion across multiple forums. Wikipedia guidelines discourage such decentralized discusion for major proposals. You are effectively proposing major changes to the projects existing conventions. I strongly encourage you to articulate a plan and discuss that plan in a central place. –Zfish118^⋉talk 11:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I see your points. However, you are a advocating a job/proposal on a really big scale. I am not sure I am neither experienced, nor competent enough for that. The consensus currently seems to lean towards a case by case policy - also judging from the essay you published in the Wikipedia realm, from what I can perceive. Until major improvements are proposed, I suppose minor efforts are better than nothing? As Grabado (talk · contribs) and multiple other users have pointed out, improvements are needed. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I support a case by case approach because I find it extremely unlikely we will reach a strong consensus on the Latin/Roman question, which seems to be one of the two big questions currently being discussed in RMs. A lack of a consensus on that question is a strong argument against moving things, in my opinion, but there are cases where it is appropriate to consider a move. The other question being cases of Christian groups that identify as Catholic but who are not in full communion with the Holy See, which can generally be resolved by using the definite article (though there is still disagreement here).

My general philosophy is that specific particular churches such as dioceses should go by the name they call themselves, with a disambiguator as needed if one is not always present, but I do not think there is strong consensus on the application to particular churches, just no consensus to change. I think there is a large enough consensus that Roman Catholicism has been largely deprecated on the English Wikipedia as a main space title in favour of the Catholic Church. It should still be treated case by case as there might be pages where the Catholic Church is not in fact the best title, but I think this RM is showing that existing consensus against Roman Catholicism pretty strongly. I will again point out that I consider this question to be separate from the Latin/Roman question above. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

Hatnote stacking

Regarding edit by TSP (talk · contribs). My remark is that Catholic Church (disambiguation) already contains the terminology sorting out help that the user seems to call for in the hatnote. I am therefore wondering for what reasons this should be doubled up, please? For the record, there are several others redirects to this article that isn't listed as "X and Y redirects here" - for obvious reasons since if applied would cause bit of a list really in the hatnote. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't have very strong feelings on how they are arranged, but I think the new hatnote is the more important one, since the recent move, as I think people are more likely to type in Catholic or Catholicism and not mean this article than they are to type Catholic Church and not mean this article. If they do that, it's less obvious that Catholic Church (disambiguation) will help them than that Catholic (disambiguation) will. TSP (talk) 10:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you provide more arguments for that speculation, please? What about this below middle-way suggestion?

"Catholic Church", "Catholicism", and "Catholic" redirect here. For other meanings than the church headed by the Pope, see Catholic Church (disambiguation).

Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, there was apparently consensus for 5 years or more that Catholic should go to what is now Catholicism (term) rather than here, which seems to suggest that it's not a totally invalid belief that people might be looking for either. Looking at the alphabetically first 10 articles that link to Catholic, at least two of them do not mean this page.

That seems a little bit awkward in phrasing but has roughly the right sense - I don't have a better suggestion for phrasing, though I think Catholic (disambiguation) would be a better disambiguation to link to.

Slight issue that it's not entirely true - "Catholic Church" doesn't redirect here, it is the name of this article - but I don't know if there's a better way to put it. TSP (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

OK. Your remarks have been taken into account. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Article naming conventions

On the Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Article alerts, currently there remains only two article name change proposals. Other than these, I believe there are no more "Roman Catholic" article titles on general topics throughout English Wikipedia (except names of certain dioceses in historically Catholic-minority regions). As a consequence of this state, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Catholic Church) has been created per WP:BOLD, where I have attempted to perceive the recurrent consensus in retroperspective of a quantity of past related discussions.

Following this, on a sidenote, I suggest that also the essay Wikipedia:Catholic or Roman Catholic? should be updated, including merge with hatnote-mentioned, relating essays of individual users.

All this may - and most likely will - of course be objected. Or even reversed, ultimately so I guess per Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases. Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• Firstly, you cannot invent a policy page out of the blue. You have to propose it and gain a consensus to implement it.
• Secondly, you are not going to edit or remove my essay. That is a none-starter, so just stop proposing as much. I made it an essay specifically because it is non-binding, unlike the policy document you are proposing. It is a counter argument to the policy you are proposing, so it is nonsensical to say it should be merged.
• Thirdly, I have no idea why you are referencing WP:Fringe. Using the term Roman Catholic to refer to the church based in Rome is a mainstream usage. Catholics use it themselves to describe their church. I personally live within a diocese legally incorporated as the Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation. I live one town over from the Roman Catholic Parish of X. When a church used a name, it is not a fringe theory to say it is appropriate to use that name. –Zfish118^⋉talk 03:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

References

• @Zfish118 and Chicbyaccident: I've traditionally taken what I see as a somewhat middle position between the two of you on the issue, and that's what I'll do here. First: I agree with Zfish that I don't get the FRINGE issue at all. Roman Catholic is not a fringe term. Chicbyaccident: I appreciate your initiative in drafting this. I think it is a good starting point. I also agree with Zfish that we need to have a discussion on it, likely at WT:CATHOLIC and the RM regulars should be alerted as well. Finally, I've also added this to the proposed guideline: I think it reflects what is current practice. We do sometimes use Roman as a disambiguator from some of the Eastern Churches. It is decided on a case-by-case basis. Chicbyaccident, I know you don't like that, but I think it reflects what is a current practice and basically just says "fight it out in RMs or article talk pages". I generally think the guideline is moving in a right direction, but I think the clause is very important. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Zfish118: 1. Yes, it is a WP:Bold proposal. 2. For convenience, the essay discussion could be maintained at Wikipedia talk:Catholic or Roman Catholic?, which still by the way has an unanswered question for you. 3. As for the diocese concern, this was already mentioned in the article content from the start, if you examinate.

For the rest, including the Latin "Roman" Catholic clause, and WP:Fringe issue, I have attempted to address the concerns on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Catholic Church). Would you mind discussing there for convenience? Chicbyaccident (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

OK. Not sure how to approach this at the moment. I haven't had time to process it completely, but at the moment this is a pile of reasons on one side of the argument.

In particular, there seems no obvious reason for Catholic articles in particular to have a unique "Prefer shorter titles and terms over longer ones" requirement - other than that it obviously leads to a preference for "Catholic" over "Roman Catholic", which the author prefers for entirely unrelated reasons. (Thought experiment: if the options were "Holy Catholic and Apostolic" vs "Roman Catholic"; or indeed "Catholic" and "Popish", say, would you feel the same way?) If we did need to add to Wikipedia policy, isn't "Prefer less ambiguous titles and terms over more ambiguous ones" equally defensible?

I think at the moment this is an essay with equal status to Zfish118's and Vaquero's. If we genuinely want to collaboratively produce a neutral set of guidelines perhaps that's useful; but I'm not sure if this is the best starting point, coming as it does from one extreme, with some of the arguments in it frankly verging on the offensive. I'm not sure if it's best for this to be heavily edited into neutrality, or relegated to essay and a new set of guidelines come up with from scratch? TSP (talk) 11:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2017

The very first sentence of this article is factually incorrect. It is a common misunderstanding is that the Catholic Church is also known as the Roman Catholic church. As Christianity spread throughout the world The essential elements of the Catholic faith were celebrated in the context and rituals of different cultures. These different cultural rituals evolved into over 20 liturgical Rites present in the Catholic Church today. The three main groups of Rites are the Roman, the Antiochian (Syria) and the Alexandrian (Egypt). It is important to clarify that though there are cultural differences in how liturgical rites are celebrated, all Catholics share the same faith. All Roman Catholics are Catholic but not all Catholics are Roman Catholics. Cmrosary (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal of List of Christian denominations by number of members into List of Christian denominations

For details, please see Talk:List of Christian_denominations#Proposal to let List of Christian denominations by number of members merge with this list. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Our whole category system might be broken

I'm here because of these two discussions in Wikimedia Commons [3][4].

If, as stated in the first line of this article, the Catholic Church is also known as the Roman Catholic Church (that is, that the whole Roman Catholic Church includes both the Latin Church and Eastern Catholic Churches), then Category:Roman Catholic church buildings shouldn't be used for Catholic churches of the Latin Church, Category:Eastern Catholic church buildings for Catholic churches of Eastern Catholic Churches and Category:Catholic Church as a common container for both.

What do we do? --Grabado (talk) 11:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

As I understand it (and this matter has been discussed pretty extensively here):

• "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are, as applied to a specific church organisation, synonyms; with "Roman" being added to distinguish from other uses of the term "Catholic" (see Catholic). Both refer to the entire church that is under the leadership of the Pope.
• The Catholic or Roman Catholic Church is divided into several particular churches of equal standing; by far the largest is the Latin Church, the others are grouped as the Eastern Catholic churches.

So, yes - if "Roman Catholic" and "Eastern Catholic" are being opposed, then, as I understand it, that's wrong. The Catholic or Roman Catholic Church is the whole organisation; which can be divided, if you like, into Eastern Catholic churches and the Latin Church, but not into Eastern and Roman. TSP (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I tend to mostly agree with User:Grabado and the user's changes. Although I am uncertain about to what extent or depth the Latin Church categorisation is needed, I would still consider the edits improvements. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Please note that Grabado opened this can of worms only because he made massive changes to the categorization tree concerning Roman Catholic churches over on Commons without the consensus to do so, and refuses to undo them, despite numerous editors telling him that he should. The only reason he's here is to bolster his position there, but he refuses to acknowledge that the question of what the categorization should be cannot take place until he undoes his disruptive non-consensual edits to the category hierarchy. Since this is essentially a Commons issue, and not an en.Wiki one, I suggest that this discussion be shut down, as it was opened under false pretenses. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

+1 to BMK's comment. Please lets not reopen the name can of worms, especially when it comes to categorizations.The question of whether Roman Catholic and Latin Catholic are synonyms is very complex and can be argued on both sides depending on the geography. Having the argumentation over articles is bad enough, but delving into it with categories would get needlessly complex and likely end with no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks TSP and Chicbyaccident for the clarification. Grabado opened this discussion because another user asked him to do so. I see no bad intentions in it. My understanding is also inline with the current status of this articles. George Alencherry and Baselios Cleemis, who are heads of two Eastern Churches are Cardinals which confirms they are part of Roman Catholic Church. Jee 04:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Jkadavoor for your support. That's a good point: the Cardinals are formally known as "Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church". [5] [6] [7] --Grabado (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't believe this is even real. Is this Wikihounding? I've opened this because I've been requested to do so. --Grabado (talk) 05:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

To clarify my comment above: I was agreeing with BMK that this is a Commons problem not an en.wiki problem, and I don't see any need for there to be a conversation here because our categorization system is not in fact broken: it works perfectly fine for people finding what they need to find (not to mention that most en.wiki users just search rather than use cats). I don't really see the need for a discussion about this and think that it should stay on Commons. It was not meant to be an attempt to doubt your good faith, and sorry if it came off that way. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, TonyBallioni. Thank you for your clarification. My point has been better explained by TSP than me. The problem is that our current approach says that "Roman Catholic" and "Eastern Catholic" are disjoint categories while the main article about this topic says the latter should be a subclass of the former. I don't know if questioning this would get needlessly complex and likely end with no consensus; that is what I'm trying to see, as requested by another user in Commons. --Grabado (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, that topic is complex and you'll get different answers on it depending on which region of the world you are in. A Google Books search on "Roman Catholic" AND "Greek Catholic will show you some cases where it is used as a disambiguator from Eastern/Greek. To pick another random example from the Eastern Catholic Churches "Roman Catholic" AND "Syro-Malabar" returns results that are favourable to the view that Roman is a synonym for the larger category, but also returns results that can be used to argue the opposite. In terms of categories the question should be if we know what we are talking about and if we can easily find it. I think we do here and don't see this as a big enough deal to need to have larger community discussion about a rename when nothing is broken. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that there are different views. But on one hand, Category:Roman Catholic Church redirects to Category:Catholic Church, which includes Latin Chuch and Eastern Catholic Churches. On the other hand, Category:Roman Catholic church buildings is a subcategory of Category:Catholic church buildings, which also includes Category:Independent Catholic church buildings and Category:Eastern Catholic church buildings. There are two opposite criterias working at the same time in the same place, which from my point of view is more confusing. --Grabado (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Grabado (talk · contribs) is right. Improvements of said category tree was needed but has long been postponed. It is good that someone makes an effort to improve it. As for the "Latin/Western/Latin rite" distinction in the category tree, its terminology and depth may be altered later on, if requested. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Any such massively extensive change, whether here or an Commons, requires a firm consensus of editors to do so, not fly-by-night changes made by an editor with a POV to grind. Grabado didn't get a consensus on Commons (but made the changes anyway) and is not now likely to get one ther, so he came here hoping to get en.Wiki to alter its hierarchy, so he could then import the change to Commons on the (invalid) grounds that Commons must follow en.Wiki. That is why this discussion is bogus, because it's an attempt to bootstrap his failing argument on Commons by using en.Wiki for leverage. That's not why we're here, and the purpose of categorization is not, as another editor put it "an epistemological exercise" but, as TonyB said above, to help people find things. Grabado refuses to grasp that principle, or the one that says you don't make massive terminological changes on your own authority. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• One example category in the Commons discussion was: "Category:Catholic churches of the Latin Church in India". This seems unwieldy and inappropriate here. I will not offer an opinion as to its use in the Commons. The Latin Church is a name given to the particular portion of the church directly governed by the Pope. The Eastern Catholic Churches have a degree of autonomy from the pope. "Latin Church" is not really used to identify dioceses, churches, and/or buildings in common language, and offers little clarity to the common user who might be navigating using categories. The "Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem" used as an example in the commons, is a special case that is not generally applicable. I would urge very strong caution against changing the categorization scheme to use the relatively obscure "Latin Church" name, especially in lieu of the more common "Roman Catholic". One thing that is indisputable is the the Eastern Catholic Churches are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. It is more ambiguous as to whether they themselves are (or identify) as Roman Catholic. The language here is evolving. Wikipedia may even be influencing it, as much as we attempt to stick to reliable sources. If categories are renamed en mass, this will trickle into articles. I would argue the status quo is the best, though imperfect, solution for now. –Zfish118^⋉talk 02:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken, thank you for pointing out so clearly why this is a non-issue on en.wiki. I'll point out an additional factor as to why the Commons discussion doesn't have any impact on en.wiki: we have a functional main space and they don't. Category names matter quite a lot on Commons since their main space is for a lack of a better phrase absolutely useless as even many of their functionaries would admit. On Commons, this discussion has much more importance because their categories need to be at the best possible name so people can actually find things. Here, we simply need it to be at a recognizable name since our search feature works relatively well and our main space is actually functioning. No need to stir up the pot by getting into a discussion as to whether or not Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church buildings are actually Roman Catholic Church buildings. Our categories function for the need they serve: helping people find things. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Zfish118: Thank you very much for your comment. I just want to make one thing clear: I've opened his discussion here because I've been requested to do it by another user to see if we can here propose a new solution. I've already made two proposals in Commons, but I'm not really pushing for any of them. Solving the dual criteria we have here is the only important thing for me, no matter of the solution. If we could reach a consensual compromise that makes the current category tree better, great! If not, at least we tried.

I say this because your comment focuses on my second proposal, but I made that proposal only because another user told me that we should keep the distinction between Eastern and Latin. That's the only reason I proposed something as "Catholic churches of the Latin Church", because I've been told that including "Latin Church" was necessary.

Actually, my first proposal was a completely opposite approach: if we could forget about the Latin Church, we could simply say that every "Latin church" is a Roman Catholic church and that every Eastern Catholic church is just an special subcategory of Roman Catholic churches. Everything will be right, but it is true that it will no longer be clear if its fully categorised or not, as Nilfanion argued. Anyway, that is actually already happening with our current system: we cannot know if people consider that "Roman Catholic Church" means "Latin Church" or "Catholic Church" when they put something inside that category.

Everything has pros and cons. I'm just here to see if we could reach a solution that improves our current category system, which uses two criteria at the same time making an already confusing thing even more confusing. --Grabado (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Grabado (talk · contribs) about the need to clear this confusion. I would say I have some knowledge about Eastern Catholic Churches, and I have never yet come across a convincing argument for why "Roman Catholic" should be a synonym specifically for Catholics belonging to the Latin Church as opposed to the Eastern Catholic ones. I'd say all occurences of such use has stemmed from misinformation or confusion - easily reproduced in such a nisched subject. That said, whether the solution to said problem will be to simply have articles pertaining to the Latin Church categorised inside a "Latin/Western/Latin rite" structure parallell to the "Eastern Catholic" one, or simply inside a "Catholic" structure (with "Estern Catholic" inside it) - that I consider of less importance than fixing the "Catholic" > "Roman Catholic" misconception. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

As the infamous user who suggested that somebody ask about the issue here (I wasn't specifically requesting that Grabado do it), I'm sorry if it was bad advice. However, there's an article here that says that the "Catholic Church" and the "Roman Catholic Church" are the same thing, which makes it a bit strange that you've also got a category system where Roman Catholic churches are a subcategory of Catholic churches. I don't see any particular reason why Wikipedia and Commons should have different categories, given that they are linked through Wikidata and structural and naming differences will just cause confusion. Thus, it seemed to me that it was just as much a Wikipedia issue as a Commons issue. From what I see in this discussion, it seems that "Roman Catholic" isn't entirely accepted as synonymous with "Catholic" after all. ghouston (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Roman Catholic can be a synonym for Catholic, but Roman can also be used as an adjective to distinguish the Latin Church from the Eastern Catholic Churches (whether or not it is correct to do so does not change the fact that it is used both ways in sourcing.) As I pointed out above, Commons categories are basically the equivalent of our main space and serve as the default search, while our categories exist to help us find more specific groupings of articles and are rarely used as the first destination for the casual reader.

That someone might want to find an article on a church building that is under the jurisdiction of the Latin church in a country that has significant numbers of both Eastern and Latin Catholics (such as India), is definitely feasible. Our current category system makes it very easy for me to go from Holy Rosary Cathedral, Kolkata and find other articles about buildings under the jurisdiction of the same sui iuris church using a name more people will recognize compared to Latin Catholic. Similarly, from St. Mary, Queen of Peace Basilica I can quickly and effectively get to other Eastern Catholic cathedrals in the same state by using our category system. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

If the term "Roman Catholic" is so widely accepted as an alternative term for the Latin Church that it's fine to base the category system on it, then it seems to me that Roman Catholic should be a disambiguation rather than just pointing to Catholic Church, and both Catholic Church and Latin Church should say something about this alternative usage. The Latin Church article in its current version doesn't even contain the term "Roman Catholic". ghouston (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Ghouston, we have it in the ha tnote, which links to Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation), and that page includes Latin Church. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Also see this section on the term Roman Catholic and page xxviii of this book on the Catholic Church in the Soviet Union to see an example of how the term can be used as a disambiguator in books published by academic presses. As Zfish118 points out above, the status quo is imperfect. It is defensible based on the sourcing, however, and it does serve a purpose in helping users find more specific sets of articles they want. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

But could we improve the status quo? Let's start navigating looking for church buildings of the (Roman) Catholic Church, beginning from its main category:

• Category:Catholic Church > Category:Catholic church buildings > Category:Independent Catholic church buildings

We've ended reaching churches that are not in communion with the (Roman) Catholic Church. I don't know how this can help users find more specific sets of articles they want. Independently of the name convention we should follow, we should stick to one criteria. --Grabado (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, for instance that is incorrect per Wp:Consistency with other equivalent category tree branches and is just waiting to get fixed. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Consistency would not be on your side considering that categories and pages involving local dioceses use Roman to disambiguate, and church buildings are more analogous to a local diocese than to an article on theology (where I typically agree with you that the Roman adjective is inappropriate.) As to the question as if it improves on the status quo: it almost certainly doesn't because it would make things difficult to find for the reader. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

If readers want to get the churches of the (Roman) Catholic Church but finally get the churches of Independent Catholic Churches, they are not getting what they want. Our current status quo makes easier to find... wrong information. --Grabado (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Break #1

A couple comments:

• The discussion will become a dead-end if too many topics are brought up. The sub-category "Independent" Catholic churches is not great, but the most obvious alternative would be a new two-entry parent category: "Catholic Churches" containing "Catholic Church" and "Independent Catholic Churches". That is not necessarily an improvement. Let's avoid getting side tracked, as "Roman/Latin" categorization is complicated enough....
• For the rest, TLDR: The meaning of "Roman Catholic" is ambiguous, because there is no official definition from Church authorities, and the historical and canonical conditions under which its use originated have changed.
• "Roman Catholic" came into common use because of Anglican Branch Theory, which essentially proposed a series of national catholic churches on the Orthodox model. The Anglican's proposed themselves to be such a national church for England, albeit not in communion with Rome. William Patrick Palmer's Treatise discusses almost exclusively with the nature of the "Latin" portion of the Roman church, concluding the Roman/Latin Church practices orthodox Christianity with minor flaws. He acknowledges briefly the Eastern Christians that remained in communion with the pope, and concludes separately they are not "schismatic". Thus, the earliest uses of "Roman" Catholic did not explicitly include the non-Latin members.
• Until 1983/1990, when the Latin and Eastern codes of canon law were promulgated, the exact nature of the Eastern Catholic Churches were somewhat ambiguous, and their rights and protections were not clearly and consistently practiced. They were sometimes treated as dependents of the Latin Church. It is therefore tough to say historically whether "Roman Catholic" included the Eastern Catholic Churches, and whether those same conditions still apply.
• Today, and since 1054, the Latin Church has clearly been the most visible part of the "Catholic Church", and almost all discussion of Roman Catholicism would only apply to the Latin Church. "Latin" Catholics out number Eastern Catholics 77:1, and that alone would justify including Roman Catholic as an imperfect synonym to Catholic Church in the article lead, even if "Roman Catholic" explicitly applied to Latin Catholics. "Roman Catholic" parishes, diocese, sacramental disciplines, and calendar dates almost always refer to Latin organizations and practices, and not necessarily apply to parallel Greek Catholic practices.
• With the formal protections of the Eastern churches called for since Vatican II and later codified, these churches are much more clearly autonomous from the Latin Church. Roman Curial authorities have expressed no opinion on this particular matter as to whether Eastern Catholics are accurately called Roman Catholic, while strongly expressing they are Catholics in communion with Rome.

In conclusion, it is thus entirely ambiguous as to what exactly "Roman Catholic" means, as there is no official answer, and the historical and canonical conditions under which the term developed have changed. It will be a matter of future academic and popular use as to which portions of are most properly called "Roman Catholic". We must simply use the best contemporary sources to provide commentary as usage evolves. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not qualified to comment on "correct" use of the terms - I'm a Protestant. However, to me, a guiding principle of the discussions should be that ultimately, the category tree structure should be the same in enwiki, Commons, Wikidata, itwiki, and every other language. If I look at the article about a building and the picture in its infobox, I should pass through the same category structure going upwards whether I do it on enwiki, Commons (from the picture) or in another language wikipedia that has an article about the same building. The lead articles for each category should also agree and define the terms, so that I can learn something (the same thing) which ever one(s) I read. If what I should learn is "it's complicated, different groups of people have different understandings and the key positions are...", then that should probably be in its own article (in each language), linked from the main articles. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that WP:Consistency should determine here, with the article realm defining the standard. All other options would unencyclopedically overcomplicate for the reader. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, we do have consistency here: particular Churches use the Roman or other sui iuris church in their article space title and their categories. See Category:Eastern Catholic dioceses in the United States and Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States for examples. Church buildings are a part of particular churches and should follow the consistent naming conventions we have for those. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed that the article for which this is the talk page has a sister article with a FA star in Latin. Maybe the way to solve the category structure here and on Commons is to slavishly follow the Latin structure (I have not looked at what it is). I imagine the editors who care about writing Wikipedia in Latin probably have a good idea about the Latin Church and its relationships. Both articles la:Ecclesia Catholica Romana and la:Ecclesia Latina are in la:Categoria:Ecclesia Catholica. Latin does not appear to have a direct analogy to Category:Eastern Catholicism although la:Categoria:Ecclesiae Orientales might be close. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)--Scott Davis ^Talk 11:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The Latin wiki has a vastly smaller userbase than the English, so it's categories are going to reflect the opinion's of fewer people. There is no significant body of information in Latin not available in English, so there is no reason to assume their categories are based on better information. The English Wiki also has far more developed article criteria. The Latin page is a pretty much equivilent to an unrated older version of the English article. –Zfish118^⋉talk 14:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBollioni: Indeed, in the United States, and presumably other English speaking countries, diocese and parishes are very often legally incorporated as "Roman Catholic Diocese of X", "Roman Catholic Parish of Y", etc. It is certainly not improper to categorize by their self-identified name. This is a technicality often, though not necessarily, reflected on the sign in front of the building. I do not think a Ukrainian Catholic parish, however, would be incorporated as incorporated as "Ukrainian Roman Catholic Parish". I will check though, are some nearby. –Zfish118^⋉talk 17:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Zfish118, I'm almost positive you would never see a Ukrainian parish identify as Roman, because Greek Catholic is in the name and in Eastern Europe (as I have shown through the sources above), the Roman/Greek or Eastern distinction is frequently used in English-language sources. The Eastern communities I am most familiar with in Canada and the United States are the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church, Maronite Catholic Church, and Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, none of which would identify as Roman and you can find sourcing making the distinction. I'm actually less concerned with it in areas like North America where the Roman population is going to vastly outnumber any Eastern Catholic population, and am more concerned with categorization in areas where the Eastern churches originate from. In those areas, having defining categories for Latin-specific vs Eastern-specific Catholic topics is very important, and as you mentioned above changing categories from Roman to Latin doesn't seem like an ideal solution. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The sign definitely says "Ukrainian Catholic Church". I was going to check what the land records said about the corporate name. My home church is registered as X Roman Catholic Corporation. –Zfish118^⋉talk 03:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

If the name "Roman Catholic" is preferred for category names because it's the common usage, and nobody would be able to find them in a "Latin Church" category, then shouldn't Latin Church be renamed to "Roman Catholic Church" for the same reason? It can have a disambiguation header that says Roman Catholic is also sometimes used to refer to the whole Catholic Church. Even if it's not renamed, Latin Church should say "also known as the Roman Catholic Church", and Roman Catholic and Roman Catholic Church should go either to Latin Church or the disambiguation page. Then there would be consistency between the categories and the articles. ghouston (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I am not convinced that is appropriate, but some mention of "Roman Catholic" in the lead might be appropriate. The Latin Church is canonically defined (Book 1: Canon 1), and has been known as a distinct and particular entity by that name for millennia. The history of the Catholic Church as a whole is intimately woven with the Latin Church, and the Eastern Catholic Churches are even defined by their relationship to the Latin Church. If anything, I think the "Catholic Church" as a whole is called the "Roman Catholic Church" because the majority is "Latin", and "Roman Catholic" conveniently describes the majority directly in turn. Usage of Roman Catholic can be messy and inconsistent, but the Latin Church does have a clear name that must not be muddled. –Zfish118^⋉talk 03:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

We also live or die on sourcing here: Roman as an adjective is used to modify Catholic in relationship to many Eastern Catholic Churches in sourcing and is commonly used as such even if it is ambiguous as to whether it should be. When you are talking about categorization we are thinking about ways to help people quickly find articles that are already named. Having separate categories for Latin particular churches and buildings and Eastern particular churches or buildings makes sense in case people are interested in one specific type for a country. The question then becomes what term is best used to make this distinction. Roman is the clear winner over Latin for this in terms of common use, and it is the current status quo. I don't see a need to change, and I see no need for us to match Commons if Commons makes a change. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Break #2

None would suggest adding "Roman" to the names of the very individual Eastern Catholic sui iuris churches. However, as these are just as part of the Catholic Church as the Latin Church, their members are just as Catholic (or Roman Catholic, in the same generic sense). Catholic Church is indeed sometimes referred to as the Roman Catholic Church, as are Catholics referred to as Roman Catholics. However, I have yet to see a credible reference to Roman rite (Latin Church) Catholics specifically - exclusively - as "Roman Catholic". Until, I would consider that at best an erratic innovation without any broader acclaim. The reason why you see the tree category indicate such taxonomy is simply because it has been neglected without the would-be consensus defined by the article realm but rather two synonyms. I would object to describe that state as a status quo representation of an established consensus. Chicbyaccident (talk) 05:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not disagree that "Roman Catholic" applies to the whole organization. I just do not believe it was coined with any consideration of the Eastern Catholics. In Western Europe, the Latin Church was the Catholic Church, and Protestants called it all sorts of mean names, until Roman Catholic begrudgingly stuck as relatively polite. Acknowledging this, I do not see it as inappropriate to use it as a synonym for "Western Catholic", "Roman-rite Catholic", "Latin Catholic", etc, for the purposes of categorization. It is fits common-use criteria for Latin entities, and allows parralel construction with "Eastern Catholic", "Ukrainian Catholic", etc. Other alternatives simply add extra words or more obscure words with little added clarity. –Zfish118^⋉talk 14:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If "Roman Catholic Church" might apply to both the "Catholic Church" and the "Latin Church" then the problem is even worse because no one could know if Category:Roman Catholic churches are Latin churches or not. --Grabado (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

That is rather hyperbolic. It is called Roman Catholic because it is an overwhelming Latin majority. The worst case is a few Eastern Catholic churches mistakenly classified. If the reading the article does not clear this up, then the categorization is the least of our concerns. Again I offer no opinion about what to do over at commons, because I am univolved there. –Zfish118^⋉talk 19:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, it would be incorrect to apply the label "Roman Catholic Church" to the "Latin Church" as an institution; however "Roman Catholic" could be use to describe members of the Latin Church/Roman Rite, with little ambiguity. –Zfish118^⋉talk 21:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have yet to see serious references for such statements. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, I am only recommending no changes to our current categorization, as no proposal has emerged that offers significant new clarity without disruption. The concerns at the Commons should be resolved there. We seem to be spinning our wheels, and I would move the discussion be closed due to lack of specific proposal and lack consensus to change. If a specific proposal emerges, a new discussion could be opened to discuss its merits. –Zfish118^⋉talk 12:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

We still can keep discussing the merits of the current status quo in order to see what a new proposal should solve. For example, Roman Catholic (term) says "the term "Roman Catholic archdiocese" is formally used to refer to both Western and Eastern Churches" but we have instead Category:Catholic dioceses as parent category of Category:Eastern Catholic dioceses and Category:Roman Catholic dioceses (Latin dioceses). --Grabado (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

This coversation is going nowhere fast and as Beyond My Ken has pointed out is an insertion of Commons drama into en.wiki where nothing is broken. Zfish and I have already explained multiple times about how the Roman term is ambiguous, as the article you just linked to makes abundantly clear. We aren't going to solve the issue on this talk page because it is a natural evolution of language over centuries and we have sourcing that uses both. No consensus results in the status quo, and I think we are at a firm no consensus on this. Its not good practice to keep a conversation going only to reiterate the same points over and over: eventually those opposing it tire because they have better things to do. I don't want us to have a massive recatogorization for no reason simply because people who are opposed to it tire of the argument. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

More examples: Category:Roman Catholic patriarchates redirects to Category:Catholic patriarchates which also includes Category:Eastern Catholic patriarchates‎ and Category:Former Roman Catholic patriarchates for Latin patriarchates.

It's not just an issue of Commons. In fact, all the examples I've been providing are from en.wiki.

Ok. Let's suppose Roman is ambiguous, as you and Zfish have said (and must be true, at least in English). From my point of view, we have tree non-exclusive options to solve the ambiguity: 1) find a better term; 2) stick to one single meaning of Roman in all the category tree; 3) See if there is a way of not using Roman in all the category tree.

About point 2: If Roman means Latin for us, that's ok. If Roman means just Catholic for us, that's ok. But we cannot say Roman means Latin and Catholic at the same time depending on who created the category first, as currently happens. The category tree must be consistent.

About point 3: I'm thinking about something like we do in es.wiki: we've forgot all about the Latin Church. We consider that Latin churches are simply (Roman) Catholic churches and that every Eastern Catholic church is a special kind of (Roman) Catholic churches. This approach would be consistent with something Zfish118 said: "Latin Catholics out number Eastern Catholics 77:1, and that alone would justify including Roman Catholic as an imperfect synonym to Catholic Church". The category tree would look like this:

|—(Roman) Catholic Church
|—|—(Roman) Catholic churches
|——|——Eastern Catholic churches

--Grabado (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Support the alternative - without "Roman", as prescribed by established WP:Consensus per WP:Consistency in accordance with Catholic Church, Category:Catholic Church, Talk:Catholic Church in Armenia, etc. Any possibly multi-level category branch descending from Category:Latin Church - parallell to Category:Eastern Catholic Churches - that could be considered in another, separate discussion in order to limit this one for convenience.-Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

As a note, the categories you cite as ambiguous on Wikipedia have been removed from use for that reason. For example, "Category:Roman Catholic patriarchates" is a shell category that alerts members of the project of its use so that a more appropriate Eastern Catholic or Latin Catholic patriarchal category can be selected. Nearly every other category redirect is similar in this regard. Regarding "forgetting" about the Latin Church, I am extremely hesitant to endorse any massive recategorization proposal without solid research to back it up. I am researching more background into the nature of the Latin Church compared to the Eastern Churches, but I have no timeline. –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I know Category:Roman Catholic patriarchates is redirected. The ambiguity arises when Category:Former Roman Catholic patriarchates is not redirected and has a completely different use (former Latin patriarchates).

I really thank you if you want to make further research related to my proposal. Of course you can take the time you need. --Grabado (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

You make a good point about RC patriarchs. That would be a good candidate for renaming, as Latin Patriarchs were generally known as such. –Zfish118^⋉talk 18:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, agree on the former RC patriarchs. Latin is appropriate there because it is the common usage. It would still nned a CfD or RM if I am not mistaken, but I would support a move of that category to Latin. You are of course free to nominate any category you want for an RM or CfD, but I would discourage it on ones where it appears there won't be consensus.Those tend to waste the community's time without solving anything. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Zfish118, TonyBallioni.The category is nominated for renaming. --Grabado (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Break #3

Thanks. See also a few more proposals here (with possibly more to add). Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

While I agree with your proposals, Chicbyaccident, I would prefer to keep discussing here before showing my support there or nominating other categories. I really appreciate that we've been able to reach consensus about Category:Roman Catholic patriarchates and that shows to me good faith and ability to discuss and reach agreements.

Anyway, your proposals and the last TonyBallioni's message have make me think about one thing: let's suppose we end this discussion without reaching a consensus whether to remove the Roman or not for the Latin Church. In that case, when Roman would be a valid disambiguator? TonyBallioni's said that it would be necessary in "particular churches and church buildings". But what happens with things that are not related to a particular rite or sui iuris Church, like Universities, Doctrine, papal documents, etc?

For example, we have now Category:History of Roman Catholicism by country and also Category:History of Catholicism in the United States. We have Category:Catholic sex abuse cases and also Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse cases by country. I suppose in those cases Roman doesn't means Latin Church, and it may be removed per consistency. --Grabado (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Things that are general Catholic related such as articles about theology and papal documents do not need the Roman disambiguator. I almost always support removing it in those cases. My position is that individual articles about specific institutions within the Catholic Church should be handled on a case-by-case basis considering the common name for the subject, which is often informed by what the subject calls itself but not necessarily, consistency within that sub-class of article, and the question of whether a natural disambiguation is needed from either other particular Churches within the Catholic Church or from a non-Catholic religious entity. For categories, we should be much more cautious because these affect masses of articles and entire category trees are impacted. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Then I can see a possibility to reach a basic consensus to begin with. We don't have yet a consensus about what to do with the Latin Church, whether Roman is a good term for it or not, or if we could find a way of not using it. But could we start sticking to one single meaning of Roman in all the category tree? We could keep by now the current use of Roman for the Latin Church and start using just one term for the whole Catholic Church. Some examples would be:

• Category:Roman Catholic Mariology -> Category:Catholic Mariology
• Category:Roman Catholic devotions -> Category:Catholic devotions
• Category:Roman Catholic Eucharistic theology -> Category:Catholic Eucharistic theology
• Category:People excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church -> Category:People excommunicated by the Catholic Church
• Category:Church councils accepted by the Roman Catholic Church -> Category:Church councils accepted by the Catholic Church
• Category:Episcopacy in Roman Catholicism -> Category:Episcopacy in the Catholic Church
• Category:Roman Catholicism and science -> Category:Catholic Church and science
• Category:Roman Catholic society stubs -> Category:Catholic society stubs

...and so on. What do you all think? --Grabado (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support That's kind of what I attempted to propose myself, but you presented it in a better way. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, for previously discussed reasons (across several active discussions and proposals). This decentralized discussion is getting frustrating. I have no idea what is going on. We talk about one very narrow subject (about a problem at Wiki-Commons, not even English Wikipedia!) for three weeks, then a whole bunch unrelated proposals are introduced all at once. I would urge a project-[wide] RFC before beginning a massive renaming scheme one entry at a time. –Zfish118^⋉talk 14:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Zfish118: I don't really know how can those categories be "unrelated" to this discussion. Actually, it was proposed after TonyBallioni said that "Things that are general Catholic related such as articles about theology and papal documents do not need the Roman disambiguator. I almost always support removing it in those cases". Chicbyaccident and me agree with him, so there is a possibility of reaching some consensus on this. --Grabado (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

That is my general position, yes, but I am also sympathetic to Zfish's concerns that this is being done pretty quickly. The categories are a bit more complex than articles because they impact many articles, not just one. I think this proposal might stem from what I have described above as the disconnect between the Commons category space and ours, where commons effectively uses categories like we use our main space.

I do generally !vote support in RMs like the ones below if it is general vs. a specific thing where Roman might be needed, and think case-by-case is the best way to handle articles rather than a large RfC. As for the categories: I'd support a larger RfC on the WP:CATHOLIC talk page to see how we should deal with them. The proposal I would get behind would be keeping anything where there might be a need to distinguish between Latin and Eastern Catholics at Roman and to remove it from more general categories such as these. At the same time, I think category names are a lot less important here than on Commons, so I don't necessarily see the need to rename things. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is because I've said [8] that I wasn't going to support Chicbyaccident's proposals until we reach some consensus. There's nothing being done, and nothing being done pretty quickly. He's even asked an admin to fold his proposals. [9] I'm just trying to see if we can reach some kind of consensus to begin with. So, do you think categories like I've pointed just as examples would fit in your idea of general Catholic categories? Just to see if we agree on what "general Catholic categories" means. --Grabado (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Categories about the episcopacy and devotions I could go either way on depending how other people argue. The rest I would consider to be general, and no offense meant on the moving fast. I misread it as a current proposal based on the support and oppose !votes above. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you, Grabado, for pointing out your intentions to reach a consensus before making any changes. You are perhaps a victim of one of issues I am pointing out: decentralized discussion and being unable to follow each thread. I apologize for snapping at you and others in general.
• As just my initial reactions to this list, I would urge caution. The Latin and Eastern Churches have different theologies and devotional practices. For example, Eastern Catholics use leavened bread, while the west uses unleavened; similarly the East will not venerate statues of Mary, nor widely practice the Rosary. These are theological (but not doctrinal) differences. Do the articles that fall under "Roman Catholic Theology", "Roman Catholic Mariology", etc, primarily deal with the Latin Church, or do they cover the broad spectrum of east and west. What about the parent articles to each category? Care needs to be taken that the article and category names regarding specific practices and beliefs reflect both the content and relevant consensus on naming conventions. –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

For the rest, see also ongoing move discussion on Talk:Roman Catholic education. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

On a slightly different issue, I would have more reservations about the use of "Catholic" as if it were an unambiguous term than about "Catholic Church". "Catholic" certainly is used, without any further disambiguation, by people outside the church body described in this article - consider for example the Society of Catholic Priests and Affirming Catholicism, among many others; as well as where the link Catholic takes you (it isn't here). "Roman Catholic" is reasonably unambiguous (barring debates about entire church vs Latin Rite); "Catholic Church" isn't, but at least has the authority of this being the primary article. "Catholic" is even less so, particularly in very general contexts like "Catholic Eucharistic theology". I'd say if "Roman" is to be taken out of these titles, "Church" should be put in; so "Roman Catholic Eucharistic theology" becoming "Eucharistic theology in the Catholic Church" is OK, I think; "Catholic Eucharistic theology", not so much.

(I do note that this is already used elsewhere, though - e.g. Catholic theology, though the actual bold text in that article is "theology of the Catholic Church", which I think would be a better title - when a Church of England report talks about "the Catholic theology underlying the Porvoo agreement", for example, they are not thinking of the subject of that article.) TSP (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

TSP: I really appreciate your comment because I'm a native Spanish speaker and I might be biased (for us "Católico" wouldn't be an ambiguous term because everyone will associate it with the Catholic Church). Of course "theology in the Catholic Church" seems perfect to me. Is it also possible to use "Catholic Church" as an adjective? I mean: something like "Catholic Church theology"? I don't know if it sounds good to you or not. --Grabado (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, Zfish118, don't worry. Maybe I didn't explain very well that my list of categories was just an example, not an actual proposal. I can also understand your reservations — In fact I've just seen that despite its name Catholic devotions (the main article of Category:Roman Catholic devotions) is just for devotions in the Latin Church and it doesn't includes Eastern Catholic Churches. Hence I agree with you that automatically renaming all the categories it's not an option. All the categories must be checked before.

So my plan is to see if I can get a list of all the categories that include "Roman Catholic" or "Roman Catholicism" in their names. Then I'll remove from this list all the categories like "Roman Catholic churches...", "Roman Catholic bishops...", "Roman Catholic dioceses..." which use Roman as disambiguator. Then I'll be able to see how many categories we have left and I'll start checking them and choosing the ones that could be renamed without many problems (of course Chicbyaccident or any other person can help me they want). Then I will paste here the finalists for a previous discussion before making a proposal for renaming in CfD. What do you think? Of course this is not going to be done quickly, so we can all rest some days or weeks ;) (long discussions are tiring for everyone) --Grabado (talk) 10:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Grabado: In English that is also the *most usual* use; but it's also not an *undisputed* use. I'd compare it to "America" for the United States of America. If you said, "What's your favourite American state?", I wouldn't think you meant Yucatán; but equally, "America" isn't unambiguous, and others lay claim to it, so we have for example Category:States of the United States, even though 'American states' would be more usual and would be widely understood. TSP (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

"Roman Catholic Church in X" -> "Catholic Church in X"

I've finally got a list of all the categories that include "Roman Catholic" in their names. Let's start from the easy ones. It was already discussed to move all the categories like "Roman Catholic Church in someplace", but I've found that some of them remain unchanged: Category:Roman Catholic Church in Aruba, Category:Roman Catholic church in the Northern Territory, Category:Roman Catholic Church in New Brunswick, Category:Roman Catholic Church in Manitoba, Category:Roman Catholic Church in the Caribbean part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Category:Roman Catholic church in Overseas France... and so on. All of them should be renamed, shouldn't they? --Grabado (talk) 07:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Well done! @Grabado: Do you intend to provide the list for reconsidering of names? Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

--Grabado (talk) 09:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Categories under "Category:Catholic universities and colleges by country"

Category:Roman Catholic universities and colleges by country has been renamed as Category:Catholic universities and colleges by country after a CFR started by Chicbyaccident. All subcategories should be also renamed, not only because of consistency, but also because I've found that pages categorised under those categories refer not only to the Latin Church but the whole Catholic Church.

As you can see in Category:Roman Catholic universities and colleges in India, institutions such as Jyothi Engineering College, Cheruthuruthy, Thrissur, St. Ephrem Ecumenical Research Institute, St John's College, Anchal, or St. Joseph's College, Moolamattom are supported by the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church or the Syro-Malaknkara Catholic Church. --Grabado (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course, the same argument applies to categories under Category:Catholic schools by country. --Grabado (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Feel free to go ahead a make a proposal and we'll see how it goes. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

--Grabado (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

---Grabado (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

--Grabado (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Catholic Church naming conventions RfC

There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Catholic_Church)#RfC:_should_this_page_be_made_a_naming_convention asking if the proposed naming convention for the Catholic Church should be made an official naming convention. All are welcomed to comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Name section

Chicbyaccident made a helpful note on the name section that "undo" weight was given to certain viewpoints in the name section. That is certainly true. However, the bigger problem is that the name section uses few, if any, secondary or tertiary sources to discuss changing trends in the terminology. This is equally true for both "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic", which rely on original research and synthesis to draw conclusions about naming trends solely by examining original primary source documents. Only examples of use are provided, and no scholarly sources are used to provide commentary on those examples; one would have to personally review all of the sources to confirm the current commentary. Rather than stack a series of warning templates, which is sloppy, I placed only the "primary source" template, which if addressed, would cover any "undo weight" concerns. –Zfish118^⋉talk 12:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't even really consider this as an option priorly, but I now advocate encyclopedic relevance for a forked article Name of the Catholic Church in equivalence with that of Name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and other arguably less prominent naming controverises listed in Category:Naming controversies. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

The "forked" article has the same issues as the naming section, namely, the over reliance on primary sources. They are magnified, however, in that they are not a few paragraphs within a comprehensive article, but isolated. There really is no controversy to the name of the Catholic Church. It is indisputable that both names are used. The Latter-Day saint article describes the notable history of that particular church's name. It is not comparable, as the Catholic Church has never changed its name; it has simply been described in different ways at different times. I simply do not see the name article covering any territory that "Catholic (term)" or "Roman Catholic (term)" do not already cover, or would be more appropriately covered in those articles. –Zfish118^⋉talk 17:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Name of the Catholic Church which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Article Corrections

The second to last sentence of the lead paragraph should say, "the majority of Catholics reside in the southern hemisphere due to the secularisation of Europe." - Thomas Calvin

ThomasCalvin, I've changed secularisation of Europe to secularisation in Europe, which I think conveys the concept more clearly. I don't see a need for of Catholics, since it follows a sentence that already says it. Concision making good writing and whatnot. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Good writing prioritizes clarity over brevity.ThomasCalvin (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Thomas Calvin

Redirects issue

I clicked on "Roman Catholic faith" in a different article and got redirected to this article. At the top, it said "Redirected from Catholicism". Vorbee (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like the redirects were functioning reasonably sensibly - what's the problem? (Presumably someone had 'piped' the link, like this: Roman Catholic faith.) TSP (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Comme-il-faut. There are too many redirects to have them all listed in the hatnote. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Controversies in lead section

The last paragraph of the lead section should be removed. No religion is described in terms of "criticisms" that have been made of it. To do so is to border on the absurd and patently fails WP:NOPV and WP:RECENTISM. The subject of the article is a two thousand year old institution and someone thought it was a good idea for several specific criticisms from localized communities in the world from the late 20th century to be included in the lead section? It's not even referenced. Unless there is an objection, I will remove it in due time. Ergo Sum 01:20, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I weakly object namely due to the international scandal that ensued in the past twenty years with the release of sex abuse cases within the Church. It has had a huge impact on the Church and how it is portrayed and viewed in popular culture. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, at least perhaps this paragraph could be compared with inexistance of a such in Protestantism, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy. Furthermore, it is quite stunning that we have this criticism paragraph but nothing is said about persecution of Catholicism - being the major denomination of Christianity, the world's most persecuted religion. Chicbyaccident (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Lead paragraphs in Wikipedia are supposed to include all outstanding controversies. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."

In the case of an organization with a long criminal history such as the Catholic Church, hiding the controversies for which it is known for would be whitewashing. "To whitewash is a metaphor meaning "to gloss over or cover up vices, crimes or scandals or to exonerate by means of a perfunctory investigation or through biased presentation of data".

Chicbyaccident, while I would personally like to see a better historical coverage in this article, the lead can't currently cover either religious persecution (initiated by Catholics, or targeting Catholics), nor Anti-Catholicism. The lead is supposed to summarize the body of the article, and (to my surprise) this entire article does not cover either topic and does not even link to the relevant articles. How did this get rated a GA article with such outstanding omissions? Dimadick (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I would be positive to such a broadening of the scope of persecution in terms of time, space, and perpetrators, as long the paragraph itself isn't extended too much to take over the whole lead section. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, specific criticisms from the late 20th century do not have a place in the lead section of an article with a two thousand year old subject. The Crusades? Yes. The Inquisition? Yes. The clerical abuse scandal? No. Ergo Sum 03:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you are forgetting that the clerical abuse scandal is as old as the Church itself, but has only come to light in the past century. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Assuming that's not WP:NOR, that's not what the lead section says. Ergo Sum 17:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• I absolutely object to the removal of this content, and will object every time this subject is proposed for removal. The clerical sex abuse scandal is one of the biggest facing the world, touching every continent on earth. It is a notable subject on its own, and it is irresponsible not to link to it. Further, the church's teaching regarding sex and gender are also independently notable and timely controversies, as nations across the earth enact policies or pass legislation in direct reaction to its teachings. In the United States, mandatory birth control insurance coverage is a major controversy. In Africa, condom distribution to fight AIDS is another. The Catholic Church is notably opposing both, and fair and equitable coverage demands noting as a major contemporary issue in the lead. –Zfish118^⋉talk 17:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Zfish118, while that may be true, such coverage would require additions to the body of the article. Not just the lede section. The lede is only a summary section, and can not provide details not covered elsewhere. Dimadick (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Please review the article. All of the controversial elements mentioned in the lead are covered, and have been for years.

• Catholic Church#Sexual morality
• Catholic Church#Holy orders and women
• Catholic Church#Sexual abuse cases

–Zfish118^⋉talk 14:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The final sentence of the lead paragraph should be changed to read "the Catholic Church has been criticised for its doctrines on marriage, sexual conduct, contraceptives, abortion and the ordination of women to the priesthood, as well as its handling of sexual abuse cases involving members of the clergy. The Church has since reformed how it handles clerical sexual abuse cases during the papacy of Pope Benedict XVI and continues to reform under Pope Francis." Or some such change to that effect needs to be made. The sentence needs to be made more specific, and there should be some mention that the Church has addressed these issues. ThomasCalvin (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Even though I sympathise with the idea, unfortunately, that would make that paragraph way too extensive per WP:Undue weight. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think WP:UNDUE necessarily applies there. Significantly scaled down, there could be a one sentence / sentence fragment addendum such as "though the Church has made efforts to address the latter controversy." This would also conform to NPOV as it reflects our sources, and per WP:LEDE is information discussed later in the article.

If anything, I think the one item that's probably WP:UNDUE in the lede is the refusal to ordain women, as its a bit of a tempest in a teapot. It's not even prima facie that "controversial", except that we have some reliable sources using the word "controversy", rightly or wrongly. Of the issues mentioned in the last paragraph, it probably gets a fraction of the "ink" (proverbial or otherwise) than at least a dozen or so other (mostly historical) topics explicitly deemed controversial by both reliable and expert sources. Even a related topic, such as allowing married clergy, is actually actively debated within the church on a regular basis. It's just not as sensational.

For clarification, I say it's "not necessarily that controversial" primarily because no other pre-Reformation 'orthodox' church in the world (of which there are many), ordains female priests. Not one. The majority of those objecting to it are not even themselves Catholic, and it's not even a popular position amongst so-called Liberal Catholics. For example, a fair amount of the advocacy groups, as one can see from the external links in the topical article, often consist of less than a dozen active members. Hence why I say it's a bit of a tempest in a teacup, and why I think it's probably creating a false balance in the lede.

That being said, the topic is certainly encyclopedic, and has indeed been discussed amongst some academics, as well being brought up perennially by the popular press. It's notable, and certainly deserves mention in the article. I'm just not sure it's necessarily lede material. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It is peculiar that for instance Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, Protestantism, and Anglican Communion don't hold similar paragraphs. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Since I wrote this comment, Chicbyaccident, I've been taking a closer look at our section here, and the specific "Ordination of women" article I mentioned below, with an eye on the sources. I'm actually even more convinced now than ever that its mention in the lede is WP:UNDUE. A lot of the opposition and advocacy groups are quite interrelated with overlapping membership, and the sourcing in that article is turning out to be more and more circular. The number of theologians supporting such a position is actually quite minimal, and some of the people cited in support of the movement are controversial fringe authors (i.e., John Wijngaards). It doesn't matter necessarily as to whether these groups have been excommunicated, since that's between them and the Catholic Church. But some of these groups are schismatic and independent of the Catholic Church, only claiming to speak as Catholics. And as I said, virtually all of them consist of very few people.

The number of actualy members aside, all of the advocacy organisations themselves in the world, at least gathered under the umbrella organisation "Women's Ordination Worldwide" apparentl amount to twelve. Twelve organisations. And most of them have overlapping membership, especially with Wijngaards Institute for Catholic Research and WomenPriests. Wijngaards is encyclopedic, and so is the subject of the ordination of women. I'm not quite so convinced WomenPriests is notable per the GNG, except that the Catholic Church responded to their oridinations, and it got a little press. Regardless, I think the issue is far less controversial that is claimed. Still deserves mention in the article, but it almost certainly undue in the lede. Unless there are specific objections from people, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and remove it. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I cannot see just cause for the inclusion of the material in question in the lead. Much, maybe most, of the critical material either comes from opponents in some way of the church and/or raises serious hindsight concerns regarding the sources of the criticism. Those factors would I think reasonably reduce the significance of the material to the point of not meriting such coverage in the lead. Personally, I think the best approach to an article topic as broad as this one would be to look at the best of the print encyclopedia articles on the same subject and allocate weight here to the effective average of the coverage there. John Carter (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment While I realise the talk page of the other article is technically the proper forum to discuss issues within said article, it doesn't appear to receive much traffic, so I'm mentioning it here. I just took a more extensive look at the article Ordination of women and the Catholic Church, and there are some serious issues in the article. Mainly, using the original research of the advocacy and WP:FRINGE organisation Roman Catholic Womenpriests as a reliable source. (Note that the organisation is not technically Roman Catholic, but a schismatic group of a few women priests who received ordination outside the church. It's similar to the situation of sedevacantist organisations, though unlike the sedevacantists, they actually number only a few people). In other words, the group is patently fringe by any definition, and reliable only as a source for their own opinion, properly attributed. Otherwise, they're not RS.

The organisation's original research is based on their own synthesis of cherry-picked quotes from certain theologians. This OR from their website is then in turn used in the voice of Wikipedia to present their claims as actually representing a large minority opinion; it isn't. Note the weasel word phrasing such as "some theologians believe"). They're using a few sentences from their own sources, followed by their own analysis, as the actual opinion of those sources, and then weaving them all together in the manner of WP:SYNTH. Their novel opinion is then used to make claims in Wikipedia's voice, as I said, and thus present the opinion of a fringe group as a reliable source. Due to the way they're attributing opinions to their sources that they might not actually hold, and then the following way it's used on Wikipedia, this could actually create some potential WP:BLP issues.

I strongly urge interested editors to look at the sourcing for the article (and read the actual source and note the OR), and how it's being used throughout the prose of the article. It's classic WP:POVPUSH. I suspect that at least part of this is due to the involvement of the User:Biscuittin. There are also a few other issues, less prevalent, as well. The article needs some extensive cleanup. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 01:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

edit, I was mistaken. Biscuittin's master account has only edited the talk page. Some of the issues appear to be present in the original article as created by User:ADM, who was blocked for fringe POVPUSHes.Quinto Simmaco (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Remove the phrase "Roman Catholic"

The official name of this organization, as indicated by the Apostles creed and the nicean creed is the "Catholic Church". Editor2343 (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The creeds do not represent naming convention. If they did, then it would be called the "One, holy, catholic and apostolic church". The term catholic in the creeds is an ecclesiological teaching, not a name or title. The same creeds are used by the Orthodox churches, the Anglican churches, the Lutheran churches, the Old Catholic churches and many others - all of those I have just mentioned also self-identify as "the catholic church". The commonly used title "Roman Catholic Church" is unambiguous and clear, which are key purposes of any encyclopaedia. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 01:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Let's simply conclude that that is a contentious, individual conclusion of the state of affairs. For more info on the subject, consider Wikipedia:Proposed naming conventions (Catholic Church). Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead section notice

Greetings, I added the Lead notice because it exceeds the 4 paragraph limit per MOS. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

JoeHebda, I agree the lead needs to be trimmed, but given how prominent this article is, I think leaving the tag on likely takes away from the readers experience more than it would draw people to fix it. I'll take a hand at boldly cutting some (and I'm sure others here will have thoughts as well), but I think this is better as a talk conversation than a tag. Thank you for raising the issue, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I just combined the final three paragraphs into one. I think it could be cut more, but this should make it MOS compliant. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Tithe

The word Tithe doesn't appear in this article. Is that okay? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Catholic Church. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403084409/http://cpn.nd.edu/resources-for-scholars-clergy-and-practitioners/international-catholic-peacebuilding-organizations/ to http://cpn.nd.edu/resources-for-scholars-clergy-and-practitioners/international-catholic-peacebuilding-organizations/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20132009311300/http://www.catholic.com/tracts/was-peter-in-rome to http://www.catholic.com/tracts/was-peter-in-rome

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) 19:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Redundant lead sources

To simplify the lead for future maintenance, following guidance at WP:LEADCITE, I have trimmed out a few redundant citations for non-controversial information. Most of these citation are repeated in the body of the article, or refer the same sections of the Catechism that are cited in body.

(Pope is Catholic)

•  Joyce, George (1913). "The Pope". In Herbermann, Charles (ed.). Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved 2 July 2016.
• Stanford, Peter (29 June 2011). "Roman Catholic Church". BBC Religions. Retrieved 14 December 2014.</ref>

(Papal claim of succession)

• (ref name="Apostolic succession3")"The Apostolic Tradition". Catechism of the Catholic Church. Vatican. Retrieved 22 July 2011. (ref name="Apostolic succession3")

(Church claim of infallibility)

• Second Vatican Council, Lumen gentium, 25 Archived 6 September 2014 at the Wayback Machine

(Eucharist - Consolidating to one end of paragraph citation)

• "The paschal mystery in the sacraments of the church". Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Vatican.va. 2005. Retrieved 14 December 2014. (ref name="CoCCC_Paschal")

• "CCC 1333,1375—1376, 1416". Vatican.va. Archived from the original on 18 August 2016. Retrieved 13 December 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

(Mary)

• "CCC 963–975". Vatican.va. Archived from the original on 14 December 2014. Retrieved 20 December 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• "Pope Benedict XVI. 1 January 2012 – Feast of Solemnity of the Blessed Virgin Mary". Vatican.va. 1 January 2012. Retrieved 17 August 2012. (ref name="ReferenceB")
• "Munificentissimus Deus: Defining the Dogma of the Assumption". Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius XII. 1 November 1950. Archived from the original on 4 September 2013. Retrieved 15 June 2011. According to paragraph 44: "...we [Pope Pius XII] pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) (ref name="Munificentissimus Deus") –Zfish118^⋉talk 20:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catholic Church. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20132009311300/http://www.catholic.com/tracts/was-peter-in-rome to http://www.catholic.com/tracts/was-peter-in-rome

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) 21:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Request: Can this be part of a series of Christianity?

Just like Thomas Aquinas who is a part of a series of Christianity. 124.106.132.207 (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2018

change civilisation to civilization. Okhons (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done see WP:ENGVAR and the bars at the top of this page explaining that this article is written in British English. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

removal of unsourced claims

I've removed the following unsourced claims.
1) Unlike other charities, however, the Catholic Church does not reveal its total wealth for unknown reasons.[10]

• No source for this claim has been presented.

2) A study in 2018 found the Catholic Church's net worth to be worth over US$30bn in Australia alone.[11]

• This is actually a blatant misrepresentation of the sources in many ways. None of the sources says "study", but "investigation" and "valuation". More relevant is that both sources clearly state that the $30 bn figure is an extrapolation. Most important, the cited figure does not represent the "net worth", but "land and buildings" resp. "property and other assets". Net worth has a different definition. --Túrelio (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Other major charities such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Harvard University publish their wealth to provide transparency about their mission, see also List of wealthiest organizations.

2. Study is the more neutral term but we can say "In 2018 an investigation found"...

3. As far as I am aware "net worth" is the correct term - it means your total net worth - so everything including land and properties. See also https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/net_worth

--CarlPhilippTrump.me (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Ad 1. That's WP:OR. You need to provide a valid source for your statement. Your own (or my own) conclusions are irrelevant and not valid as source.

Ad 3. "after all liabilities have been deducted from the true market value, as opposed to the book value, of the assets" — and that's exactly NOT what these newspaper articles report. So, it's not "net worth" and you misrepresent both sources. --Túrelio (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

1. The Catholic Church does not publish its total wealth - that is a fact. So do you think we should reference something like this link?

2. So "book value" is better you think?

--CarlPhilippTrump.me (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment -- @CarlPhilippTrump.me: Not sure if you should be editing this article. You've shown you are searching for sources to fit a narrative you believe is true. You're using synthesis and original research to fit your own point of view. Get consensus on this talk page before making other editions which you know would be controversial. And yes, I oppose the additions you've tried to place into the article for the reasons stated above. Dave Dial (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
• As I mentioned below, I won’t have too much time to contribute in the next few days, but I have restored to this pages stable version. The recent changes by multiple editors had too many policy issues to dissect individually as has been pointed out above. Any restoration of the changes requires consensus per WP:ONUS. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Absolute Monachry

The Catholic Church / Holy See is an absolute monarchy - see "government type" in CIA's factbook (CIA link). User:Dave Dial has deleted the relevant info. I have reverted it. ‎ ‎ --CarlPhilippTrump.me (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I’m on vacation, so I won’t be able to contribute that frequently for the next few days, but that is either a blatant misrepresentation of the sourcing or synthesis and complete OR. The Holy See is a sovereign entity that is an absolute monarchy under the Bishop of Rome/The Pope. The Catholic Church is a religious organization that has an episcopal polity. You are conflating the Holy See with the Catholic Church. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, Carl, the CIA Factbook states that the Holy See(Vatican City) is an ecclesiastical elective monarchy, but it describes itself as an absolute monarchy. Also, your changes include more than that, with the wording of your additions looking like obvious POV. Also, you seem to be on a mission against the Catholic Church(per your own user page), while I don't really have an issue with them one way or the other. So I would suggest you edit other articles for awhile. Brush up on some core policies here, then wade into the articles that draw some controversies. Dave Dial (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I have added "ecclesiastical elective monarchy; self-described as an "absolute monarchy" " to the relevant section of the infobox. That should be the exact representation of the CIA source. --CarlPhilippTrump.me (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I removed the Holy See bit as governance because it fails WP:V. The article does not claim that the Holy See governs the Catholic Church, but rather that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Pope is called the Holy See. Referring to it as "governance" is a bit odd and an oversimplification (and I am not anti-infobox). The issue here is that you are misrepresenting the sourcing. It does not claim that the Catholic Church (a religious organization) is an absolute monarchy. It claims that the sovereign international entity, the Holy See, self-describes itself as such. The Holy See is not the Catholic Church, and the CIA does not say that the Catholic Church is an absolute monarchy.

Since there is nothing in the article that claims direct governance of the entire Church by the Holy See (again, easily verifiable as not true: look at Eastern Catholic Churches and even local dioceses of the Latin Church, where local patriarchs, major archbishops, metropolitans, local bishops, and synods provide a significant level of governance in their own local territory and who also share in the governance of the entire Catholic Church.

In response to your continuing to edit war over the monarchy bit, I removed the entire governance section from the infobox as needing discussion and consensus. I think leaving that parameter blank is ideal, but if there is consensus for restoration, the monarchy bit would not be appropriate as it could be misunderstood as stating that the Catholic Church as a whole is a monarchy, and sourcing has not been provided for that as of yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 April 2018

"civilisations" in first paragraph must be changed to "civilizations" Aramirezruiz (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Aramirezruiz

Aramirezruiz, I’m involved on this page so I will not be editing through protection or formally declining the request, but that is the correct British English spelling, and this page is written in British English. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: @Aramirezruiz: The article is in non-Oxford British English—or at least, the majority of the article is. There are a few places where, for instance, the spelling of recognise needs corrected. That said, since the article is in British English, I see no compelling reason presented to change the spellings to either Oxford British or American. —C.Fred (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Languages in Infobox

Having three languages at the top of the Infobox is a bit much, and I would request that all but the English and Latin names be removed. Latin, while not strictly necessary, is the official legal language of the Church, while Greek is a language used by a small minority, and Italian has no status other than as an approved vernacular for the liturgy. –Zfish118^⋉talk 03:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• I support this. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit request, April 17, 2018

• With reference to the ref "RCWP" at http://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/ordained.htm - this edit modified a direct quote from the website.
• With reference to the refs "Gunton" and "Gunton2", two similar direct quotes were likewise altered, in the above edit.
• Please revert to the original phrasings. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 06:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2018

The following statement should be corrected to conform to the policy on articles having a neutral point of view: "In the account of the Confession of Peter found in the Gospel of Matthew, Christ designates Peter as the "rock" upon which Christ's church will be built"

It is merely the interpretation of the Roman Catholic church that this is the meaning of this passage. Therefore, the text should be edited to reflect this fact. HDavi (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: "According to the Catholic interpretation of the account of the Confession of Peter found in the Gospel of Matthew, Christ designates Peter as the "rock" upon which Christ's church will be built" — Preceding unsigned comment added by HDavi (talk • contribs) 16:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done the full text of the quote from Britannica on this is:

Though in the past some authorities considered that the title, meaning “rock,” refers to Jesus himself or to Peter’s faith, the consensus of the great majority of scholars today is that the most obvious and traditional understanding should be construed—namely, that the title refers to the person of Peter. In John the title was granted at what may have been the first meeting between Jesus and Simon (1:42). Thus, when the name was given is open to question, but that the name was given by Jesus to Simon seems fairly certain. Matthew goes on to state that upon this rock—that is, upon Peter—the church will be built.

We report what the sourcing says, not the views of individual editors. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

"the Church" or "the church"?

What is the correct capitalization when referring to "the church" / "the Church" as a shorthand for "the Roman Catholic Church"? The article should be internally consistent whatever the decision is. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

You might want the start an RFC if this gets too controversial, but I almost sure you spell it Church with a capital C. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Predictably, this was argued about 10 years ago with no consensus. I have no strong opinion, it might well depend on which particular style guide you prefer, but the wikipedia community needs to decide one way or the other and put it in the MOS. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Its very clear here and many other places that "Church" is written with a capital C. If you fing sources that disagree with that, then start an RfC. From what my research shows, church as a building is not capitalized but Church as a institution is. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be contradicted by MOS:INSTITUTIONS.

Incorrect	(generic):	The University offers programs in arts and sciences.
Correct	(generic):	The university offers programs in arts and sciences.
Correct	(title):	The University of Delhi offers programs in arts and sciences.

As I said it likely comes down to your preferred style guide. The Guardian style guide for example has lower case. More conservative or more religious-oriented writers are likely to favour upper case. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

And in that case, "The University" could well be a shorthand for "The University of Delhi," but it's still lowercase. So the issue would be why "Church" would be an exception. I personally use uppercase "Church" in a variety of contexts in other writing, but I'm not seeing why it'd be an exception in our articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: You appear to be using the specialized-style fallacy. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Would we write "the Church" when referring to Scientology? HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Could be the reason for the Guardian's preference. Who's to say which institutions calling themselves "churches" are entitled to the "respect" of capitalization and which are not? MaxBrowne (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I could see doing so in an article on Scientology, where the only church to be mentioned is Scientology. Not saying we do or should, just that it could work (were we to decide that "Church" is an exception to MOS:INSTITUTIONS, which I'm not seeing too much of a need for). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

MOS:INSTITUTIONS is clear on the matter. While the phrase "the church" is standing in for "the Catholic Church", the consensus reflected in the MOS is that a lowercase c is to be used. WP:CONLEVEL provides that, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." As we have a community consensus on the matter and no argument has been given for why this would be an exceptional case, those who oppose the existing consensus should be discussing this at WT:MOSCAPS, not here. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Correct, MOS:INSTITUTIONS sets the standard here. Lowercase is to be applied. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, for me, it seems that "church" as a building is just like "university" as a building: then they are not capitalized. But "Church" as an institution is just like "University of Delhi" as an intitution: they are then capitalised. You write "I went to church this morning" as "church" there is a building, but I am almost positive you should write "the Church has declared...." with a capital C, as "church" here is used as the name of an institution. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@MaxBrowne: ping. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Where does it say that University would be capitalized when it is short for "University of Delhi?" I'm not seeing where MOS:INSTITUTIONS even begins to imply that interpretation. "The University offers programs in arts and sciences" is marked as incorrect, even though it's the institution (not just a building) that offers those programs. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@L293D: How do you reconcile that position (with respect to "church" and "university") with MOS:INSTITUTIONS? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• I typically prefer referring to institutions as they refer to themselves (which in this case would be Church). At the same time, the Catholic naming dispute is the longest running naming dispute in Wikipedia, and this is, IMO, related. You'll likely find me lapse into usage of Church in other articles I work on, but for the main article at least, going with the MOS makes sense, especially because it provides us with an easy answer to what otherwise would be one hell of an RfC that would likely just end in no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

  Well, I was always taught in school that "church" was capitalised, and here is even more evidence: the Regent University says: "Capitalize the word Church when it refers to the body of Christians who comprise Christ’s Church and when it is part of the proper name of a church. Do not capitalize it in general references to a place worship." This is quite clear. Aditionally, under the Merriam-Webster's definition of "church", it is written: Examples of church in a Sentence:

• This is the oldest church in town.

• They would like to be married in a church.

• I didn't see you at church last Sunday.

• He is a member of the Catholic Church.

• What church do you belong to?

• the church's attitude toward divorce

• the separation of church and state

This, in my opinion, is quite clear. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a style guide thing. Wikipedia has its own style, and it is to prefer lowercase in these cases. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@L293D: The examples you cite only capitalize church when it is immediately preceded by "Catholic." "The church's attitude toward divorce" more easily refers to an institution's attitude toward divorce rather than a building's attitude.

And the Regent University standard would be too sectarian for use on Wikipedia. What about the Church of Scientology? Or the Church of Satan? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I am still convinced that Church is spelled with a capital C and I was always taught this in school, but Wikipedia has decided to write it differently and, besides, there are a few arguments to write it with a lowercase c. But its not a major problem anyways, so Ill just let it be like that. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I get that. I also use capitalized "Church" in a variety of ways in my own writings (be it an institution, the Christian religion itself, etc). I was just wondering how you managed to interpret MOS:INSTITUTIONS the way you did, how we would Regent's standards apply in relation to other religions, and how Merriam-Webster is proof that the institutional "Church" should be capitalized when they also present an institutional "church" that is decapitalized. Your arguments seem inconsistent with the evidence you've provided (except in the case of a non-neutral source), as if they were read with with a rule in mind rather than what was actually written. I was just trying to see if that discrepancy could be cleared up. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

For a more entertaining take on various things taught in school and stylistic differences, I recommend all read WP:SISTERMARYCATHERINE. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

How is this not an instance of the specialized-style fallacy? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The only particular advantage to capitalizing "Church" would be to distinguish the subject of this article from other churches that may be mentioned. This would be too cumbersome to implement and maintain consistently, however; it would be clearer to just write out "Catholic Church" when disambiguation is necessary within the text. –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

And more importantly, if we were to do that for one church, why would we not do it for all churches? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Why in WikiProject Statistics?

Anyone know? Wqwt (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Most of the WikiProject's other articles seem to directly pertain to statistics. I'll remove the banner. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Saints

I asked before and never got a response, but wanted some feedback before deciding.. should we make a subsection, perhaps under doctrines, about saints? The article barely mentions the Church's teachings on saints (particularly patronage, veneration, and devotion). Saintly intercession is a huge part of Catholic practice that isn't as prevalent in other forms of Christianity (with the exception of Orthodoxy and, in some regards, Anglicanism). Thoughts? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional content could be added to "Virgin Mary and devotions", if you believe coverage is lacking. Perhaps, "Virgin Mary, saints, and devotions". –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Good suggestion, thanks! -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization

I'm sorry this is not at all official and I don't have time to find proof, but: the Church as an institution should definitely be capitalized, along with the Body and Blood of Christ Sorry for the extra work if anyone has to spend the time to remove this because it is not correctly "filed" Thanks if you actually put the work in to correct this and don't delete it Sessssssss (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Sessssssss 5/28/18

Wikipedia has specific policy that this should not be done: MOS:CAPS#Institutions and MOS:CAPS#Religion. This may be unusual, but is Wikipedia policy. TSP (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2018

You could add on the introduction page just after where it explains difficulties within the 20th century that the church still continues to remains to grow and hold popularity amount members. https://www.worldreligionnews.com/religion-news/is-the-catholic-church-experiencing-exponential-growth-or-declining https://www.huffingtonpost.com/stan-chu-ilo/pope-francis-and-the-remaking-of-modern-catholicism_b_6852468.html?guccounter=1 86.178.136.47 (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. You'd have to rephrase what you wrote above; "hold popularity amount members" doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: The below requested edit would be inaccurate because Catholic church has lost many members including my family, due to pressing political & secular positions it has taken more recently while stating they embrace all, but practice exclusion-such as now forbidding communion to any visitors for 1)catholic; 2) not confessioned & 3) promoting conservative political alignments over liberated concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.183.62.80 (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Moved from top: new comments go at the bottom. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Universites

in this edit been removed a section about the universities assertion, well the article do not cited that Oxford and Cambridge are catholic universities, on the source there are two catholic universities affiliation among them are University of Notre Dame (rank 93) and KU Leuven (rank 77). even if in other list ranks such as Times Higher Education World University Rankings QS World University Rankings list 2016, KU Leuven and Boston College (an catholic university) rank between 61-70 while Georgetown University was ranked in 104, in QS World University Rankings in 2017 three catholic universities (include KU Leuven 79 and Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile 143 and Université cathoTSP Alerts (0) Notices (0) TalkSandboxPreferencesBetaWatchlistContlique de Louvain) were ranked between 101-150. So the section was giving true information, why it's been deleted?.

Also it's hard to fin an source for the assertion: " It runs and sponsors thousands of primary and secondary schools, colleges and universities throughout the world." Here is an source that Catholicc Church operates the world's largest non-governmental school system. and that's has [www.onlinedigeditions.com/publication/index.php?i=365491&m=&l=&p=1&pre=&ver=html5#"{" 43,800 secondary schools, and 95,200 primary schools, the source is from the church itself]. also according to the census of the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education, the total number of Catholic universities and higher education institutions around the world is 1,358. In the U.S.A alone the church run 6,685 total Catholic (elementary and high) schools and 262 colleges and universities educating more than 940,000 students. --213.57.242.20 (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

With regard to the first part, I removed it because the source provided doesn't say it. Please read the section of the No Original Research policy on original research synthesis - to say something in Wikipedia, we generally need a specific source saying that specific thing. Being able to construct it from a number of sources doesn't normally cut it.

With regard to the second part - I've left it in on the assumption someone would be able to find a source for it, but, as with everything in Wikipedia, if we can't find a source for it we can't say it. But those sources you've suggested it are probably enough to establish it pretty well. TSP (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

okay thank you, can you or anther user since I can't edit the article, add the sources below, also adding this section that:

Acording to QS World University Rankings, there were three Catholic universities (KU Leuven and Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile and Université catholique de Louvain) among the top 150 universities of the world.

That source says nothing about the religious affiliations of universities. If you haven't yet, please do read and understand the Original Research Synthesis policy. TSP (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

In the list appears three catholic universities, KU Leuven and Université catholique de Louvain are both catholic universities - here source: and the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile is a catholic university as well, you can check the list and you will see that the three appears in the list.

Without wanting to appear rude.... did you read the Synthesis of published material policy yet?

To include a particular assertion, Wikipedia generally needs a source making that exact assertion. A list of universities, and some individual sources about those universities, does not constitute that.

If no-one else has ever made this observation before, it's probably not notable enough for us to make it either. TSP (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I will search for source that mention that about catholic universities among top 100 universities in the world.

For now could you please TSP add the sources since I can't add it (the article is protected) and since you left assumption till someone left source:

It runs and sponsors thousands of primary and secondary schools, colleges and universities throughout the world, and the Catholic Church operates the world's largest non-governmental school system.

Thank you TSP could you add also as the source cited: the Catholic Church operates the world's largest non-governmental school system.

Thank you.--213.57.242.20 (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Undue weight to certain ideas in introduction?

In the introduction, we are carrying a sentence which is basically arguing in favour of the social views of bourgeois liberals in Western Europe and North America, using weasel words. It is essentially using the introduction of this article to lobby in a one sided fashion for homosexuality and the Anglo-liberal vision for feminism.

From the late 20th century, the Catholic Church has been criticised for its doctrines on sexuality, its refusal to ordain women and its handling of sexual abuse cases.

Now, similarly, on the articles for other religions; Orthodox Judaism, Islam and the Orthodox Church, all of these major religions are also opposed to the bourgeois liberal view of sexuality and they also do not permit women to the ranks of their clergy. Is there any particular reason why we are singling out the Catholic Church, other than the fact that... lets call a spade-a-spade, bourgeois liberals of Germanic provenance, particularly those of an Anglo-Saxon hue, have a special little hereditary hard on when it comes to the Catholic Church?

I think we need to come up with a more balanced summary for the late 20th century onward period. Claíomh Solais (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• The Catholic Church's teachings are uniquely criticized, given the worldwide scope of the church, its involvement in providing healthcare (and thus directly conflicting with many secular sexual health services), in its various roles as employer and education (thus refusing to provide birth control coverage to employees or students), etc. Any one of these issues has had significant coverage, and would be amiss to not mention in the lead. Further, you single out Orthodox Judaism and Islam, neither of which are free from criticism in these areas, especially regarding their treatment of women. Just because those article do not currently mention such criticism, does not mean that the content is not sufficiently notable for inclusion; it simply means those articles are not yet as well developed. Further, I should not have to explain why the worldwide sexual abuse crisis, touching church organizations on every continent, is notable. –Zfish118^⋉talk 17:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

All of the aforementioned religions are also international. Can you point out where in the introduction to the articles Islam and Orthodox Judaism we criticise them in the introduction for not having female clergy and for not endorsing sexual debauchery?

The "secular" argument doesn't wash either, as if this is a magical word. There is no set secular standard on questions of sexuality and the role of women in society. In all of the historical socialist states for example, which are/were state atheist, homosexuality, pornography and so on were also strongly rejected (and still is in secular countries like China and North Korea) and in many cases natalism/the family promoted.

The views currently promoted in the introduction are specifically liberal and when we say liberal, we actually mean Anglo-Saxon/British Empire (the people who invented liberalism). Anglo-Saxons are of course welcome to their unique opinions on social views (which are a very small minority in the world), but I don't think we should have their whining promoted in an extremely one sided and partisan manner in the introduction here. It is a violation of the NPOV policy. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe Zfish’s point is that as one of the largest providers of human services in the world, the Catholic Church is in a position where these conflicts are a larger part of the social debate than they are for Orthodox Judaism or other similar groups. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I happen to have sympathy for the idea that there is undue weight given to the criticism of the Catholic Church's intro. We don't introduce the Islam page by mentioning the wide attribution of its theology as a motivation for terrorism (etc etc). However, statements/phrases like "bourgeois liberals of Germanic provenance", "Anglo-Saxon hue", "sexual debauchery" makes me question whether you are here to build an encyclopedia (WP:NOTHERE). Brough87 (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

RE: Can you point out where in the introduction to the articles Islam and Orthodox Judaism we criticise them in the introduction for not having female clergy and for not endorsing sexual debauchery? I have already addressed this point: such criticism may indeed be warranted in the lead of those articles; its absence there is not binding precedent against its inclusion here. The Orthodox Judaism article could easily include the Zionism or the treatment of women as relevant criticisms from both within and outside of Judaic culture. Please present an argument specific to this article, explaining why significant content discussed in the article should not be summarized in the lead, or consider this discussion closed. –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• On purely theoretical grounds, the lead of our article can't give "undue weight" to "certain ideas": either the article itself gives undue weight to those ideas and the lead is an accurate reflection of the article, or the lead does not accurately reflect the article and that (not the undue weight given to certain ideas) is the problem. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• The Catholic Churches views on sex and non-ordination of women may or may not be worthy of mention in the lead..... the whole sexual abuse case and how the church responded to it was and is huge and absolutely belongs in the intro. TantraYum (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The church's views on sex are perhaps the single most important issue facing the subject of this article currently, and absolutely must be addressed in the lead. Thousands of members are leaving the organization every year due to disagreements on the church's stance on homosexual marriage. The bishops recently completed a world-wide series of synods regarding communion for divorced persons and other pastoral concerns. Two popes wrote major theological works against birth control, and all recent popes explicitly reaffirmed those teachings. Even the refusal to ordain women is a defining and notable trait, as other churches are abandoning the tradition as incompatible with contemporary values.

To omit the church's controversial teachings regarding sex from lead, especially when all such content is developed within the article, is to treat the subject as though no major changes or challenges have arisen since 1950'S. Indeed, I would imagine a major reason readers visit this article is to research the controversial teachings to better understand their impact on current national law and international policy. Not alerting the reader to the most important issues facing the subject of an article, such as the church maintaining controversial teachings despite intense international criticism, is not acceptable. Revisions current wording that better discuss the significance and context of the various criticisms may be appropriate. –Zfish118^⋉talk 07:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the sexual abuse committed, largely, by priests with homosexual tendencies, should be mentioned in the introduction. As that has recieved widespread coverage in the media, is an objectively existing phenomenon and has led to significant legal battles, pay outs and attempts to reform the problems. The dribble about female clergy and general views on human sexuality should not be highlighted in the introduction, as stances on this is a pure personal and indeed sectarian opinion. Wikipedia isn't Western-Europeanpedia or Anglopedia. Just because the Anglicans, Quakers, Unitarians and post-Protestant "seculars" have given their Saxon thumbs up to something doesn't mean the rest of humanity are obliged to jump in line with the master race. The Catholic view of human sexuality is closer to that shared by most of the world (Africa, the Islamic world, India, China, Eastern Europe, much of the Romance-speaking world) than the minorty Anglo-American, German-Dutch view. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The sexual abuse done by priests is not connected to homosexuality. Good luck referencing that absurd claim. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Slightly off topic form the discussion at hand, namely the article promoting the sectarian sexual mores of Anglo-American liberals and demanding the rest of the world come along for the ride, but.... the majority of the sexual abuse committed by criminal priests has been against male youths. Male on male sex acts are, by nature, homosexual. As part of an attempt to combat and reform this problem the Church issued Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders in 2005. Hope that helps. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Pedophilia and homosexuality are not connected. The rape of male children are not "male on male sex acts". Pedophilia is not sexual attraction to men, it is sexual attraction to children, not that this has anything to do with the conversation at hand (as long as we are making sure such outrageous claims do not get added into the article). Before you start talking about biases I would address your own, as name calling (i.e. "Anglo-American liberals") has no place on Wikipedia and won't further any claim you are making. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I would oppose adding sexual abuse in the lead. The sexual abuse was committed by priests because they did not follow the Catholic Church's doctrine. It is the priest's personal fault and and not the catholic Church's. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

While it goes against doctrine, the Church hierarchy is responsible for the ongoing cover-ups that are linked all the way up to the Papacy itself. The Church is very much responsible for the thousands of cases of abuse by clergy. It's not simply "a priests mistake" but a crime that continues to happen without any actual changes made by the Church to prevent it from continuing. I would say it belongs in the lead because it has become so culturally prevalent in the past few decades. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies state that all issues that received significant coverage be included in the lead. I have not seen any argument that its views on sexuality, covered within the article in quite a bit of depth, should not be in the lead. –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

---

I've reverted Claíomh Solais's recent unilateral changes to the lead section because (1) they lack consensus and are at odds with the discussion above, (2) introduce poorly written and vague language, and (3) fail to reflect the body of the article. Claíomh Solais, can you please stay on topic? Your antipathy to "bourgeois liberals" and "Anglo-liberal vision for feminism" (whatever that even means) is utterly irrelevant here. Neutrality^talk 06:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The relevant quick comparison with the lead sections of other major religious denominations makes things rather clear here. But, yeah, then again you may argue that the readers themselves are able to discover how weight is carried out so we editors don't have to bother about it. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead sections typically comprise four (4) paragraphs. Exceptions may be, including for the prior contents in this paragraph. As seen in the discussion above, however, this paragraph should not reintroduced per WP:NPOV short of attainted article-wide WP:CONSENSUS comprising equivalent paragraphs in lead sections throughout Islam, Sunni Islam, Shia Islam, and Orthodox Judaism. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand your rational to REMOVE THE PARAGRAPH; This is unacceptable and disruptive, especially since the discussion has been dormant for months, with a clear consensus to keep or at least not remove the paragraph. The argument that other article do not cover criticism is invalid. Most are not rated "good articles", and thus likely have significant development required. Using lower quality articles as a basis for removal of content in the lead that is is discussed at length within the body of the article is bad practice. –Zfish118^⋉talk 15:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

A criticism section is naturally due, as well as possibly a criticism paragraph. That said, being oblivious to the other comparable lead sections while raging over this one quite frankly doesn't give a convincing WP:NPOV vibe, does it? Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Since you agree that a "possibly a criticism paragraph" is due, and the consensus on this discussion was to KEEP the paragraph, what made you believe it was appropriate to remove it without reopening discussion? –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

More specifically, the concern is about Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight, and in this case it is largely contextual. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

What's a member?

I am here for two reasons. Firstly, I find the first sentence unclear, and am told I must discuss before changing it. Secondly, I am also told to check the archives. That's pointless. You try, and see how many hits you get for the words "member" or "members"! So, sorry if this has been discussed before.

The first sentence says the church "is the largest Christian church, with approximately 1.3 billion members worldwide". "The word "members" is not defined, and could mean anything. My Google translation of the source actually says that 1.3 billion is "the number of baptized Catholics in the world". That's obviously not the same as members. Why don't we use precisely that wording? Surely our policies say we should. HiLo48 (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, any baptized Catholic is considered a member of the Catholic Church, according to Catholic theology. If you are baptized, no matter the age, you are joined to the mystical body that is the Catholic Church. You are a "member" of Christ's body. Now, you can distinguish between "baptized members," "confirmed members" (those who have undergone the sacrament of confirmation), "communicant members" (those who are eligible to receive the Eucharist at any given time) and "practicing members" (those who actually consider themselves Catholics and attend church regularly at any given time). But, simple membership in the Catholic Church is determined by baptism. At baptism, a person becomes subject to the canon law of the Catholic Church. Ltwin (talk) 14:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Is there a good source for that definition of "member"? Even if we accept that definition (and why should we?) it still seems a form of synthesis, so I ask again, why don't we use precisely the wording in the source? HiLo48 (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Is that true? That seems problematic as a definition, because the Catholic Church recognizes baptisms performed by other Christian denominations. You can't be baptised twice. If a person is baptised in another church and converts to Catholicism, at what point do they become a "member"? Regardless, HiLo48 is right: we should use a direct paraphrase of the material in the source. To do otherwise is improper synthesis.--Srleffler (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

All people baptized in the Catholic Church are considered members. For an individual from another Christian denomination whose baptism the Catholic Church recognizes as valid, they become a member upon canonical reception into full communion either by a diocesan bishop or a priest. Also, yes, just stick to what the source says. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Ninety-five theses

This article says that Luther sent his ninety-five theses to several bishops - but did he not nail them to the church door at Wittenberg? I have heard it said that he put them up on wax. Vorbee (talk) 06:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

There is little evidence that he actually nailed it to the Wittenberg church door. The first reference we have to this event was made 30 years after, and Luther never mentions it. Ltwin (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Word spell

"History and development of Western civilisation" Correct spell for civilization, instead of what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyHGT (talk • contribs) 20:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The article is written in British English, so the spelling is correct. HiLo48 (talk) 23:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

No mention of Reformation in the lead

The lead makes mention of the important East-West schism, but no mention of Protestantism emerging from the Catholic Church, although this is a major event in the Church's history, which could be argued to be the most significant and consequential, with far reaching consequences (major wars, loss of papal influence, etc). I know I could WP:JUSTDOIT but given that this is a highly visible article, I'd rather put the notion here first. — Define Real (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Please check now. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

That works, thanks! — Define Real (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The current paragraph reads:

The Catholic Church shared communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church until the East–West Schism in 1054, disputing particularly the authority of the Pope, as well as with the Oriental Orthodox churches prior to the Chalcedonian schism in 451 over differences in Christology. The Reformation of the 16th century resulted in Protestantism breaking away.

I recently changed "Protestantism" to "Protestant Churches", in order to match the convention used in the rest of the paragraph: "Eastern Orthodox Church" and "Oriental Orthodox churches". Could you kindly explain why this was reverted? Thanks, Anupam^Talk 19:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Anupam: Thanks for your comment. The lead is already quite extensive. Protestantism is not a collective of churches precisely. Yet, the lead section must limit its digressions on that subject. Therefore, simply "Protestantism" is well enough as a reference to this "major branch" of Christianity, so to speak. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

{request edit}

change the short description from 'Christian church led by the Bishop of Rome' to 'Christian church led by the Roman Pontiff'

while the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, he is the highest authority in the Catholic Church, and therefore should be given a title above all other bishops. ChristusImperat, CSSML (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done 1) Roman Pontiff just means “bishop of Rome”. You could describe any local bishop as a pontiff ex. the Archbishop of Toronto would be the Torontonian Pontiff. 2) Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view so even if pontiff means something other than “bishop” in current Christianity (which it doesn’t and hasn’t for at least 1500 years), your reasoning here wouldn’t be a reason to change it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

GA but doesn't mention child sexual abuse?

How is this possible? Surely the child sexual abuse is a major aspect that must be covered? Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it does mention child abuse cases in the very lead section of the article. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, so it does, thank you for pointing it out. I searched for "child sexual abuse" and nothing came up but we have it linked as "sexual abuse". In any case, there are multiple discussions going on now, including the proposed merger at the main article, so we may have to change that link, but I'll wait until those discussions conclude. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Claim in lead

The claim that the Catholic Church is the "oldest continuously functioning international institution" has a reliable source, but it still incorrect, given the Samaritan High Priest. I understand the term "international" as a qualifier might seem to disqualify the Samaritan High Priest, but since Samaritans live in both Israel and the West Bank, that qualifies the Samaritan High Priesthood as an international institution.

So, how to fix the claim? Not sure, anyone want to try?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

To comply with WP:OR, you would need to find a reliable source that makes this claim. Ltwin (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you think it boils down to whether you accept the West Bank as independent or not?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Última Cena - Da Vinci 5.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

History of Catholicism

Talk:Catholicism redirects here, just as as Catholicism redirects to Catholic Church. So I write here about the Catholicism redirect page. I looked up its history. Does it look correct or is it "cut" somehow? If so, would it be possible to fix so that its full history is accessible? Perhaps here is some clue to what went wrong? Hopefully some administrator could give a helping hand or at least advice here. PPEMES (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The page history looks correct to me. In 2017 "Catholicism" was moved to "Catholicism (term)" which in turn was moved to "Catholicity". So the history that's now at "Catholicism" is that of the redirect that was created in the 2017 page move; the history of what was there earlier was moved to "Catholicity" along with the content that was moved. That's how it should be. Huon (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. PPEMES (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Roman Catholic view of Pagan Religions

Catholic theology is based on the Nicene Creed. The Catholic Church teaches that it is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church founded by Jesus Christ,[7][8][note 1] that its bishops are the successors of Christ's apostles, and that the pope is the successor to Saint Peter to whom primacy was conferred by Jesus Christ.[11] It maintains that it practises the original Christian faith, reserving infallibility, passed down by sacred tradition.[12] The Latin Church, the twenty-three Eastern Catholic Churches, and institutes such as mendicant orders and enclosed monastic orders reflect a variety of theological and spiritual emphases in the church.[13][14]

This definition is interesting as it doesn't seem to be in conflict, philosophically with a pagan belief system. 108.200.234.93 (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

And? Is there a reason for this being posted on the article's talk page? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Removing Roman Catholic Reference

Latin Church is the particular church of Latin rite. However to say other Rites such as Alexandrian, Byzantine, East Syriac, and West Syriac to be Roman is not proper word use. Roman Catholic is most appropriate when referencing Latin Church not Catholic Church. This article is an explanation that may clear confusionOn more information on the Latin particular church look at this article . Also, if there is anymore confusion on nomenclature, read this article I hope for a friendly exchange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manabimasu (talk • contribs) 03:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

This question has already been discussed at some length, see Talk:Catholic Church/Name. Haldraper (talk) 08:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

@Haldraper and Hyperbolick: Yes, I saw, so can Roman Catholic refer to Roman_Catholic_Church_(disambiguation).

References

Redirects here under attack

Redirects here are under attack by user:Manabimasu. See his recent edits. Please, help. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC) I want to confirm. That I did Change the redirects to the disambiguation page. I would like to know what rules I broke besides being reckless. I only reverted two or three times. I would like a discussion. I want to be civil. So for every page with “Roman” I changed to Roman Catholic disambiguation. I won’t change it back because I have bias. I want to know the opinions of editors. Also, to hyperbolick, Thanks for informing of my reckless edits. I need attention towards the discussion.Manabimasu (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:FIXDABLINKS. To start with. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Can you point out my error? Please quote the violation. I would welcome the opportunity to learn. Also, I would like to learn how to achieve a consensus. To add in Edit_requests#Planning_a_request there is a statement “Uncontroversial changes don't require sourcing, such as correcting typographical errors or disambiguating links. ” I thought I could redirect to a disambiguation page.Manabimasu (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I feel that this (mass) change is against long-standing consensus — redirecting to the main article as opposed to the dab page. I, therefore, have rollbacked all those changes. El_C 02:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

OkManabimasu (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2019

PLZ CHANGE ORGANISATION TO ORGANIZATION 67.1.250.231 (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: See WP:ENGVAR – Þjarkur (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Original research in "Name" section

There are several issues with the final paragraph of the "Catholic Church#Name" section:

The name "Catholic Church" for the whole church is used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1990), and the Code of Canon Law (1983). It was also used in the documents of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), the First Vatican Council (1869–1870), the Council of Trent (1545–1563), and numerous other official documents.

The final paragraph references exclusively primary sources, with no sources providing scholarly commentary on the significant of the use of "Catholic Church". More commentary is needed from reliable sources to describe why "(Holy) Roman Church" is used at least 25 times in the documents of Trent, while "Catholic Church" is used 34 times. Or why Vatican I uses "Roman Church" 5 times compared to "Catholic Church" 11 times. The use of primary sources can only be used to assert the trivial fact that the words "Catholic Church" were used in various documents of the three councils and other Papal bulls. Additional sources would be required to assert any significance of this usage in the primary sources.

References

The overall section is pretty charged with references, which mostly directly or indirectly refer to these. Feel free if you'd wish to add even more sources, though... PPEMES (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Change redirects containing “Roman” to Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation)

The title is self-explanatory. What are editors’ thoughts on this?Manabimasu (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• Just like we don't redirect US or USA to United States (disambiguation), but instead to the main United States article — the same applies here. That's what I mean by longstanding consensus. El_C 02:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with El_C. These redirects have been around for a very long time. Not as if all of Wikipedia was too dumb to realize where they should point this whole time. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per the others. Roman Catholic Church (disambiguation) is a wierd page, that will confuse the vast majority of readers. It needs a considerable rewrite. Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
• I also oppose. -PluniaZ (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Head field in infobox

This may be contentious, but the pope is the visible head of the Catholic Church while Jesus is the invisible head. This distinction should be made. I refer to CCC 739,CCC 747,CCC 885 ,CCC 792 , CCC 1548 , CCC 765. Call out these references if there is cherry picking which there is. The change is the Visible Head is the pope while the Invisible head is Jesus. Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Inclined to disagree. In short, isn't these infobox variables mostly confined to earthly attributes? PPEMES (talk) 10:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Earthly attributes are an assumption and I do not see a explicit recommendation of earthly attributes in the template Template:Infobox Christian denomination, but what is more interesting is “Head “ field is not in the syntax of the template. I recommend changing the head field to something that is will not cause difference of opinion. The pope has many titles and maybe change “head” to patriarch or more specifically “Earthly Head”. Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking pages for the other autonomous churches in the Catholic communion, such as the Coptic Catholic Church and others that use a similar template, the infobox parameter "leader_title" is "Pope". It seems like that was the leader title used when the infobox was first introduced back in late 2015, but there was a lot of churn following it which resulted in the title used today. Given the way the title appears on all the other churches in the Catholic communion and what title can be verified and sourced, I'd suggest changing it back to "Pope". --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter:A plausible suggestion but then the field would be “Pope: Pope Francis” which is an awkward construction. The field would be better suited by “Pope: Francis” if “Pope” replaces the “Head” field.Manabimasu (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Infobox updated accordingly per WP:BOLD, as well as per consistency with equivalent infoboxes as mentioned. PPEMES (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Language reminder

A reminder to editors that this article is written in British English, so the more common British spellings and punctuation styles are meant to be used throughout. The exceptions are with direct quotations and proper names. Thanks. Yahboo (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Problem with references at the bottom of this page

Can someone please fix the problem with the references appearing at the bottom of the talk page (under this message at present). This is very confusing. I know there is a way to fix this but can't remember what it is. Thanks. Yahboo (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

1.3 billion or 1.4 billion?

The article below says 1.4 billion now. Is the number in the article out of date? http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Worldwide-number-of-Catholics-grows-to-1.4-billion--44154.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.249.206.28 (talk) 04:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Define a Catholic. HiLo48 (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

As it says in the lead: "baptised Catholics"? PPEMES (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Millions of people who were once baptised Catholics are obviously not now Catholics. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Millions? Is there a source for that claim as well? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Here are the latest figures -https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2019/03/06/190306b.html but this is a primary source and Wikipedia may think Catholic Church is lying about the numbers. So there needs to be an independent research group. User:PPEMES Asia news is referring to the Annuarium Statisticum Ecclesiae but the figures are from 2016 not from 2017. Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid a primary source is as good as it gets. PPEMES (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

In the absence of anything but what would be an unacceptable source on any other topic, we should not be showing a figure at all. HiLo48 (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The Vatican is both a reliable and a secondary source. It's a statistical study. --PluniaZ (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

"Catholicism"

Should the word "Catholicism" be introduced/mentioned somewhere in the lead section (other than in the hatnote), even in bold or italic text, and if so where and how? PPEMES (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Website

The website in the infobox seems unnecessary. The website points to the Holy See website and although I could understand how that could be the Catholic Church website. It is not official. Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate to link to the Holy See website. It doesn't get more official than that in the Catholic Church. But it should be to the English language site, since this is English wikipedia. --PluniaZ (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Have any proposals of a more official website than that? Until, I would suggest retaining it. Multiple denominations across Wikipedia have infobox links to their episcopal sees, etc. PPEMES (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Template

The {{Catholic Church sexual abuse cases}} template had been placed at the bottom of the visible template stack, then removed from the page by an editor asking if it was WP:RECENTISM. Recentism discusses using the ten-year test (WP:10YT), i.e. would someone ten years from now be surprised at the inclusion. The long-term historical nature of events discussed on the template seem to negate the recentism objection. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I made substantial contributions to that very template, and have myself significantly extended its presence across related articles. The topic is important, and it is commendable that Wikipedia offers good information. As for inclusion in this main article, my concern was about both recentism and proportions, though. Note that we already have a bit of a template stackning in the botton. Do we really have to include everything in Category:Catholic templates at the bottom of Catholic Church? PPEMES (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

There's already a link to Catholic Church sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church template.

I'd suggest just dropping all the templates but {{Catholic Church footer}}. There is a massive amount of overlap between the ones that are there at the moment. TSP (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with TSP here. This page is currently affected by template creep. Not everything needs a navbox. The article currently has 9 navboxes at the bottom (1, 2, 3, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9), many of which overlap and have redundant content. It also has 9 sidebars which don't bother me at much (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).

An indicator of usefulness in the WP:CLNT guideline is if not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles. In the present case, I doubt that an editor would be inclined to link the several hundreds of links in these templates in the See also section of the Catholic Church article. Especially, I doubt that all the individual articles in the sex abuse cases template would be worth linking in the See also section of the Catholic Church article. Place Clichy (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Template respect trumps the template creep essay every time. These templates are all fine and relevant to the topic, and provide readers with the full range of topics (which is the reason the sexual abuse template should be on the page as well, to give the entirety of the topic and not just a lone link on another template). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

What's template respect? We should include the templates that provide value to readers; I don't think there's any concept of a template deserving respect. TSP (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The term relates to the use of templates in general, as many editors try to limit relevant templates (all the visible templates on this page, for example, are directly related to the article's subject), attempt to hide relevant templates in navbox cages, or, in a larger use, keep templates from being seen on mobile devices. Collapsed templates take up very little vertical space, are the result of editors mapping the work of thousands of other editors, and, when designed well, provide a complete in-site chronological look at the topic. To request that five relevant templates be removed from this page is a good faith example. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you suggest any policy or guideline that supports this approach? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; our aim is to produce the best possible encyclopedia, which makes information as accessible as possible. I feel that proposing we should think about respect for templates is not helpful to that: we should include the templates that are more useful than confusing, and not the ones that are more confusing than useful.

My view is that, once {{Catholic Church footer}} - which contains 330 links and is one of the largest templates I have ever seen on Wikipedia - is present, the other templates are confusing and redundant. Catholic Church footer already contains sections on Sacraments, Rites, Liturgies, Popes, the Papacy, the Holy See, and the history of the church. I'd suggest that Catholic Church should be displayed uncollapsed; and the other templates currently present not at all. That would provide all the information in each of these templates within the same number of clicks as at present. TSP (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that the pile of stacked templates at the bottom of the page was so recent - changed 10 days ago by Randy Kryn. I've undone this - I don't think there is any sign that this change has consensus: PPEMES, Place Clichy and I are objecting, no-one but Randy seems to be supporting it. More generally, I still don't believe that there is any Wikipedia policy supporting any such concept as "template respect", which was one of the reasons given when adding it. TSP (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I think keeping the ones except Template:Catholic Church footer disclosed being a convenient solution. PPEMES (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Luther

"Martin Luther, originally an Augustinian friar, initiated the Protestant Reformation against the Catholic Church in 1517." - this is totally untrue. Martin Luther, and many of the Protestant Reformers, never intended the Reformation to be a movement "against" the Catholic Church. Many of them wanted an internal reform, including Luther. This should be corrected to a more neutral sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.47.165.9 (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Eastern Christianity in Europe?

I was scanning the page and I came across this- "In the first thousand years of Catholic history, different varieties of Christianity developed in the Western and Eastern Christian areas of Europe." I find this a bit confusing. Eastern Christianity is not limited to Europe. In fact, it was most noted in Asia minor and in other places besides Europe. Is Catholic interchangeable with Christianity? Of course, I want let my bias get in the way of WP:Neutraility. I suggest the following for a "Christianity"-word-centered lede: "In the first thousand years of Christian history, different varieties of Christianity developed throughout the Roman-known World as the Western and Eastern rites." I also suggest the following for a "Catholicism"-word-centered lede: "In the first thousand years of Catholic history, different varieties of Catholic rites developed as Western and Eastern." Note- "Rite" and "rite" have slight changes. I am open to suggestions as well. Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Interrelated top categories and talks

Related to article Catholic Church. Please see: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism#Interrelated_top_categories_and_talks. PPEMES (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2019

The Catholic Church, a communion of 23 Churches in Communion with the Bishop of Rome, Acook2016 (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Please make a precise request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Rites of the Catholic Church

The first sentence of the present article states that the Catholic Church is "also known as the Roman Catholic Church."

This should be clarified to make clear that Latin/Roman is only ONE of the TWO DOZEN Rites of the Catholic Church, ALL of which are in union with Rome and equal members of the Catholic (Universal) Church

The Google search gives:

There are 24 such autonomous Catholic churches: One Latin Church (i.e., Western) and 23 Eastern Catholic Churches", a distinction by now more historical than geographical. Although each of them has its own specific heritage, they are all in full communion with the Pope in Rome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:741:8000:24EC:1544:F3C9:F277:4E78 (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe that the article is correct in that first sentence, and also it is made abundantly clear how the 24 Churches are in communion. You may want to read Roman Catholic (term) for a full and comprehensive treatment on how "Roman Catholic" has been historically used and is currently applied to the Catholic Church. Thanks! Elizium23 (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Liturgical languages in infobox

I believe we do not need to come up with every single extant liturgical language to put in the infobox, which is meant as a quick-glance summary of simple data, not an exhaustive list of every possible trivia. The liturgical languages of the Eastern Churches are adequately covered as vernacular languages (because ECs strive to worship in the vernacular wherever possible). (Also, I have no idea that any EC Church makes substantial use of Koine Greek in its liturgy. We would need sources to back that up.) But I feel it is better not to attempt to list them all there in the infobox, please. Elizium23 (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. PPEMES (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Nicene Creed

The second paragraph of the article begins "The Christian beliefs of Catholicism are based on the Nicene Creed." That statement is backwards; the Nicene Creed is obviously based on the Christian beliefs of Catholicism, not the other way around.

Change the first sentence of the second paragraph to read "The Nicene Creed is based on the Christian beliefs of Catholicism."

The Nicene Creed contains only a small fragment of Catholic beliefs. I don't think this sentence should be in the article at all. --PluniaZ (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree with PluniaZ, but think that the new edit should simply be reverted back to "based on" until further better arguments. PPEMES (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree here. The Nicene Creed is the cornerstone of mainline Christian Churches and the Catholic Church gives it prominent placement in the Eucharistic Liturgy of every Sunday and Solemnity (that is, when the Apostle's Creed is not preferred). So I think it deserves to stay in the article, and in fact I think it should stay in the lede section as an easy summary of many of the points of the Catholic faith. The Catechism is based on it, in part. Now why do you want to revert to the inaccurate "based on"? Elizium23 (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Nazi history

I think the Nazi history is problematic. It was removed in November for good reason (NPOV): it had only been added on November 2, by @SMendel: who seems rather single-minded about Nazis and the Catholic Church. The "darker side" editorializing is worthy of tabloids which are cited. The citations are linked to book reviews and not the books. I do not know if all this is WP:DUE in the general article on the Catholic Church, rather than History of the Catholic Church. Elizium23 (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The section was blatantly POV. I think a brief, rewritten mention about the Church's role in WW2 (both in resistance and in collaboration to Nazis) belongs in the article, but a more in-depth description should go on History of the Catholic Church. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree. PPEMES (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, or at least in the right century here - not in the history overview. I replaced it because the editor who removed it in November is imo a doubtful quantity, but on further checking it seemed a good call for once. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Photo of the Article

the Infobox Photo does not represent the entire facade of St. Peter's Basilica (or at least not in a good way), i propose one of the following images to replace this one.
1- File:Basilica Sancti Petri blue hour.jpg or File:Basilica Sancti Petri blue hourl - Retouch.jpg
2- File:0 Basilique Saint-Pierre - Rome (2).JPG or File:0 Basilique Saint-Pierre - Rome.JPG (The Sr Guy (talk) 23:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)).

I must disagree. I think it's nice that the picture isn't just of St. Peter's because, after all, the article is about more than the basilica. This shows many of the historic buildings of the Vatican. In any event, in my opinion, this picture is more aesthetic than ones that show just the facade of St. Peter's without the dome. Ergo Sum 00:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that the precurrent more inclusive picture is selected in order to illustrate the see of Rome as central focal geographical point of the church, rather than the Basilica of Saint Peter. (As for premises, please note that the actual ecumenical mother church is the Archbasilica of Saint John Lateran.) PPEMES (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)