Talk:Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Removed "List of Heretics" sentence

The sentence deleted was:

According to legend, The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence were placed on the Papal List of Heretics by the Pope upon his visit to San Francisco as a result of their public exorcism of the Catholic Church's dogma, hypocrisy, guilt and shame.

I've been trying to think of a way to reword this to make it encyclopedic, but I don't think there is one. It isn't just that it's untrue (there is no "List of Papal Heretics"), it is phrased in a way that implies the Catholic Church is dogmatic and hypocritical, and spreads guilt and shame.

The SPI may believe this, but I don't think anyone would claim that it is more than an opinion. If the line had said, "The SPI believe that the Catholic Church is..", then that would have at least been worded neutrally, but the fact that (1) I don't know this for sure (not being a Sister) and (2) the main point of the sentence is factually false means I can't provide an NPOV translation.

I see from the history pages that members of the SPI contribute to this article & talk page. Please feel free to clarify or discuss what should go in here, but please don't replace the sentence I have deleted until it has been rephrased neutrally and verifiably.

~ Veledan | Talk | c. 17:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Reworded and corrected the innacuracy, there was another incident when the pope visited San Francisco but the heretic portion happened years earlier. Culed from extensive archival writings. Yes even the Sisters own website has the innacurate version which has been repeatedly quoted. Let's hope it gets updated.

List of Heretics ref

FredrikM: What is this "Papal List of Heretics"? Is there such a list? Where can I read it? I've tried googled it but I found only references to The Sisters.

The miracle of the internet is that internal group items that aren't password protected can be seen by anyone. There used to be a heretic list which is still believe to be in use listing artists, politicians, businesses and others including activists like the Sisters. Once it was referenced publicly the link was disabled, the list removed and, of course, its existence denied.

'Papal heretic' is a term used by some protestant groups to denegrate popes - i.e. heretic and papal. I can't see any reference anywhere to it being used in this context. A citation should be provided to back this claim up. 82.153.96.176 10:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sisters are not nuns

The original (copyvio) article stated that the Sisters are nuns. The Sisters website, however, makes it clear that the group began as three men dressed in habits. There is no mention at all in the history of any actual nuns joining the group. The "Sisters" refer to themselves as nuns, but they are not nuns. If the article is re-written to avoid copyvio, please keep this in mind. --SWAdair | Talk 04:52, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"The Sisters do not claim to be Catholic nuns. But of course there are many kinds of nuns. For example Tibetan Buddhist nuns. The Sisters loosely think of themselves as gay nuns. In one respect, they serve their community and find that a similar function performed by "traditional" nuns.

One of the things the Sisters offer comes from the Gay social revolution; that being that social roles claimed for millenia by straight white male institutions are no more credible or authoritative than those created by other members of the world community." --Anonymous

From the Sisters' website (The Sisters' FAQ):

Why do you mock nuns?

We are not mocking nuns, we are nuns. We are very dedicated to our calling and our vows reflect our commitment to our community. Look at the work traditional nuns do. Look at the work we do. They minister to their community. We minister to our community. They raise funds for the needy. We raise funds for the needy. They are educators. We are educators. See any significant differences? The list goes on and on...

The argument could be made that the Sisters are not ordained or recognised as nuns by an "official" authority (i.e. the Catholic Church). However, as the anonymous quote above points out, we don't consider the word of the Catholic Church to carry any more authority than our own. We serve in much the same capacity as traditional nuns, we consider ourselves to be nuns and our community accepts us as nuns. See also Joshua A. Norton. --Sister Edith Myflesh, SPI 22:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that any organisation is capable of deeming its members 'nuns'. Generally the term is first applied internally and then it's accepted by the community at large as an accurate and valid description over time. They accepted this in terms of the Catholic Church long ago. Religious scholars apply it to similar roles in other religious communities. No religious scholar that I know of applies the term to this group and society at large doesn't identify them as being 'nuns'. Until the community generally accepts the validity of such a description for members of this group, the term nun should be placed in inverted commas. You can do otherwise in your own internal literature but I don't believe that it is appropriate to do so on Wikipedia.

the significant difference between these Sisters and nuns is that nuns - whether Catholic, Lutheran, or Buddhist - take vows of some form of poverty and chastity (and often obedience), whether temporary or perpetual. It is not simply a matter of dedication to a community or of good works. The usual word for that would be Sisterhood. There is no reason at all to extend the word nun, which even in Catholicism is not used for all women with vows but only a sub-classification, to include this group. 142.68.48.107 14:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As the article point out the Sisters queer not only traditional gender roles, social structures and ways of being, etc. but they also queer the rules as befits them as 21st century nuns. So they vow to public service, to expiate stigmatic guilt and promulgate universal joy and leave poverty and chastity to other orders to sort out. Benjiboi 14:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The OED definition of nun mentions only vows not "poverty chastity and obedience". Additional older definitions are included of pagan priestess and courtesan. The definition of enclosed women is linited to the Catholic church. --Simon Speed 15:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The OED I use - 2nd edition, 1989 - says 'A woman devoted to a religious life under certain vows - usually one who has vowed poverty, chastity, and obedience, and who lives in a convent under a certain rule, as in the Roman Catholic and Greek Churches.' So a) the vows ARE specified, although qualified by 'usually'; b) the word 'convent is included as part of the definition, and the Catholic Church is mentioned by way of example, not as a limiting part of the definition. The meaning 'courtesan' is qualified as 'transf.' which means transferred, which in literary terms is not a new definition, but a 'poetic' one, and c) it specifies women.

Nowhere is the word defined as 'people who do good works'. Admirers of the 'Sisters' can of course use whatever language they want to describe themselves; Wikipedia should use standard English, and clarify when a word is used in a non-standard way.140.184.192.117 13:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

quoting from another editor more learned than I in these matters - "The terms monk and nun - also monastery and convent, are anglisized terms used alternatly for men and women and their religious dwellings. In fact, traditionally and in ancient usage a more correct term would be monastic or ascetic or anchorite or hesychast, and their dwelling a monastery. These terms apply to men and women." Benjiboi 17:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The word "convent" is indeed included in the definition, but only within the scope of "usually". All the non-Catholic sources (eg. Cross & Livingstone The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Chuch 3rd ed. 1997 ) state that this is only part of the definition for Roman Catholicism. There is still the older definition, present in the OED, that of Pagan Priestess: this shows the Catholic and other usages to be newfangled ones that have come into common parlance. The SPI are at lest as close to the original meaning of the word as Catholic nuns as well fulfilling the socially accepted functions of nuns for their community.--Simon Speed 18:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Simon, then maybe the word that should be used is "Pagan Priestess." The point is that "nun" as itis used in english, objectively, doesn't cover the SPI at all. They are satire on nuns and an ENCYCLOPEDIA should reflect that. But then again, you really just view this as a marketing site for SPI, so why bother? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.191.97 (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sisters Dis-Inclusion in Nun Category

GuyIncognito 08:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Me and another Wikipedian are having a discussion on Talk:Nun and possibly an edit war over whether the SPI page keeps its link on Nun. It might be of interest. I think that what's needed on the SPI page is a section neutrally describing the positions - and all the references cited. --Simon Speed 02:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"a section neutrally describing the positions" - how about a dictionary? Would a dictinary be neutral? Wikipedia gives itself another black eye on this one. Not the part about 'self-described', but the use of the word nun later in the article. Check a dictionary and look up the word 'nun'. while you're there look up irony, sarcasm, mockery, and any other host of things. Community activists who do good works are admirable, but they are not nuns! 140.184.192.117 13:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Would the Oxford English Dictionary be good enough? I used that to change the definition in Nun and added the page's first citation. In a footnote I added the fact that the OED also included two older definitions of nun a courtesan and a Pagan priestess. Unfortunatley I couldn't keep that bit in the page in spite of the gold-standard source. So much for Wikipedia is not censored see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The nun page currently promotes a Catholic Church view of nuns and anything different just doesn't fit. --Simon Speed 20:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmph. Both of those definitions fit here! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sister Mary Power-Hungry Bitch

I remember meeting Sister Mary Power-Hungry Bitch at the Castro Street festival in SF in the early 90s. --AStanhope 15:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

She is actually Sister Vicious Power Hungry Bitch or Sister Vicious PHB and was given that name by her fellow Sisters, she is one of the four founders of the group and is still around.Benjiboi 06:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Reverend Mother Bill(y)? Graham

I am a former member of two different singing groups in San Francisco, the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus and the Pacific Gay and Lesbian Singers, in which I sang with the original Reverend Mother of the SPI, Bill Graham. I've always found it more than a little amusing that his given name was the same as that of the prominent evangelist, and, as appropriately, the rock promoter. There are a lot of stories I could tell, but none of them are encyclopedic at all. :-( Glad to see the SPI included here, though.—Chidom ^talk  23:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal from Joke Religions Category

I've just removed the Joke religions category. This category contains beliefs like the Flying Spaghetti Monster which are not intended to be believed in and organisations like the the Landover Baptist Church which are not intended to be taken seriously but only to be mocked.

The Sisters clearly use humour, but are quite serious about their stated aims. Even their opponents do not claim that the Sisters don't stand for what they say they do. Their opponents object to the Sisters message, and even more so, how they choose to promote it. So the SPI are a humorous organisation but not a joke one.

Also they are not a religion, but an order of nuns. From the Sisters website, they can be seen to include members with a variety of religious beliefs including Christian.--Simon Speed 18:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, new-ish to wikipeda but very familiar with the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence They are nuns to those in their communities they serve even though they are not tied down to one church or set of beliefs. There are quite a few FEMALE Sisters as well as it seems the gender issue has some completely bothered.

Perhaps this discussion could also enliven the concept that there are many who do consider the Sisters nuns but they simply aren't publishing encyclopedias? The Sisters are widely quoted in newspapers, books and magazines but as a much newer group (founded 1979) they are considered upstarts compared with traditional viewpoints of who and what a nun is - and i think that is the point. They challenged many concepts of gender and power and seem to have a few of those here absolutely obsessed with seeing them discredited and banished from even being thought about as nuns. Mission accomplished indeed.

My hunch is they absolutely should be a part of the article and maybe slightly discredited by calling them alternative nuns or simply drag nuns which is a term they use. But if denial is your bag then by all means.

ps There are Sisters who are Catholic and recovering Catholic as well! Benjiboi 16:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC) benji

2007-04-16 changes

Just wanted to let any interested parties know that I wikilinked a whole bunch of the article, then moved things into two sections. The first is all about the SPI, the second is about different actions and activities - in chronological order. Let me know if I messed anything up. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh! I forgot to mention that I took out the paragraph:

“ In Cathy B. Glenn's paper " Queering the (Sacred) Body Politic: Considering the Performative Cultural Politics of The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" (The Johns Hopkins University Press) she writes "the Sisters example may help us to understand how it is possible, more generally, to utilize identity politically without the traps of identity politics. That is, identity politics have a general tendency to limit and fix both the political ground on which groups stand and the subjectivities presupposed by the identities claimed in the name of political action. The Sisters' utilize identity in their politics precisely by un-fixing, from the norms established in various socio-political contexts, both the subjectivities they embody and the political ground they occupy. Put differently, rather than limit the possibilities for politics and the political subject, SPI queers both and creates the conditions for the possibility of a multitude of political subjectivities and modalities." ”

First, it's all one quoted paragraph and really should be paraphrased and cited in order to be kept. Second, no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't decipher it enough to paraphrase and cite it :) I guess my degree is pretty much useless. <sigh> Anyway, please put it back if you can decipher it. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Re-adding paragraph, I should have reference that the paragraph was a part of the summary of her paper, will try to reference both.Benjiboi 16:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph is actually a small section of the closing summary of her article but in trying to add the reference I kept formatting something wrong so am giving up for now.

The reference given to the paper is kewl. The issue I have is that it's a very scholarly paragraph. For some of us that haven't been in college for quite a little while, it's really hard to figure out what it means. Perhaps you could reword it in everyday English? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Will try although it would take away from the original so maybe adding an interpretation might work. I'll see what I can whip up!Benjiboi 18:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Added Worldwide Houses category

I added the category and made an attempt to organize it with mixed results, I think it should be by continent in alpha order then countries, states, cities, etc. which generally sorts out most of it with only the Mission order which itself covers several US States to be sorted. Benjiboi 01:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I did a bit of organizing, but I think they should still be alphabetized. Will try to work on this again tomorrow. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think for the general user relating to their country and city is most relevant just like most corporations list all their offices and maybe denote that San Francisco is where all the trouble started. Benjiboi 06:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

So sort by location, and maybe put that column first? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think by continent first; Africa (Sister Blanch de Root is in South Africa), Asia (there is a missionary in Thailand via the Aussie Sisters), Austrailia, Europe, North America, South America. Then by Country, State, City (and alpha if more than one in a given city like Portland, Oregon.) Thanks for working on that - the formatting stuff is still over my head a bit. Benjiboi 18:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that order, but I think we should limit it to established houses or orders. For instance, Sr Blanch de Root may be in South Africa, but there isn't an established, recognized presence of the Sisters there. I mean, I'm in New Hampshire for most of the year, but since I'm the only one, that shouldn't be listed.

Speaking of which, there missing founding dates. I'm going to see Sr Soami (née Missionary Position) at Beltaine - I'll ask her if there's a publicly available list of houses and their founding dates. One of the situations we're going to run into here is that we are running close to original research, which is frowned upon. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that only established houses would make sense as missions have come and gone so would have less impact at least in theory. I think it also makes sense to start with existing houses first before resurfacing houses that no longer exist (Denver comes to mind but there may still be a less active Sister there. FYI, Sister Mish had another name before Mish, and likely has an archive treasure trove, however, SF being the "corporate office" would be the source of official info for US houses, Sister Mish - I think, for the Mission Order and each country otherwise is independent. For me if they aren't on the SF SPI website then they aren't official yet.

I'm considering removing "The Sanctuary of the Sisters of Perepetual Contumaciousness". The only reference I find to them on the web is on the "World Orders" page of the SPI site and the exact copy of it (in German) on the German Sister's site. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely country specific with the Sisters as to what is an established house or not. If they are listed on the reference pages of one or more of the US Sister's houses websites then I would say include it otherwise perhaps a new section of areas of interest might make sense. Not sure. Benjiboi 02:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And the Columbian Sister's site hasn't been updated in three years... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Columbian Sisters (the "suicide order" lol!) is underground in New York City at times because of death threats, I believe, and regular internet connection is yet to materialize so they do seem active but not communicating their activities.

James Hormel

Umm... None of that is about the Sisters. Shouldn't it all be in his article, not here? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The entire controversy of his ambassadorship to Luxemburg was hinged on his association with the Sisters as flimsy as that argument was. I'll rework it more when I have a moment.Benjiboi 22:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. The whole thing can probably be shortened to about a paragraph, though, since the article should focus on SPI, not Hormel :) It'll need a reference, too. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The player's involved speak to the purpose and level of institutionalized homophobia reaching the highest levels (of shame and public office) so I would hate to lose that context. (sigh) I'll work on it a bit later. Benjiboi 02:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Other items to be referenced

I think these are in rough chronological order but not sure what importance I would put on them, just knowing that it would be good to reference them somewhere for future inclusion. I know the list is hardly complete but is more notable marks potentially for the article.

La Klubstituta Ala Oasis/Prop 215/Med Marijuana
The Condom Saviour Consecration and Vow
Three Mile Island Protest
Gay Bingo(s)
Dog Show in the Castro (with Shirley MaClaine (sp?))
Sistericus
STOP the Violence Campaign
Sister Sam and The Queer Army
Burning Man festival
Consisterly Conspiracy archive show

Benjiboi 05:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There are quite a few other milestones and I feel it makes sense to lay them all out and properly cite and then move to different articles as appropriate. There are already articles for-

Cockettes, Hibiscus (need to add Angles of Light and then build into pre-Sisters context
Harvey Milk
Nuns of The Above
Pink Saturday
Radical Faeries
Hippies

Need to add

Klubstitute
Diet Popstitute
other saints
awards?

Benjiboi 14:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

April 23 additions

Do you mind if I do some copy-editing on the new stuff as I'm able? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, please avoid wholesale deletions - if there is any glaring plot flaws let me know as I had a bunch of things deleted by a spambot so I easily could have screwed something up.Benjiboi 00:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way...

You'rre not really supposed to change previous discussions... Just FYI :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 12:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

apologies, I was trying to add some organization and felt the "go girl" - well, not sure but it didn't feel right. I was treating it as email and simply shouldn't have. I've read up on modifying discussions and will aim to do better from here on in.Benjiboi 13:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem! Perhaps I was a bit .. informal :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-formal tone

I have tagged this article with {{inappropriate tone}} because while the article is well-sourced and pretty well-written, unfortunately it has a rather light-hearted tone, and reads somewhat like a promotional piece in parts. Krimpet (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That seems fair, there is a lot of material to be worked in and then possibly sections to be turned into separate articles as appropriate. Is there any sections in particular that need addressing?Benjiboi 17:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little wary of this sort of tagging, as it can be used to justify a lot of messing about. And a light-hearted approach is one general human mechanism for coping with difficult situations. As an example of what I felt was a little off-target, consider the whole section about the Rainbow Flag. It's mostly material which fits better in a seperate article, with a brief summary here. And there's a couple of bits of that section which could be read as a promotional piece. Zhochaka 22:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I'll look at that section in a bit and see what is readily presented (and likely free from deletion) I'll also look to promotional tone although that's not always my strong suit to see what can be streamlined out. Benjiboi 22:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Orders

I removed the link saying that it was the fastest growing order, as there was no evidence given that it was. The link it cited said nothing of the nature. Secondly, it linked to "Holy Orders", which is Catholic... but this organization is obviously not Catholic. Also, I would hesistate to call these individuals "nuns" and link them to the term, as nun again is a Catholic definition, and these people are not Catholic. See source here. Because of this, I edited the words to phrase "self-proclaimed nuns." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bjford (talk • contribs) 17:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

The claim on which you base your argument, that nuns are Roman Catholic is plainly false: there have been nuns of various religions for thaousands of years. The OED definition mentions "woman" and "vows", but not the Catholic requirement for the woman to be locked up in a convent. The OED also contains 2 further old definitions:- a pagan priestess and a courtesan. As most Catholic orders of nuns are shrinking claiming the SPI, a new organisation, as a relatively rapidly growing order is not too surprising. I have reverted you changes, but removed the link to Holy Orders and added a fact tag to the claim. --Simon Speed 18:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

German Order and Houses

hello,

this is the foundress mother of the german order here.

i changed the information about the german houses somewhat, as there were minor errors in the names like "Ivenis" instead of "Iuvenis", then there was a wrong date: the berlin house was founded by sister sugarpie as mission of the then heidelberg motherhouse on may 15., 1993, not 1998.

zurich as part of the german-speaking peoples of europe was founded by the berlin sisters in 2005 and became a house in may 2006.

greetings from berlin, germany mother johanna indulgentia tara maria benedicta o.s.p.i. ^{the above comment was added by}User talk:78.48.161.115

Adding user link to comment. Benjiboi 05:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

changed article on german houses, removed two houses which are not acknowledged by the berlin archmotherhouse due to the fact that their founders are excommunicated former members of the order of which one has never reached fpm-status and the other has bought our name in form of copyrights 12 years after the foundation of the order against the consensus of the berlin house fpm meeting.--Erzmutter 20:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Just because there are inter-country conflicts doesn't change that they are still considered SPI. Unless they are disavowed by the International SPI and forced to reorganize under a new name it should stay. If they have been expunged then a verifiable reference to WP standards needs to be supplied. And then, frankly, they would still be included as a footnote if nothing else. Benjiboi 20:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

changed the entries again, following the wiki standards i suppose, putting in the years and reflecting the newest developments in the former berlin s.p.i. and o.p.i., which have, after fouer years of a schism, reunited in september 2007 as o.s.p.i. - order of the sisters of perpetual indulgence. reference and documents hereupon is given by request to the archmotherhouse.

--Erzmutter 08:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

my last entries were vandalized since i was here the last time. changed again into state of september the 19th. it would be rather nice if we could find a solution here to stop a certain person well-known to the berlin archmotherhouse of always vandalizing entries in the english and german sisters wiki-pages. greetings from germany!

--Erzmutter 18:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's both a benefit and detriment that anyone can edit here so the best we can do is simply writing good articles to begin with, provide references and then revert any vandalism. Benjiboi 00:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

thank you, dear. at least it is good to know that there are people loke you who really care for the wiki and are willing to help and give support and speak good words which in some moments of frustration can help one to get calm again ... from berlin much love & light to you! :-) --Erzmutter 21:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Princess Diana memorial

Found link for when section is started or event referenced.[1] Benjiboi 07:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

HYPOCRITES!

These people are nothing but hypocrites. "Educating on various human rights issues and against hate crimes"? Give me a break! I suppose they don't call their invasion of the Most Holy Redeemer church in San Francisco a hate crime! I guess they're only concerned about what will affect them. The rest of the world be damned, as far as they're concerned.

If I were a member of the "alternative community," I would be ashamed to have these "sisters" representing me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocobear 555 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. What I've read is that they were, in fact, welcomed and embraced at Most Holy Redeemer and that the issue, like others at the church, were being blown out of perspective by folks with their own agendas. If and when the mainstream media reports on the issue perhaps we'll have somewhat neutral sources to cite. Benjiboi 10:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it curious that, unlike the pages for more conservative groups, this one contains no section devoted to controversies caused by the group or that the group was involved in, vice ones that are written in such a way as to make those who opposed the group at the time come off as homophobes, bigots, etc. Nothing on the "Last Supper" poster controversy, or the more recent desecration of a Catholic rite, or anything else the group has done of that nature. I also find it interesting that people on this board are trying to somehow make the SPI somehow not "anti-Catholic" by noting that there are other types of nuns in the world besides those associated with the Catholic Church ... however, those other groups don't use iconic Christian/Catholic robes, imagery, etc.; they have their own distinct look. If the SPI were merely describing themselves as "nuns" but then distancing themselves from the Catholic nuns by developing their own unique look, icons, etc., I could more readily buy that argument. In the end, it's clear to me that the members of this group (and those who insist on defending them) are the real bigots. Nolefan32 04:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

All interesting points but frankly everything they do would seem to be controversial including their very existence so having one section would actually give undue weight to whatever was chosen for that section. The "Last Supper" poster controversy had little to do with this group as they didn't print or authorize the photo, see Folsom Street Fair for who did. As for the anti-Catholic statements I've read elsewhere on wp that the Sisters parody Catholic rites/rituals is more accurate but they are highly visible so they attract much more attention plus in the culture war spectrum they firmly are left-leaning on almost every issue in opposition to the Catholic church so that could be another source of contention. Regardless, there are lots of other nuns in the world who are not Catholic and wp will welcome articles on all of them. Also (and I may be wrong here) I've never seen any Catholic nun in festive drag, make-up and glitter so I doubt there is much confusion on the part of ... anyone! So indeed, as you suggest, they have their own unique look, icons, etc. Labeling them, and I geuss anyone who doesn't agree with you as bigots actually suggests you should check a mirror first, or a dictionary. Benjiboi 10:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

From the link you provided - "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own." And the SPI have demonstrated what is clearly an intolerance of the Catholic Church. And to call me a bigot for having called them on their intolerance, perhaps you are the one who needs the mirror. As for the festival wear, just because they dress up their Catholic nun habits with glitter, etc., they still START with clearly Catholic habits as the basis for their costuming. As I noted previously, Buddhist nuns, etc., don't borrow anything from Catholicism - they have their own unique style. But hey, look at the SPI's page here on Wiki, check out the photos - there's even a photo of the SPI mocking Christ himself. And yet for pointing that out, I'm the bigot. Clearly you are the type of person who feels that anyone who picks on your beliefs is a bigot, but when you pick on others for their beliefs, you're being, what, open-minded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolefan32 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I can't speak for them but I can say I never ever have seen a traditional Catholic nun look anything like the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence although in their early days (from the back) one might be able to be confused. But wouldn't the beards and the fact they hang around with porn stars in cocktail bars be a sign they aren't trying to emulate the Catholics even if they once did. And even if they were mocking Catholic iconography they are hardly the first ones and even Catholics do many of the same things. Regardless the Sisters stand up for LGBT people who are still routinely beaten and killed around the world, even in the US - I hope we can agree that killing someone just because they are gay is probably wrong? I think we're a long way from seeing Catholics afraid to hold hands or kiss openly in the streets. When we get there perhaps I could believe the Sisters are bigots instead I see them as getting lots of undue attention from people who think that the Catholic church is somehow threatened by their existence, I'm not Catholic but seems to me they'll punish whoever they can and the Sisters will get more free publicity. If some of that publicity goes mainstream we can even add it to the article. Benjiboi 02:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I never once challenged the group for trying to right wrongs done against LGBT people; the fact that you bring it up strikes me as trying to distract from the point-at-hand, that while Wikipedia states that they insist all articles be written from a neutral point-of-view, and while that stance is very much enforced on articles regarding conservative groups, commentators, etc. (i.e., the inclusion of sections regarding controversies and in some cases, separate pages dedicated to such), this group's page (as well as the pages for many other liberal groups) is completely deviod of such and drafted in such a way as to hold them in a very flattering light. Now personally, as long as all of the positive things you've said the group has done can be supported (and I don't doubt your word, only note that it's also a Wikipedia policy that all entries be backed up with references), I agree that those things should be included. But in the name of NPOV, any questionable behaviors and controversies linked to the group should also be highlighted just as much. And as far the Catholic habits (BTW, I'm not Catholic, either), it isn't about someone somehow confusing a member of the SPI with an actual Catholic nun (because I do agree with you, that's unlikely to happen), it is about mocking the Catholic church and the church universal. The gay community doesn't appreciate it when non-gays mock them (regardless of whether or not the person doing the mocking ever be taken for a true gay person or not); why should it be expected that the Christian community not be offended by the SPI doing it to them? So yes, regardless of how much good they may be doing for LGBT people around the world, their actions regarding the church reflects a very bigoted attitude toward the church, something this article really seems to try to avoid admitting to. Nolefan32 17:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. Well stated and I basically agree. Sources have been provided and certainly exist for everything in the article as of yet but your point (stated a bit more cleanly than previous efforts) is certainly valid. I should point out that they do seem to get a lot of glowing media coverage probably because they take part in some much charity work (like civic groups are known to do) as well as donating money to so many other charities. The criticism that I've seen tends to run a bit extreme and mostly is on "right-wing" and Catholic blogs. I used this latest dust-up to clean the talk pages and put outstanding items to a to do list which has two glaring examples that could be a foundation for a "controversy" section (title should be qualified as many of the activities by nature are controversial)

• 1.Papal List of Heretics - part of SPI lore but I think it's actually true just not provable so should be stated as lore or some such. This would certainly show them to be at least seen as anti-Catholic even if balancing info states they aren't
• 2. The Condom Saviour Consecration and Vow is certainly notable and has been mentioned in the Catholic-sphere but should have at least passing mention in more mainstream media. The two latest issues (allowing for recentism) was
• 3.last month's Folsom Street Fair poster controversy where Sisters Rome was the virgin Mary and
• 4.two Sisters attended mass and had communion the following weekend (Oct 6, 2007) at SF's Most Holy Redeemer church; they were warmly welcomed but video was used to pressure official condemnation.

I also know there was some action taken when Pope Paul? visited SF in 1987. And there certainly was criticism from the Easter street closure as that was top media story for a few days. Combined these certainly could be reffed to build a controversy section. Any suggestion for proper title? Benjiboi 18:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Article seems to hold the Sisters in very high regard

The whole article seems to think very positively of the Sisters, even throwing the word "so-called" in front of church invasions. Which if they're not invasions, then what are they? We need a good criticism section. If we're going to talk about the "good" things they've done, lets have a section talking about all the filthy, offensive, disgusting things they've done such as mock the religion of others, which to me doesn't make sense. They're obviously against others making fun of them for being gay, so why do they mock those who have a certain religious belief? I suppose it's because the Left is all into tolerance and free speech for them and none of that for the Right.

Brad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.81.47 (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to explain as I don't see "invasion" or "so-called" anywhere in the article. And the fact that you characterize all the filthy, offensive, disgusting things they've done suggests a strong POV which does not work for wikipedia. In any case, as was pointed out in the comment right above this, from your perspective it would seem that the entire article would be labeled one big controversy so that's not going to happen. Benjiboi 02:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is written in a strong POV, which you criticize Brad of. Yet, it seems to be working for wikipedia since the article remains. JorgeK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.141 (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

His comment didn't state that and I didn't read that meaning into it although perhaps I should have, I was focusing of his assertion "even throwing the word "so-called" in front of church invasions" which isn't in the article. Regardless I believe this parallels the same sentiment as the above conversation which I responded that I tend to agree and even offered some examples that could be used. Benjiboi 18:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, somebody removed the section about them going into the Catholic Church. It was definitely there, obviously, because I read where they called it a so-called invasion. And I don't see anything in here about them going into the Church. WHICH brings me to my next point... basically the only criticism in this whole article has been removed which proves that this article is way too pro-sisters. And also I did label the things they've done as filthy and disgusting, but if I were to write an informative article on them, I wouldn't label them as that. Basically, just because I have a certain opinion of them, doesn't mean that I'm not able to identify and remove bias, no matter what side of the aisle it comes from. - Brad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgj08 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

(Actually, a factual event happened that the Sisters videotaped and they were the cause of the happening. I stated that Catholics had started to claim they were victims of the very hate crimes that the sisters claim to stop. Yet, it is okay for the very first sentence in this article to have an obscene word that would cause anyone to be fired from their job, likely for sexual harassment, and students to be almost 100% sure to be evicted from their school. Moreover, Catholics have to question an article that discusses the EXORCISM of its POPE, that's okay, but to report that a specific Catholic Mass was invaded and disrupted with the Sisters vulgarity, THAT IS SO NOT OKAY!? **** SIGNED: an American-Sicilian that is both Catholic and an avid reader of Ayn Rand, which was an athiest, but was polite to Christians to accept and use the expression, GOD BLESS YOU. **** Benjiboi, IF YOU ERASE THIS, then you are not an editor that desires dialog, but a guardian of your pet group and/or article that, from the history on this web-area, shows you have been at this for months. Take a break and watch some TV where you can oberve the video where the SO-CALLED SISTERS harm a Mass in a way that would be a full Federal investigation, if it were a black church or Jewish Synagogue, if my very tired eyes spelled that last sentence with complete correct grammar; RIGHTLY SO, IF ANYONE INVADES A CHURCH, MOSQUE OR SCIENTOLOGY CENTER should they be inspected with the same eye that the KKK was put back into their basements and caves with. YES, I HAVE GAVE MY OPINION HERE, but I would never let it appear in an article for formal review, BUT AN ARTICLE SHOULD LIST AN EVENT AS PROFOUND AS THE SISTERS INVADING CHURCH SERVICES.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.65.176 (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article is a bit POV-ish and unencyclopedic in tone, particularly in the lead. But the truth is they are a solid, respected institution in San Francisco. Though they dress provocatively and act out in silly but harmless ways, they are thoroughly integrated into the fabric of political and social life. They have audiences with the Mayor and they're a bit of a political force themselves. To assume otherwise and complain that they are taken seriously, without sourcing your objections, is a lot more POV-ish.Wikidemo 04:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this statement is this isn't "Wikipedia San Francisco" nor are they limited to that one locale. They have been noted in the wider world and in the wider world they are not necessarily as respected. This might be a tad obscured by the way this is written. Do I think that will change? No. Do I think I will be blasted for even saying this? Yup.--T. Anthony 04:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree. I think their reception in San Francisco is mirrored in some cities but unlikely in all; and frankly each group does there own thing, I've seen little evidence of coordinated campaigns. One way to deal with that is to write a section for each city they are in or even better write a good criticism section which I've started to collect material for but got sidetracked by ... ta da ... some anon IP vandalizing the Sister Roma article on anti-Catholic grounds. I rather doubt you will get blasted for stating your opinion on the articles deficit and will defend your right to express the same. And frankly welcome it, articles can be improved through constructive criticism. Benjiboi 07:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd probably not be informed enough to do a good job on it. I've never actually met or seen one of them, or seen anyone who's seen them, and only know of them because of occasional mention in the media.--T. Anthony 08:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll support your efforts regardless and there's a lot to be done on this article. Benjiboi 08:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As for the leded sentence genderfuck is directly quoted from a book speaking about the Sisters. I know the communion incident to which you refer and you may wish to get a full (and possibly more accurate) version of the story before rushing to judgment against me or the subject of this article. Two Catholic Sisters attended Mass at their church in full festive habit. They were welcomed by the congregation (so hardly were invading anything and were never asked to leave so also never disrupted) and indeed had communion from the high holy officiant (apologies for not knowing his name/title). Some visitors from out of town uploaded a video (so no, the Sisters didn't take a video of themselves) of the drag nuns taking communion. Once the video was uploaded and complaints filed an "official condemnation" was set forth. I'm quite confident that this will all come out in more mainstream news but as of yet that's pretty much the story. Part of the missing background was that this was the same church that got into trouble for "allowing" The Sisters naughty bingo fundraiser. As well in that incident the church members themselves weren't at issue it was church officials from elsewhere putting pressure that caused it to become an issue. So, if and when we can present a balanced and referenced version of the event then by all means add it. If it's any indication of past events it will simply make the Sisters more cult-hero-like for all the free publicity the Catholic church gives them. Hopefully this addresses the majority of your concerns but we can revisit the rest if needed. Benjiboi 07:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Photo Shoot For Halloween 1995 Poster Photo by Brian Ashby.gif

Resolved

Image:Photo Shoot For Halloween 1995 Poster Photo by Brian Ashby.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Added use rationale. Benjiboi 13:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sisters Upset Communion Being Turned into Political Issue

Here is a statement from the website of the Sisters.

We can certainly now start to build this into the article. Benjiboi 02:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sisters Upset Communion Being Turned into Political Issue

"We are dismayed that a moment of genuine communion during sacred worship is being twisted for political gain by the forces of hatred and dissension. — Sister Edith Myflesh, Current Abbess of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, Inc.

SAN FRANCISCO — On Sunday the 7th of October, the morning of the Castro Street Fair, two members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence® attended Mass at Most Holy Redeemer Church. Most Holy Redeemer is located in the Castro neighborhood of San Francisco and "prides itself in being an inclusive Catholic community." The service was an opportunity to welcome the new Archbishop of San Francisco, Most Rev. George Niederauer. While at Mass the Sisters joined other parishioners in respectful and sincere worship and received Communion from the Archbishop. After the services, they stayed to socialize with the congregation before moving on to attend the Castro Street Fair.

Sadly, while the Sisters participated in the celebration, others not there to worship secretly filmed and photographed the Mass hoping to spark a controversy and cast the parishioners of Most Holy Redeemer and the Archbishop in a negative light. These professional muckrakers then gave the photos to an anti-gay Fundamentalist Catholic Website which in turn sent them to right-wing media outlets who willfully distorted the facts for political gain.

The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are appalled that some media outlets have unwittingly spread these distortions while others have intentionally taken advantage to fuel a mean-spirited and divisive political agenda. These forces have been critical of Most Holy Redeemer for their welcoming approach to the diverse community they serve and have frequently seen fit to attack the parishioners as part of a larger campaign against "San Francisco values."

Our hearts go out to the parishioners of Most Holy Redeemer and to the Archbishop who have been unfairly stigmatized by these disingenuous campaigns for doing nothing more than following the welcoming teachings of Christ and administering Communion in keeping with the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.

We would like to take this opportunity to state again that, contrary to the spin of right-wing fanatics, that the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence do not "mock nuns" but live "as nuns," taking vows that affirm the traditional compassionate and justice-seeking ministries of religious women, extending their reach beyond the convent walls to those most in need. We are open and supportive of all forms of spirituality that teach respect for human life, diversity, freedom and community, including those of the Catholic Church. In fact, we have given several thousand dollars in grants to several religious-based organizations, including Most Holy Redeemer.

It is no secret that our vows sometimes call us to challenge the dogmas and hypocrisies of the Catholic hierarchy, in the same way they call us to confront politicians and even leaders within the queer community whenever they use their power and influence to promote fear, shame, division, and self-hatred. It is a bittersweet irony that these same forces of fear and shame now use the media to twist a moment of genuine communion into another justification for policies that harm people of faith and members of the LGBTQ community.

In keeping with our vows to expiate stigmatic guilt and promulgate universal joy, the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence call on all people of good faith to oppose those who would desecrate the sanctity of a church and defile a moment of true communion for cheap political gain. In a world wracked by violence and fear, we have no time for such lies and will continue to serve our community by boldly proclaiming that joy is more powerful than shame.

We extend our sincerest gratitude and affection to the parishioners of Most Holy Redeemer and hope that their new Archbishop continues to walk with them in service to the gospel of joy and justice."

HAHA, you aren't actually taking this seriously are you? Why would they be sincerely and genuinely taking communion dressed up like a cross between a clown and a nun. They've done tons of things in the past to mock religion, specifically Christianity and Catholicism. Why all the sudden a change of heart? Nobody sincerely takes communion dressed up like a clown. You should be intelligent enough to know that this article is a joke. - Brad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgj08 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried editing the comment above mine. But it wasn't showing up, even though when I clicked edit there, my comment was there. Hm, I'm not sure. What I basically said before was that you cannot seriously take this article seriously. Nobody takes a sincere, genuine Communion dressed up like a cross between a clown and a nun. They've done plenty of other things in the past to mock religion, specifically Christianity and Catholicism. Why the change of heart all the sudden? Nobody takes communion dressed like a clown.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgj08 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with you on all counts. There didn't seem to be any ill will intent and indeed they were embraced by the church, I believe their church, and were served communion. Nothing suggests that there was any problem until a group, which I have since read is a conservative anti-gay group called Quamdiu Domine, posted a video of the service. That same group also opposes Catholics taking part in any gay activities except promoting that gays and lesbians should practice chastity until their gayness ceases; they also oppose communion for (high-profile) heterosexuals such as John Kerry and Rudy Giuliani. So there is much more to this story and presenting it NPOV will be a good challenge for those who like or dislike what the Sisters do or stand for.

Okay, then explain to me why they were dressed up like clowns? You never answered me on that... Why did they dress like clowns? Kgj08 05:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Clowns? Please review the difference between clowns and nuns. Thanks. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You may also wish to consider that the Sisters consider themselves holy clowns at times so your potential slur may actually be am affirmation of their success. Benjiboi 07:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a potential slur. They were dressed up as a cross between clowns and nuns. They were dressed like nuns with a bunch of face paint and bright, bizarre colors. And for "holy clowns"? Honestly... do you take them seriously? You can't explain why they were dressed up like clowns NOR can you can explain their change in stance on Catholicism. The Sisters have been historically very hostile towards religion, specifically Christianity, and even further Catholicism. We've gone way too far with political correctness. Before it was the fact that we weren't allowed to make a broad statement about an entire group (which is fair). Now we're not even allowed to make a negative statement about a couple individuals that simply belong to a minority group. (Examples - It's politically incorrect to.... a) talk about Islamofascism, b) suggest that blacks even hold some blame for their current state and c) this thing with the Sisters) Just because someone is a racial minority, homosexual, etc. doesn't mean that they're free from criticism or even further, free of flaws. Why not just accept the fact that what they did is wrong? Kgj08 21:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

We can agree to disagree on whether it's a slur, you may have not intended it that way but that's what I certainly interpreted the use to mean. Whether or not you and I take them seriously hardly matters, plenty of catholics and others certainly seem to so we can reference what WP:RS have to say as there are plenty. And to that point i don't need to explain their dress or stance on Catholicism but both would be good to address in the article. Disagree that they have been historically very hostile towards religion and numerous references actually assert otherwise. They actually don't seem to be terribly hostile at all and have worked with all sorts of religious groups (Christian, Catholic, Jewish and others) including the very Catholic church where the communion incident took place. I'll refer to the rest of your comments as generalized discussion about political correctness which although interesting seems only to speak to the Sisters as being ironic or something as they seem to take care to be politically correct but I may be missing your point. I will add explain their dress or stance on Catholicism to the to do list as it's completely valid and I think should be included. Benjiboi 22:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Catholic Church has every right to set standards for who can receive Holy Communion. The Archbishop, as he admits, was wrong to give it to them. They should not receive Holy Communion if they do not believe in the Catholic Church. That makes them hypocrites and dishonest. Under no circumstances should they approach Holy Communion. It is simply blasphemy. They received it as a way to thumb their noses at the Church.136.242.228.133 21:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

We are here to build an encyclopedia not guess the intent of others. Making generalized and disparaging remarks is completely inappropriate and is damaging to the process of building good articles. If you have a reliable source that affirms that assertation we certainly would like to know about it. Benjiboi 01:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Benjiboi, I've asked you this 8 million times and you can't seem to deliver an answer. Were they dressed up as nuns with face paint/weird colors? Yes or no? (Yes). Have they been hostile toward Catholicism in the past? Yes or no? (Yes). I don't understand. How can you say that they were acting genuine when they have been historically hostile against Catholicism and they had all this face paint, as if they were clowns, when they went into the church? Just answer me. Why did they do that? And saying that we should build an encyclopedia that doesn't guess the intent of others. Well what about when people make comments that others find racist, but the one who said them claims they aren't (Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, etc.) We don't truly know the real intent of their statements. Should the comments be left out of the pages then? Because they certainly aren't. - Brad Kgj08 05:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Jesus accepts everyone no matter what they wear, even the Pope in his garish robes and and prada slippers SO GAY!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.44.217 (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, good one. It's impossible for you guys to think in a straight line. You won't just stop the bs and get down to the facts. Nor will you answer the questions. I'm still waiting for a solid answer on why they were dressed like clowns and what caused their change of heart (why all the sudden they were willing to receive Communion even though they've done plenty of anti-Catholic/Christian things in the past. And someone told me the job of wikipedia isn't to speculate someone's thinking... EXACTLY! Don't speculate what they were thinking or why they did it. Just report that they went into a Church dressed up like clowns to receive Communion. And report that they've been very hostile toward Catholics. I know that you know you're just fooling yourself when you say the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence really wanted to partake in Communion. Do you know who the Sisters even are? Kgj08 11:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I hadn't noticed your questions but will try to now respond, apologies for the delay. "It's impossible for you guys to think in a straight line." Isn't that a t-shirt slogan, really let's try to stay on content. "why they were dressed like clowns" As was stated previous they consider themselves to be holy clowns so they apparently were dressed "festively" as befits their preference, I'm guessing they wouldn't bother if it didn't work for them. "what caused their change of heart (why all the sudden they were willing to receive Communion even though they've done plenty of anti-Catholic/Christian things in the past" Seems a loaded question but as has also been pointed out the two Sisters are Catholic so apparently no "change of heart" needed to take place; "they've done plenty of anti-Catholic/Christian things" this, generally, is a matter of perspective, some point out that their work, in part, illuminates the many areas where organized religion fails to address the needs of LGBT people and, in fact, contributes to violence and persecution and the denial of human rights to LGBT people so actually it would be un-Christian of them not to call upon the church to examine its hypocrisy. I could be wrong but there is room in wikipedia for multiple perspectives to co-exist. I'm pretty sure it's original research or WP:POV (maybe both) to state that they were "dressed up like clowns" or "that they've been very hostile toward Catholics" without neutral and reliable source per verifiability tenet. I may be fooling myself but I'd rather do so without violating wikipedia policies. If they are indeed hostile clowns then neutral reliable sources should have no problem reporting that. Benjiboi 13:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if we do include this we need to explain the visiting radical anti-gay Catholic group that was videoing in the church and uploaded the video. I'm not sure if that violates any church doctrine. Benjiboi 13:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

External links

These all seem to be in the article already in the table of houses. Do we need to repeat them? Benjiboi 17:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Photo credits?

Does wikipedia style guideline condone putting "photo by X" in captions? I have seen such removed under claims of following guidelines, but not ever seen such guideline. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Captions#Credits. MantisEars (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Article now in accordance with same. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I reinserted the one the was credited to one of the Sisters per the same policy. Banjeboi 01:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

While it was taken by a Sister, I am not sure that that fact is relevant in this case. I believe the caption guideline exception is more designed to apply to say photo taken by Ansel Adams in an article about Ansel Adams the photographer. I do not believe the photography skills of the Sisters are really relevant to this article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not that big of deal but on an article about a group it does seem relevant when they are self-producing or self-representing as such. I think this would be in the spirit of the policy as well as within the letter of the policy. Banjeboi 03:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My assessment of this article's quality

I've changed the rating to B class from Start as the article has progressed considerably. There is a lot of (well referenced) information and a fair number of striking illustrations. Some, at least, of the POV issues have been addressed. Anyone not knowing about the subject and wanting to learn would find the article very valuable indeed.

That said, I don't think I'd want to nominate it as a Good article. It reads like some awkward corporate document, the structure is confusing and some of the pictures bear little relation to the section they are illustrating: the whole page could do with a rewrite for style and clarity. Also I feel that there are still some residual POV issues: the page seems more like a prospectus for the organization that has been corrected for accuracy than an encyclopedia article.

The negative stuff is just my feelings about what needs to be done. The article has improved vastly since I had anything much to do with it. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Official reactions

The article should maybe allow room for the official views and reactions of high-level church officers, which would seemingly be critical of this phenomenon. As of now, the article risks being accused of harbouring an uncritical and favourable bias towards the group. ADM (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's unlikely to find NPOV criticism from high-level church officials but I think there has been some articles that put these folks' criticism and mocking of religious institutions in perspective. There is a ton of material to be added and rarely a week goes by that one of the groups isn't written up worldwide so no end seems to be in sight. Also the earliest criticism were also within the LGBT communities whereas now the complaints seem to be centered on culture war divides. -- Banjeboi 08:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

501(c)(3) status as noted on other articles about 501(c)(3) orgs

AIDS Project Los Angeles, ARC Diversified, Alliance for the Lost Boys of Sudan, AmeriCares, American Near East Refugee Aid and that's just the letter A. 1durphul (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

None of those articles inject trademark statements into the lede sentence - likely because it degrades the article. And we have no evidece that all the Sister chapters are 501 c3 and as a large percentage are not in the United States 501c3 wouldn't apply to those regardless. At best we can state they are charitable groups. Absent evidence that all in the United States are 501c3 that really is unsubstantiated original research. -- Banjeboi 02:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

SPI is a SF based 501(c)(3) charitable organization which also permits (licenses) the usage of their name to other organizations. 1durphul (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You are simply mistaken. The SF group likely is a 501c3, and were this article only about that chapter then this would be a different issue. Instead there are dozens of groups in the US and no evidence they are all 501c3; if that weren't enough of a reason there are the non-US groups which might be charities as well but likely not 501c3. You would need reliable sourcing to inject a statement like that into the lede sentence that indicates this is not only true but somehow significant enough to mention. -- Banjeboi 09:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The name "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" is a trademarked name.

The trademark is owned by the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, INC. All other organizations that wish to use that name must contact the rights owners in San Francisco and get permission, or face a cease and desists, and potentially a lawsuit.

Since this article is about a corporation (and their trademarked name) the tax filings of that 501(c)(3) organization are relevant to the topic of the article.

That the SF group controls the trademarking is not the problem. This article is about a worldwide loose-knit group. Although the trademark may be controlled in one location their is nothing to support that that group also controls the finances or decision-making for the rest. Likely because they don't, at least I have seen nothing to suggest that could. Instead each group - roughly identified to each city - does their own ... well, everthing. This article fcuses mainly on the SF group because they were the first and made headlines continuously. It may make sense to build a section for each successive group with notable details and give the SF group its own article. If the SF group did have its own article then documenting tax statements could be encyclopedic and add context. As this article remians an international group we need to focus on international impact and context in broader terms. That the SF group reported $80,000 in income/donations in a given year? Who cares? Is there a reason that is meaningful? I would be more swayed to insert "Although the group only brought in X amount of funds they continue to provided the majority back to various other LGBT groups through their grants program." This actually means something and shows why they are given support. In contrast if we had reliable sources that the SF group brought in $500,000 but in the same period only gave away $10,000 in their grants cycle and were criticised for this - it would add details and context to help our readers understand this subject. -- Banjeboi 00:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

To those of us who give to charities the tax information is very useful. Many of us don't like to see our money go to organizations with less than a 75% pay out ratio. You do not get to be the soul decision maker on what is relevant and what isn't relevant. This article is titled "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence", which is a trademark of the 501(c)(3) in San Francisco, CA. As such, this article is the appropriate place for information about the trademark holder. I'm so sorry that their numbers were disappointing, but you have no right to delete that information just because you don't like it. From what I can tell it reads an awful lot like you are part of this organization and shouldn't be editing this article at all due to your apparent conflict of interest.

Lastly your argument that the inclusion of the international houses somehow excludes specifics about the SF house is wrong. If anything your very argument can be used as reason to remove the information about the international houses. I however recognize the relation of the International houses to the San Francisco house. 1durphul (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing or edit-warring. You're malforming the lede, which is always a bad idea, to insert your POV about what yu think is their trademark. Just wondering do you have any reliable source for the trademarking content you wish to insert? That would help us see what direction may make sense. And no, I don't care if their tax numbers were "disappointing" or stellar as that's original research. I do care what relaible sources state about their funding if, in fact, any have written about it. It seems like you want to insert something scandalizing which happens on this article a lot. Anything that is written NPOV and reliably sourced likely is welcome. I simply see little use in the tax numbers from a few years of one chapter group (around thirty years?) of an international group. If the SF group has its own article then it could work. Instead this is for the world-wide organizationthat doesn't seem to have any "corporate office". I take this same stance on hundreds of articles I contribute to - what do reliable sources tell us? -- Banjeboi 01:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source? How about the big Registered brand after their name in the image used here on the wiki, or on their own website? Is that reliable enough? Or do you actually want me to do a trademark search?

You are the one who removed the original tax filing information a couple of months ago, an edit I did not notice until now. You need to get a consensus for removing that, it has been part of this article for well over a year. To me (and apparently other people) it is valuable information about the organization that should be included. 1durphul (talk) 02:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's original research to allege that because they have a logo with a trademark on i t that they are, in fact, trademarked. And further that that trademark applies as you are indicating. And yes a reliable source about their trademark and structure would go a long way. The tax filing information is another, poorly constructed, bit of original research. If you still want to use it some way it would be smarter to get as many of the filings and ensure we are citing them accurately. -- Banjeboi 09:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I earlier reverted the material (which was removed without comment) and have since removed it on the basis that it is controversial and has no reference cited. I think this ongoing dispute is resolvable:- though secondary sources are better, using primary sources isn't necessarily OR - company registration records are frequently used to establish the true birth dates of entertainers. If you take care that information is actually supported by reliable sources and find a mutually acceptable way of presenting it (maybe not in the lede), you can get out of the edit war. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If we have a reliable source as to what exactly is copyright - likely not the name but the logo - then we could state that although it seems trivial. What I dispute until we have reliable sourcing is the inuedo of the structure being asserted in the lede sentence. The tax filing information is another are but we'll see if there is any interest in re-adding it. -- Banjeboi 02:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like the tax information to stay in the article, but I'm not going to revert it. I don't understand your agenda for removing it other than that there is one substandard year (2007 with 56%.) The tax forms are easy to read "grants" and "income" are the only two lines that matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.143.94 (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality of Sources

I've been through the 1st 21 footnotes and with 2 possible exceptions they are all unverifiable or just go to a Sisters website, i.e not reliable sources. 2 exceptions: a SF Chronicle article, and a Spero News article (even though I don't know whether it is a reliable source of not). And there's no way to check out the book, ref 1.

In short - terrible sourcing. Somebody should fix it.

Smallbones (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That claim is simply and outrageously false. I've just had a very brief look:- there's a BBC news story, more than 1 SF Chronicle story, a Wall Street Journal story, several SF Bay Times stories, the Terrence Higgins Trust site, Time Magazine, several pieces by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, Catholic World News, a press release from Senator Patrick Leahy, gay news organizations and AIDS groups. And that's not a thorough survey, that's what I got from a quick sampling. I can't check the book apart from it's existence, because I haven't got it, but that's how it goes with books. I'm not surprised to find such a high quality of sourcing as the article has been the subject of much controversy in the past, resolved by decent (and very politically varied) sources. --Simon Speed (talk) 09:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a decent look at them later. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Clean up

It's an interesting article, but some of the organization and writing seems to be more promotional than encyclopedic. Like having the early section on the mission statement seems like something more appropriate to the organizations website than to an encyclopedia article about it. Maybe the mission statement could be integrated into a history of the group? I think that would be more informative and encyclopedic. The other issue i have is that the entire Hormel Ambassadorship section doesn't seem to belong. I could see it in that individual's biography, but it's not clear at all how it ties into this organization or why it's given such extensive coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I missed that - it's because he's seen laughing when they walk past - the section and the detail is completely over the top - it's a bit of a coatrack and I removed it. It might at best have a line with a link to the relevant section on his bio. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The rainbow flag think seems a bit of a coatrack as well - it's not clear how the design of the flag is connected to his membership in this organisation? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The saints bit also seems like an effort to stick in sources that are superficially related to the subject and needs reading and copy-editing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

First Face of AIDS again seems like coatracking in an attempt to bump up the number of reliable sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're looking for an article to do a rewrite of, thorough reorganization of, or at the very least some bold editing on, I think you've found it. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I can only do bits and bobs for the moment because of something real world I am working on - however come 1st of October if this article is not done, I'll go through it line by line. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to assist, starting from scratch. Rewriting in a sandbox. Such scrutiny is (rightfully) on this article though that I anticipate it will be quite an uphill climb. --Moni3 (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've started a rewrite to make this article encyclopedic in tone and scope. I'm using what sources I have and it may take a few days or weeks to do it. However, in looking at the tasks you can do at the top of this page, it is a list of things, not actions. Can someone clarify what is to be done with these things, by putting actions with them or simply removing them if they do not apply?

I'm asking input on the Sister Houses worldwide section. If cites can be found for these, it can be split off into the List of Houses and Orders of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. --Moni3 (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The list of actions is just a list of topics, really just a wishlist of things to be covered. If you have any information on these you could include it. Otherwise, unless you find the list at all useful, I suggest you ignore it.

Benjiboi did an excellent job in finding information for the article. I suspect he may know the archivist for the SPI's San Francisco branch. He would be a good person to ask for sources of organizational information. --Simon Speed (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I suspect Benji may be the archivist of the SPI San Francisco branch. There is a COI tag on this article I am working to remove, and regardless of my past experiences working with Benji, I do not think it a good idea that he involve himself further in this article.

If there is anyone who populated the tasks you can do list, please let me know what you meant by listing all that stuff listed. I am specifically looking for input on removing the Sister Houses worldwide section from the article. --Moni3 (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I had quite the scuff up a few months ago with Banjiboi over whether or not tax information was apropriate for the article. I sourced it properly against the SPI's own tax filings. It was really unbelievable to me how he managed to use Wikipedia's rules to out manuevre me simply because I did not know there was a complaint forum. If I had known I would've complained about his continued removal of the information much sooner and I probably would've won "the edit war" that happened here. So becareful boys and girls, Benji knows the rules and how to wield them like a weapon. 1durphul (talk)

If you have comments about the article contents, make them here. If you have issues with another editor, there are more appropriate places for that than the article talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This is in reference to a past attempt by me to add content to this article. I was new to being an editor and was served with quite a bitchslap by Banjiboi for adding content he considered critical of SPI. To me it was just numbers and facts. Regardless, if you are going to take on editing this article, be prepared to deal with Banjiboi, well armed with "rules" and ready to use them as a weapon to get his way. That isn't a personal attack, it is a warning to anybody who sees fit to add objectivity to this article.1durphul (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

<reset>Quite. I have already rewritten 3/4 of the article yesterday. It was poorly written, disorganized, and poorly cited. I plan to complete the rewrite over the next few days. I scanned through the history of the article briefly and saw that you were trying to add information about the logo and tax info to the lead, which is not the right place to do it. Nor is tax information appropriate for an encyclopedia article unless it is a significant issue. The Catholic Church has requested the IRS revoke the Sisters' tax exempt status, which is notable, but the half-complete returns are not. --Moni3 (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I neither agree nor disagree. Since a 501(c)(3) is a charitable organization it's percentages of distribution of funds is relevant to many people who want to know those facts about 501(c)(3)'s they might be considering giving donations to. Encyclopedic? Maybe not. It is factually based number though. The SPI name is a trademark, and that is also factual. After reviewing the Scientology article which is currently under heavy scrutiny, there is mention of Scientology's organzation type, and of their ownership of the trademark's and their application. The San Francisco house of SPI is a 501(c)(3) and also owns and administers (licenses) the SPI trademark. This isn't a matter of being critical of SPI, it is just a matter of including factual information, information deemed relevant of other organizations with articles on Wikipedia.1durphul (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot to be removed, e.g. the Scholarly Interpretation section. If anybody can explain the following in a short 2 sentences, please do. "The Sisters' utilize identity in their politics precisely by un-fixing, from the norms established in various socio-political contexts, both the subjectivities they embody and the political ground they occupy. Put differently, rather than limit the possibilities for politics and the political subject, SPI queers both and creates the conditions for the possibility of a multitude of political subjectivities and modalities." And then put those sentences somewhere else in the article after removing this section. Otherwise, just remove the section.

I've seen Form 990s in other articles, and nobody connected to the subject likes to see their "tax returns" made public - even though by law they must be public. I think its relevant, but probably not in the lede. What's interesting is the amount they raise and then give away. $160,000 per year raised suggests that this article ought to be a lot shorter. It's approaching "Presidential size" whereas there are a lot of small churches that raise more than $160,000 per year. The small payout is also interesting, but unless it's in the form itself, we probably shouldn't do a "payout ratio." That's OR and, besides, people can divide by themselves (or use a handy computer). Smallbones (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The diffs I was looking at reflect that the logo information was being used as a first sentence to the article. The first sentence should succinctly state what the subject is. Logo information, I don't know...who cares about it? If it's going to be in the article, certainly not in the lead.

As for the tax info, there may be a way to incorporate it in some other way. I won't count it out. The Scientology issue I don't think is an apt comparison. A major issue with Scientology is the suspicion that they are a corporation making money from clients, not a religion that collects to give to the poor or a church that simply supports itself. However, tax reports and how much the organization raises and gives away is not an indicator of how long the article is. Clearly there are other issues, such as their political and religious protests, performances, and their method of drawing attention to issues. The standard by which the length of the article should be gauged is what reliable sources have to say about a topic.

I think there is a way to incorporate what the source in the Scholarly interpretations section says, but not in its own section disconnected to all other issues. Academic opinions should not be discounted if they reflect valid information about the topic. --Moni3 (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The SPI are more than just a charitable organization, they also have sociological goals, as well as political, and informational purposes. The sentences quoted above are quite a mouthful, and really could be said more succinctly. Here are some basic facts about SPI: The are a 501(c)(3). The San Francisco house owns the SPI trademark. SPI gives money to charities, in line with their 501(c)(3) status. SPI's origins, which predate it's modern day charitble purpose, have a lot to do with countering "clone" culture within the gay community. SPI provided one of the first safe sex pamphlets to the gay community during the initial stages of the AIDS crisis (the pamphlet was called Play Fair.) The sisters have also worked for politicized causes in the past (HIV advocacy for example) especially at local levels, with Sister Boom Boom running for mayor of San Francisco, and more recently the fight against Proposition 8, and other gay rights advocacy. The sisters are in themselves a reply to the Catholic church's condemnation of homosexuality.1durphul (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sections to keep, delete, adjust

• Queer Pride Month proclamation cites are to blogs and a dead site. I can't find information to back it up in the San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Bay Times, or Bay Area Reporter. It's a self-made declaration that was primarily unnoticed. How important is it?

• Structure and membership again, not sure why the table in this section is necessary. Have found a cite that says how many there are and in how many states/countries. Anyone want to pitch in to say why this extensive table is needed? Would like to be able to put info in this section into prose to be able to discuss how one joins and what is expected of members. The Sisters' own site addresses this, but it can use an outside citation as well. I would like to know how many members they have worldwide. I'd like to know how much funds other active chapters have raised or any high-profile protests.

• I would like to find cites for the following information:

• Why the names? Is it written in their bylaws or charter (seriously) how they choose their names and why they do not represent themselves with their given names? Even a cite to say, like Catholic nuns, they forsake their given names for...something else.

• What is the reason for the whiteface make-up? Why the change from very little make-up when they began?

• Any commentary by the Sisters themselves on how they see the effectiveness of high camp drag and religious parody in drawing attention to their causes.

Interested in any discussion. --Moni3 (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I'd like to take this article to peer review to get the COI and cite needed templates taken down. There may be a way to get it to GA status if the right sources can be found. --Moni3 (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Amusing vandalism

It's vandalism, but I found the following amusing and wondered who had written it. It seems to be someone who knows gay porn director Chi Chi LaRue.

[2]

and by the same IP, earlier: [3]

deisenbe (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040923141122/http://www.sfgate.com:80/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/03/24/ED80103.DTL to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/03/24/ED80103.DTL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.sfobserver.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=d1e59accb486a3d7b8467c498ac0d66b

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)