Jump to content

Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
re:
Line 313: Line 313:
:::In that case, let's restore the more accurate, complete, and succint text, "against LGBT rights." –[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 00:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
:::In that case, let's restore the more accurate, complete, and succint text, "against LGBT rights." –[[User:Roscelese|Roscelese]] ([[User talk:Roscelese|talk]] ⋅ [[Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs]]) 00:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
::::I support Roscelese in this argument. [[User:Contaldo80|Contaldo80]] ([[User talk:Contaldo80|talk]]) 02:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
::::I support Roscelese in this argument. [[User:Contaldo80|Contaldo80]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Slugger O'Toole|Slugger O'Toole]] ([[User talk:Slugger O'Toole|talk]]) 17:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:45, 1 February 2019

Template:Friendly search suggestions

conflict in text

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
The correct conclusion. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Too long

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


NPOV

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Are you talking to me? I'm happy with the title of the section. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Notre Dame

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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

Former clergy

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Non-notable content

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Size

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Fair point. How do you suggest we proceed? What improvements would you like to see made? --BrianCUA (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Bringing the lede into conformance with the Manual of Style

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.

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)[reply]

Defence of church teaching

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Looks broadly fine now. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protests

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree. Can you explain why you think including it here would be WP:UNDUE? --BrianCUA (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Flag

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Desecrating

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)[reply]

I have added a new source that should address your concerns. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Contaldo80: "One protestor symbolically broke a communion wafer and hurled it to the flagstone floor." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Are you kidding? Yes, it's undue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:11, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Proposed Merger

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Discussion about "scare-quotes"

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality Contaldo80 (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

NPOV

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Puffery

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Historical interaction

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Political activity in the lede

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I support Roscelese in this argument. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality&oldid=881299413"