Talk:History of the Catholic Church and homosexuality

Recent additions

No we're not having lots of sub-headings for Pope Francis. Otherwise 2000 years of history get over-shadowed by one individual over the past 5 years. And tell me exactly why I need to give you a full citation for the Cruz story? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

There are over 1,000 words in this section. MOS:BODY states that "Headings introduce sections and subsections, clarify articles by breaking up text, organize content, and populate the table of contents. Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." This section is most certainly long enough to justify section headings. And, as I have pointed out on your talk page, providing full citations and not just bare URLs helps prevent WP:LINKROT. You are not giving me a full citation, you are providing a service to a future reader. --BrianCUA (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid these sub-headings seriously unbalance the article. There is a big section in the main Francis article which covers pretty much the same material and I suggest we leave that as the main source and trim this article back so it's in line with the other modern day popes. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

There are probably more sources talking about Pope Francis' teachings and comments on homosexuality than any other pope, so I don't know that it would be undue for his section to be bigger than the rest. However, you do raise some good questions about WP:UNDUE weight. This section probably could be trimmed. Before you started cutting, did you make sure that all of the content lived in at least one place? Also, this is now the smallest section. I'm going to add some more of the material back in to give it its proper weight. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually there is more material around John Paul II if you actually research the subject - he had a much bigger obsession with the issue of homosexuality (supported by Ratzinger as his right hand man). What would be UNDUE, however, would be providing lots and lots of material on a contemporary figure such as Francis in an article that is dealing with "history". For the moment I can live broadly with the additions you've made but I'm in two minds as to whether material relating to Francis should be included at all in this article. I'd be keen on a third opinion. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

References for Movements section

Thanks, Contaldo, for the new section on the movements within the Church. A lot of the list defined references you included are not defined, however. I think you took much of it from other articles and copied it in here. Could you please go find those sources and copy them into the references section so that everything here is properly referenced? Thanks. --BrianCUA (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes it's on my list of things to do. And as you've understood the issue well then it would be great if you could lend a hand to ensure the article is all up to date. Much appreciated. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

It has been several days now. You have found the time to delete unsourced material on other articles. Would you please fix your reference errors here so that this information does not get deleted? --BrianCUA (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Rainbow sash

I've removed the reference to Arinze. I am concerned that this is highly tendentious editing and risks pushing a particular POV. We have an article setting out the history of homosexuality in relation to Catholicism. It lists events over the centuries which are notable. For the 1970s we reference the start of the rainbow sash movement - setting out the facts of what happened. What I don't understand is why we then need to reinforce that material with a quote from a Nigerian archbishop 25 years later justifying why it's good to forbid these people communion? It is completely unnecessary - there is a whole article on the rainbow sash where we can go provide space for Catholic apologetics. I do not see the merit of including such material here under this section. Can we have a conversation please before we decide how to address this issue? ThanksContaldo80 (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I am glad you wish to discuss this issue. However, please check out the WP:BRD cycle. You were bold and deleted the text, claiming it was [WP:SYNTH]]. That's great. You were then reverted, and it was pointed out to you that there was no synthesis. The next step is to "Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting." It does not say to revert again, and then to ask other editors to discuss. Now, to the substance of your comment: the material from Arinze explains why someone might be denied communion. It is not apologetics, it is explanatory. You don't think a reader would want to know why someone would be denied? That said, if you think the verbiage is not NPOV, then let's work together to fix it. --BrianCUA (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

BrianCUA I think there is some confusion. It was I that actually added the material about Arinze (Revision as of 23:10, 23 September 2018). You're right I was bold. And I've decided that I was too bold and that the material is inappropriate in this context. I am therefore removing my own material. If you want to introduce material yourself concerning Arinze then we ask that you discuss this first on the talk-page in order to build consensus for this new material. I'm sure if you do then we'll find a great way to work together to fix it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Contaldo80 (talk • contribs) 19:19, September 27, 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that it is not relevant. The consensus was in favor of this material. You have now changed your mind. If you can convince others to change their minds as well, and change the consensus, I would be happy to see it go. --BrianCUA (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Which consensus? Who do I have to convince to change their minds? Contaldo80 (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You should check out Wikipedia:Consensus. That should answer your question. There you will also see that "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Right now there are only two editors participating in the discussion with differing viewpoints. As there is no consensus on removing the material, it should stay. If others join in the discussion and a consensus forms that it should go, then it goes. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I wonder whether I might ask other editors to please advise on this issue. The situation is that I recently added material to the article concerning Cardinal Arinze and his opposition the Rainbow Sash movement. I then decided it wasn't appropriate to include it as it duplicated material elsewhere and was somewhat tangential to this article. I therefore removed my own material. However, BrianCUA has restored my material by arguing that as my edits were not challenged then they effectively achieved "consensus", and that to remove my own material I would first have to achieve "consensus" as this would be making changes to the article (even though no other editor apart from BrianCUA has actually expressed a view on retaining this material). I have been told by BrianCUA that if I continue to press this point then they will make sure that I am banned from editing (User talk:Contaldo80#Disputed edits and behavior). Aside from finding this slightly intimidating, I am concerned BrianCUA's approach is not in line with guidance on this matter; and certainly not within the spirit of Wikipedia. I have avoided removing the disputed material as I don't want to edit-war and if other editors agree that I have misunderstood the issues then I'm very happy to go with that. Thanks everyone. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

BRD

This may be a good time to remind people about the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. People should be bold and make edits. This is absolutely welcomed. If they get reverted, though, the correct response is not to simply make the same disputed edit over again. It should be brought to the talk page to gain consensus. Edit warring is never the answer. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Slugger. Good and helpful reminder! Also worth reminding other editors of this really important language: "Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes. 'Nobody owns articles'. If you see a problem that you can fix, do so." and additionally "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary." That way we avoid a situation where some editors feel they have total control over certain articles and use the mechanism to block reasonable edits by others. Which - I think you'd agree - is disruptive and at risk of edit warring. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hildegard of Bingen

Contaldo has asked we need to explain that Hildegard of Bingen had visions of God instead of just "visions." The reason is clarity. Without explaining what the visions were of, how would readers ever know? Did she have visions of the Virgin Mary? Of Jesus? Of the 1919 Black Sox? There is also a difference between something you just declare to be true, and something you claim to be a divine revelation. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

In fact she had no visions at all because any rational mind knows that God doesn't exist. So what she had visions of is somewhat irrelevant. Unless you are saying that during those visions she was told that gays are bad? Is it the visions that are important or is it the book she wrote where she refers to homosexuality that is relevant? If you think the visions are clearly liked to her views on homosexuality then I welcome inclusion in the article - along with a source - otherwise I'd rather that we leave out superfluous detail. Can I also ask that you provide a source to say that visions are actually of "God" - I've seen nothing to suggest they are. You are quite keen to insist on that without a proper citation and I do fear that you're promoting WP:OR. Can I remind you that continued promotion of original research can create issues in terms of censure. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

This text was included in the main article and brought here when this article was spun off. It has been included since August 1, 2015, a time (even down to the day) when you were active on the article, but I was not. The original text made explicit that Hildegard was quoting God in condemning homosexual intercourse. Over the past fours years the prose has been edited slightly, so I will make it explicit again. Also, whether or not God exists, an argument which I don't believe can be resolved by reason alone, is entirely irrelevant. Our standard is WP:Verifiability, not truth. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you please provide a clear citation that shows Hildegard was quoting God in condemning homosexual intercourse. Because the source I have seen doesn't say that. If you have a different source to support your argument then please present it. Otherwise this is original research. Please do not continue to revert until you have provided proper evidence to back up claims. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I have provided the link to the original text. It is you who wants to change the text, so the burden is on you to provide a source. Could you please provide a source where she quotes someone other than God as the source of her visions? Also, remember, your edit has been reverted. You must change the consensus before you can change the text. Please do not edit war.--Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The relevant passage in terms of homosexuality that has been cited in Scivias comes from Book Two, Vision Six. This section introduces the following parts of the vision an Hildegard indicates this by saying "And again I heard the voice from the supernal heavens, saying to me". The section then dealing with homosexuality is passage 78 which says: "Let those who approach My altar appear in My sight in chastity, as also should those who desire to receive the sacrament of the body and blood of My Son, lest they should fall into ruin. For many are found among both spiritual and secular people who not only pollute themselves in fornication with women but also assume a heavy burden of condemnation by contaminating themselves in perverted forms. How? A man who sins with another man as if with a woman sins bitterly against God and against the union with I which God united male and female. Hence both in God's sight are polluted, black and wanton, horrible and harmful to God and humanity, and guilty of death; for they go against their Creator and His creature, which is in them. How?" It doesn't say that she had a vision of God who said x. That is why the language around a celestial voice is closer to the facts. I am troubled otherwise that you are pushing for your own interpretation. I'd rather we avoid this. The language in passage 78 doesn't sound like it's God in the first person but rather refers to God in the third person. You say you have provided a source to support your claim but you haven't - can you cite the exact words from the source that support your argument please? As an aside I don't think it's helpful for you to constantly raise the argument of "edit warring" everytime you don't get your own way. It is disrespectful to other editors and I'd ask you to assume WP:GOODFAITH. A call to "consensus" should also not be used as a screen to block edits a particular editor does not like as that's not being fair either. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Who was the "the voice from the supernal heavens?" I've never read the book, but from reading the article on the Scriva she believed the visions were of God. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure - I suspect she did. Although different characters seem to appear to her during her visions (not unlike Dante). But the celestial vision in this instance does seem to be God. I suppose my original instinct was to try and cut out extra detail to save a few words - but lets leave it as God as I think the sentiment is right. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Rainbow Sash

Slugger you are very determined to maintain your preferred version of the text dealing with the Rainbow Sash. I think we need to shorten this as we make articles very long by including lots of detailed superfluous and duplicate material. The point of this article is to give an overview of homosexuality within the Catholic church - and not an apologia for why Cardinal Arinze and others are justified in turning away people from communion. I always worry that we stray too much into polemic with some of these articles. In any case I have a number of points that need to be addressed to my satisfaction. Firstly the text says that those refused communion go back to the pews and stand rather than kneel as is the "traditional way". I'm not aware it is a requirement to kneel or indeed that this is "traditional". Can you please provide the wording that supports this claim? Also I'm still not convinced that the statement "The Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is a sign of unity" is not SYNTHESIS but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. But I still think the end section is over-labored, tortuous, repetitive and can be shorted. To paraphrase it says "Arinze denied communion because openly opposing church teaching is divisive and disqualifies you. Church teaching is that the eucharist is about unity and not division. Church rules are that communion can be denied where people are being divisive". We spend all this time justifying exclusion by clerics and spend little time actually covering the gay part. This seems odd to be and could be interpreted as bias towards the position of the Catholic Church if we're not careful. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

You are the one who added all this material to the article, including the things that you now complain about. It certainly can be more concise, but I don't think any important details should be removed. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anything in it is necessarily wrong. I was just worried that it was a bit repetitive and circular, and again had in mind the aim of pruning back words here and there to make the article sharper. But let's leave it unless anyone can think of anything better. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

John Chrysostum

Slugger you've again removed the text "He went on to describe homosexuality as the worst of sins (greater than murder). Punishment will be found in hell for such transgressors. He noted that women could also be guilty of the sin as much" arguing "still not citations". Can you be a bit clearer as to what you are looking for and what your concerns are? I'm prepared to be constructive but I often find some of your interventions vague. I can't work out if you're a stickler for referencing or are doubting some aspect of the argument made? In future where there is doubt can you please try and be clearer so we can find a suggested way forward. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

There are no citations for those statements. I would like them to each have a footnote citing a reliable source, please. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hang on is the source not "John Chrysostom: Homilies on Romans: Homily IV"? Have I missed something? Would you like me to read it out for you? Contaldo80 (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what the source is. Do you? If you do, you don't have to read it out to me. You just have to add a citation for it. There are four different sources in that paragraph alone. Are you sure those two sentences can be cited with this source, and not one of the others? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

John Chrysostom's Fourth Homily on sodomy. Have you read the article passage in full? The citation was there but I've directed you towards the wording - as I know you always like to be properly consulted on the materials within this articles before you let anything pass. Maybe it's time to take a step back from the gate-keeping and fire-fighting Slugger as this sort of reactive editing isn't really conducive to creating good Wikipedia articles. Thanks.Contaldo80 (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I have not read the sources, which is why I did not add any citations. It is not the responsibility of other editors to track down the citations for information you wish to add. Also, for the record, I never need to be consulted before anything is added. It does, however, have to meet WP's policies. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The citations were all there - I've just emphasized them because you threw doubt on them. Nothing had to be tracked down and everything met WP policies. Just what are you doing Slugger - you're a really really hard editor to work with. You've asked another citation - what exactly are you wanting cited? I've quoted you the bit of the sermon that backs up the claim in the article. You've put a notice about verifiability? Why? What is the concern? Can you try and be a bit more constructive and open. And stop trying to use the "rules" to block bits of text you simply don't like - that not what these articles are about.Contaldo80 (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not throwing doubt on anything. I am asking for clarification. You added a citation that said that three lines of text ran across 8 pages of a book. I thought that could have been a mistake. Apparently it was, since you were able to find the single page on which the text appears. For the other bit of text I have added the CN tag to, I would like to know what document supports that statement. There are 18 different citations in that section alone. Presumably it comes from one of them, but how am I or any other reader supposed to know? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The sermon ran across 8 pages of the book. For some reason you seem to have been particularly interested in a specific point made in that sermon. Maybe you doubted it was in there. I think it's perfectly sufficient to reference the whole sermon rather than break the thing line by line as I really can't see the point in that other than to be a nuisance. I also don't think you sometimes articulate your concerns clearly enough to be honest - if you were a bit sharper then we could find a solution much more quickly. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

HIV/ AIDS

A podcast for an american journal owned by the Jesuits makes the statement: "Catholic hospitals were among the first to treat HIV/AIDS patients". Can we treat this is a reliable statement from a reliable source? In my opinion the whole section on HIV/ AIDS is misleading - just a bit of WP:PEACOCK pro-Catholic PR. The catholic church stops the use of condoms, marginalises gay men, millions around the world die as a result of this abuse of authority and political coercion (gay and straight), catholic dioceses own and run hospitals who then take in AIDS patients, and this article then presents the catholic church as some sort of kindly and generous organisation. Can we take these rose-tinted lenses off please. Either we're deluding ourselves or we're out to delude others. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, What aspect of WP:RS does it fail? Also, in case you are interested, the host of the podcast is a gay man. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh wow a gay man! It must be true. It's a religious journal owned by the Catholic church that suggests the Catholic church was the first to treat AIDS patients anywhere in the world. A big claim. There is a risk of bias and so I ask for a second - non-Catholic source - to verify the claim. WP:RS says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." They should not be closely associated with the subject - this is a publication owned by the Catholic church. Also do you always have to make edits to change my words. What I wrote was perfectly consistent with the source but your approach is always to change it a form of words that you personally like. This is not collaborative editing - this is showing possessiveness over articles. I'd ask you only to make changes to edits that are factually incorrect, and not just because you'd rather things said another way. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, you do realize that saying you don't want anyone to edit your words is also not collaborative, right? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

If they are factually incorrect then please go ahead. If the words are simply not as you would like them then can you try to hold off from not immediately putting them in your own words so that you get the final say as this just makes editors like myself feel like we are being micro-managed. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

So this article says that San Francisco General Hospital was the first to treat AIDS patients (a public and not catholic hospital) - https://nursing.jnj.com/ward-5b-how-nurses-defied-convention-to-care-for-hiv-aids-patients - making the statement in the article even more questionable. We need an independent third party source if we are to keep this material. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Another article about the first hospitals to treat AIDS patients and don't see many if any of these are Catholic: http://essentialhospitals.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Early.pdf ::::

It says "among the first," not "the absolute first." Also, would you please provide full references to avoid WP:LINKROT? Thank you. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

If you want to make the claim that they were "among the first" then can you please provide a reliable independent source. It also looks to me that this claim is being made in relation to the United States - Catholic hospitals wouldn't have been the first to engage with AIDS patients in many European countries. Possibly African patients. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The other problem I have with this section is that probably half of the material is not relevant to this particular article. The second paragraph in particular talks about the wider engagement of church-sponsored hospitals with AIDS patients but it isn't the case that the majority of cases of AIDS in the developing world today are men who have sex with men. The first para is fine as it's focused on specific services to gay men (and we can probably add in more on this), but more general stuff is better just going into the other article. I also wouldn't refer to that other article as a "daughter article". There is a lot in the podcast about the tensions between the church hierarchy (O'Connor) and gay men and the section would better benefit from more of this. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

You will please note that I have already added another source, at your request. Also, having child or daughter articles is the terminology used in WP:SS. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

What additional source did you put in - I can't see anything? I also have to reiterate that the other article you cite is about the Catholic Church and its engagement with AIDS. This article is about how the Catholic Church has treated people with AIDS. They are not the same thing. It is this article that should contain most detail on this issue and not the other - unless you turn the other article into "The Catholic Church and its interaction with gay men that had HIV/ AIDS". The bulk of cases in that article are about heterosexual people in Africa - that is where the biggest numbers are. I remind you again that you have to work with other editors - you cannot just enforce your view of the world at every stage. AIDS was a terrible illness and a lot of gay people went through a lot of suffering and pain - instead you've stripped that out and have gushing paragraphs about how wonderful and generous the Catholic church is for opening so many hospitals and conducting healthcare in Africa. Not all AIDS sufferers in the world are gay - this really is a somewhat uninformed view. You also put back the PBS links and text which are still dead - what on earth is going on with that? Contaldo80 (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The addition ref is named Paterson2010. Also, you are mistaken. This article is not about "how the Catholic Church has treated people with AIDS." This article is about the Catholic Church and its relationship with homosexuality. HIV/AIDS is a subset of that. As pointed out to you previously, WP:SS provides a process by which subsets which deserve a fuller treatment get their own articles with summaries on the parent articles. Getting into the specifics of particular incidents at particular hospitals at particular times is not a summary, it is undue detail.

I am well aware of the need to edit collaboratively, but in this case believe it is you who needs a reminder. The onus is on you, as the editor trying to insert new material, to gain consensus for that material. Please review WP:BRD. Finally, I explained my reinsertion of the dead links in my edit summary. Please review WP:KDL. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

What did Paterson say exactly? Considering they've written a book about HIV in Africa. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

See also

Why in an article concerning homosexuality do we have to point readers to a broader discussion about the Catholic Church and health care. How is this actually relevant? Have that "see also" in the other article if you like but keep this article about LGBT people and their interaction with the church. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

According to the template's description, it is "used to create hatnotes to point to a small number of other related titles at the top of article sections." Links in a MOS:SEEALSO section "should be related to the topic of the article." The article on healthcare is related directly to the section on AIDS, not the topic of the article as a whole. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

"Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." I don't believe the additional healthcare is relevant - it's simply too far away from this particular issue. Unless you want me to add all the other LGBT and health type articles too? Which I will. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, You are correct that it is an editorial judgement. There has been a consensus here that those hat notes belong. If you disagree, you are welcome to try and change the consensus. You are also welcome to add other articles as well, but I suggest you read WP:POINT before you do. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS

Slugger thank you for adding a completely new section on 29 February concerning HIV/AIDS into this long-standing and stable article. This is a significant introduction of material. As per WP:BRD I have removed this new text as it is controversial and ask that you discuss and seek consensus before restoring. I invite other editors to be part of that discussion. To insert this new material into the article you will need to demonstrate that you have taken reasonable steps to reflect the comments and input of other editors. And that you are prepared to accept amendments and additions to the text where they are reasonable and well sourced. Can I remind you that failure to engage collaboratively, and encourage you to carefully read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles to avoid risks of deterring other editors from fully contributing. I hope we can find a constructive way forward without involving administrators. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, You have it backwards. The article has been stable for some time with the content included. If you want to delete it now then it is you who needs to gain consensus for such a deletion. I, too, welcome others to that discussion if you wish to have it. Until there is a new consensus for it to be removed, it should stay per policy. I will thus revert your deletion. As to your accusations of ownership, I will refer you to the edit summary I left when adding this content: "Would be glad to have some help expanding/ refining this section". -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Slugger, if you are concerned about WEIGHT, then remove the marginal content, instead of adding more marginal content and removing historically significant stuff. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Roscelese, your wording was an improvement over Contaldo's. However, given that you knew it was contentious, perhaps a better approach would have been to bring some new language here to talk and we could have worked on it before moving it to main, instead of simply reinserting essentially the same material. Seeing as you didn't, I have made several edits to it, and tried to explain my thought process along the way when I didn't think it was obvious. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I have asked for the inclusion of two statements "This led to ACT UP leading protests over concerns over homophobia, including that partners of patients were not allowed to visit their loved ones; and insensitive security guards" this is supported by the Plague podcast. I also want to see inclusion of the statement "St. Vincent's downplayed its work with AIDS patients in the early days as they were worried about scaring away other patients" also in the plague podcast. I agree with Roscelese to removed the material that is of marginal (no) interest or relevance - this is "Medical facilities range from clinics deep in the jungle to large urban hospitals. Catholic medical centers work to both treat those already infected and to prevent the spread of the disease further, especially to at risk populations. Catholic hospitals are also world leaders in HIV research. By 2008, Catholic Charities USA had 1,600 agencies providing services to AIDS sufferers, including housing and mental health services. According to UNAIDS, Catholic Church-related organizations provide approximately 25% of all HIV treatment, care, and support throughout the world. Much of the Church's aid effort is concentrated in developing nations – in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. However, their opposition to safe sex measures such as condoms is a source of controversy." Slugger I don't "have it backways" - you make a mockery of the WP:BRD rule, play games, and by doing so you show me disrespect - you inserted this new material only recently and you were challenged as you were not able to achieve consensus. I find it frankly distressing that we have text that underplays the contribution that the Catholic Church made to the marginalisation and deaths of gay men through its overt homophobia and bizarre religious teachings. But instead have a puff piece - in any article about LGBT people - that tells us how wonderful it is that the catholic church runs healthcare facilities in africa and asia. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, The material was not just recently inserted. It was added in February. It is now April. That is enough time to have an implied consensus. If you wish to change the language, please change the consensus first. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you point me to where in the guidance it says that material must be challenged within a set period of time? Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, per WP:SILENT, "The more visible the statement, and the longer it stands unchallenged, the stronger the implication of consensus is." There is no set period of time, but surely several months is long enough. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

You were reminded recently by other editors that as soon as there is a challenge then "consensus" ends. Roscelese has also raised concerns about the material. So how about you suggest a compromise we can work with? I would like the reference to homophobia in St Vincent's restored - how about you have a go at trying to engage with my input in a collaborative spirit. Contaldo80 (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, The consensus may end, but until there is a new consensus then the original text stands. As noted in my edits summaries, there is no reference to St. Vincent's in the source you provided. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you actually telling me that I have to prove to you that the reference is there? How do you think if I'm going to do that if it's an audio file?!! Are you for real? Are you the "consensus" Slugger - are you the gatekeeper? Administrators could I please ask that someone provide some thoughts here as this is simply exasperating. Slugger has used material from the Plague podcast that has all been sympathetic to the Roman Catholic church but says they can't remember hearing something that was critical to the Catholic church. This is the kind of behaviour that got them topic banned from the Knights of Columbus. There is no evidence that their behaviour has improved. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

UNDUE

The following text is UNDUE as it does not refer to LGBT people but is a general observation about how the Catholic church approaches healthcare in a general sense. If editors want it restored please can then explain why they think it is indeed pertinent to this particular article. "Medical facilities range from clinics deep in the jungle to large urban hospitals. Catholic medical centers work to both treat those already infected and to prevent the spread of the disease further, especially to at risk populations. Catholic hospitals are also world leaders in HIV research. By 2008, Catholic Charities USA had 1,600 agencies providing services to AIDS sufferers, including housing and mental health services. According to UNAIDS, Catholic Church-related organizations provide approximately 25% of all HIV treatment, care, and support throughout the world. Much of the Church's aid effort is concentrated in developing nations – in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. However, their opposition to safe sex measures such as condoms is a source of controversy." Contaldo80 (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

As surely you know, AIDS disproportionately affects the LGBT community. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Does it really - in Africa? Perhaps this study might better inform: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8420583. "AIDS disproportionately affects the LGBT community" - many lesbians are there? Contaldo80 (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Plague

I've listened to the plague podcast and I'm afraid I cant' remember hearing any supporting material for the claims made in this article. Before reinserting can I ask editors to provide clarify as to the episode and minute at which each of these claims appeared so that they can be verified. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, it is obvious what you are trying to do. At Talk:Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS, I say that I can not find the material you are trying to say is in a given source. I have asked you to give me the time in the podcast where the material supposedly can be found. Either you are unwilling or, as I suspect, unable to do so. You should know that making your WP:POINT in such a way is disruptive, especially since you just deleted a warning for the same behavior on your talk page. That you are doing this on multiple articles is especially problematic. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

"As I suspect, unable to do so". This is a violation of WP:GOODFAITH. The source is Episode 2: The Catholic hospital that pioneered AIDS care 17:22 "...There were fears early on that if St Vincent's were too closely associated to AIDS it would scare away other patients." For the benefit of other editors the sentence that I added and which you removed repeatedly because you said you don't remember hearing it was: "St. Vincent's also downplayed its work with AIDS patients in the early days as they were worried about scaring away other patients." Anyway I've asked administrators for thoughts on how to proceed, in light of the fact that you aren't willing to provide time-straps in the same way for the material that you have added. Please be minded that I will delete anything you put on my talkpage going forward, much as you have systematically deleted over time anything from your talkpage you have not been happy with - including warnings and blocks. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, Ah. I see. The problem is that you were citing episode 1. No wonder I couldn't find it. That's not a violation of AGF as I genuinely couldn't find it in the citation you provided. Also, for what it's worth, I archive old talk page discussions but don't delete them. There's a difference. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Didn't you say that you listened repeatedly to all the podcast episodes and still didn't hear it? For reference I archive my talk pages also, but delete all discussion added by you. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, No. I didn't. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Section on HIV

Dear editors I added the sentence: "Critics of the church argued that the prohibition on condoms "needlessly affected" millions" to the section on HIV/ AIDS. Editor Slugger O'Toole removed this by arguing "don't need to state this twice". This sentence hasn't been stated anywhere else. I would be grateful for thoughts from other editors about whether it is reasonable to have this sentence included or whether it is superfluous. Thanks in advance. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS

I've restored the mentions of the church's opposition to safe sex in this section. It's a major ongoing focus of this controversy, not just in the 80s but through the present day, as the sources demonstrate. For balance, I have removed some of the material about the responses to the church's homophobic policies - the condom statue, in particular, is ludicrously undue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Roscelese, I have no objection to including the Church's opposition to condoms in this section. You will please notice that I included it in my edits. However, I think it is both unnecessary and undue to say that "...the broader perception that the church's opposition to safe sex practices such as condom use were exacerbating the crisis..." led to protests AND "...their opposition to safe sex measures such as condoms is a source of controversy..." Upon further reflection, I also think that details of protests like storming an emergency room and putting condoms on crucifixes is an undue level of detail for a summary. The bigger point here, though, is that the text you, AlmostFrancis, and I are working on is out of date. The daughter article has been expanded considerably since it was first drafted, which would necessitate an updating of this summary. WP:SUMMARY says the lede of the daughter article should be substantially the same as the summary here. With that in mind I am going to copy that lede, as is, and place it here. If it needs further tweaks to adapt to this article then we can work on those here. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you're as aware as I am that your addition is inappropriate, for the reasons I've already stated. This is not a fun joke, so I ask you to revert it; otherwise, I will. (I see I also accidentally neglected to actually remove the material I said I was removing for balance, so I'll do that too.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Roscelese, I assure you I was acting in good faith. It was not meant to be a joke and I'm not sure why you think this is inappropriate. My only goal was to bring this into line with WP:SUMMARY, and specifically: "Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article." Rather than edit war, why don't we work something out here on talk and then move it to the main? Also, I am not sure how I missed it when Contaldo added it, but I 100% agree that it is "ludicrously undue" for a summary. So, we agree that the section needs to be updated, that condoms should be a part of it, and that the line about condoms on crucifixes should not. That's three points of agreement off of which we can build. Where would you like to begin? I am happy to use either the original summary or the child lede as our starting point. Or, if you would rather, you can propose something completely original. Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm coming back after nearly two months away, so the best way I can summarize my view is that if your summary is indeed an accurate reflection of the main article now, you have spent the past two months destroying the main article. Let's prioritize NPOV and WEIGHT over SUMMARY here for this section, and then we can walk back your destructive edits to the main article afterwards. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Roscelese, I know we have had our differences in the past before and I have apologized when I was at fault for that. However, I am trying to move forward. I don't find language like "destroying the article" to be either helpful in that regard or very constructive more generally. Additionally, I went back 1,000 edits on the main article to 2009 and don't see you having ever made a single edit. I'm not sure on what basis you are saying my edits have been destructive if you were not familiar with it beforehand. I am also disappointed that you decided to edit war instead of working on some language that would be mutually agreeable here.

As for your most recent edit, I find several issues with it. To begin, we don't need to say "Catholic hospitals are currently a major provider of AIDS care" AND "with over 117,000 health centers, it is also one of the largest providers." Surely that can be condensed. Likewise, we don't need to say "The Catholic Church's opposition to homosexuality and to safe sex measures drew negative attention" AND "their opposition to safe sex measures such as condoms is a source of controversy." Once again, would you like to suggest some new language here that we can work on before moving it to main? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It was a major topic of discussion during the AIDS crisis in the US, and it was and remains a major topic of discussion in terms of the current global AIDS crisis. It merits being mentioned more than once because it's a significant factor in multiple subsections of the topic. As for the hospitals, I think it's fine to mention it once in the topic sentence and once again in the body of the section. Do you have other objections to the current section, or is it just that it isn't promotional enough? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Concern on current section organisation

I'm not sure how helpful the current organisation of the article is. In particular, many of Pope Francis' comments, and the recent doctrinal statement Fiducia Supplicans, are discussed under "Development of pro-gay movements within the Church # 2010s", rather than "Modern-day popes # Francis", where these discussions seem more appopriate. Moreover, I am concerned that the distinction between "development of pro-gay movements" and "popes" is an imperfect attempt to distinguish between "leadership" and "laity", which would separate the two chronologies more helpfully. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)