Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality

Communion wafer versus Eucharist

Briancua - as you will note three out of the four sources cited for this incident refer to communion wafer and not "Eucharist". I cannot yet access the 4th source but will check in the library later this evening:

• ACTUP Oral History Project "I put my hands out, and suddenly I have the Communion wafer in my hands".
• ACT UP/ NY Chronology 1989 - "The news media choose to focus on, and distort, a single Catholic demonstrator's personal protest involving a communion wafer."
• DeParle, Jason (January 3, 1990). "Rude, Rash, Effective, Act-Up Shifts AIDS Policy" - "But they had never set off the kind of controversy that began on Dec. 10 at St. Patrick's when one member crumbled a communion wafer."

Despite this you have repeatedly altered the wording away from "communion wafer" in the article to your choice of wording (Eucharist). You have done so on the basis of arguing your own view that "the wafer could be before consecration, in which case there would be nothing to desecrate. The issue is that it was the Eucharist". Can you explain to me why you think going against the cited sources is acceptable in this instance and why your insistence on the use of "Eucharist" (despite not a single verifiable third party source) is acceptable? Can you explain further why you think you should over-rule legitimate concerns without even the courtesy of discussion on the talkpage (recognizing its contentious nature)? Can you clarify why you think you are not falling foul of rules around EDIT-WARRING? Thank you.Contaldo80 (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I explained my rational in the edit summary you cited. By saying "communion wafer," it is unclear if you are referring to the wafer before or after consecration. If it was before consecration, no one would take offense. The reason Catholics consider the action to be a sacrilege is because it took place after consecration. Saying Eucharist over communion wafer eliminates the ambiguity. All of that said, it was you who first added this material to the article, and you used the word Eucharist. There was consensus for it, and the terminology stayed Eucharist for some time. It is now you who is making a contested edit by trying to change it without first changing the consensus, and without taking it to talk. If the consensus changes in favor of communion wafer, I will not object to changing the text. --BrianCUA (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

BrianCua please be advised that this is not helping your case (an ANI against you remains open). Stop using my words and edits against me as if we're playing some sort of cat and mouse game ok. The sources cited say "communion wafer". If you change this again without citing sources that use the language "Eucharist" then I will refer you for persistent edit-warring. You are presenting your own opinions above with no supporting material. Can I ask you nicely one last time to stop this aggressive approach that seeks to simply over-turn everything that other editors try to do which you don't like. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not trying to play any games. I am simply trying to demonstrate that there was a consensus for Eucharist. If you want to change the verbiage, please change the consensus first. --BrianCUA (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Where is the consensus Briancua? Which other editors stand alongside you to affirm this "consensus"? You have reverted the section yet again to replace the words "communion wafer" with "Eucharist". You have deliberately scoured online sources to find something that refers specifically to "Eucharist". Despite the fact that the majority of sources cited say "communion wafer". This is not observing neutrality - this is a clear case of bias and edit warring. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, "any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." You added the text and used the word "Eucharist" on July 12th. It has been almost three months since then. As no one has objected to the word until now, consensus has been demonstrated to use the word Eucharist. Again, if you can change the consensus, I would be happy to see you change the phrasing. --BrianCUA (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I objected to Contaldo80's addition of the material because it was not supported by the sources. Therefore Contaldo80 was not able to achieve consensus for use of the word "Eucharist". I have noted Contaldo80's concerns and have removed the word "Eucharist". Contaldo80 - are you happy now that I have addressed your concerns? Contaldo80 (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes thanks. Looks good to me. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are carrying on a conversation with yourself, or why you deleted your bizarre reply. However, I will point you again to WP:BRD. When you make an edit that is reverted, you should take the issue to talk, not edit war. Gain consensus, don't just keep inserting your preferred language. As has been pointed out to you numerous times, when there is WP:NOCONSENSUS we retain "the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." The version before your contested edit says Eucharist. Please do not continue this behavior. --BrianCUA (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Briancua this is simply exasperating. I added Eucharist, I took it out. There is no established consensus version that includes Eucharist. The version before my initial addition did not have Eucharist at all. Communion wafer is additionally supported by the majority of sources and is more accurate. Why despite this are you insistent to have Eucharist? Eucharist is your preferred language - no one elses. Can you explain why we should Eucharist and not communion wafer? Because actually I find your approach quite bullying and unpleasant. I don't think you're editing in a way that is fair - you are determined to push a religious POV. You are perverting interpretation of guidance to achieve your own preferred position, and constantly threatening me with recriminations if you don't get your own way. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry you are getting so upset. It must be frustrating to feel so strongly about an issue and then not be able to get your own way. It is not my intention to bully you, and I don't believe I have ever threatened you. Please provide me with the dif so that I can see it, make amends, and apologize. I am simply trying to edit in accord with the five pillars and other policies and guidelines. I've pointed out to you that there was an WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. As I have said to you many times, if you can change the consensus, I would be glad to change the language. --BrianCUA (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Communion bread. It seems to me we're asking the wrong question here: it should be "Eucharist" or "Communion bread", and the former is less appropriate since it is a much broader term referring to the whole central thanksgiving part of the Mass. Communion bread is most precise, and better conveys the meal aspect of the Eucharist, while "wafer" goes back to before Vatican II called for hosts that looked more like bread. Jzsj (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks I agree with that. As a compromise I will leave in Eucharist too as long as I hope other editors note that this is a compromise and the view of a majority of editors. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I would like to add that I am no longer happy to accept the term eucharist - this has troubled me for a while and I think it exhibits clear bias and is not supported by the sources. I would like to make clear to ALL editors that my position is against the use of eucharist and should not be seen as supporting any "consensus". Without my explicit support then there is no consensus for eucharist - just one editor (who included the term) for and one editor against. Thank you. Thank you also for reminding me that my words are not my own to retract as I see fit. So now we have no consensus I would like to know why we are still using the word "eucharist" even though the sources don't say that? Contaldo80 (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The reason, Contaldo80, is clear. when there is WP:NOCONSENSUS, we "[retain] the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." In this case, the prior version uses the word Eucharist. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Relationships

No one reading that the RCC opposes same-sex relationships and campaigns against their recognition by the government is under the impression that the word "relationships" refers to friendships. Reverted. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Your assertion here is no excuse for misstating the fact. If relationship means sexually explicit that is already expressed and repeating it is unnecessary. Within the Church this is an important distinction: a priest should not refuse Communion to those who are living together, since he cannot know if their relationship is explicitly sexual. Jzsj (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

You could show good faith by eg. editing the text to "same-sex marriage" rather than removing obvious, well-known, and sourced information. Literally nobody reading this article is going to come away with the misapprehension that the church disapproves of same-sex friendship, even if they are very stupid. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I've added "same-sex marriage" to the lead, no problem. Living together in a same sex relationship causes more "judgment" than one might think. A pastor in our diocese received national attention in the press when he refused Communion to a lady at her mother's funeral, because she was living with another woman. I'm saying that the Church does not require pastors to make these judgments, though some do. As Pope Francis famously said: "Who am I to judge." It just might apply here. Jzsj (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I noted that the closing statement repeated what was said just above, while the lead should be a brief summary. So I've removed the repetition and added that "relationship" here means sexually active. This should eliminate possible confusion. Jzsj (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Your personal feelings are not a reason for inserting flagrant original research. Again, no one is under the misapprehension that the church condemns, preaches against, or politically campaigns against friendship. It has done all those things vis-a-vis same-sex relationships without regard to whether or not they are sexual. Please revert your disruptive edit. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

You're ignoring the fact that it takes no personal research to learn that some women who love one another choose to live together without engaging in sexual activity together. But the obvious meaning of Same-sex relationship is that it involves sexual activity. What I said above needs your careful consideration, that many conservative Catholic priests say that it is scandalous for same-sex people to live together, and so we need to shout this distinction from the housetops! Jzsj (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Why are you repeatedly bringing up "Catholics condemn same-sex relationships regardless of whether or not the people are having sex" as a counter to my point? That is exactly the point I'm making. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Please furnish proof that the Church's magisterium has condemned gay people living together in a chaste relationship, if that is what you are saying. Jzsj (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I literally don't care. This sounds like a conversation you could have with your friends or your church, but your original research is not relevant to Wikipedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
    • You're not being clear on what is original research here. Is this the ref you want? Jzsj (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Why on earth would you think this was an acceptable source? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
        • Because it speaks from common sense and experience. and makes it clear that such people do exist within the Christian tradition today. Jzsj (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Reverted, same reason. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Jzsj: I'm already tired of telling you to stop injecting your non-neutral point of view into this article. Do not remove sourced information because you don't like it. No one is under the misapprehension that the church condemns friendship, and as the sources state extremely clearly, acceptance of same-sex relationships is a major issue related to the article subject. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:GF Bealtainemí (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know on what basis you deny what I indicated above and what is the experience of many of us who have followed the behavior of conservative pastors, who have denied Communion to persons, even at their mother's funeral, by supposing that because they live together therefore they are having sex together. By refusing to include in the article that living chaste lives together is not against Church teaching, you are supporting pastors who chose to judge that women who live together are likely having sex together. If your sources don't make this distinction then your sources are poorly informed. Jzsj (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not about righting great wrongs. The behavior you describe is non-acceptance of same-sex relationships, not some kind of mistake that could be cleared up if these pastors read your edits to Wikipedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
    • You're missing my point, that Wiki should tell the truth about Catholic teaching, whether pastors read Wikipedia or not. Jzsj (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
      • We do this by reflecting reliable sources, such as those that note that dissenters from Catholic teaching seek to change its non-acceptance of same-sex relationships. Not fringe ex-gay sources and personal synthesis. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Then cite those reliable sources that, you say, show that Catholic Çhurch teaching rejects "same-sex relationships" without any specified limitations. Areyou perhaps referring to the unidentified source that you name "Boulder"? A pity that, instead of responding collaboratively to the invitation to clarify your claim by specifying the unqualilfied relationships, you have insisted on it and accused those who disagree with you of bad faith. Until you support your claim with a reliable source, I must remove it to here: "... to change Church teaching to allow for ... the acceptance of same-sex relationships". Bealtainemí (talk) 09:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It's literally already supported by sources in the lede, besides being a summary of the material as a whole. Once again, no one is going to read "same-sex relationships" and come away thinking that the church wants him only to have female buddies or coworkers. This is a really paper-thin excuse for removing neutral and sourced material, and "I'm going to remove longstanding sourced text just 'cuz and now you have to make the case to keep it how it was" is absolutely not how the collaborative editing process works here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

If it's literally in a source, just quote the source. If it's not, just adjust your edit in line with what is actually in a reliable source. No personal interpreting, please, no original research. Seems straightforward. Oh, and stop attributing bad faith ("paper-thin excuse") to other editors. Bealtainemí (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know how much more clearly I can suggest to you that you read the article and the sources cited in it (eg. the specific New York Daily News article to which the text you removed was cited). The entire article is about this; it'd be like trolling you on the Catholic Church article for citations to prove that they were Christian. I've suggested compromises that address your nonsensical claim that people might mistakenly think the church disapproves of business partnerships, and you've ignored them in order to continue removing cited text with seemingly no plan of gaining consensus or editing in compliance with V or NPOV. You are not contributing productively here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Where did I ever mention "business partnerships"? I suggest you are reading something into my words. Jzsj (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jzsj: Bealtainemí mentioned business, and both of you mentioned friendship. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Please quote the Daily News article, which is not available to me ("Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism"). Today I commiserated with one woman on the death of another who had been living in the same house for, maybe, a dozen or more years. I'm told that earlier there were a few more in the house. She spoke of inviting me to dinner when the Covid-19 limitations are relaxed, but I expect that she will be instructed to join another group of her religious institute. I doubt if the Daily News will tell her that her long relationship with someone of the same sex was forbidden by the Catholic Church.

Isn't it normal for Wikipedia to specify the meaning of a quoted term that could be misunderstood?

Thanks for not attributing bad faith to me. Bealtainemí (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

One of the relevant excerpts: "the groups said that Benedict's 'rigid and outmoded' view of gender identity contrasted sharply with the reality they were witnessing in America — same-sex couples creating happy homes for their kids and transgender people living 'healthy, mature, and generous lives.'" Our article also documents church activism against healthcare/retirement benefits for same-sex couples (before marriage was legalized), punishment of priests for non-marriage blessings for same-sex couples, and refusal of Catholic schooling for the child of a same-sex couple; it simply is not possible, if you care about the sources, to compartmentalize this into "they oppose sex" and "they oppose marriage" but not "they oppose relationships." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I must be too tired: I fail to see in your extract the phrase "the acceptance of same-sex relationships" that you have been insisting on. Perhaps i'll find it when I return some time tomorrow. Or is it possible that the phrase is instead an unsourced interpretation? Bealtainemí (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

You're not required to participate in discussions if you do not feel that you can contribute to them in good faith. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Roscelese: You're missing my point with your latest edit. My whole issue is that the church already expresses no censure of same sex relationships as long as they do not become sexual. I hope you can emend your latest edit to recognize this.Jzsj (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Your opinion is not supported by reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not the one making the statement. Unless you can find a reputable Catholic source that says that non-sexual relationships between people of the same sex living together are forbidden, then you have failed to back up what the article now seems to say. "Acceptance of same sex couples" is ambiguous at best and more likely misleading.Jzsj (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't need to prove a negative. Our sources document the church's non-acceptance of same-sex couples without regard for whether or not they are sexually active, and Catholic dissent from that view, and if you're trying to propose that the only kind of source which is acceptable is one with an imprimatur, you're not going to be very happy at Wikipedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Making proper distinctions is a sign of an educated person. If your sources don't distinguish between just living in the same house as friends and having sex together then try to understand that your sources are grossly deficient and incapable of properly presenting Catholic teaching in this matter.Jzsj (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's purpose to teach people to be better Catholics. All we need to do is accurately present reliable sources to people who want to learn about the topic, and yes, this includes news and scholarly sources about the actions of the church. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Roscelese, for now accepting, with regard to a phrase you were fond of, the recommendation: "If it's literally in a source, just quote the source. If it's not, just adjust your edit in line with what is actually in a reliable source."

A pity you persist in bandying about accusations of bad faith: "They're all out of step but our ..." Bealtainemí (talk) 09:57, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• This reliable source warrants changing what is in the lead to what I have been saying above about the distinction between simply living together as close friends as distnguished from being sexually active with them. For honesty and complete clarity, I strongly suggest that the end of the lead should be changed to read: "... that sexually active gay relationships should be recognized" (italics added) along with the reference I have just given entitled "May a homosexual live with his friend in continence".Jzsj (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Your proposal, based on an unreliable source and personal opinion, would conflict with the reliable sources shown in the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

"Sought to change Church teaching"

Branching off from the above discussion, is this a full description of what these dissenters do? Our sections on eg. Dignity and Call to Action indicate that reform of the church's teachings are among their goals, but it seems that other goals include promoting acceptance with or without a change to the official dogma, and other people/orgs we discuss in the article go about dissenting without, apparently, expecting their acceptance of LGBT people to change the church's stance. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

2020: Change of Position of Roman Catholic Church

However, Pope Francis has said he supports LGBT civil unions, which, by Papal Infallibility, means that the Catholic Church now supports Same Sex Civil Unions. --188.96.185.39 (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Please note that there are no moral teachings of the Catholic church that have been declared infallible by papal or conciliar edict (though there are certainly teachings that, while open to clarification, cannot entirely change). Also, such statements as this one by Pope Francis are far removed from the two cases where a pope himself has infallibly defined a church teaching. Depending upon reception by Catholics, this may or may not enter into the ongoing magisterial teachings of the Church. Jzsj (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

This may be worth mentioning, but does not negate or overrule the rest of the article until we have some kind of RS indicating eg. a chance to the catechism, etc.. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's definitely worth mentioning as it is a highly significant statement. Agree with Roscelese that this one statement shouldn't by itself change the general tone of the article - one swallow does not a summer make. Likewise agree with the point above that this isn't an intervention that should be viewed as "infallible" - and I doubt this Pope is a big fan of the whole infallibility thing (as opposed to conciliarism). Contaldo80 (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't really think it's worth mentioning in this article, the Dissent article, unless we have some really good sourcing either a) indicating that the substantial body of Catholic dissent might have moved Francis to this position or b) treating his statement as a dissent. I agree that this isn't a change of position for the church (and I wouldn't add Bishop Strickland here as suddenly a dissenter or anything) but I also feel weird about making the editorial decision to label the pope a dissenter, you know? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 17 September 2022

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: not moved. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

---

Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality → Dissent from Holy See teaching on homosexuality – "The Holy See" is an uncontroversial term, but 'Catholic' is a more controversial one.

Are these dissident Priests 'truly Catholic'? There are implications to this qn: Are they in harmony with 'Catholic teaching'?

(We may not all agree on the ans to these qns, which lies in theology, which we wikipedians are have no authority to debate about.) We may not have the authority to say if they're dissenting from 'Catholic teaching', BUT we all CAN agree that they're dissenting from the teaching of an institution - the Holy See. Let's remove ambiguity. Let's use uncontroversial terms.

P.S. If "the HS's teaching" is more grammatically acceptable than "HS teaching", I'm fine with that. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 18:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Vatican City is a political entity. It doesn't have any teachings. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, does. See, for example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  This proposal has changed from Vatican to Holy See, but my opposition still stands and for the same reason. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  What about 'Roman Curia' FatalSubjectivities (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The dissenters aim to change the teaching contained in the catechism.2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:605D:9768:70D1:4B99 (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  And they all (the bishops in any case) agree that the universal church should change it (i.e. the pope, a universal synod or a council). 2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:605D:9768:70D1:4B99 (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  They also all agree what the current Catholic teaching is. They don't claim that their position is the current Catholic teaching. 2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:605D:9768:70D1:4B99 (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Pius XII's Mystici Corporis Christi defines the Catholic Church as that which is is beyond "juridical principles" of the "natural order". Hence, according the Roman Catholic definitions, the Church is more than just the organisations in it. Hence, we would be going too far if we claim that these dissidents dissenting from institutional teachings are dissenting from "the Church" itself. FatalSubjectivities (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Catholicism has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 18:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject LGBT studies has been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 18:38, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose this is not a distinction drawn in the sources I surveyed, all of which refer to Catholicism or the Catholic Church. This proposal would leave the article at a less natural and recognizable title with little or no benefit to any other of the WP:CRITERIA. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:47, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose reducing scope of any article in Category:LGBT and Catholicism. MERGE some of these already! Too many WP:POVFORK victims here. Elizium23 (talk) 19:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose implies a distinction between "Catholic teaching" and the Holy See -where the magisterium is vested. Hardly "uncontroversial". Manannan67 (talk) 03:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I sympathize with the suggestion, but "Catholic teaching" is commonly considered a monolithic body of thought rooted in the Vatican. Not enough reason to move the article, despite the fact that some religious people who are Catholic have expressed and even taught dissenting ideas. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.