Talk:Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality/Archive 1

Archive 1

Citation needed tag

Contaldo keeps adding the {{fact}} tag to a statement in the Church teaching section. However, the proper use of that tag is "to identify claims in articles, particularly if questionable, that need a citation to a reliable source." In this case, the statement is attributed to a reliable source. He also says, quite rightly, that "I have the right to see the supporting quote in full." However, I don't have a copy of that book. If he wishes to check it, I would suggest that his local library or bookstore may have a copy. As you will remember, this article was recently spun off from Catholic Church and homosexuality. The statement Contaldo is now questioning was in that article since October 30, 2013. I can see that Contaldo was quite active on that page at that time. --BrianCUA (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you BrianCUA for finally engaging on this point. I have asked for reassurance that the source quoted in Stewart Church, "Gay and Lesbian Issues: A Reference Handbook" makes the specific point that it is "objectively wrong for unmarried heterosexuals to engage in sex" as a comparison with the Church's rejection of homosexual relationships. You've now clarified that you have not read the source and cannot confirm that - despite the fact that you have insisted that this point be retained in the article in full. This statement is tendentious and controversial. If someone can clarify what the source actually says then I think it's fair to stay in. If none of us know what was actually said (and it is highly doubtful a gay handbook would make such a point) then it needs to come out. Thanks again. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

That's not how it works. If you doubt this statement is supported by this source, then get the source and disprove it. You can't delete sourced material simply because you don't like it. --BrianCUA (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I can see the page and the info is there. In fact, it's an unattributed direct quote from the source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Excellent - thank you Roscelese. Very helpful - much appreciated. BrianCUA - I am finding your comments (such as those above) very aggressive and hostile. Please remember to assume WP:GOODFAITH. It is not unreasonable to ask editors to clarify sources they have used - especially where the point is contentious. We are all working together to ensure articles are as strong as possible.Contaldo80 (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Church teaching

Can I ask why it is necessary to have a paragraph about church teaching when we could just as easily link through the main article which covers this in greater depth: "Catholic teaching condemns homosexual acts as gravely immoral, while holding that gay people "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity," and "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."[12] The Catholic Church holds that, as a state beyond a person's choice, being homosexual is not wrong or sinful in itself. But just as it is objectively wrong for unmarried heterosexuals to engage in sex, so too are homosexual acts considered to be wrong.[13]" It seems to serve as apologetics. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It provides context. If you don't know what the teaching is, an article about dissenters won't make a lot of sense. --BrianCUA (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that a brief statement is helpful for context, but I think the "church opposes unjust discrimination" is already a little too prominent in the main article, and certainly isn't meaningful here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Roscelese. BrianCUA there are two editors now agreed that we should amend this section. Can you propose a compromise solution as the one editor arguing for the full inclusion of all this material. Many thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

There are only two sentences. What could we possibly cut and still provide an overview of Catholic teaching on the matter? --BrianCUA (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@Briancua: Cut "All people, including those that are LGBT, "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity," and "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." The remaining sentence is still not perfect (because leaving the church's position at "they just oppose premarital sex, this is totally neutrally applied" elides the fact that the church opposes same-sex marriage and constantly acts with regard to gay people specifically) but it's a start. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes - I think this is a good solution. Will amend the text accordingly. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree it was probably too prominent in the lede. I wasn't looking there, as apparently Roscelese was not looking at the section. I still contend that it provides valuable context for the article. If you don't know what the teaching is, what good does it do you to know that people dissent from it? With what do they disagree? A few lines with a high level overview is absolutely called for. --BrianCUA (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Briancua: I totally agree that the article needs a statement of what it is that people are dissenting from, I just think that's adequately covered by a sentence in the lede. It isn't the church's supposed respect, compassion, sensitivity, and hatred of discrimination that anyone's protesting. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I have two thoughts on this. First, any "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." It's not appropriate to just cover it there and then not in the body. Secondly, if we don't say that the church teaches respect, compassion, sensitivity, and hatred of discrimination, then it won't make any sense that someone would protest the lack thereof. --BrianCUA (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

"if we don't say that the church teaches respect, compassion, sensitivity, and hatred of discrimination, then it won't make any sense that someone would protest the lack thereof" - ??? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that a short sentence in the lead is sufficient. If people want to find out all the detail on what the Church teaches then there is, of course, a very long article which they can link into. I don't see the point of duplicating the material here. BrianCUA - you have been a strong advocate of helping to shorten articles so I don't understand why in this instance you want to make this article longer but duplicating material which is sufficiently covered elsewhere? I'd also be tempted to avoid over-emphasizing the message that the "Church teaches respect, compassion, sensitivity, and hatred of discrimination" as to be honest the track record of the Church on this in relation to gay men and women is not great (as the evidence shows). Contaldo80 (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, I will point you to MOS:LEDE which says that information should not appear in the lede if it does not also appear in the body. There are many articles, particularly those that cover similar topics, where content is duplicated--and rightfully so. Additionally, when I have sought to shorten articles by spinning out daughter articles, it was because they were WP:TOOBIG. I have never advocated deleting relevant, sourced material simply to make an article shorter. Can you cite for me a policy as to why this section should be deleted? --BrianCUA (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You are quoting partially: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". A line that the Church teaches homosexual activity is wrong is a basic fact. That is sufficient for this article. Otherwise I fear the section we have upfront serves as a warning to the casual reader i.e "you're about to read material that shows how many people don't agree with the Catholic church on how it deals with homosexuality but before you do that we want to just remind you that the Catholic church loves gay people and only stops from recognizing their rights and freedoms because it loves them so much." A clear example of tendentious editing. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

For readers who are not as well versed in Catholic theology as you are, it is not a basic fact. Rather than continue to edit war, however, I will seek outside opinions. Also, you have accused me of WP:TE. Would you please cite for me which characteristic of tendentious editing I have exhibited? In fact, I suggest to you that your deletion of this section may mark you as "One who deletes the pertinent cited additions of others." I would appreciate it if you would retract that accusation. --BrianCUA (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you have to be well versed in Catholic theology to be able to grasp the basic fact that the Catholic church disapproves of homosexuality. And I'm certainly not an expert in theology, although thank you for the compliment. I agree that it would be unwise of you to continue to edit war and welcome your attempt to find a sensible way forward. I am not disputing that the point is not cited - rather that insisting that it be included in full in both the lead and the main text raises genuine concerns around NPOV. So therefore the "cited addition" is not "pertinent" - and you've yet to achieve consensus that it is. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

If you don't know anything about Catholic sexual ethics, how would you know that? --BrianCUA (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that most people aren't genuinely aware that the Catholic Church disapproves of gay sex? And that only those with a developed understanding of Catholic sexual ethics would be in the know? That would surprise me. I think it's a fairly elementary fact, and we don't need a huge section to cover the matter. ThanksContaldo80 (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am saying. There are nearly eight billion people on the Earth, but only one billion Catholics. Even if every Catholic had a complete understanding of what the Church taught, that is only 12.5% of the human population. I'm not calling for a "huge section." I am advocating for three sentences. --BrianCUA (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

So I have a clear understanding of your argument: it is not a commonly established fact that the Catholic church condemns homosexuality. Material can't be put into the lead without further elaboration in the main article unless it is a commonly established fact. Therefore we need to put a section of text into the main article explaining why the Catholic church condemns homosexuality (even though this would duplicate other articles where a reader could more sensible just link through). Have I got the understanding right? Contaldo80 (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

With the minor correction that the church condemns homosexual acts, not homosexuality, yes, that is my position. Per WP:MTAU, the "content in articles in Wikipedia should be written as far as possible for the widest possible general audience." It continues to say that "the general reader has no advanced education in the topic's field, is largely unfamiliar with the topic itself, and may even be unsure what the topic is." We should be writing this article to be understandable by people who have no familiarity with Catholic sexual ethics. --BrianCUA (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest we draw the line somewhere. Otherwise a section on explaining the ins and outs of church teaching and practice over centuries on this subject could end up very long if we are careful to avoid cherry picking. Particularly when the material is sufficiently covered in other related articles.Contaldo80 (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I fully agree. You will notice that I have only ever said I thought there should be a high level overview. --BrianCUA (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Knights of Columbus

This article is about Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality. It is not about Dissent from Knights of Columbus teaching on homosexuality. That one Catholic group disagrees with the position of another Catholic group on homosexuality is tangentially related at best. The information Contaldo is trying to add is much more appropriate for the Catholics United article. Additionally, I will remind him about WP:BRD. He was bold and added information. That's great. He was reverted, though. The appropriate thing to do then would be to take it to talk and gain consensus for this addition, not just re-add the material. With WP:NOCONSENSUS for this material, we retain "the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." --BrianCUA (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

This is sadly a tried and tested mechanism of yours to block any new material that you personally do not like by referring to the need to achieve "consensus". No one else is involved - it's only you that don't like it. And you don't like anything that makes the Knights of Columbus look bad (as you've demonstrated through a long long list of edits). If another editor says they do not agree the material should be included then I'm happy to reconsider. But for the time-being there is absolutely nothing that would prevent the material from being included as it is properly sourced and does not violate any guidance on neutrality etc as far as I can see. That you personally think the material is tangential is fine; but I don't I'm afraid. The article is about dissent - and why many catholics disagree with the official line both of the Church but also other related church organisations. And unless you can more clearly demonstrate that it is indeed tangential then. Where I do agree with you is that it should also go into the Catholics United article. But then it should also go into the Knights of Columbus article too. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You think one thing. I think another. We disagree. There is no consensus to include the material. There are ways to resolve this dispute, but edit warring is not one of them. Since you missed it the first time, the policy that is violated by including the material is WP:NOCONSENSUS. Without consensus, the material does not stay. Again, please review WP:BRD. --BrianCUA (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I note the guidance, "Editors who maintain a neutral, detached, and civil attitude can usually reach consensus on an article through the process described above. They may still occasionally find themselves at an impasse, either because they cannot find rational grounds to settle a dispute or because one or both sides of the discussion become emotionally or ideologically invested in winning an argument." The challenge is Briancua, that you are emotionally and ideologically invested in winning any and every issue under discussion. We essentially have a situation across a number of articles where you invoke the "seek consensus" clause for any edits I make (either to add or to remove material). Regardless of how many other editors - or not - have expressed a view. This results in a situation where I essentially have to get your approval - and yours alone - to do anything. And you are clearly determined that no edits that are seen as critical to the teaching or authority of the Roman Catholic church are to pass. So what are we to do then Briancua? Do you think this is genuinely a forum where collectively as editors we can reasoned and rational discussion? Must "Eucharist" always be used - because that shows LGBT protestors to have outrageously defiled the sacred body and blood of Jesus Christ, and not simply crumbled a piece of bread? Must we avoid references to the Knights of Columbus - playing down their active financing of campaigns to stop gay marriage, while re-writing history to suggest that they alone could get Congress to change the Pledge of Allegiance? Must we have oblique references by an English Cardinal about abortion to tangentially reinforce an article about "culture of life" and another by a Nigerian cardinal to explain why he thinks people wearing Rainbow sashes violate the unity of the taking of communion? I remain civil, but I am not happy. How are we to proceed? Contaldo80 (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

We are to proceed by seeking consensus in all that we do. When you make a constructive edit, I applaud it. I have thanked you on more than one occasion, as the public record will show. When I think you have made an edit that is misguided, I try to improve it. I am sorry that it makes it difficult for you to insert your views into articles, but WP:Consensus is "Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." --BrianCUA (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Non-used references

With this edit, a couple references are now defined but not used in the content. This has created four red notifications at the bottom of the references section. Contaldo, would you mind cleaning this up? Also, this seems like a good occasion to mention WP:CITEVAR. It is best practice to have a standard way to cite things. Could we use list-defined references, and put all the citations in the references section? Without them, "Inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can become difficult and confusing." Thanks. --BrianCUA (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Contaldo80, would you please fix the errors your edit caused? Thank you. --BrianCUA (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Rejection of homosexuality

An editor asked for clarification of "rejection of homosexuality" as used by Tausch in his survey. I am providing the following from that survey: "Growing international sociological evidence seems to suggest that more and more Roman Catholic faithful do not follow anymore the condemnation of the homosexual act as a “deadly sin”, voiced by the official current Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. In simple terms, the question in our essay is primarily whether the rejection of homosexuality still enjoys the support of the rank and file of the global Catholic faithful, and secondly, whether practicing Catholics (weekly Church attenders, “Dominicantes”) are more tolerant than the societies surrounding them in accepting homosexuality and in accepting homosexual neighbors." Contaldo80 (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Want to add additional material on US protests

I've been reading a bit more about the protests by Act Up in the 1980s and wanted to add some additional material. I thought I'd set out the proposed edits here to get thoughts of other editors please before I go ahead. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

This is some good new information. Not all of it was attributed to the page you said it was though, so I took the liberty of finding the source and correcting those mistakes. I've also done a little editing, including breaking up this now very long paragraph into two. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Good - thanks. I'll add this into the text. The only bit I'm not sure about is the penultimate sentence where everyone seems to have condemned the protest - I think this is a bit unfair. Some people thought it rather worthwhile. Let's think how we can address in due course. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm quite keen to retain the sentence "Following the protest incidents of police brutality against gay men increased". The source does imply that as a direct result of protesting at a Catholic cathedral the New York police took a harder line in beating up gay men (probably reflecting the influence of Cardinal O'Connor or perhaps the religious background of many policemen in New York). This is not the same as saying that the Catholic church directed police to be more brutal; rather that the rhetoric and marginalization by clerics of gay men encouraged an atmosphere of contempt in the wider population. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Unless you can find a source that says that, it is original research. —Slugger O'Toole (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The source says that after Stop the Church the brutality of police against gay men increased. So assuming that's the only issue then problem solved.Contaldo80 (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not the only issue. As I said in the edit summary, that the NYPD got rough with gay men has nothing to do with dissent from Church teaching. --Slugger O'Toole 20:27, January 27, 2019

The source, however, does make this link. Are you disputing the source? Fine if you are but I'd rather we establish why first. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

No, actually, the source doesn't say that. Check again. I will also repeat myself, again: this has nothing to do with dissent from Church teaching. There's an even bigger issue though. Even if police brutality did increase after the protest, that does not mean it happened as a result of the protest. Your assertion above that "the rhetoric and marginalization by clerics of gay men encouraged an atmosphere of contempt" leading to physical violence is pure WP:OR, unsupported by any source I've seen. Including this text implies that there is a direct connection, however, which is WP:SYNTH. On top of that, there is an even BIGGER issue, and that is your persistent edit warring. We agreed to some new text here on talk. You then inserted the line about police brutality in the mainspace. I reverted, as explained above. You have now twice reinserted it, despite the lack of consensus. I should not have to remind you about WP:BRD again, but I will. When there is contested language, you can not continue to insert it without first gaining a consensus to do so. Please stop. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I've asked you politely to stop throwing around accusations of "edit warring" every time something doesn't seem to go the way you like. Try and understand that other editors may take a different stance to you but that they are acting in WP:GOODFAITH. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

"The first "Stop the Church" protest was held on December 10, 1989 by the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP). The demonstration took place at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York while Cardinal John O'Connor was celebrating a Mass attended by Mayor Edward I. Koch. The group opposed the public positions of the Church which they felt were hurtful to people with AIDS, such as O'Connor's statement that "Good morality is good medicine." The protest followed a meeting of senior clergy where they had reinforced doctrine opposing the use of condoms. ACT UP nicknamed the cleric "Cardinal O'Condom."

The protesters had indicated in advance that they planned to protest and handed out flyers to those entering the service. The crowd grew to 4,500 gathered outside, and a few dozen activists eventually entered the cathedral, interrupted Mass, chanted slogans, blew whistles, "kept up a banchee screech," chained themselves to pews, and laid down in the aisles to stage a "die-in." While O'Connor went on with mass, activists stood up and announced why they were protesting. O'Connor asked worshipers to "pay no attention to" those disrupting the mass. One protester, "in a gesture large enough for all to see," desecrated the Eucharist by spitting it out of his mouth, crumbling it into pieces, and dropping them to the floor. One-hundred and eleven protesters were arrested, including 43 inside the church. The protests were widely condemned by public and church officials, members of the public, the media, and the gay community. The protest was repeated the following year in "Stop the Church II."

References

Sourcing

I'm actually a little annoyed Slugger. I don't think you're editing in a constructive manner. You asked for citations for two statements: "This was in response to Mahony having chaired a meeting of Catholic bishops to publicly reject the use of condoms as a way to combat the spread of AIDS" and then "Mahony had called declared 'safe-sex' a "myth, which is both a lie and a fraud." Roscelese removed these and pointed out that the source was Soble. You reverted. I then again removed these and pointed out the source was Soble - who is referenced at the end of the third and final sentence in that section. You again reverted. I have not added a reference to Soble to each of those lines - because in my view these claims are supported by the source. I am not clear whether you are arguing that Soble doesn't back up the claims made in those statements? Or rather that you think each point that we make in the article should be individually referenced even if it's already referenced elsewhere in the paragraph? If the latter then I'm not sure this is good editing practice as it we will end up with articles choked with repetitions. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding a source to each substantive, and in this case potentially controversial, statement is important to maintain text-source WP:INTEGRITY. Say I came in and added additional information about the LA vandalism, and added a new source. My new source doesn't mention anything about the material in those two unsourced sentences. How is the reader going to know which source to use for those two unsourced sentences? In this case, because Cardinal Mahony is still alive, we also have to worry about WP:BLP. Additionally, just deleting the tags doesn't do any good, and expecting me to have to chase down and add a source for the material is an example of WP:TE.--Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

If a new editor comes in and adds material then they would need to add sources to the sentences that they moved elsewhere. Otherwise we're just going to end up with a whole bunch of citations clogging up the article. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

How would that new editor know that those two sentences could be sourced to that article? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok I've gone ahead and made the change you have suggested. I still think there is a risk that ever sentence will eventually be linked to a reference source but there we go. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on the church teaching section

The following discussion 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.

---

Should this article contain a section, such as the one below, explaining what the Church's teaching on homosexuality is?--BrianCUA (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Catholic teaching condemns homosexual acts as gravely immoral, while holding that gay people "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity," and "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." The Catholic Church holds that, as a state beyond a person's choice, being homosexual is not wrong or sinful in itself. But just as it is objectively wrong for unmarried heterosexuals to engage in sex, so too are homosexual acts considered to be wrong.

• You've got to be kidding me, Brian. You know this isn't the locus of disagreement and anyone who reads the rest of the talk page can see it as well. State what you mean: that you want to include some puffery about how the Church loves and respects gay people and for some reason the gays keep protesting that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

That isn't even remotely true. I'm advocating for a high level overview that explains what it is that the Church teaches so that readers know with what some people disagree. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I suggest amending the RFC to include the disputed text. For reference, the text that you want to include that Contaldo and I disagree with including is "All people, including those that are LGBT, 'must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity," and "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.'". –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Roscelese. The RFC should be amended accordingly. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

OK. Amended. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• No, not with the current wording. The RCC's alleged respect, compassion, and anti-discrimination policy towards gay people have nothing to do with this article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
• No. A simple statement in the lead stating that the Catholic church condemns homosexual acts as gravely immoral is sufficient. There does not need to be material in the main text reiterating this point - and language around respect etc is not appropriate in this article and better dealt with in the main article on teaching (as it already is). Contaldo80 (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

BrianCua you edited the article on 3 October to include a section in the main body of the text which says "Catholic teaching condemns homosexual acts as gravely immoral, while holding that gay people "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity," and "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." The Catholic Church holds that, as a state beyond a person's choice, being homosexual is not wrong or sinful in itself. But just as it is objectively wrong for unmarried heterosexuals to engage in sex, so too are homosexual acts considered to be wrong." You've given the justification that "We seem to have come to an agreement on talk that a brief overview is appropriate. We can always tweak the verbiage if needed." I am really really puzzled because I don't think your changes seem to have reflected in any way the points raised by Roscelese and myself? It's almost as if we aren't there. Can you clarify please on what point you think agreement has been reached and how you're edits reconcile with that? Roscelese - do you think I'm talking nonsense here or would you agree with my concerns? Happy to be corrected if I've misunderstood anything. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I read your comment on October 2nd as if you were saying that you agreed a short overview was appropriate. You wanted to draw the line so that we didn't end up with an overly long section on the teaching. Was that not the case? If not, would you please address the guideline that says articles "should be written as far as possible for the widest possible general audience" and for an audience "largely unfamiliar with the topic"? --BrianCUA (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

As you can see above with reference to this RFC I said a "simple statement in the lead stating that the Catholic church condemns homosexual acts as gravely immoral is sufficient. There does not need to be material in the main text reiterating this point - and language around respect etc is not appropriate in this article and better dealt with in the main article on teaching". Roscelese felt particularly that flowery language around "sensitivity" etc was not appropriate - with which I agree. And yet you've restored material into the main body of text - not just the lead - and which continues to have the language around sensitivity. Do you feel you have sufficiently achieved consensus for this move? Contaldo80 (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I based my action off of your later comment. If you can improve upon the language, I would welcome it. --BrianCUA (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

You are playing games and making a mockery of editing. My comments above in this RFC are clear. The language will be improved by being removed from the main body of the text. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way. It wasn't my intention to mock you. --BrianCUA (talk) 04:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

You mock me and then you ignore me anyway. There is no consensus to include the language on "sensitivity". Contaldo80 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

There have been no further interventions on this RFC and I suggest we start to reach a resolution. Two editors are in favour of a trimmed line in the lead only. Briancua, you were bold, the material was reverted, it has been discussed. You have failed to achieve consensus for its inclusion. We should revert to the earlier version of the article before your additions. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

This RFC is less than two weeks old. There is WP:NORUSH. I am hopeful others will chime in still. I think you are mistaken, though. There has been a section on church teaching since the article was two hours old. Removing the section is the bold edit. I agree there is no consensus to keep the section. Neither, however, is there a consensus to remove it. With WP:NOCONSENSUS, it stays. --BrianCUA (talk) 02:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep. Material in the lead is usually further explained in the body of the article. This clarification is a concise expression of the whole of Catholic teaching which one should not need to seek out in another article. Jzsj (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• • @Jzsj: I'm not sure there's meaningful disagreement with the principle of including a brief summary, the issue is that BrianCUA wants to include material about how the Church actually doesn't oppose gay people or support discrimination at all, which is at best irrelevant to this article, but more like grossly undue and POV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I have said on multiple occasions that if the language can be improved, it should be. --BrianCUA (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)\

@BrianCUA: I believe I've already indicated that in my view, the first improvement would be removing the puffery about respect and unjust discrimination. I think I actually had that in the article at one point. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the present wording in the article. Jzsj (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Had to Delete I hated this edit. But, let's deal with the most serious problem. The section as written and the RfC were both copy and paste or close paraphrasing from sources. The first sentence was a virtual copy of the source material. The second and third sentences were direct copies from the handbook source which is itself a reprinting of DignityUSA's FAQs. WP:CV is first order, it had to be deleted immediately regardless of the RfC here. I did not like doing that in the middle of an RfC as an uninvolved editor, but there is a rush in this matter. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

No, but also Yes Now, onto the RfC. Should this RfC as phrased (assuming fix to CV) be included? No. It is clearly undue (even the Allen book sourcing for the first sentence disagrees with the tone that this section creates). I'm basing this on reading about half of the sources cited, and I did a Nexis serarch for the first three listed organizations and read a third of those articles and this distribution of ideas was not warranted on those sources. This is not just how I feel, this is weight in the source material. But, it seems there would be a necessary and good addition of a 'Beliefs' or 'Ideas' section that includes the content in this RfC. Following the various 'Critics of' articles, they all start with some section simply describing the beliefs (it seems there is consensus about adding such a section to this article as well). I would recommend three guiding ideas. 1. Focus on setting up the dissent. 2. Use neutral voice. Wikipedia's voice should always shape everything as "The Catholic Church says its teachings condemn homosexual acts but..." 3. Aim for tertiary sources. Primary and secondary are likely to be too filled with PR and direct wording rather than putting them in context (the Allen book is a great start and a section that better reflects the weight of his discussion of homosexuality would be a step forward). If a section followed those guides, I think it could certainly include the Catholic Church's stated position, but it needs to be better contextualized than the three sentences did. AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a good critique. I don't have access to any but the Martin source, but I rewrote it to avoid any copyright violations. That's important. Thanks for pointing it out. I'd appreciate any further help. Please also note that I recently changed my username to avoid confusion with other individuals or institutions. These were my first edits with the new name.--Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

This is the very definition of disruptive editing and certainly not in the spirit of collaborative editing. Rather than hearing my concerns, or those of other good faith editors, you added an attrocious section to replace a CV section. I got nothing else to say, but someone who adds a citation to a wikipedia article after a claim of copyvio is raised is not helping. Good luck everyone on improving content on this page, but it appears like it will be an uphill battle at this point. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am not sure why you are upset. You found copyright violations. I rewrote the section address that concern. How is that disruptive? What more can we do to fix the problem? I don't have access to two of the sources, but apparently you do. Can you help? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2018 (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.

I come back to this article with the hope that the situation might have improved but it hasn't. Despite the fact that the bulk of editors (most recently AbstractIllusions) have indicated they are unhappy with the section on church teaching yet we still have it in place virtually untouched. Other editors are simply ignored. This really isn't the way to edit Wikipedia and I echo the comments above that this is "not in the spirit of collaborative editing". Contaldo80 (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• @Slugger O'Toole: As you are no doubt able to see from the multiple discussions on this talkpage, consensus is against your addition of promotional language about the Church's love and support for gay people. We are not stupid or blind and can easily view previous discussions, so there is no point in claiming, here or in other articles, that they did not happen or conclude against your position. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Condemnation of homosexuality

Earlier this month, Roscelese changed language to say that the Church condemned homosexuality. She was reverted. She did not then go to talk, as sugested by WP:BRD but rather reinserted the disputed language. She was reverted again, and I asked for a source if she wanted to use that language. She did not provide a source, but did reinsert the disputed language saying that "To the average reader, and to many average and better-than-average writers, 'this is inherently a tendency towards sin and a moral evil' can be summed up as 'condemnation'." Her opinion may be absolutely true, or completely off the mark, but it is not a reliable source.

Further, that an average reader may be under the impression that the church condemns homosexuality is all the more reason why we should be providing them with factual information, and the fact remains that the church does not condemn homosexuality. I am going to revert again, as when there is a dispute about edits we retain the version that existed before the bold edit. I would ask anyone who does not agree with this language to please gain consensus here before reverting again. Perhaps we can come to some sort of compromise language. I would love to hear some proposed. Incidentally, I would also add that I think this is a prime example of why a high level overview of the Church's teaching is needed here. Again, I would advocate for a few sentences explaining what the teaching is so readers can know exactly with what some people disagree. --Slugger O'Toole (talk)

This is an encyclopedia read and used by everyone, not the personal encyclopedia of Briancua Slugger O'Toole. Your personal caviling about how homosexuality being inherently a tendency towards sin and a moral evil can't be described in a summary paragraph as "condemnation" is completely meaningless to anyone who is trying to WP:BUILD Wikipedia, and it is trivially easy to find sources, including highly apologetic partisan sources, that refer to the Church's position on homosexuality as condemnatory. [1][2][3][4] Please revert your tendentious edit and do not waste our time like this again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and we do already explain what the teaching is so that readers can know exactly with what some people disagree. You decided you weren't content with this and pretended that what people were disagreeing with was the Church's glorious shining love for gay people. I don't know why you persist in doing this when Wikipedia has a record of your edits and talk comments and we can see the garbage you've been trying to add. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do have to agree with Roscelese. It is intellectually dishonest to give the impression that the Catholic church's position towards gay people is benign. The evidence shows consistently that over the past 1500 to 2000 years the church has discouraged homosexual activity, marginalized homosexuals from society, punished those homosexuals caught having sex (physical torture and death), colluded with civil authorities in supporting punishment, resisted any recognition of rights for homosexuals, preached publicly against the errors of homosexuality and the torments of hell that awaited those that persisted, and taught that homosexuality is a disorder tending towards sin and evil. In the last 50 years some catholic clergy and a few leaders have started using more inclusive language - but it's not universal and it's not consistent. To suggest in the article that the catholic position has not been condemnatory is extremely odd. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The issue here is not whether the church marginalized homosexuals 1,500 years ago or if the Church has a glorious shining love for gay people. The issue is whether or not the Church condemns homosexuality, which it demonstrably does not. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Not 1500 years ago. FOR 1500 years. And it's still happening. There is certainly no "glorious shining love". I am staggered still that you can argue that the Catholic Church does not condemn homosexuality. On what grounds are you actually making that argument? Contaldo80 (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Mobster

Slugger - why do I always have to feel that I have to obtain your personal permission to make edits to these articles? That I have to meet you own personal bar for what goes in and what stays out? This isn't generally the style I'm accustomed too with other article pages on Wikipedia. I've provided a source for the recent material around the St Patrick's Cathedral process - it looks sound to me (notwithstanding that Faderman described the letter as an encyclical). Be very vey specific about what - if any - concerns you have so we can address them please. Don't simply act as "gatekeeper". Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You don't have to meet my bar. You have to meet Wikipedia's bar. Not so long ago you tried to argue that a source was not reliable because of a typo only tangentially related to the content being added. Here, you added something that said a protest was in "response to John Paul II's recent encyclical." I asked for clarification. You responded by changing it to a document that was not an encyclical, and was not written by the pope. You even admitted that the souce was incorrect by saying "I think this is right in that it can't have been an encyclical. Likely the source means On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons so have amended slightly." The problem is, what you inserted into the article wasn't what was in the source. Per WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION, "Material that fails verification may be tagged with {{failed verification}} or removed." All I wanted was clarification about what the source actually said before we included it in the article. As it so happens, I was able to get a copy of the source today, so now I know exactly what it says, and think that the author made a mistake. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

No, I am afraid you are "gate-keeping" a lot of these articles. And it's starting to become of serious concern. The important point is that the protest was in response to the church's "recent condemnation of homosexuality" - that is what the source says. That the author calls it a encyclical is fairly minor - certainly compared to the bigger mistake you cite in reference to culture of life (and where you still managed to get the source included). Take care to respresent both sides of this story and we'll all be a bit happier. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not gatekeeping anything. You added incorrect material, and then when I asked for clarification you changed it to say something not supported by the source. That's not acceptable. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Unincardinated

@Slugger O'Toole: What, in your view, is the significance of Alison's being or not being in active ministry? It sounds to me like you're trying to undermine his credibility and relying on readers' unfamiliarity with the term to make it sound negative. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I, too, was unfamiliar with the term. On his website he says he exists in a state that should not exist, yet somehow does for him. From Incardination and excardination: "The purpose of incardination is to ensure that no cleric, whether deacon or priest, is "freelance", without a clear ecclesiastical superior to whom he is responsible." Alison somehow is a freelance priest. It's worth pointing out that he has no superior when he says that things that are very clearly the teaching of the church cannot be the teaching of the church. I think it may be worthwhile to explain his situation in a footnote for those readers who are unfamiliar. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is it "worth pointing out"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

For the same reason that we mention that Joseph Ratzinger was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or that John McNeill was co-founder of Dignity. It provides context for their statements. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

So that's a "yes, I'm relying on people mistakenly thinking that this unrelated piece of trivia undermines the source's credibility." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

No. It is providing context. Readers are free to draw their own inferences, as you apparently have. Someone could read it and think they are more credible because they are not being hindered in presenting their true feelings by a superior. --Slugger O'Toole (talk)

Slugger - Roscelese is right that such an approach looks like trying to discredit an individual. This is totally different from referring to the fact that Ratzinger is Prefect of the congregation - that illustrates that he is in a position of influence over certain matters. Both Roscelese and I are against this material. Under bold, revert, discuss you need please to work towards building consensus to explain why you think such inclusion is necessary and not trivia. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

To simply say that he is a priest and formerly a member of the Dominicans is to lie by omission. Is he now a member of another order? Is he a diocesan priest? Adding a single word to say he is now unincardinated is entirely called for and provides valuable context, particularly in light of his unusual state. I will seek an outside opinion. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Marty Robinson

Slugger again you revert my edits with little justification. Actually this is quite worrying. This article is about gay people as much as it is about the Catholi church. I am fed up that articles such as this are full of obsequious references to cardinals, priests, bishops - each one named with what other flowery title they happen to enjoy. And yet the gay and lesbians must be invisibly and anonymous - they are the "protestors" or the "activists" or the "egg throwers". This is breathtaking bias and ask that we stop. It is not unreasonable that if there are real gay men and women in this story that have played a part that we refer to them by name. We don't strip out Cardinal John O'Connor do we and describe him as a "cleric" saying mass. Please show respect for both sides in this article. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not trying to make anyone look invisible. The reason I have deleted his name is that the founder of a particular group is not particularly notable within the context of this article. (I'm not even sure Marty Robinson meets GNG in general, though I could be wrong.) If this article was on the Lavender Hill Gang then it absolutely would be relevant and should be included. There are several groups mentioned in this article, but they don't include the names of their founders. In this section alone we mention Greater Religious Responsibility, Soulforce, and the Rainbow Sash, but none of them have their founders mentioned. What is so special about this group, and this man? What is the nexus between him founding an activist group and this article? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. To be honest you've not demonstrated anything in terms of concrete guidance that suggests his name shouldn't be included. I mean to be honest you don't want to mention by the name the man involved in one of the protests you're so beloved of talking about but you are keen that we mention that another guy is uncardinated. Can we try and give a semblance of neutrality please in editing this article. Can I remind you - yet again - to please avoid "gate-keeping" these articles.Contaldo80 (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTWHOSWHO: "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." The fact that Marty Robinson founded this organization is of no importance to the article. You have offered no evidence that he is. I offer, again, the fact that we don't list the founders of the other organizations as evidence that it is irrelevant. This fact would, however, be very relevant in an article about Robinson himself or the Gang. I suggest you include it there. Additionally, with WP:NOCON on whether or not to include it, it stay out. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you not just occasionally show a sense of collegiality? Must every dot in the article be fought over? Marty Robinson founded the organization and was present at the protest. This is an article covering protests by those disagreeing with the Catholic church. There is no article about the gang as frankly there's unlikely to be enough material to warrant it. So this section of this article is the place to do it. I really cannot believe you are making such a fuss about it. I think it's unnecessary. You are quite happy to give prominence to someone scrunching up a bit of old bread during a protest but resist anything that might name people who are gay in an article about homosexuality. The article is stuffed from top to bottom with names of priests, bishops, monsignori, and cardinals - who presumably are more notable despite this being an article about homosexuality. I'd be happier if we all observe neutrality and impartiality when covering the material in these articles. Let's be even handedContaldo80 (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry you are frustrated, but I find it odd that you would lecture me about collegiality and then throw out the line about "scrunching up a bit of old bread." You clearly know enough about the Catholic faith to know that Catholics (and others) would find that offensive. To the point: I will remind you again that there is WP:NOCON on whether or not to include the material. That means it stays out until we reach consensus. Secondly, the source does not even say that Robinson was even present at the protests, just that members of the organization he founded were. Again, I am sorry you are frustrated that you are not getting your way, but this article is not about the Lavender Hill Mob. I am more than happy to include the names of any individual, gay, straight, or otherwise, as long as it is relevant, due, and doesn't turn this into a who's who. Finally, the text as you have currently written it has two verbs next to each other, resulting in a sentence that doesn't make grammatical sense. It should be edited for that reason alone.--Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

No you're not sorry slugger. You throw out the NOCON argument again and again to basically make the point that you disagree and I have to get you to agree before I can make any changes which you do not like. This apparently is "consensus". You could give ground in the spirit of collegiality but you're not interested.Contaldo80 (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision making. I am sorry if that makes it difficult sometimes for you to get what you want, but that is how this project operates. Also, in the spirit of collegiality, I would appreciate it if you didn't impugn my motives or tell me what it is I feel. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

RFC on James Alison

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was overwhelmingly against mentioning his unincardated status. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Is it appropriate to note that James Alison is an unincardated priest? Additional discussion can be found above. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Unincardinated" is a complex issue, unlike incardination which is a common status of a priest. That he is a former Dominican says enough. If one wants to learn his story they'd better go to the article James Alison. Jzsj (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Jzsj:, but don't you think that the complexity of the issue makes it worth noting with a wikilink? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

His name is already linked, for those who wish to know his history. Jzsj (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

True, but we mention that he is a former Dominican. Should we remove that as well? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Having been a Dominican gives a clue as to his formation. How much of his story after that should be included here (and not just in his bio) is a matter to be determined by consensus. Jzsj (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. His coverage in this article is so fleeting that it would be WP:UNDUE to bring it up. It is already in his BLP, let readers follow the link and find it there. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 07:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, it doesn't add anything to this article except inappropriate implications about his reliability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Roscelese, but you have already made your opinion known above. The purpose of this RFC was to bring in some outside voices. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of an Rfc is to settle the question posed in the Rfc statement. Per WP:RFC, [a]ll editors... are welcome to respond to any RfC. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Is it relevant to add that Cardinal George Pell is in prison for child sexual abuse? The intention seems to be to discredit the man.Contaldo80 (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Interesting that Wikipedia does not even have an article on the notion of unincardated, and given it is a new term for me as well, I do not think it is central to this article and should be left out. --- FULBERT (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Summoned by bot. Inclusion would be WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it's clear now that the consensus is to NOT include the reference to incardation. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose – I can't see a reason to include it, other than to attempt to undermine the validity of his opinions about the article topic, by attacking his credentials. Adding one word to the brief description of him here, doesn't help present a balanced view of him; his story is one click away for anyone that is interested. Mathglot (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole as you opened this RfC can you please close it. It is clear that the overwhelming consensus is not to make reference to the incardation of Alison. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I accept the consensus, but don't believe it would be appropriate for me to close it per WP:RFCEND. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole Neither should any of us as INVOLVED; but you do have an option that others don’t: it’s permissible for the originator to simply withdraw it. To do this, leave a comment below, and remove (or hide) the rfc tag at the top. Or, you (or anyone) could request closure. Mathglot (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2019 (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.