Wikipedia

Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality/Archive 6

< Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Contaldo80 in topic Closet of the Vatican
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Requested move 25 May 2016

Latest comment: 7 years ago20 comments11 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move the article has been established within the RM time period and thus defaulting to not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 talk 01:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism → Homosexuality in the Catholic Church – A more WP:PRECISE description of what the article is about than the "and" version, and avoids perceptions of bias on this touchy article per WP:AND. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 18:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Question: if the issue is "Roman", why would your proposal be preferred over "Homosexuality and Catholicism", to parallel other articles? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
@Roscelese: A: The issue isn't the "Roman", really. It's bias issues per WP:AND. Per WP:CONSISTENCY, esp. with recent similar move requests, it would be better to put it in "Catholic Church" rather than "Roman Catholicism". It does happen to clear up the pesky "Roman" issue, but mainly it puts the general topic ("Homosexuality...") within the scope of the organization ("...in the Catholic Church"), without using an "and". See the (completed) move request at Talk:Dogma in the Catholic Church for one example with a fleshed-out discussion. Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Reject this proposal. The article is about how the Roman Catholic Church interacts with the issue of homosexuality in all its forms - not just about priests who might be gay. Pointless change. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't disagree that "[t]he article is about how the Roman Catholic Church interacts with the issue of homosexuality in all its forms", but the title is in violation of WP:AND when there is another viable alternative. "In the CC" doesn't imply priests-only. E.g. Women in the Catholic Church (which covers all women in the CC, not just those living in the religious life), Dogma in the Catholic Church (nothing to do with priests whatsoever), Marriage in the Catholic Church (which, technically, isn't even ministered by a priest), etc. ad nauseam. The pattern is <main subject> in <overarching organization>. So again, the proposed title does not pertain only, or even mainly, to "priests who might be gay". Deus vult (aliquid)! Crusadestudent (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Above you have suggested the current title allows for "bias". Can you expand this argument further before we seriously consider whether a name change is needed? Plus any name change would need to refer to the Roman Catholic church - there is no such thing as the Catholic church. Can I also ask what username you are now using - you have at least two and it is becoming rather confusing.Contaldo80 (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Well an answer to that question is unlikely, as that user has just been blocked as a sock. William Avery (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
I've been unblocked, and cleared of the sockpuppetry charge (albeit not before my name was dragged through the mud a bit). I am now Jujutsuan, formerly Crusadestudent.
As for the arguments, the WP:AND policy spells it out clearly enough—the unnecessary "and" is the problem in and of itself.
And your argument about there being no such thing as "the Catholic Church" is invalid—go start a discussion over at Catholic Church and see how far you get in your fight against the consensus, if you feel so strongly. There are many other articles that reference "the Catholic Church" in the title—e.g., Dogma in the Catholic Church, Marriage in the Catholic Church, Sacraments of the Catholic Church, Laicization (Catholic Church), Theology of the Catholic Church, and on and on and on. This would be perfectly in line with WP:CONSISTENCY, as Chicbyaccident pointed out above.
I suggest you stop your blatant and characteristic anti-Catholic POV-pushing, Contaldo, especially when it goes against consensus. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 22:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The result of the move request was: Moved with unanimous consensus; neither Roscelese nor Contaldo80 ever casted a vote to support or oppose. The comments Contaldo did make were clearly POV-pushing. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 12:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Re-opened. I didn't state an opinion, but Contaldo explicitly rejected the proposal and you did not get enough support to outweigh his opinion. You must try to gain consensus for your position, and - I suggest - wait for someone who is better at assessing consensus to close the proposal. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This name change is actually a fairly big shift in scope, and a much more restrictive title. For example, Almost the entirety of section 6 would be arguably out of scope as political activity is not "in" the church. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
@Gaijin42: It would not put that section out of the article's scope. Format is [treatment of] <main subject> in <overarching organization>. No reasonable interpretation would place political activity outside the scope of this article. Besides, the "and" is an issue per WP:AND. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 13:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:AND does not apply, as this intersection is covered in reliable sources. X "IN" Y, is not the same thing as X "AND" Y. I have my opinion, you have yours. All is right and just in the world. Thats how consensus works. In any case, there are now two objections to your proposed move. And BTW, I agree that "Catholic Church" is not a perfect synonym for "Roman Catholic", and we should be precise. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Relax, I'm not that butthurt. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 14:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems reasonable; this title is more precise and somewhat clearer about what the subject is.--Cúchullain t/c 16:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:CONSISTENCY with Catholic Church and similar articles. H. Humbert (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is the third premature close by Jujutsuan in the last few days. The close here resulted in more accusations of sockpuppetry. He/she also claimed not to have noticed my dissenting vote. A similar trick was attempted here on the flimsy ground that the absence of a "no" vote was proof of absence of dissent. I oppose this move because it is too big a shift from the intent of the article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
He. And no trick, just human error. Jujutsuan (talk | contribs) 22:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Where is gender identity?

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed this article has nothing to say on gender identity other than being referenced in LGBT unabbrieviated. I understand that gender identity is not sexual orientation but LGB people work with transgender people for eachothers' equality and noticed the absence of transgender people from this article. I wish I could help, but I am not qualified to write on this topic (I'm United Methodist). Is anyone willing to contribute to this article on gender identity in the Roman Catholic Church? I understand this could be a painful discussion for trans Catholics considering some of the Pope's statements, but I think it's an important dialogue to be had to raise awareness in the Catholic Church. I want any such contributions to be well-researched, comprehensively with positive and negative nuances to humanize the relationship between the trans community with the Roman Catholic Church as well as perspectives (including theological perspectives) directly from trans Catholics and what the climate is like for trans people in the Roman Catholic Church. Some positive and negative things I can think of offhand are when His Holiness, Pope Francis visited with transgender prisoners and another time when the Pope compared trans people to nuclear weapons.

If anyone with knowledge on this subject could contribute, that would be greatly appreciated!!!

Blessings and peace, TenorTwelve (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC) TenorTwelve (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

We have the article Christianity and transgender, which would at least be a starting point for a spinoff article on Catholicism in particular. It's definitely hard to navigate these articles; I've been saying for years that WP's coverage of LGBT issues and Christianity is a mess, but I'm not as involved as I used to be and it would be a big time commitment to fix it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this article to my attention! I already have some ideas to improve it. TenorTwelve (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 7 April 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved: no objections made to move. The move creates consistency with most other Catholic Church articles and adequately deals with the concerns raised in a prior move request in 2016.(non-admin closure) Ebonelm (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism → Homosexuality and the Catholic Church – Per WP:Consistency in accordance with Catholic Church, Category:Catholic Church, Talk:Catholic Church in Armenia, etc. Chicbyaccident (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support per consistency with the main article. There is no need for the Roman disambiguator in this particular article, and the move shouldn't be a controversial one since it is not dealing with particular churches or anything else that often confounds these discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
What are you doing? This isn't an uncontroversial technical request. There is no such thing as the Catholic church, it is the Roman Catholic church - to claim otherwise is to insult other "catholic" churches. Also this article isn't about the church is is about Roman Catholicism in it's broadest sense. Have a proper debate before making such changes. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 18 April 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago25 comments10 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Although, there was a minor viewpoint to move it back to Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism, it did not represent the majority. The original closer, on being contacted by another editor here, also raised serious objections to reverting the original move. There is also some opposition against any further title change. I know this close could also be contentious. I however think that rather than opening a new move request immediately after the last closure, contacting the original closer or going to move review would have been more helpful. I believe a move review regarding the last move could still be opened. (non-admin closure) Yashovardhan (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Surely the discussion was about whether you should change the article from Roman Catholic Church to just Catholic Church? There was no consensus for this original move. Now Catholic Church seems to have become the default. An odd state of affairs. A victory for those that argue for politico-religious reasons that there is only one Catholic Church and all the others are imposters. Quite disgraceful. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Homosexuality and the Catholic Church → ? – Queried move: see Contaldo80's message above. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Some of the articles you cite above cover more than the Roman Catholic church so it's not really an issue of alignment/ consistency. Others eg Mozart are very niche.Contaldo80 (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Not at all. You are free to create Homosexuality and the Old Catholic Church as well as Homosexuality and the Catholic Church in the Netherlands if you wish. Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
The point is that Catholic Church covers several churches and so naming an article that deals with Roman Catholicism as simply "Catholic" is innacurate. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I prefer Catholic Church because the article also deals with the early Church and councils that also affect Eastern Catholics so Roman Catholicism isn't entirely accurate here. It doesn't deal with any particular church at the diocesan or sui iuris level, and addresses the broader view. I think Catholic Church is broad enough to encompass the non-hierarchal aspects of the article. The opposition based on NPOV is understandable, but there are NPOV arguments against Roman Catholicism too in this case, namely that the article doesn't solely deal with Western Christianity. I don't have a strong opinion on this, and supported the previous move because I think the consistency argument is a strong one. The main article for this series is Catholic Church and this title is consistent with that. Binksternet's suggestion could be a good compromise, except on Wikipedia the Catholicism article refers to the broader use of the term while Catholic Church and Roman Catholicism both are used to refer institution that has the Pope as its leader. tl;dr: I am neutral I think the Catholic Church in the title has merit, but also appreciate the stable title argument presented by George Ho, and don't think this is a big enough deal to have a drawn out fight over Catholic/RC naming conventions. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to respond on this point. I added the bulk of the historical material relating to the early days of Christianity. I did so in order to show the progression between the origins of Chrisianity and today's Roman Catholic church. This helps to show how things developed. That information - in fact - can be duplicated in Eastern Catholics etc if people think it's useful. And in any case only a minority of the article deals with hisorical information that is relevant for a broader set of churches. It is not correct, however, to then say that today's Roman Catholic church is the only "Catholic Church" because it can demonstrate a link to the past. So can others. I'm also suprised that you think the article doesn't deal with the diocesan level - it's full of references to this. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
The NPOV argument cuts both ways: yes, Old Catholics and Anglo-Catholics could be offended by the term, but excluding Eastern Catholics is equally against NPOV: not all members of the institution in led by the Pope identify as Roman, and this article is applicable to them as well. I get this tension, which is why I am neutral since you have raised the controversy. It doesn't deal with things that would require looking at the naming conventions on the diocesan or sui iuris level is what I meant, and that is where the C vs RC argument gets most complex. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: As a courtesy, I have contacted Ebonelm, the closer of the last RM discussion to see if he/she is okay with moving it back to the title before that discussion took place. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Chicbyaccident and the fact that the main article for the church this article is concerned with is at Catholic Church. Titles including "Roman Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholicism" are unnecessary disambiguation, and the Catholicism article is about a broader topic than the Catholic Church specifically.--Cúchullain t/c 18:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
But this article only covers church followers that recognise the authority of the pope in Rome (currently Francis). Therefore it is misleading to say it covers Catholicism in its broadest sense - it only deals with Roman Catholicism. I feel uncomfortable about Roman Catholicism being presented as the only true type of Catholicism. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
That's your prerogative, but it's doubtful any readers are confused as to what "Catholic Church" refers to in the title. If it's good enough for the Catholic Church article, it's good enough for sub articles, especially when there aren't articles on homosexuality in any other church with a similar name.--Cúchullain t/c 18:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
So you're saying that we ignore the facts? Most readers probably don't realise there are different claims to catholicism but surely it's our job to enlighten them. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm saying that we acknowledge the reality that the phrase "Catholic Church" is understood to mean, well, the Catholic Church in all popular use, and that there are no other articles on homosexuality in other churches with similar names that we need to disambiguate from. No one is actually confused that this article may deal with homosexuality in some other church with "Catholic" in the name.--Cúchullain t/c 18:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes it matters as it's not true! Pope Francis is supreme pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church (as worshippers profess in the Creed every week). This article is focused on the Church specifically tied to the papacy. From the wiki article: "Roman Catholic is a term sometimes used to differentiate members of the Catholic Church in full communion with the Pope (of the See of Rome) from other Christians, especially those who also self-identify as "Catholic"... The use of "Catholic Church" is usually preferred by the Holy See and most of its adherents." There are hundreds of articles that use Roman Catholic so why not this one? The Church of England, for example, regards itself as a catholic church and there is an article on Homosexuality and the Anglican Communion. If we don't name this article Roman Catholicism then we imply that the Church of England is not catholic. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry, but there has been perhaps a decade of debate about this matter on Wikipedia. Please for instance see: Talk:Catholic Church in Armenia. Your arguments reflect perhaps a few basic percent of the arguments that have been exchanged and evaluated throughout the years. Again, you will have to raise these questions on Talk:Catholic Church in order to shift WP:Consistency from its current state. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Well if there has been a decade of debate what is the conclusion? What guidance is now in place? Has it been definitively settled that articles dealing with the Roman Catholic Church can just refer to the Catholic Church? In which case fine, but point us towards the conclusion. I actually can't understand what the big deal is about being accurate with the title of the article, other than the concern that some editors want to present the Roman Catholich church and the Catholic church as one and the same thing. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nomination is unconvincing. WP:TITLECHANGES places an onus on nominators that has not been met. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
To clarify do you mean you oppose the renaming of the article from Roman Catholicism to just Catholicism? Or oppose the reversion back to roman catholicism as it was to start with?Contaldo80 (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Undecided. Personally, I read the term "Roman catholic" as oxymoronic, but acknowledge there are no restrictions in creating composition titles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Homosexuality and the Catholic Church. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Homosexuality and the Catholic Church. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Needs updates

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Needs more about Pope Francis' position and the June 2017 "gay pilgrimage" in Newark, NJ and other churches. It made the national news.Parkwells (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Added the pilgrimage. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Assessment

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Anyone know how we get this article independently assessed to determine what class it is - and what needs to be done to reach GA status? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contaldo80 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Peer review is one step. To be honest outside of medical articles and MILHIST, the rating system below GA and FA don't really mean anything because WikiProjects have gone into decline on the English Wikipedia recently. I have no desire to be part of a GA review for this article because on the content side, I hate dealing with articles that involve current issues within the Catholic Church and aren't historical, but here are some quick hits:
  1. MOS:LEAD says the lede should be a summary of information already included in the article. I haven't checked to verify, but the number of citations in the lede raises concerns for me that this is not the case. You'll need to clean that up before GA.
  2. I added a CN tag on the Dutch section since it has no citation. At a minimum for a GA class article, every paragraph should have a citation to comply with WP:V. If information in a paragraph is not contained within a source it will need to be removed as OR. There could be other paragraphs like this as well since I just did a quick scan.
  3. It uses excessive quotes to the point of being choppy prose in my opinion.
  4. The citation style is not uniform.
  5. I didn't read for content that much, just skimmed for issues that would come up at a GA review, but headers like the one I changed, make me think there are likely other cases of language that will likely need to be tweaked to comply with NPOV and WP:V.
I hope this has been helpful. I typically don't venture much outside of the 18th century when it comes to Catholicism, so I won't be much help in fixing it, but hopefully these are good pointers. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • General comments - Size is a bit of an issue. "Notable lesbian, gay and bisexual Catholics" could probably be spun off into its own stand alone list. Other parts may be "spin offable" too. Discrimination against homosexuals apparently redirects to a section in Societal attitudes toward homosexuality, and that could definitely be its own article. But at any rate the section here is so long so as to be nearly unreadable. The sections that do have their own main articles should probably be two or three paragraph summaries of the main article, and any content removed should be incorporated on the mains.
Other than that, File:Andy Warhol 1975.jpg includes copyright information for Italy, but not for the US, and since the subject died in the 80s, it's not totally clear that this is in the public domain in the US. That needs to be fixed, or it needs to be nominated for deletion on Commons. TimothyJosephWood 21:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Summary style

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

@TonyBallioni: it is normal to have an overview sentence or two in a long section, especially one with many subsections. You also haven't explained your change from "Campaign against", the language supported by the sources, to "Public stance." Their stance is covered elsewhere in the article; this section covers their political activity. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, the wording that was removed was uncited, vague, and not in line with NPOV in my opinion.
There has been some dissent expressed in recent years by senior and notable figures in the Catholic Church on whether support should be given for homosexual civil unions: it doesn't define what recent years means (some of our readers might not have been born in 2004), doesn't define what senior is (is an auxilary bishop senior? a cardinal who is a metropolitan archbishop but not in the Roman curia?) Dissent from whom? It is typically better to just let the sources speak for themselves and to summarize them rather than summarize the summary of the sources.
In recent years, the Catholic Church has intervened in national political discourse to resist legislative efforts by secular governments to give equal rights to gay men and women through the establishment of either civil unions or same-sex marriage largely the same issues as above, doesn't define what the Catholic Church means (was it the Vatican, local dioceses and archdiocese, lay groups?)
Re: the heading change, to my knowledge, there hasn't been one centrally located effort by the Catholic Church to undermine same-sex marriage and civil unions in countries across the world. Yes, the Catholic Church oppose them and there has been public opposition, but campaign implies a coordinated effort and is a somewhat loaded word. Public stance is more accurate, conveys the clear meaning, and is more in line with NPOV.
I don't really have strong views on any of these, I was just trying to help get the article in shape for GA review per the question above. They would likely be questioned by a GA reviewer, and I thought removing them helped improve the article. Like I said, I don't really like working in modern Catholic topics, and only had this page on my watchlist because of the RM. These were just generalist observations, not observations as someone who actively edits in historical Catholicism. I have no issue with any critiques or reporting here, I just thought these might help out with the process of getting it to GA :) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks TonyBallioni for thoughts. I reverted some of your textual amendments. To be honest I'd rather like to arrange an independent assessment of the article and then make changes. I don't think it's helpful at this stage to second guess. Some of the statements you removed won't be direct sourced as they are summaries - but it doesn't mean there is no place for them as scene-setters.Contaldo80 (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Contaldo80, I'd ask that you self revert as there is not currently a consensus for inclusion and the edits that I made are pretty clearly in line with policy: those summaries are vague and could be interpreted by different people to mean different things. Since they are contentious they do need to be sourced per WP:V. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: that seems like an argument for rephrasing, not removing - and anyway, I could say the same for your rewording. Whose "public stance"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Roscelese, public stance is non-ideal as well for that reason, but it is much better than campaign for the reasons I pointed out above. It might be worth changing to Same-sex marriage and civil unions, which would align with the rest of the headers in that section. I am fine with rewording intro sentences: but they need to be sourced and not a summary of the summary with vague language. The current content isn't in line with WP:V or the MOS on words to watch, and per WP:BURDEN, once challenged they should not be reinserted until that can be fixed. Also, I hold myself to 1RR on all articles, but there is a needed inline citation at the Dutch bishops that was removed, and the standardization of the headers by removing Pope from John Paul II was also reverted. I don't consider either of those changes controversial, but wanted to check before reinserting them. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
TonyBallioni your edits are adding no value. They are just nit-picking. I think we all need to move beyond this. I think the article needs to be independently assessed and it's good if we find someone to do that. But I don't want that editor to be a member of the CatholicProject as there are concerns about neutrality. Making ad-hoc changes at this stage helps no-one. Let's get an assessment and then see what needs to be done. There are few articles on wikipedia that have as many supporting references as this one! It's frankly mischievous and beyond belief to claim that everyone sentence is controversial or needs a reference. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Nitpicking at sentence level details is what happens when you are getting an article ready for GA review. The issues with these sentences are that they are vague and leading, and largely unneeded because the text speaks for itself: people also should be free to determine if a random diocesan bishop is senior (i don't think they are) and most people reading this will know that a cardinal is important. It's also unclear that Martini actually dissented, he never received papal censure on the topic so presenting his actions in that light rather than letting the reader draw their own conclusions is problematic. This is true for the other cardinals cited as well: I don't believe any of them would consider their views as dissent, but rather discussion of the topic within the college of bishops. While others might view it as dissent, it doesn't have to be viewed that way. This is why the vagueness of the topic sentence becomes an NPOV issue. I'll ping GorillaWarfare because I trust her to tell me if I am completely off my rocker. I don't have any desire to white wash anything: I just made what to me were pretty clear improvements by removing vague summary sentences in an article that needed to be trimmed. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I see that we've added Milo Yiannopoulos. I have no objection to that but do think we need to add something that clarifies his relationship to catholicism - as we've done for the other people we've mentioned. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Homosexuality and the Catholic Church. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

conflict in text

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There is a discrepancy between the number of homosexuals killed between 1570 and 1630 in the text and the accompanying image of Thomas de Torquemada in the same section. The text references 800 or nearly one thousand while the image caption states that 150 were burned during the same period. While I am not a scholar and am disinclined to research the correct number, I feel this discrepancy is sufficiently significant to warrant further research and investigation to determine the correct number and the origin of the edit creating the discrepancy.

The text referenced is "Within Aragon and its dependent territories, the number of individuals that the Spanish Inquisition tried for sodomy,[92][93] between 1570 and 1630 was over 800[110] or nearly a thousand.[92] "

The image caption referenced can be found at : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_the_Catholic_Church#/media/File:Torquemada.jpg\


69.115.133.13 (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Yohannes

I haven't followed up on what's written or sourced, but do note that 800 tried vs. 150 burned is not a conflict or discrepancy. It is possible that not all those tried were condemned, that not all those condemned were executed, and/or that not all those executed were burned. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The correct conclusion. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Homosexuality and the Catholic Church. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Homosexuality and the Catholic Church. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Too long

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

This article has 117k of readable prose which is WP:TOOLONG. The longest sections are, in order, Political Activity, History, Differences from Church Teaching, and Notable Gay Catholics. I propose that we WP:SPLIT this article into several smaller articles, leaving summaries here. I think the list of gay Catholics should be the easiest to do.

Incidentally, I would like to call attention to the fact that the differences section has 60k of text, but the defenders only has 6k. I haven't reviewed it in great depth, but belive this could be an WP:UNDUE weight issue. --BrianCUA (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Undue weight because we can't find enough material to "defend" Catholic teaching?! Do we always get an equal balance - do we do that with evolution or climate change for example? Perhaps we need to make sure there is more material to show why people think evolution isn't real, that way we don't risk UNDUE. Please. It terms of splitting how about we spin out "Defenders of traditional Church teaching" for a start - that way we can really ensure we do this side of the debate justice. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Agree that the article is too long. It has become redundant and repetitive. (See what I did there?) Since it's redundant no need to split--just trim. Regarding evolution and climate change, you're dealing with 2 experienced editors here so, so I'm amused you're pulling the WP:OTHER stuff exists card.
Clearly the controlling policy here is WP:FRINGE "a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." Furthermore sections of this article are blatantly violating WP:PROFRINGE. – Lionel(talk) 11:19, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
No I'm sorry Lionelt that's simply not good enough. You need to be clear WHERE sections of the article are repetitive. Or where they are redundant. Be targeted and specific. Likewise there's no point throwing around a statement about "fringe" and violations etc, without making a very specific point. I'm doubtful anything in the current version is indeed fringe - unpalatable for some maybe, but fringe? I'd also ask Catholic editors to put their religious allegiances to one side in approaching this discussion - in fact I'd be encouraged to see Catholic editors make additions to the article which are actively critical of the Catholic church in some way to demonstrate they are acting in WP:GOODFAITH. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Contaldo, would you agree that the article is too long and should be split in general? Where do you think that should happen? --BrianCUA (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Contaldo80, do you agree that this article is is WP:TOOLONG? Where do you think we should trim or split? --BrianCUA (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not convinced it is too long. But if action needs to be taken then suggest we spin out catholic church teaching into its own article. Although you slightly undermine your argument by spending the last few edits adding considerably more material to the article! Contaldo80 (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
What makes you say that? The WP:SIZERULE says that an article over 100k "almost certainly should be divided." What is special about this article that would make it an exception? ---BrianCUA (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Roscelese has reverted my edit spinning off a section of this article into List of LGBT Catholics. I admit I am not an expert in this, and if the split and summary could be done better by someone else then I would welcome the help. Do you think you could do it, Roscelese, rather than simply reverting the edit so now that all of the information is in two places? Also, as it stands now, the article is 102k of readable prose, which is much too long. The biggest section here is on political activity. Much of what is in there is not "political," so I think trimming that down and spinning it out would be advisable. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I actually just missed that there was a spinoff article now. I'm biased because I started the section on this basis, but I think we could excerpt in this article some of the mentions that are actually quite relevant to the intersection of Catholicism and homosexuality (eg. Wilde, Mapplethorpe) now that the list primarily comprises people who just happen/ed to be both. To phrase it another way, there's material in what is now the spinoff that is pretty relevant to the main article, but you wouldn't know it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for taking another look at that Brian. I tried to reorganize it into prose a little better; tough for me to cut/omit some of them though! (Poulenc, Hall, Cocteau...) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


Former clergy

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Contaldo has said that "These are not former clergy so take this to talk before you" change the section title from "Clergy" to "Former clergy." However, the text of the section makes clear that they are not currently clerics: "Bernard Lynch... was subsequently expelled from his religious order." Also, "a group of sixty-three former Catholic priests..." Thirdly, "Wendelin Bucheli... was removed from his diocese. Finally, "James Alison... formerly a member of the Dominican Order..." It is clear that this section is about men who are no longer in active ministry. I am reverting. --BrianCUA (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah but they were clergy - that's the point! In fact some of them are still priests. "Former clergy" is completely unnecessary - other than an attempt to discredit them. Let the catholic church do that. That's not our job. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Non-notable content

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I am going to remove, again, a few sentences where clerics made very unkind, very regrettable remarks. I did this once before, but Contaldo reverted. My reasoning is simple: they are not notable. At best, we could have a sentence in here that states that some reprehensible comments have been made about gay people before with several citations. There have been plenty of gay activists who have uttered very unkind things about the Catholic Church and individual members, but they are not listed here, nor should they be. This is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of statements, and "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion." Also, as this is WP:NOTADIARY, "even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary." Just because someone was said by a senior churchman does not mean it should be included here. --BrianCUA (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree. The individuals involved in the material you have removed are the leaders of the Catholic church in their countries - cardinals, archbishops and senior bishops. I'm not sure you've demonstrated why a Catholic Cardinal is not notable in an article about the Catholic church!? The point is not that the remarks are "regrettable" (assuming they regretted saying or doing them - which incidentally they did not); but that they are illustrative. To move forward I think it most sensible to bring forward each statement you think problematic and then we can decide to keep, amend, or remove. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
It is not that any single remark is not worthy of inclusion. They are like the Lilliputian's ropes. There's not a single one holding Gulliver down, but together they become too much for him. It's the same thing here. I agree that we should include a few "illustrative" examples. That does not mean we need to include every negative thing said by a bishop about gay people. Doing so would bring the article out of WP:PROPORTION because "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." I am going to cull these down again. If you think that I have gone too far, why don't you bring that specific example to talk and explain why it is worthy of inclusion here? --BrianCUA (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

Latest comment: 6 years ago23 comments6 people in discussion

Contaldo has asked for clarification with this edit. I object to the title "Discrimination against gay men and women" for two reasons. For one, it simply does not accurately describe what is contained in the section. For example, I'm not sure how either of the following statements could be considered "discrimination "In October 2016, Robert McElroy the Bishop of San Diego held a diocesan synod on the family that called for improved ministry toward gay and lesbian Catholics. In 2017 the diocese of Jefferson City, Missouri said it would permit transgender students in its Catholic schools." or "In June 2017 Cardinal Joseph Tobin, Archbishop of Newark in the USA, held a "Pilgrimage" Mass specifically for LGBT Catholics from around New York and the five dioceses in New Jersey at the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart. Many of the attendees were married to same-sex spouses, and participated in the Sacrament of Holy Communion." Secondly, the word "discrimination" is pejorative. At a minimum we need to rename the section, but it propbably needs a good editing and reorganization as well. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The section points out that a bishop in Peru called people "faggots", that staff have been sacked from schools for marrying same sex spouses, or that polish bishops opposed legislation that would have protected citizens from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. How is this not dealing with discrimination. Discrimination is a word - it's not perjorative. If you're going to spend energy on making this article rose-tinted from the perspective of the church then I fear we're not going to get anywhere - and I sincerely hope you are not an employee of cleric in the catholic church. I'm assuming good faith that you're not.Contaldo80 (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
You didn't respond to my concern that the section talks about more than just discrimination. Does that mean you agree with me that this article needs a good editing and reorganization? I didn't delete any content yet, but I am not convinced that this article needs to contain a collection of every negative thing ever said by a member of the Catholic Church about gay people lest we run into WP:UNDUE concerns. WP:PROPORTION says that "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." That is not to say that this should be rose tinted, but neither should we swing too far in the either direction either. --BrianCUA (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid I did. I read through the section again at I'm confident it's about discrimination. The church permits "just discrimination" and there are examples of where Catholic leaders have implemented this policy or where they have insulted or maginalised gay groups. I am not therefore convinced that the article does not "good editing and reoganization". Of course I'm always open to thoughts about how things can be improved. The best way is to draw out specifics, consider them collectively on the talk page and then find a constructive way forward. Again, please be specific. I also do need to address your point about lots of "negative" things - the history of Catholicism's relationship to those that are gay and lesbian is sadly very very negative. I think we can't really avoid papering over that and giving it all a cheerful spin. There are a lot of events that can be viewed as negative (or maybe positive if you are strong fan of the "traditional" church approach) but this isn't UNDUE - it's just the facts. If you think there are lots of great upbeat events about how Catholic authorities (particularly at the senior level) embrace and champion gay rights and inclusion, well that's great! Let's have more of that - feel free to share it. For most of it's history, however, the Catholic church was a proponent of putting gay men to death - I'm afraid we're probably going to have to work hard to suggest it's been a bed of roses instead. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
No one is suggesting that we rewrite the article to make it look like the history has been a bed of roses. You are correct that it has been, unfortunately, a very negative one, and quite often the Church's fault. However, I stand by the statement that this does not need to include a mention of every comment ever made. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
If you suspect an editor of WP:COI you are free to open a case at WP:COIN and submit your evidence. Until then... what is your suggestion for a new title of the section? – Lionel(talk) 00:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Are you talking to me? I'm happy with the title of the section. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I believe he is talking to you. This is not the first time you have accused me and others of having a conflict of interest, or of using Wikipedia to promote an agenda. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
That's fine. Can I ask directly if you are a priest, member of a religious order or member of the Knights of Columbus? If the answer is no to all of those then I accept there is no conflict of interest. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Whether or not I am a priest, a nun, a Knight of Columbus, a Knight of Peter Claver, or a Knight Templar is no more an indication of a conflict of interest than whether or not you are gay. Either or both of us could be any or all of those things and still constructively contribute to this article.--BrianCUA (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Point of correction - affiliation with an organization (the RCC, the Knights of Columbus) creates a COI in a way that belonging to a demographic group does not. No one's saying that believing in the dogma of the Catholic Church is a COI, but being paid to disseminate that dogma is a potential COI. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted some recent changes that did nothing but add cruft. Wikipedia isn't a free content host for the RCC, which has plenty of web space of its own.

False. We have never held that simple membership in an organization establishes a COI as understood under WP:COI. I have no opinion as to the actual disputed content here, but as an editor who is familiar with both our Catholicism articles and our COI guidelines, I did want to make that point. Additionally, repeated accusations of COI without evidence, especially if it involves speculation as to one's off-wiki profession or religious affiliation is generally considered to fall under the harassment policy. Comment on the content, not the contributor. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I can't see why on earth this would be harassment. It's reassuring ourselves that editors are acting in good faith. The evidence shows that the Catholic church has been active in discriminating against gay and lesbian men and women. This article deals with sensitive material. I would not be content if a paid employee of the Catholic church is editing this article without making that plain. That editors such as yourself or Briancua refuse to simply clarify that they are not paid employees worries me. It suggests there is something to hide. If there's nothing to hide then just say so and we can move on - knowing that everyone is editing in WP:GOODFAITH. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

First, in regards to myself, I don’t edit current Catholicism topics in general beyond the naming dispute: I edit early modern Catholic history which is a field that many secular historians who are non-Catholic publish in as a part of academia. I’ve never revealed my religion or lack thereof or employment status on Wikipedia and I have zero intent of ever doing so. It’s quite frankly none of your business.

As to your general question: continued pressure to out oneself (by revealing persinally identifiable information) is a form of harassment because we do not require editors to reveal any personal identifiable information except in rare circumstances (PAID being one of them). Note that simply being an employee is not enough to require disclosure under PAID, and simple membership in an organization is not enough to trigger a COI under the COI guidelines (ex. being a volunteer adult leader in the Girl Scouts does not trigger a COI with the Girl Scouts). Please stop questioning Briancua about this. He has made it clear that he does not intend to reveal persinally identifiable information about himself, and continuing to push for it from him (and now me) without any actual evidence of a COI is against our behavioral policies. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't ask your religion - I asked whether you are an employee of the Catholic church or one of its subsidiaries. That this could be regarded as "persinally [sic] identifiable information" is simply not credible and in no way harassment. I haven't asked whether you or Briancua goes to church and attends mass (as you're right that this is none of my business). But it is not unreasonable to determine whether a Catholic priest is editing sensitive material relating to the Catholic church - as this could imply bias. But once again neither of you have denied it and so I'm afraid I retain my suspicions. A simple no would put everyone's minds at rest. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Demanding someone’s employer without any proof other than they edit religious articles is a form of harassment. The reason I refuse to answer is that I do not tolerate demands for personally identifiable information (which an employer is) unlsss there is a solid basis in fact for those claims. I’m telling you that your line of questioning here is in violation of the harassment policy as you are demanding users out themselves without any proof or evidence. Please stop. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok, in which case I take from your response that you are not employed by the Catholic church or a religious order associated to the Catholic church. I'll leave it at that. Should any additional information come to light at a future stage that contradicts that position then I think we all agree it will be a serious matter. Catholic priests and employees should not be editing articles about the catholic church and its position on gay rights without being absolutely transparent. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm surprised you've managed to edit for 12 years and 6 months with this attitude, but be assured, you won't be editing for very much longer at all unless that attitude gets a serious and significant adjustment. You DO NOT get to demand people reveal their employment history and harass them continually until they either capitulate or bugger off. This behaviour stops right here and right now, or you stop editing right here and right now. Your choice. Nick (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Fine - I'll take your (strongly worded) advice and stop this discussion thread. It was not my intention to harass any editor or to make anyone uncomfortable - if that's been the perception then I apologise. I've carefully read and re-read the policy in this area - Wikipedia:Harassment - but didn't see anything to suggest my approach violated this policy. The discussion shows that I haven't asked anyone to reveal their employment history. I was guided instead by the policy on COI which - naturally - discourages outing and says "When investigating COI editing, the policy against harassment takes precedence. It requires that Wikipedians not reveal the identity of editors against their wishes. Instead, examine editors' behavior and refer if necessary to Wikipedia:Checkuser. Do not ask a user if they are somebody; instead one can ask if they have an undisclosed connection to that person.". I tried to carefully avoid asking any editor directly if they are a particular individual; but rather I have asked whether editors have an undisclosed connection to the Catholic Church - mindful that "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." I've done this not with malice but purely from the standpoint that his is a very sensitive article - LGBT rights and the Catholic church are frequently in confrontation. It requires a respectful attitude but also a transparent and open one. But as I said I will take the advice of administrators if they believe there is risk of a line being crossed. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Contaldo, it's not just you pushing to know personal details about other editors, including me. Your editing, and reverting, style is very aggressive. You frequently ascribe motives to other editors who disagree with you, and accuse them of not editing in good faith. I am probably guilty of some of this as well, so I make an effort to stop myself. I pledge to try and be more respectful going forward, and ask that you do the same. --BrianCUA (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
If you can commit to being even handed and to add material critical of the Catholic Church where appropriate (and therefore less defensive) then I wouldn't have to feel like it's so much of a battle, but rather elucidating readers on an important topic. Let the facts speak for themselves. The relationship between the Catholic Church and gay men and women has not been benign; and I don't think it's correct to make it appear so. Contaldo80 (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Contaldo, I've pointed out to you in the past that a list of news incidents about homophobic remarks (or tolerant remarks, for that matter) adds very little to the article. Have you considered looking at scholarship to see which incidents anyone's talking about more than a couple of months later? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It's Contaldo80. Yes, I know your views thank you Roscelese. If there are specific "news incidents" you think have been over-stated then happy for you to flag them. I'd also like to point out that this is a live issue, rather than a historic one, and so the material will continually need to be updated/ amended to remain relevant. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Notre Dame

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

@Briancua: I'd keep the Notre Dame material in some form as it's mentioned in scholarship, not just as a news event. Perhaps the relevant aspect is that the trustees opposed anti-discrimination measures, while the faculty and students supported them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The citation listed was a link to Notre Dame magazine. I'd be open to including the information if a higher quality source could be found, but I believe that the article already is a collection of too many news events around a central theme, without much else linking them together. I'd love to see more in the way of scholarship in this article, as you mention elsewhere. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
It used to cite Cornwell's Breaking Faith, I'm not sure when that citation was removed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
There was a very excitable Catholic editor (Esoglou) a little while back who made this article much, much longer than it needed to be as he insisted on every section setting every detail out. Notre Dame seems fine to me - an example of a Catholic institution once again blocking anti-discrimination. Where's the problem?Contaldo80 (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I've restored it with the additional book source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Well done - thanks. I agree it's important. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Size

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

At 62kb of readable prose, this article is growing WP:TOOBIG. I think it is time that we WP:SPINOFF another sub article. With 38kb of readable prose, the section on differences is by far the largest section here, and thus the best candidate for a new article. Additionally, since it makes up half of all readable prose (it was 60% before I expanded another section), we also have an WP:UNDUE weight issue. I'm going to get going on creating the new article with a summary here, and would appreciate any help. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we could make the section a little more encyclopedic, but that seems true of every section in this article. I'd suggest trying to clean up the article before creating spinoffs that risk the article's balance. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Fair point. How do you suggest we proceed? What improvements would you like to see made? --BrianCUA (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Briancua I am wary about intentions. You seem awfully keen to "spin-off" sections that look even mildly critical of the Catholic church. Instead you have added a lot of material into the section on pastoral care and are now arguing that the article is too long. The history of homosexuality and Catholicism is an unhappy one - gay men and women have been persecuted and marginalised by the church. Any article needs to tell that story rather than a story about how the church loves the sinner and not the sin (as this informs few readers of anything meaningful). So we agree collectively the article is too long - and I'm not sure it is - then I think the section we "spin-off" first is pastoral care for catholics (as frankly this is the weakest and least interesting). This I've now done. Main article is much shorter now. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
My only intention is to improve the encyclopedia. I have cited several policies for why I think the article is too long and unbalanced. The argument you put forward is purely subjective. As it currently stands, roughly 40% of the article is about differences various people have had with the Church's teaching. As stated above, that is a NPOV violation. Given the entire scope of this article, that is easily WP:UNDUE weight. Additionally, when spinning off an article, as you did with the much smaller pastoral care section, policy states that you should leave a summary of the new sub article in the main. I will do so now, and welcome any edits to refine it. I am also going to create a new article for the differences, with a summary here, and again welcome everyone who is willing to edit in good faith to help improve it.--BrianCUA (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Bringing the lede into conformance with the Manual of Style

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The lede section seems to have a number of issues that I hope we can address. The WP: LEAD is supposed to provide a "concise overview of the article's topic." Additionally, "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body." Because of this, the MOS:INTRO says "It is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article." It adds that in the lede we should "avoid difficult-to-understand terminology" and that "The subject should be placed in a context familiar to a normal reader."

That does not happen in this lede. The lede is pretty long, and I don't believe that most readers will understand terms like "affective and sexual complementarity," "ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil," or "objective disorder." Additionally, the MOS says we should try to "avoid redundant citations" in the lede. Multiple sentences in this lede have five citations. Finally, "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic." I don't believe that happens in the current lede either. We should strive to make the lede more balanced.

Given the sensitivity of the topic, and the contentious editing that sometimes takes place here, I am going to place a draft of a new lede below. I hope we can work on it here, gain consensus, and then move it to the main.

Proposed lede

The Catholic Church and homosexuality describes the relationship between the Christian denomination and the sexual orientation. The Christian tradition has generally proscribed any sexual activity between members of the same sex, and the Catholic Church maintains this teaching today. The Church also holds that LGBT people must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity, and every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

While varying from diocese to diocese, the Church has provided pastoral care for LGBT Catholics through a variety of official and unoffial channels. In the late 20th and 21st centuries, there has been a call from some popes, bishops, and other church leaders to improve the amount and quality of pastoral care this population receives.

Some scholars and church leaders have dissented from the Church's teaching on homosexual activity, while others have supported it. The Church has been described as sending "mixed signals" regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation. It opposes gay marriage and civil unions for same sex couples, and also teaches that LGBT people should not be unjustly discriminated against. In many parts of the world, it is active politically around issues of importance to the LGBT community. The opinion of lay Catholics tends to be more supportive of gay marriage than the hierarchy.

There have been a number of notable Catholics who have been gay, including some priests and bishops. Gay activists have also staged protests against church teachings, sometimes disrupting mass and desecrating the Eucharist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slugger O'Toole (talk • contribs) 19:35, June 23, 2018 (UTC)

Yes I welcome this. The lede we had was the work of a Catholic editor in the past who felt strongly that more detail was needed rather than less. What we have now is a big move away from that so looks great. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Defence of church teaching

Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

To keep in line with the other recent revisions to this article I have spun this off into a separate article. Otherwise would look add giving this particular aspect weight while others are not - and arguably more significant. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt (and I'm surprised that some editors have failed to note this) but the new spin out article is Organisations that defend the Catholic Church's official teaching on homosexuality Contaldo80 (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
The issue here is that this section is so short that it doesn't warrant spinning it out into it's own article. It is only 2,111 B of readable prose. Other sections are longer. The section on gay clergy, for example, is 2,725 B. This section makes up less than 15% of the total readable prose of the entire article, which means that it does not have WP:UNDUE weight. Additionally, the article as a whole is only 14kB at this point, which is well below the threshold to justify a split on length alone. For these reasons I am reverting. If this section grows in length and becomes too big, I would fully support spinning it off into a new article. --BrianCUA (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Please don't revert a that's no constructive. It's not a massively long section but it stands out now that the rest of the article has been restructured. It's the only section that has sub-headings! Frankly it's odd that in an article on homosexuality and catholicism the most coverage in the main article is going to a minor set of organisations. Courage International and Teen Life! This is skewing the reading of the thing. It's not clear to me why you think this section deserves such prominence. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Nb. Organisations that defend the Catholic Church's official teaching on homosexuality has been nominated for deletion (by another user). North America1000 07:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks - I'm aware. That issue is still being debated. What happens to that article does not mean that the text in this section remains however. Two different debates. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Rather than engage in an edit war, could you please cite some policy that supports your contention that this should be spun off? What if we reduced or eliminated the subheadings? --BrianCUA (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Looks broadly fine now. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Protests

Latest comment: 5 years ago23 comments4 people in discussion

One editor has disputed the following text: "Over recent decades a number of gay rights activists and supporters have protested inside and outside of Catholic church buildings to highlight the discrimination by the Catholic hierarchy against gay men and women, particularly in the area of civil rights." Can they clarify what they think the protests were therefore about? Protests have to be about something. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The objection is that to use the word "discrimination" is not POV. I'll go a step further and say that it is unnecessarily inflammatory. – Lionel(talk) 08:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
This is just daft. Gay men and women felt they were being discriminated against (and with some justification). That's why they were angry to protest. I hardly see this as "inflammatory". The argument you seem to be pushing is that they shouldn't have felt they were being discriminated against and so it doesn't count as discrimination. The point is circular. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
You're right, the protests were about something. The rest of the section describes what the protests were about, and in about half the cases it was about AIDS. Nothing in the the section talks about civil rights. The introduction should set the scene, and then we get into the details later. If you have a source that describes a protest that deals with civil rights, I would be glad to see you include a sentence or a paragraph describing it. --BrianCUA (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
If the protests were indeed about AIDS then what exactly where the protesters calling for? Let's be specific. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Briancua: I've removed this content from the article again. I get the impression that you think it's blasphemous, therefore very shocking, and therefore very important, but that's not how Wikipedia's weight policy works. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
That's not exactly it. As I said in my edit summary, I don't consider a protest about the response to the AIDS epidemic to be the same thing as a theologian making an argument about the morality of homosexual acts. It's not the shocking aspect of it that makes me want to separate them; its the fact that they are different things. Additionally, they were their own sections before the Dissent sub-article was spun off. I'm not sure why they would be combined now. To your point about WP:DUE weight, the section on protests is 1,957 B of readable prose. The article on Dissent is 23kb. Even the summary here is 1,305 B. I don't believe 320 words is giving this section undue weight. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I would argue that they are all forms of dissent, and that if the protests are so much less important in the literature than the theologians, then it's fine if they're only in the sub-article. An alternative, however, would be grouping the protests, which were reactions to the Church's anti-gay policies, with information about their policies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Sure, its a form of dissent, but you don't think lighting yourself on fire is different enough from writing a book to deserve to be treated separately? You still think that 320 words is undue weight? --BrianCUA (talk) 03:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I think we should be prioritizing following WP's weight policies over what we personally find interesting or scandalous. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Can you explain why you think including it here would be WP:UNDUE? --BrianCUA (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Because it is much less significant in the sourcing than the material that currently remains in the newer, slimmer article? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Roscelese. Protests are linked to dissent and therefore UNDUE to cover a couple of unremarkable incidents in the main article when we've put other more significant material elsewhere. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Northamerica1000 - I note you are an administrator and respect the fact that you probably understand editing guidance better than I do. But can it be helpful that you have reverted the material on protests back into the article while there is an ongoing discussion - and having not previously intervened personally on the issue or set out any arguments on the talk page offering thoughts on how the issue should be managed? I assume you are familiar with the issue of Catholicism and homosexuality? In which case having a large chunk of text on a couple of protests (people chucking paint gets a mention in the article but gay people being burnt by the inquisition doesn't get coverage) seems odd in the context of homosexuality and Catholicism - and giving a lot of attention to something which is frankly very small. You also asked the question "Is anything actually "due" for this page?" Can you clarify what you actually mean here - are you implying that none of the article has material worthy of inclusion? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I am glad that Contaldo finally accepts that information about protests belongs in this article even though the main part of it has been spun off into a daughter article. However, he is now worried that if we say too much here that we will be duplicating information between the two. That's a valid concern. However, a WP:CORRECTSPLIT sys that "a good summary" is "usually a couple of paragraphs" long. Additionally, WP:SS says that this should be done "even if this produces some duplication between the parent and child articles." For this reason, I am reverting. --BrianCUA (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you actually for once use my correct user name which is "Contaldo80". This continued sloppiness is reflected in your wider edits. I do not accept that information on protests belongs in this article but I am happy to turn a blind eye for the sake of compromise. But seeing as this material is thin and questionable to start with then it is frankly bizarre to repeat most of it here. I'm sure you want the world to know how terrible it is that some people have chucked eggs at the exterior of church buildings, but it's a damn sight less worrying than the fact that the Catholic church regularly roasted people alive for being gay. So I encourage a sense of perspective. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Northamerica1000 - please do feel free to revert whatever text you want without bothering to engage with the ongoing discussion on the talk-page. In terms of the long history of dissent from church teaching the egg-splattering is the least interesting and least significant and yet gets the lions-share of these section. Go figure. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not concerned about duplication, I know summary style of sub-articles is a thing, but there's still the DUE concern. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
You make a fair point, Roscelese. I don't think what was there before was WP:UNDUE, but as a gesture of good faith I trimmed it down. --BrianCUA (talk) 02:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I mean, I'm not really sure that addressed the issue. I'd recommend something like "In response to Church policy on AIDS and gay rights, gay rights activists have protested inside and outside of Catholic churches, including by desecrating the Eucharist." The splashing of water on Léonard appears to be a non-event, in contrast to the Eucharist business which at least is discussed in the literature, and the ordination protest seems covered by this language already without separating it out. I feel like the disruption of the service is already implied in the statement of protesting inside the church, but what do you think? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I like the new introductory clause you have suggested. I think there is a difference, however, to demonstrating inside a church, and disrupting a service. It is similar to a protest in an empty parliament, as compared to a protest that disrupts the questioning of the prime minister. There is a reason the activists chose masses that were high profile. They didn't pick a small parish in the middle of nowhere, and they didn't do it while no one else was inside. --BrianCUA (talk)
They didn't do it very often either did they. And they didn't harm anyone. And they didn't get that much coverage. You're blowing something small into something huge and you're doing it at the expense of more important materials. Also where does the source talk about "disrupting mass" and "desecrating the eucharist"? Risk of WP:OR Contaldo80 (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
@Briancua: all of the inside protests were during masses, right? We could just say that - "protested outside Catholic churches or during masses, including..." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but not all of the protests at masses were indoors. I'm not going to put up a big fight about it if you want to make that change, though.--BrianCUA (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Flag

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The rainbow flag is a symbol of gay rights. This article is about homosexuality and gay rights. I find it odd that we have pictures of churches and priests to represent/ illustrate catholicismbut editors are removing images relating to homosexuality/ gay rights. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Contaldo that the flag is appropriate. If it is giving some editors heartburn, however, perhaps we can find a different image that captures both the gay and the Catholic elements. I'm not sure what that would be, though. --BrianCUA (talk) 12:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm the editor who removed the flag, and i'm not claiming that the flag is offensive here. I'm saying that this flag does not improve understanding of this single article, and thus shouldn't be here according to the WP Manual Of Style. The flag obviously would belong on pages such as Homosexuality and LGBT social movements, and “images of churches and priests” would be irrelevant here, too. � (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I have no intention of finding a different image. The image is entirely consistent with the manual of style. Why on earth wouldn't it be?! Explain why the image is NOT relevant? It's a symbol of the global gay rights movement. This article is about gay rights. What on earth is the issue? Baffling. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Chicbyaccident you added a tag to suggest this be merged into Homosexuality and Catholicism. Personally I have no objection to this proposal provided the material is transferred in full. However, you should be aware of the discussion on the talkpage of the main article where another editor felt the article as it existed was too long and stylistically therefore it made sense to spin-out sections into separate articles. I'll leave that editor to make the case as I wouldn't want to presume to talk for them. Regards. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

This article at one point was more than 100k of readable prose, which is far WP:TOOBIG. Spinning out the daughter articles was done to address both size and WP:DUE concerns. I'm curious why we would merge this section back in, but not others. ---BrianCUA (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about "scare-quotes"

Latest comment: 5 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion

Meters you recently removed the double quotes around the word "acts" in the sentence: "Catholic teaching condemns homosexual acts as gravely immoral." I'm not sure whether their removal is appropriate as it could distort the meaning of the sentence. At the moment having the double quotes suggests there is an interpretation of "acts" which the Church uses to apply its teaching. Without the quotes it looks like there is a common understanding of homosexual "acts". In my mind "acts" could include sexual penetration, and sexual activity but homosexual "acts" could include kissing someone you love or baking them a cake. Church teaching only really applies to genital activity and I think we should avoid giving the impression that the boundaries for what constitutes an act are far and wide. Happy to get your thoughts. I certainly don't think. however, that using the word "scare-quote" is helpful. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Meters - looking at the edit history of this article on 30 August you reverted the edits of another editor simply stating "scare quotes". I restored the previous version and set out the argument above on the article talk page and asking for thoughts to agree a constructive way forward. On 31 August you reverted these changes again simply giving the justification "This is not punctuation. There are WP:SCAREQUOTES". You left no comments on the article talk-page responding to my concerns. However, you did leave a note on my personal talk-page warning me about making disruptive edits, needing to seek consensus, and suggesting that I would be blocked if I persisted. I note that you the quotation marks have now been restored by a third editor. Guidance in relation to WP:SCAREQUOTES states that "Quotation marks, when not marking an actual quotation, may be interpreted as "scare quotes", indicating that the writer is distancing herself or himself from the otherwise common interpretation of the quoted expression. The use of emphasis may turn an innocuous word into a loaded expression. Such occurrences should also be considered carefully." I have set out the argument that the term "acts" is not an obvious term and has an interpretation specific to Church teaching. The emphasis is therefore important. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  1. The status quo of an article with a contested edit is the original state. The edit was made by an IP and I immediately undid it with an explanation in he summary. They stay out unless there is consensus to restore them.
  2. Using punctuation to unduly emphasize the words "acts" and "people" in "Catholic teaching condemns homosexual acts as gravely immoral, while holding that gay people..." is exactly what WP:SCAREQUOTES is about. It does not matter if the text is put in quotes, or capital letters, or bold, or (as in this case) italics. First you tried to claim that it was just punctuation, [1] and now you admit that you were trying to emphasize the word "acts". And what is your possible justification for trying to emphasize "people"? Are homosexuals not people? You were recently at 3RR for edit warring over scare quotes in a similar case and were warned about it Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive372#User:Contaldo80 reported by User:Briancua (Result: Warned). That warning and your tendentious editing on the subject of homosexuals were mentioned just just last week at ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive990#Contaldo80. I am restoring the status quo of the article. This will go back to AN if necessary.Meters (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I would have responded to the thread before making my undo had I seen it. I saw your summary, looked at the talk page, but missed the new thread since at that time there was no header on it. Meters (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I interpreted the italics for "acts" and "people" as an attempt to visually distinguish between the two concepts. I didn't read it at all to imply that homosexuals were not people. --BrianCUA (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but it looks to me that "gay people' " is an attempt to imply that gay people are not people. This is exactly why MOS:SCAREQUOTES says not to misuse punctuation this way. "The use of emphasis may turn an innocuous word into a loaded expression." Meters (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I think we need to take the heat out of this discussion a little otherwise we risk edit-warring - Meters you have already reverted the article text three times from three separate editors. I admit that I didn't notice that "people" had also had quotes put around it as well as "acts". I don't think it necessarily needs to be seen as implying that gay people are not people - rather (as Briancua) argues it is a reasonable way to visually distinguish the concepts between homosexual acts and homosexual sexual orientation. That was the general thrust of my initial argument about why quotation marks around "acts" was a sensible way to express the idea. The Church doesn't like homosexual acts, it is somewhat indifferent to homosexual people. So I support a version of the article that has "acts" and possibly "people". I'm concerned that a focus on WP:SCAREQUOTES is making it harder to have a reasoned discussion. But I'm happy to find a constructive way forward.Contaldo80 (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Just 20 minutes ago you said on your talk page I must confess that I missed the fact that quotation marks had been added by an editor around "people". I agree this is not appropriate" [2] So which is it? Inappropriate, or something that you still want to see on this article? Meters (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I am discussing the merits of the case on this article talk-page and not my user talk-page. This is the right place for debate. No I don't think it is appropriate to have quotes around "people" if it looks to imply that they are not real people. Yes I support inclusion of quotes around both "acts" and "people" if the intention is to differentiate between acts and orientation. There is consistency in that argument. So why don't you think quotation marks around "acts" is appropriate? You have yet to say. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Yet again, because it appears to be a case of WP:SCAREQUOTES. How many time so I have to say that? "The use of emphasis may turn an innocuous word into a loaded expression." Your supposed clarification by use of italics is anything but clear to the general reader. Meters (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Do you not accept the argument that "acts" (and perhaps "people") can be given emphasis to distinguish from orientation if it helps bring clarity to a nuanced subject matter. Is it reasonable to believe that doing so risks introducing an expression in the article that could be seen as "flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or endorsing of a particular viewpoint" as per the SCAREQUOTES guidance? Which element of SCAREQUOTES do you think is problematic here - puffery, contentious label, unsupported attributions, expressions of doubt, or editorializing? I'm happy to be persuaded of your concerns and to take them seriously and respectfully, but I'm not yet clear exactly what the precise issue is. I don't think we've established therefore yet that these are SCAREQUOTES. Three editors seem to think they are not; and one thinks they are. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Did we resolve this. Meters - you felt very strongly that any quotation marks constituted SCAREQUOTES. I don't think we've yet established that to be definitively the case. Can you explain your thinking further in response to the arguments set out above please? If I don't hear from you then will assume you are content to restore the quotation marks. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
No, this is not resolved. Your walls of text and repeated requests for me to repeat my response are not helping. If you thing the terms "acts" and "people" need clarification in that sentence then propose a prose clarification, a method that actually provides clarification, rather than simply emphasizing the words in a way that is prone to misinterpretation. Your use of italics is completely subjective. No-one who has not read this thread will understand your intention, and many will likely interpret it as WP:SCAREQUOTES.
If you don't wish to actually clarify the text in the article then I suggest that you start WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION .Meters (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I have tried to be constructive here. I think you are quite wrong that emphasizing the words "act" and "people" would be perceived by most readers as SCAREQUOTES. But I will take your advice and open a dispute resolution.Contaldo80 (talk) 01:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality Contaldo80 (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I initially asked for dispute resolution but it's been recommended to look for a Third Opinion instead so I've gone down that route. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  Response to third opinion request:
Quotes should not be used for emphasis, sarcasm, or otherwise changing the common meaning of the text. They should only be used to indicate that the words are directly attributable to a source, i.e. they are a quote. In this case they are not meant as a direct quote, so putting quotes here would be poor grammar, in my opinion. Bradv 05:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Could italics be a solution? "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."" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk • contribs) 08:01, September 3, 2018 (UTC)
If the text is not as clear as it should be, perhaps it should be reworded. Bradv 15:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks your contributions are appreciated. I've suggested rewording then as a compromise. I think it is less elegant that italics but it seems there is a strong concern about distorting the initial meaning. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Desecrating

Latest comment: 5 years ago23 comments3 people in discussion

The NY Times talks about an act of desecration but it doesn't actually say the eucharist was "desecrated". Can we clarify please or otherwise take out. What actually happened that could be regarded as desecration by some? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I have added a new source that should address your concerns. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Brian, you have to know that the Catholic League is a completely garbage source. Come on. I've also removed the NYT source you added because it is an editorial. Please find a reliable source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't my first choice. However, it is us that must be NPOV. We are allowed to use WP:BIASEDSOURCES. The Catholic League is absolutely biased, but so is ACTUP, and you left that source. That said, I linked to a transcript of a video where the desecrator himself described what happened. I trust this should be sufficient. --BrianCUA (talk)
If you can't find a reliable source for something, that's a good clue that it doesn't belong in an article. Your new source even contradicts the previous sources you'd added! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
You're absolutely right on both counts. I guess that's why our standard is [[WP::Verifiability, not truth]].--BrianCUA (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hang on, are you admitting the material you put in there is not true?!! Are we playing games here?! We need to leave this out until we can find a neutral reliable third party source. Thanks.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what the truth is. Fortunately, we are not here to determine truth. I restored the citation you deleted as it is a WP:RS and thus there is no reason to delete it. Again, see WP:BIASEDSOURCES.--BrianCUA (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
You've admitted that ACTUP website is not a neutral source and may be biased. Seeing as this issue is so contentious I suggest that we back up the ACTUP source with a second independent and verifiable source. If the event actually happened in the way it was described by the one individual then we shouldn't have trouble finding another source. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Again, sources do not need to be neutral. For the third time I will ask that you read WP:BIASEDSOURCES, especially the part where it says "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." --BrianCUA (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." I've asked for a second source for this contentious claim so just provide one and let's move on. Unless you don't think you're able to do that? Is there not another source BrianCUA that can back up this contentious claim? Is that what you're admitting? Contaldo80 (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Congratulations to you both on the first full protection of this page since the ArbCom case. Contaldo, I understand reluctance to use primary sources in general, but you're aware that Keane isn't being cited for a contentious claim about a third party, right? He's describing his own act of protest. If you don't think the source is usable, you'd have to argue that he is misremembering, exaggerating his role, etc. Briancua, I don't think the "capsule history" source is very useful because it doesn't actually support the claim of desecration; I'd remove it once the protection is lifted. The Wages of Sin source looks good. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes but is it right to include this highly contentious material simply based on an individual giving their own recollection of what they did. This surely risks bias. It is not unreasonable to request a second verifiable source to state the Eucharist was thrown to the floor. What, for example, does the "Wages of Sin" actually say? If it refers to the Eucharist then I would be content. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
@Contaldo80: "One protestor symbolically broke a communion wafer and hurled it to the flagstone floor." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Hooray! Thank you. So why did it take you Roscelese to answer that question despite the fact it was repeatedly asked of BrianCUA? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

So now we have a whole sentence in the lead concerning the vastness of the issue of the Catholic Church and the the issue of homosexuality where it says "Gay activists have also staged protests against church teachings, sometimes disrupting mass and desecrating the Eucharist." Despite the fact that we have one instance - just one - where someone is said to have thrown a communion wafer to the floor. To be frank is this not UNDUE? There is so much information we have not included in the lead but we include this?! Contaldo80 (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The MOS:LEAD should serve as a summary of the article and include "any prominent controversies." One clause in one sentence in a four paragraph lede is not undue. --BrianCUA (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Yes, it's undue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not at this stage going to intervene to delete while I am under investigation elsewhere after a complaint has been brought against me. I'll leave to others how to proceed. However, it does reinforce concerns in my mind that the accusations of partisanship made against my own edits are somewhat ironic hen we have activity such as this determined to give prominence to a particular historical narrative (despite the fact there is little genuine substance around it). Contaldo80 (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Roscelese, It has been more than a month since there has been any discussion on this topic. I'm curious why you think one clause in one sentence is "incredibly undue". Also, how do you respond to MOS:LEAD saying the lede should include "any prominent controversies." --BrianCUA (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Were we to include "any prominent controversies" the lede would be far longer than it is. That's why the inclusion of one individual's protest is undue, even if it's "one clause in one sentence." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
What is missing? If we can bring it further into line with MOS:LEAD then we should. --BrianCUA (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Just in terms of controversy and dissent? Off the top of my head, the Church's political and financial support to anti-marriage and other anti-gay campaigns, the firing of gay teachers, the general prevalent mote-in-the-eye criticism of the church's focus on gay and female sexuality in light of its abuse crisis... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Roscelese. This does not seem a prominent controversy. However, BrianCUA, if you believe a case to be made that it is a prominent controversy then can you please first provide us with a number of mainstream news or literature sources that discuss these instances when gay rights advocates have deliberately desecrated the communion wafer. This will help us determine the profile and significance of such events. We can then make a collective judgement as to the prominence to give this issue both in the main article and the lede. For the timebeing I think we have no evidence that this issue is prominent enough for the lead and following stylistic guidelines for Wikipedia Wikipedia:Manual of Style/ Lead section), I suggest we remove it (and possibly restore once consensus reached) - this notes "Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section". Many thanks.Contaldo80 (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Contaldo has asked me to explain one of my edits, and I am glad to do so. Using words like "lackluster" and "exclusionary" is very POV. We show, not tell, what happened. Readers can decide for themselves if a response was lackluster, or a policy was exclusionary. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I've taken out lackluster. I'm keen, however, that we use the arguments of the gay activists themselves where possible to say why they were protesting against the Church. I'd rather we avoid second guessing their motivations. If they say they had concerns about "violent homophobia" then we source it and leave it without comment. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Historical interaction

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Slugger you removed the sentence "Historically, the Church has resisted the acceptance of homosexuality within Christian society and has on occasions punished those that have transgressed". This material is included in the article (and related articles). In fact in 2000 years of history the bit about "sensitivity and compassion" applies for around the last 30 to 40 years and the remaining 1900 years has been pretty brutal - working with civil society to marginalize or execute people that are gay. Can you clarify your concerns with the sentence please and we can try and work towards a compromise.Contaldo80 (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Contaldo, I know I've talked before about newsiness in this article. Is there a reason we need to single out the flag incident? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me no more of less newsworthy that the crumbling of a communion host, which for some reason we've singled out. And balances out the section on dissent from catholic teaching where there is a lot around LGT protests in the sense of disruption. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the Shocking Crime of the communion host has been overemphasized in previous iterations, but it is at least discussed in scholarship. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Sure. As I said in my edit summary, the lede needs to reflect what is in the body of the article. There's nothing in the history section of this article talking about executions. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Hang on, that's because you moved all the material on history to another article! You are being really somewhat disingenuous here. If you're suggesting I restore all the material that was moved then I am prepared to do that so we can provide an accurate overview.Contaldo80 (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
That's not entirely accurate. There was a whole process by which daughter articles were WP:SPLIT off of this one, a process with which you were very involved. Each new article had a WP:SUMMARY left behind here. This lede of this article should reflect what is in it, not what is in related articles. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Political activity in the lede

Latest comment: 5 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Rosclese changed the lede to read that "In many parts of the world, the Church is active politically against LGBT rights." I don't believe this is the best phrasing, and when the talk of "rights" is introduced we get into NPOV concerns. I have reverted to "...active politically around issues of importance to the LGBT community." Issues like sex education and contraception are issues of importance to this community, but not just to this community. They are also not "against LGBT rights." Additionally, as the daughter article shows, there have been times when the Church has "sound[ed] the alarm at the advance throughout Africa of draconian legislation aimed at criminalizing homosexuals" and criticized anti-sodomy laws. These examples are also not "against LGBT rights." Perhaps a better way of phrasing can be found, but I don't believe this to be it.--Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

"We can't say 'LGBT rights' because I don't believe in them" is a non-starter, so please don't waste anyone's time with that crap. The article you're quoting points out that the bishops in Africa have been wholeheartedly for criminalizing gay people, while the quote you provide is from an anonymous editorial against it. It's not that differences of opinion aren't verifiable, but as with the lede, you don't appear to understand that it's not our job to represent "both sides" or to make sure people come away with a favorable impression of the article subject, only to make sure that we are representing content in proportion to its appearance in the sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I never said I didn't believe in rights, just that when things get phrased in that manner it makes writing in with NPOV more difficult. I also, again, am not attempting to present both sides. I am trying to present the material accurately, completely, and succinctly. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
In that case, let's restore the more accurate, complete, and succint text, "against LGBT rights." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I support Roscelese in this argument. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Is being opposed to contraception being opposed to LGBT rights? No. Is contraception an issue of concern to that community? Yes. Your phrasing is not accurate. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
LGBT people are interested in many different things, but not all of those things are discussed in the article simply because LGBT people are interested in them. You're just wasting our time now. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Puffery

Latest comment: 5 years ago17 comments3 people in discussion

@Slugger O'Toole: why are you so insistent on sticking "The Church also teaches that LGBT people must be treated with respect and not unjustly discriminated against" into the lede of every article you can find? It's clear that this does not comply with WP:LEDE as a summary of the article body. It is not our job as Wikipedia editors to make sure that the lede presents "both sides" equally, it's our job to make sure that we reflect the available material, which does not support the verifiability and certainly not the prominence of the idea that the RCC opposes discrimination. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to reflect the body of the article. In this article, the opening section is on church teaching so that should appear in the lede, but you only want to present half of it. It's not about presenting both sides, it is about presenting the full picture, fairly and completely. --Slugger O'Toole (talk)
In that case, please draft out a much longer lede with an appropriate balance of content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Upon reflection, I don't think that the entire lede needed to be longer, but rather that the first paragraph was too long. I've reworked it to try to achieve a better balance, and would appreciate your contributions to improve it further. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
The section now starts "In keeping with the Christian tradition, the Catholic Church prohibits sexual activity between members of the same sex". This seems a bold statement to make. Not all Christian churches prohibit same-sex relationships - and a number now bless them. They would see perfect consistency with Christian tradition. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Brian, again, this is about WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. "Presenting the full picture" necessarily entails representing information in our article in proportion to its representation in the sources, not artificially inflating, by exponential proportions, what is ultimately a self-published viewpoint to "balance" or counterweigh the material that is backed up by the sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Please forgive me if it appears that you are moving the goal posts on me here. Above you ask that I rework the "lede with an appropriate balance of content." I did so. Then in your edit summary you say that "there is no possible rephrasing of this that conforms with WP:WEIGHT." Were you just setting me up to fail? As a compromise, would you feel better if that particular bit of information did not appear in the first sentence? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
@Slugger O'Toole: Nope, the goalposts are exactly where they were, you're just not very good at soccer. As I feel my edit summary made pretty clear, this is not about rephrasing the sentence, because rephrasing alone cannot solve the WP:WEIGHT problem of elevating this statement to such extreme disproportion. If you want this to be in the lede, you need to make an effort to add other material to the lede in proportion to its representation in the sources/article so that WP:WEIGHT is satisfied. This would be compromise. Are you actually prepared to make this effort to comply with WP:NPOV? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I am willing to compromise but, as I said before, I think it is at a pretty good length as it is. I don't want to add words just to make it longer. Do you want to take a crack at adding material? You seem to have a clearer vision of what you want than I do. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

If you want to keep this line in, I recommend that you maintain WP:WEIGHT. I would be perfectly happy to just remove the line. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I believe proper weight is being accorded to each element of the lede as it currently stands. If you think it can be improved, please do so. It is not incumbent upon me to make the changes you wish to see. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
If you are not willing to compromise, please stop trying to revert the edit that I "wish to see." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I have said several times that I am willing to compromise. I simply can't read your mind. If you think the lede needs to be longer, by all means make it longer. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
You don't need to read my mind, just my words. I've removed your promotional content again. If you are willing to compromise by adding enough content to the lede that WP:WEIGHT (not WP:BOTHSIDESHAVEEQUALLYGOODPOINTS) would be satisfied, maybe you will be able to restore it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
And I've told you that I think it has appropriate WP:WEIGHT. If you think it needs to be longer, make it longer. I welcome it. I just don't know what else could be added. In the meantime, your attitude seems to be showing signs of WP:OWN. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't buy your claim that you think it's balanced, you're not stupid. I'd like you to demonstrate good faith by adding more material on the RCC's longtime condemnation of homosexuality and support of discrimination, which is exhaustively supported by available sources in a way that their alleged dislike of discrimination is not. (Hell, even without delving into reliable third-party sources you can find official RCC documents endorsing discrimination in so many words.) You can also remove your irrelevant addition about how 99% of us don't understand the mystery; this is not an apologetics blog and it is not necessary or desirable to soften or counterweigh every statement suggesting that the RCC doesn't approve of homosexuality. The fact that you immediately added this crap gives the lie to your repeated claim that you understand that NPOV is about giving due weight, not equal weight. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

We seem to be going in circles here. You have asked me to edit the article to improve it. I have responded several times that I think it is OK as it is, but have welcomed any additions you would like to make. You respond by demanding that I make the edits you want. We don't seem to be getting anywhere with this line of discussion. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I mean, I think if I were to edit the article to note, immediately after your addition, that employment and housing discrimination, to say nothing of active campaigning against marriage, don't fall under "unjust" in the RCC's eyes, that would be WP:POINTy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Breakdown of the lede

Latest comment: 5 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

There has been a good deal of discussion about the lede recently, but not much progress has been made. I'd like to reset the discussion and hopefully put us on a better track by using hard data that we can all agree on. As it stands today, the article has 13 sections, listed below, of which the first eight are substantive.

  1. Church teaching
  2. History
  3. Pastoral care for gay Catholics
  4. Dissent from Church teaching
  5. Defense of Church teaching
  6. Gay clergy
  7. Political activity
  8. Notable lesbian, gay and bisexual Catholics
  9. See also
  10. References
  11. Bibliography
  12. Further reading
  13. External links

I have also diagrammed the lede as it stands currently, to see just where the emphasis lies objectively. Each sentence below is preceded by the number of the section it represents.

(lead) The Catholic Church's relationship with homosexuality includes the Church's teaching, history, and political activity on issues related to homosexuality. (1) The Catholic Church prohibits sexual activity between members of the same sex. (2)This teaching has developed through a number of ecumenical councils and the influence of theologians, including the Church Fathers. (2)Historically, the Catholic Church has resisted the acceptance of homosexuality within Christian society and has on occasions punished those who have transgressed. (1)Today, the Church teaches that LGBT people must be treated with respect.

(3)While varying from diocese to diocese, the Church also provides pastoral care for LGBT Catholics through a variety of official and unofficial channels. (7)In many parts of the world, the Church is active politically on issues of importance to LGBT people. (4)The opinion of lay Catholics tends to be more supportive of gay marriage than the hierarchy. (8)(6)There have been a number of notable Catholics who have been gay or bisexual, including priests and bishops. (5)(4)There are groups, individuals, and ministries who support the Church's teaching, although LGBT activists and supporters around the world have protested against Church policy.

The first sentence sets the stage, per MOS:LEADSENTENCE. The chart below shows how many sentences discuss each section:

1 - 2

2 - 2

3 - 1

4 - 2

5 - 1

6 - 1

7 - 1

8 - 1

As you can see, all eight have at least once summary sentence in the lede. Three of them, 1, 2, and 4, have two sentences. According to MOS:LEAD, "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic." I would argue that the most important section of this article is the first, on Church teaching. Without knowing that, you don't understand what people are supporting, dissenting from, or what they are engaging politically about.

The daughter articles for the history, dissent, and pastoral care are all about 30k of prose long. We can use this as an indication that they are all about equal importance. The defense section has no daughter article, and the others are smaller (except the notable gay Catholics, which is a list). I would propose, then, that the history, dissent, and pastoral care sections be given equal prominence in the lede, greater than the defense, gay clergy, notable Catholics, and political activity sections. How do others feel? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

None of this addresses the expressed concern about your decision to claim an extremely outsize role of "respect and antidiscrimination" within the "teaching" section that is not supported by the sources. Creating a numbers breakdown does not solve the issue of your summary of a specific subhead being junk. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
The nondiscrimination portion of the Church's teaching is sourced.--Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Address the issue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
What issue is that? You complained that it wasn't sourced. It is. I'm truly not sure what you want from me here. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
You could try reading my comment again, or the five to ten other comments where I've made the exact same point. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I made a good faith effort to reset the discussion to get us moving forward. I don't find comments like the one above to be helpful. This isn't a case of me not hearing you. I am obviously misunderstanding you, though. Would you please explain to me again, with my apologies for being so dense, what it is you think the issue is. Everything is sourced. If you think a summary is junk, then perhaps you could improve it. Just complaining here that I am not listening to you does nothing to advance the discussion or improve the article. Also, could you explain why you deleted the first sentence? I wrote it to try to comply with MOS:FIRST. What is your objection to it? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
As I've explained to you repeatedly, and as users other than myself have already had to explain to you in other discussions, the fact that an individual statement is sourced does not mean that the body of sourcing justifies the WP:WEIGHT you are giving to it. The idea that the church is a force for non-discrimination against LGBT people is clearly at odds with the vast bulk of the sources, whether or not you're able to find a WP:PRIMARY source giving lip service to the opposite idea (to say nothing of the fact that there are equally valuable primary sources justifying discrimination, in so many words). It does not belong in the lede. There is no argument for including both round-earth and flat-earth theories for the sake of "balance" in this way. This should be the last time anyone needs to explain this concept to you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
The only thing I am trying to balance is the amount of text in the lede with the amount of content in the body. That is why I took the time to diagram the lede. I tried to determine what are the most important aspects of the article, and reflect that in the lede. Based on my analysis, I determined that the Church's teaching should be represented by two sentences, as should history, dissent, and pastoral care. The other sections should have one. Can we agree on that, and move forward from there? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the entire context of this dispute, but I saw some blatant pov-pushing in the lede and I reverted it. Now I see it's been restored, with the reasoning that Slugger O'Toole asked for objections and none have been forthcoming. That's not how WP:NPOV works — Slugger, please provide an explanation for your proposed edits here and gain consensus first. Bradv🍁 16:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

There are two issues here (though I only saw one initially when I reverted). First is the matter of the lead off sentence. Without it, the article just jumps into the teaching. The MOS:FIRST sentence is supposed to introduce the topic. This is the one that I think keeps getting cut inadvertently with reverts as I haven't seen any objection to it. For the second issue, you have it backwards, @Bradv:. If you look above, you will see that I proposed a new lede in July. It sat here for a few days before another editor weighed in, giving it his approbation. It should be noted that Roscelese was active on both talk and the main article at the time, and she did not object in either place. That lede included the phrase "issues of importance to the LGBT community," and it remained stable for months. Only in the last few days has Roscelese attempted to change the language. I have objected, however, because I don't feel her changes are complete or accurate. With WP:NOCONSENSUS, we retain "the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." That means the phrase "issues of importance" until the consensus is changed here on talk. I don't want to hit a 3RR, so I would appreciate it if you would self revert until a new consensus can be worked out here on talk. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Whether you think you had consensus at some point in time is kind of irrelevant, as you don't now. Both Roscelese and I have reverted you. Regarding the substance of the edit, I object to both of these sentences as violations of WP:NPOV:
"The Catholic Church's relationship with homosexuality includes the Church's teaching, history, and political activity on issues related to homosexuality"
and "on issues of importance to LGBT people"
I don't see how either of these statements improve the article, but I'm open to hearing an explanation. Bradv🍁 16:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Bradv and Rosclese on these arguments. Surely that is enough to establish consensus either way? Contaldo80 (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Closet of the Vatican

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A weight new tome has recently published called "In the Closet of the Vatican: Power, Homosexuality, Hypocrisy" and written by the French author Frédéric Martel. There is a lot of material in this book covering the issue of the catholic church and homosexuality. I just want to give a heads-up then when I've finished reading it I will put forward suggestions for additional material for this and related articles. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality/Archive_6&oldid=901012838"