Talk:Eastern Catholic Churches

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Editors disagree on whether the article subject is a proper noun. Supporters of the move argue that the term refers to all churches affiliated with Eastern Christianity, while opposers note that the capitalized "Churches" is more commonly used to refer to the subject as a "defined group". (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 20:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Eastern Catholic Churches → Eastern Catholic churches – This is a repetition of a request made a couple of years ago by myself (under former username): Talk:Eastern_Catholic_Churches/Archive_3#Requested_move_16_November_2016. However, I'm not sure the two commentators understood the rationale. This article doesn't cover a communion of churches. It covers a few churches. Not Churches. We routinely disregard Certain American Way of Spelling of Things. PPEMES (talk) 11:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Kostas20142 (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: This might a bit tricky. At first I thought to support it, because it refers to a class of things rather than a single thing. However, I wonder if it could be considered a proper noun since it is a specific group of 23 churches. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This is not a "specific group" or "class" of churches. It is merely... Eastern Catholic churches - in communion with the Pope. Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches is another thing. PPEMES (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support: Not a proper noun, as others have pointed out. My previous comment was not well thought out. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support. "Eastern Catholic Churches" is not a proper noun. Srnec (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Srnec. —Ntmamgtw (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This page is about church bodies (usually spelt with capital C), not church buildings. Also, despite being various in form and in organisation, the 23 church bodies of Eastern Catholicism definitely form a set apart from the rest of the Catholic Church, recognized especially by the role of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches. Note that the Catholic Church seems to use Churches consistently in its publications, even when using "Oriental" instead of "Eastern" or dropping "Catholic": [1] Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris [2] Eastern Churches, Churches of the East, Oriental Churches, Eastern Churches in communion with the Apostolic See of Rome [3] Oriental Catholic Churches [4] Eastern Catholic Churches, Catholic Eastern Churches etc. Google Ngram seems to show a preference for the capitalized form, with differences between American English Ngram vs British English Ngram. A another previous discussion on the issue seems to indicate that Eastern Catholic Churches should be capitalized when considering them as a formal, distinct, clearly defined group, and written Eastern Catholic churches when considering members of the set. The current article is clearly abotu the set as a whole. Also pinging participants to the previous move discussion: @Music1201, Nohomersryan, and TonyBallioni:. Place Clichy (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) While I was typing this answer, another user found there was enough consensus to close the discussion. I would like the discussion to go a bit further and have of course no opposition if a consensus is found later. Place Clichy (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Place Clichy. When considered as a formal group it is a proper noun and should be capitalized. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Even if someone else incorrectly capitalise nouns, why should we? Even if I consider this article clearly about "members of the set" or in plain English "an article about certain churches", if it was indeed considered a "formal group" of churches, just why should "churches" be written capitalised? PPEMES (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Precisely, capitalization is not incorrect here. As some other editors said in this previous discussion, [it is] the proper name of a defined aggregation which is generally used with definite article the; this is a distinct, formal, proper group as indicated by its fully capitalized proper name; this is a proper and well-defined group with a specific list of members; it even has its own proper code of law, as a group, which would seem to suggest that the various Eastern Catholic Churches do actually constitute a single, juridically defined, proper entity together (like the United States). Other examples cited include the Three Great Gardens of Japan which is an example in MOS:NAMECAPS, the aggregation of British colonies called the Thirteen Colonies, the Anglican Communion or even the Anglican Continuum. (@Janweh64, Afterwriting, BoBoMisiu, Iloilo Wanderer, and LacrimosaDiesIlla: also pinging contributors in this discussion.) Place Clichy (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The Three Great Gardens of Japan may qualify as a distinct, proper entity (although I hesitate). Isn't Thirteen Colonies a name for the designated territory? The Eastern Catholic churches, on the other hand, are merely a few churches that are in full communion with the Holy See and thus the Catholic Church. We really need more sources backing assertion that they together form a distinct entity as a group, much less under a common name. Until, this article is only a short name for "List of Eastern Catholic churches in communion with the Holy See in Rome". Hypothetically, we could maintain article Catholic Church but introduce a list "List of churches in full communion with the Holy See" - even these together would be an even more distinct group, it still would refer to "churches", not "Churches", since church is a noun. Whereas obviously the Catholic Church is dealt with as a proper name. Bottom line, any document collectively referring to the Eastern churches in communion should of course be Named As Is, but I fail to see how that makes this list of churches a distinct group under a proper name. PPEMES (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

One thing I notice about Three Great Gardens of Japan and Thirteen Colonies is that they are specific selections rather than broad categories. Britain had more than thirteen colonies, but these thirteen are special, since these are the ones that rebelled together. Japan has many gardens, but these gardens have a special status as favorites. In fact, the number of entries is identified specifically in the names of those. Similar cases may be Five Pillars of Islam, Ten Commandments, Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, Seven Wonders of Canada (and similar), and FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. Should Five precepts be Five Precepts, as is done for Five Precepts (Taoism)? Are there additional churches that are known as being "Catholic" and "Eastern" that are not in full communion with the papacy in Rome? If so, then this group should perhaps have uppercase letters. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support The article does not describe a "Church" but Various "churches". Stalin Sunny ^Talk2Me 11:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per the arguments already adduced by Place Clichy and TonyBallioni, with special emphasis on following the Catholic Church's own usage. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Since when is Wikipedia bound to replicate grammatical incorrections in sources? PPEMES (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Please calm down. (1) Nobody said Wikipedia was "bound" to do anything. (2) You are simply wrong in describing the capitalization practice at stake here as a "grammatical incorrection," and for at least three reasons: first, because capitalization is not a matter of grammar; second, because there are cases (like this one) where there is not universal agreement about whether or not capitalization is allowed (or required or proscribed), so this is not clearly a case of doing something "incorrectly"; and thirdly, because you are using the word "incorrection" to mean something which it simply does not mean (at least not in English; the word—if it is considered standard at all—is not simply a synonym for "mistake" or "error," but rather means something more like "lack of correction" or "failure to discipline"). This last point is ironic and possibly an instance of Muphry's Law. (3) Wikipedia often does try to follow the practice/usage of its sources, and the Catholic Church would seem to be the most definitive source on this particular topic. (4) We're having a discussion about this precisely to find out what various editors here think and how they understand the relevant Wikipedia policies to interact with the real-world data. You have your opinion, and I have mine. I expressed mine simply and clearly. If the issue were as cut and dry as you seem to want to believe it is, there would not be a need for this discussion. You don't need to be quite so aggressive in replying to people who disagree with you. Disagreement is allowed. (5) If you want to argue, try making an argument instead of just asking a rhetorical question which strawmans my very simple point (and which you've asked in a slightly different form previously). Obviously I didn't find your point convincing when you made it previously in response to the other editors who disagree with you, and I don't find it convincing now that you've repeated it either. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! My bad: error. PPEMES (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. The rationale of supports (mine included) is that the specific term used in the title is mainly descriptive and is one of several legitimate descriptions. The rationale of the opposes is that this is an official class of 23 churches. How about Eastern Churches (Catholic) as a compromise? The term "Eastern Churches" is official (Oriental Churches would work as well). I do think "Eastern Catholic", like "Roman Catholic", is a term of art that should be capitalized (and sources agree), but "Eastern Catholic Churches" is a bridge too far. We could also say "Eastern Catholic Uniate Churches", for example, and be equally correct (if old-fashioned). Srnec (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

"Eastern Catholic" is a religious designation and should stay capitalised as such. Other than that, I see no reason to use any exceptionate, more complicating, and less readable title than "Eastern Catholic churches". PPEMES (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

"Eastern Churches (Catholic)" is the only one of the three alternatives you suggest that I find even plausible. "Oriental Churches" is too old-fashioned sounding in contemporary English-language Catholic discourse, and I would object quite strongly to using "Uniate" to refer to all 23 of the existing Churches, since it is usually used to refer to bodies that chose to enter into Union with Rome at some point and which have corresponding non-Catholic sister churches; the Maronites (at least), however, do not merit such a description since they have never been divided from Rome (at least by their own account) and have no corresponding non-Catholic sister Church. My own experience suggests that the most common term in use in English to refer to the group of churches described in this article is, in fact, "Eastern Catholic Churches," a term which is apparently preferred to simply "Eastern Churches" since this latter is ambiguous inasmuch as it might just as easily refer to the non-Catholic Eastern Churches. Which is a long way of saying that I think I would prefer to lose the capitalization battle with regard to this article title rather than see the title changed to "Eastern Churches (Catholic)." Others' mileage may vary. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The routine capitalization of all three words in this term in English texts from the Vatican can be confirmed with a search query: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22eastern+catholic+churches%22+site%3Avatican.va . Bistropha (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Each Church, such as Maronite Church is in capital letter, so also all of them shall be in capital letters. Further the use of small letters could be pejorative, considering them as a bunch of entities, while the fact to be a Church (in capital letter) is an important fact in their theology. A ntv (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, each church should be capitalised as such. To write nouns with small letters is not meant to show less respect to nouns. They are not one entity with coherent theology as a collective per se. In fact, this list precisely merely refer to a "bunch of entities". That's why it should not be capitalised. PPEMES (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

These Churches are not at all a "bunch of entities": just for example they are ruled under a jurisdictional point of view by one single law, the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (with "C" capitalized). A ntv (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I think of "Eastern Catholic Churches" as a proper noun, the name of the specific, defined, distinct group of Churches of the Catholic Church that are distinct from the dominant Western Church. There are other denominations that consider themselves both catholic and eastern but are not part of the Catholic Church or the Eastern Catholic Churches. It therefore helps to talk of Eastern Catholic Churches vs. eastern catholic churches. Language is not necessarily exact or scientific, including capitalization. It exist to help communicate an idea. The idea here is that these are distinct, defined group with a distinct, defined name. Small-c "churches" would not communicate that idea. Trying to be too exacting with the language will lead to confusion, I think. It is in meaning and essence a proper noun even if technically the name is an gray area. Language has lots of such messy areas. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Iloilo Wanderer. "Eastern Catholic Churches" is pointing into a specific group therefore it should be capitalized. Barca (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support per normal MOS capitalization rules: "President of the United States" but "presidents of the United States". There is a lot of off-point talk above. Johnbod (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2019 (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.