Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 4

message: "In some cases this figure includes those who most readers would not consider 'members'," says TSP.  What is a member?  Would TSP consider that a Durham Anglican ceases to be an Anglican if that person has not been to church for a month? for a year? for ten years? Some 98% of the population of Greece are considered members of the Greek Orthodox Church, and (perhaps mainly because of considering this religion an essential part of being Greek) self-identify as such. Would TSP insist on including a rider to the effect that "this figure includes those who most readers would not consider 'members'"?
In one country with which I am familiar, and probably in others, dioceses report a lower number of Catholics than what they consider to be the reality.  Why?  Because the diocese's contribution to the expenses of the national episcopal conference and its commissions is in proportion to its reported Catholic population.  I have had direct experience in TSP's own country of parishes that routinely reported a lower figure to the diocese for the sake of reducing their financial contribution to the common diocesan fund for Catholic schools.
On the whole, the figure for Catholics given in the Statistical Yearbook of the Church quite certainly understates the reality.  And not for this reason alone.  As the publication itself mentions, it receives no statistical reports from some areas, which it does not name, but which obviously include mainland China, where the members, by any standards, of the Church are not just a few.
TSP's addition, "According to official Church figures," which has confessedly been inserted to suggest that the figures are exaggerated, is misleading and inadmissible.
Lima 06:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: It seems to me that there has been some massive rewrites of the article with no discussion about what should be removed. For example what happened to this statement: "The Church traces its origins to the Apostles Peter and Paul." ? --WikiCats 14:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrites

message: I've started a footnoted references section - initially spurred on by a wish not to have inline references making the initial section harder to read.  However, we should really be referencing every part of this article.  Here's the summary of Wikipedia's Verifiability policy - one of Wikipedia's three core content policies:
: Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources</U>. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
In other words, at the moment almost every part of this article is subject to someone coming along and removing it for failing to cite a source; and they would be entirely within their rights.  (The Lead Section is a bit of an exception, in that information in here is probably covered, and cited, elsewhere in the article, so might be OK not cited in the lead section as long as the lack of citation doesn't give a misleading impression.)
Wikipedia requires that, for every bit of information in this article, we be able to, and preferably explicitly do, provide a reputable and reliable source for that information.  Wikipedia prefers credible, third-party sources for information (e.g. respected newspapers, other encyclopedias, published books by people qualified in the subject); but official publications of non-neutral bodies are OK when making claims about themselves (e.g. the Vatican website can be considered an acceptable source for information about the Roman Catholic Church, as long as that information is not contradicted in credible third-party sources; but not for information about, say, the Church of England).  Wikipedia's Reliable Sources guideline is useful for this.
Adding references is pretty easy - just put , followed by your source, followed by - so, from the current draft of the intro:
It defines itself as "the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter" - i.e. the Pope - "and the bishops in communion with him" Lumen Gentium,8).
This puts a numbered footnote marker where you've put the  text, and adds a footnote containing the text you put between 
<ref> and .  The ones I've added to the intro should show you what I mean.  Wikipedia:Footnotes has more details, including how to re-use the same footnote.
I hope we can work together on this; it'll take a long time to finish, but doing so will hopefully encourage us to take a rigorous approach to only including in the article information that we can definitely say we can show to be true; as well as making an article that readers can have much greater confidence in the accuracy of than at present. TSP 02:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing 

message: There is plenty on the relationship with the Eastern Rite churches, and a very brief paragraph on relations with Protestant denominations, but none with other Catholic communions, such as the Anglican Communion or the Old Catholics.  Would anyone object if I were to augment the material in this regard?  I have some knowledge of the work of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission.  Fishhead64 18:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relations with other Christians

message: Pending the development of some consensus concerning consolidating the articles concerning Catholic topics into one page, Catholic Church, I want to survey folks about temporarily reverting it to a disambiguation page from its current status as a redirect to Roman Catholic Church.  Given that the consensus in the previous survey was that Roman Catholic Church should not be renamed Catholic Church, it seems disingenuous to have Catholic Church redirect here anyway.  So the proposal is:  That Catholic Church be reverted to a disambiguation page as it appears here. Fishhead64 01:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Already done - though it could use more development. The redirect is, in itself a POV, so it should be a disambig page. Pollinator 01:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Oppose. I admit that your page and mine have both the same meaning, but my version is just to enlighten first time viewers of Wikipedia or to the subject. Do not assume that all viewers of this page Catholic Church are like us who knows about this topic! 203.87.151.226 02:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, is it over already?  Then what was the point of posting it over at WP:RfC yesterday? Fishhead64 17:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Temporary solution:  [[Catholic Church]] disambiguation page

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Oppose. I admit that your page and mine have both the same meaning, but my version is just to enlighten first time viewers of Wikipedia or to the subject. Do not assume that all viewers of this page Catholic Church are like us who knows about this topic! 203.87.151.226 02:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, is it over already?  Then what was the point of posting it over at WP:RfC yesterday? Fishhead64 17:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Why is there no section on the priest abuse scandals of late?JohnnyBGood 19:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should there be? Because they are notable, verifiable and relevant to the article. Joelito 00:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. I was in Cleveland on business and there was one on the news there. There was also one on the TV this past week here in the SF Area. Seems to be happening quite a bit. Granted I don't think it happens any more proportionally within the Church versus other churches, however numerically it has happened alot more in the Church. JohnnyBGood 18:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: A relevant thing to remember that this article is already 85 kilobytes long (more that twice the "recommended" size). This topic can be developed in other articles, like: Criticism of the Catholic Church. --Leinad   »saudações! 19:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. We should be sure that there are links to those relevant sections however. And possibly a small blurb on the main page.JohnnyBGood 19:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Church abuse scandals

message: The possibility of a page called Catholic Church (disambiguation) has already been mentioned twice in Talk:Roman Catholic Church.
Wikipedia guidelines ask the question: “What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?” If they are looking for the Catholic Church then they would put “Catholic Church”. So leave the redirect as Catholic Church.
This is the compromise:-
The article called Roman Catholic Church
with the disambig. line:
"Catholic Church" redirects here. For other uses of the term, see Catholic Church (disambiguation).
--WikiCats 07:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that is a good idea. It's exactly what is done on the Jesus article. Pansy Brandybuck AKA SophiaTalkTCF 08:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfectly acceptable solution. To recap: CC is the common name used/understood by the majority of the 1 billion (Roman) Catholics and an unknown number of others. RCC is the common name used by the rest of the world, thus outnumbering the claim notability-wise. This compromise addresses Hyphen5's point that the vast majority of CC searches will apply to the (Roman) Catholic Church. AvB ÷ talk 12:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the WikiCats' proposal. Protestant Church doesn't usually refer to a specific church, but Catholic Church usually does. Is there anyone disputing that most "Catholic Church" searches in Wikipedia will probably apply to the (Roman) Catholic Church? --Leinad   »saudações! 15:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strenuously object to WikiCat's proposal.  Again, the naming conventions speak about "reasonable ambiguity."  Considering the claims that many Catholics not in communion with Rome have on Catholic Church, an automatic redirect here is not only misleading, it is offensive.  Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to have Catholic Church as a separate article that describes, well, the Catholic Church.  The survey we took a couple of weeks already resoundingly showed that most editors rejected viewing the two terms synonymously, and a minority of editors are bound and determined to appropriate the term Catholic Church for the Roman Communion. Fishhead64 17:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Misleading" and "offensive"? I don't think so. The proposal clearly acknowledges the existence and usage of other meanings (quote: "For other uses of the term, see Catholic Church (disambiguation)..."). --Leinad   »saudações! 19:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Leinad, the dab link makes it un-misleading. Most users will type "Catholic Church" to read about the RCC, and most will type "Eastern Orthodox Church" for the ECC. I also support merging Catholic, Catholicism, and perhaps One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as discussed above, but whatever the case, Catholic Church should not redirect straight to the RCC with no dab link as it does now. - Draeco 19:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not certain how having a link to Roman Catholic Church at the top of Catholic Church would prove a troublesome chore for people who erroneously think the two terms are synonymous.  On the contrary, it moves things from the general to the particular.  Whereas for people like me who are raised in a tradition where we think of ourselves as members of the "Catholic Church," typing in Catholic Church and winding up at the "Roman Catholic Church" is, by its very nature, POV.  I don't know why people can't see that reality.  I'm proposing a more inclusive solution, one that would not unduly inconvenience those trying to find the Roman Catholic Church. Fishhead64 21:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that Wikipedia shouldn't be dominated by those who have an axe to grind. The Orthodox Churches designate themselves as such. I do not regard myself as unorthodox because I am not a member and nor do I begrudge them their own name. It may even be intended to imply that I am not orthodox because I am not a member of one of their churches, but what do I care? I know they are wrong about that. Fishhead64, are you fighting the same battle over the Orthodox Church pages and if not, why not? --Tuck42
I have sympathy for Fishhead’s view that not everybody sees the RCC as having ownership of “Catholic Church” or believes that the Wikipedia should promote that position.
The overriding issue here is service to the web surfer. The vast majority of inquires will be for the RCC. It would be unfair to send the majority of searches to a dab. page first on a principle. --WikiCats 01:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a pretty sad day, when principles are not only not worth fighting for; they are disposable simply as a matter of convenience. Unfortunately that is the battle of our age - even within the Roman Catholic Church. Pollinator 07:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're trying to edit an encyclopedia. This is not the place to battle for moral principles. --Hyphen5 17:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everywhere is the place for moral principles. DJ Clayworth 18:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The question is not whether principles are disposable, the question is which principle should dominate.  In the case of Wikipedia, getting the user the information he/she wants should dominate.  (which is WikiCats's point)  If they usually mean "Roman Catholic Church" when they type "Catholic Church", then that's where they shoudl get to.  I like the proposed compromise. --Richard 17:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That rationale is not persuasive in cases such as Madonna, House of Commons, or Republican Party, wo why should it govern this particular case, which is freighted with much greater controversy? Fishhead64 17:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd like to add that this solution is completely supported by the second paragraph of the Naming conventions (common names) guideline quoted by WikiCats. A paragraph geared to solve this type of dispute. I, for one, had failed to read the rest of the guideline after having concluded Hypen5 incorrectly invoked its first paragraph. In short, we had a LOT of discussion here only to find out we had been missing the solution presented by the guideline. As far as I am concerned, this does not even need consensus, as it's unequivocally covered under the guideline. People who oppose the solution need to change the guideline. Granted, it's a guideline, not policy, but it is consensus-built and accepted as describing exceptions to the main policy. A point I had missed altogether. Well done, WikiCats. AvB ÷ talk 13:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: WikiCats mentions that the overriding principle is service to the web user.  I submit the case of Madonna, a name with whom the overwhelming majority of web users would associate with the pop star.  The naming conventions do state that article names should not be unreasonably ambiguous.  By no stretch of the imagination is "Roman Catholic Church" unreasonably ambiguous.  By redirecting "Catholic Church" here, a Catholic Church is being identified as the Catholic Church, with other Catholic communions being accorded secondary status ("acknowledging" other uses of the term, as an editor upthread noted).  This is absolutely backwards.   As Hyphen5 notes, we're trying to edit an encyclopedia.  An encyclopedia should, first and foremost, provide accurate information.  I am wondering whether other editors think that arbitration may be a useful route in this case?  I would be prepared to live by whatever the decision is, but at the moment I feel that this redirect is, in essence, conveying a non-neutral POV. Fishhead64 19:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise

message: Given that the difficulty in using "Roman" in the title of this article is that "Roman Catholic" might be interpreted to mean "Latin Catholic", it would probably be a good idea to straightforwardly clarify in the intro that this articles concerns the entire church, including the uniates. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 02:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately Latin Catholic doesn't meet any kind of common usage threshold. It's also not a name used by the church. JohnnyBGood 18:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Latin Catholic is assumed whenever anyone sees "Roman Catholic", so we need not use the phrase "Latin Catholic". What we need to clarify is that we also mean to include the Uniate churches. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 18:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article itself already mentions them. If someone wants to include a sentence like that in the intro I think this whole issue should be resolved. JohnnyBGood 19:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I'll wait until the active dispute cools off. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a good idea. Frankly though I don't see what the controversy is about here. JohnnyBGood 21:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Then we could use Latin Rite Catholic, which is a more accurate term, anyway. Wtrmute 14:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman, Latin, Eastern 

message: The line reading:
The Roman Catholic Church has often been seen to be in conflict with Freemasonry, a fraternity it sees as tending to anticlericalism. The Church forbids Catholics from becoming Freemasons while Freemasonry allows Roman Catholics to become members.
I propose should be removed from this section because it is not a summation and requires further information which is found in the link itself.  The link is there for the further reading.  This should be removed or replaced with a summation.
[Unsigned comment by anonymous 70.173.64.13]
:Acting on the suggestion of the anonymous editor above, I make bold to remove the section. Relations between the Catholic Church and Freemasonry may be an important matter for Freemasonry, but it is certainly a minor matter for the Church. The "See also" link is surely enough on this page, and there is certainly no need to give the link twice under "See also", as at present.  Lima 17:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, try to keep away from that particular bearpit (see Catholicism and Freemasonry and also look through a few of the frequent users' edit count). JASpencer 19:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desummarize Catholic & Freemason Section 

message: OK, tell me I'm wrong but a link to software strikes me as out of place in Wikipedia.  It's bordering on violating [WP:NOT] (not a "how to").  I'd be fine with a section describing why saying the rosary is considered important but it should encyclopedic in nature not a "how to" manual.
(P.S. Personally, I think Wikipedia should include "how to" material but the current policy excludes such material.)
Richard 00:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed link to rosary software 

message: The following text should be expanded upon.
"However, some Christian denominations have developed a different understanding of many central issues concerning Christ's role in the Church and of the salvation of believers that vary greatly from the Church's historic teachings."
Maybe not at the specific point in the article and maybe not even in this article but there should be a place in Wikipedia where this bold assertion is expounded upon.  
I'm not an expert on the beliefs of all the Christian denominations so I am not really aware of which denominations the above-quoted text is referring to.  In particular, I'm really not clear what is meant by "central issues concerning Christ's role in the Church".  Is there any Christian denomination that doesn't see Christ as the central focus of the church?  As the triumphant lord and ruler of God's people on earth and in heaven?
I do understand that there are divergent teachings about whether salvation is universal or just of the elect.  I also understand that there are divergent teachings about whether salvation can be lost after a believer accepts Christ as his/her Savior.  This should be expounded on somewhere in Wikipedia.
I'm just not sure where.  What's clear, though, is that the current text is way too terse to impart adequate knowledge to the reader.
Richard 05:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text about differences between denominations needs expansion 

message: I think most of the information in the "Constitutional hierarchy of the Church" section should be merged into Catholic Church hierarchy, with just a brief overview left here. This would help reduce the size of the article, and reduce some redundancy in some of the overlap between this article and the more specific sub-article.  Any other opinions? Gentgeen 16:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hierarchy section 

message: It seems to me that the Catholic sacraments article would qualify as a "Main article:" under Sacraments. --WikiCats 10:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  It SHOULD be more extensive than the section in this article.  It might be worth noting that this article is currently about 3 times the recommended maximum article length for Wikipedia (and is indeed extremely long if you set out to read the whole thing); so if some of the text on sacraments could be moved to that article, leaving a shorter summary here, that might well be a benefit all round. TSP 10:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic sacraments