This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Catholic teaching on homosexuality redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Contaldo is changing the verbiage of the lede to use direct quotations from church documents. However, as explained a little lower, " there "are hidden nuances which 99 percent of the Catechism’s readers cannot be expected to fathom." If Catholics can't be expected to understand it, then neither should the average Wikipedia reader. Additionally, WP:JARGON says that we should not use "specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do." This is especiall"y true in the MOS:LEDE which "should be written in a clear, accessible style." For this reason, I am reverting. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 13:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I have, once again, deleted the section on Austria. The source cited talks about a blessing performed in two parishes. It does not say that such a blessing is allowed in the entire diocese. This statement fails WP:V. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 13:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
In the section ""Objectively disordered" and "intrinsically disordered"", Contaldo has included language that implies that Ratzinger directly challenged a statement made by Hume. This is not supported by the source. Though both men are talking about the same issue, it is WP:OR (at least with the current sources) to imply that one was in direct response to the other. I am editing to remove the WP:SYNTH. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 13:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Though they were both known as Synods on the Family, the 2014 event was the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. The one in 2015 was the Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. They were separate events, with different participants, and each of them had a final report. It is not correct to say that the final report from 2015 encompassed discussions from 2014, although there certainly was some overlap. I am editing to remove the incorrect facts. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 13:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I have restored the content at Catholic teaching on homosexuality § Local perspectives § United States that was removed, as per WP:BRD. The removal of the content was the bold edit, which was reverted. Now it's time to discuss. It makes no sense to omit the United States content entirely from the section; why is it being removed? Also, why was content regarding other countries not removed, and only U.S.-based content? North America 1000 10:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
If we insist on putting in all the warm cuddly stuff about how lovely the catholic church is to gay people then we have to put in the reality (which is that it hasn't actually been very nice) otherwise the article demonstrates bias. The risk of this is that we then have a very long article that just repeats what is in other articles. Now if the consensus is to go down that route then I am happy to oblige. But three paragraphs on how the US church has been so inclusive towards gay people is not balanced and extremely misleading and has next to nothing to do with church teaching. Contaldo80 ( talk) 10:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Contaldo has asked for me to explain why I put tags on several citations. The reason is that they are either 1)in German, or 2) a bare URL. In the first case, WP:NONENG says that "editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page." The bare URLs are tagged per WP:LINKROT. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 12:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
BrianCua you made a recent edit explaining "I wish the editor who added these sources would include full details himself, but as a gesture of good faith I have done so". Can you clarify which editor you are referring to please and what exactly you mean by "full details"? Thanks. Contaldo80 ( talk) 23:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
<ref name="ABC" />
tags helps to reduce the bloat in the edit window. --
BrianCUA (
talk)
14:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)It has been suggested (although not explained) that this article should be merged with the main article on Catholicism and homosexuality. I disagree with that move. The motivation from a number of editors was that the main article had become too long and exceeded reasonable word length. Articles were subsequently spun out to allow for more detail on different aspects. To merge all of these articles make into the main article would be to make it unwieldy again. Contaldo80 ( talk) 00:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Slugger - suggest you focus your attention on one article at a time. Trying to amend related articles when you haven't achieved consensus for your preferred form of wording on other articles isn't generally helpful. Thanks. Contaldo80 ( talk) 00:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
At para 10: "But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered." Happy to help you read, Slugger. Frankly, the continuation of that paragraph came in for some hefty criticism in that it blames gay people for hate crime, so I've added that as well. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 23:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
This article cannot be used to POV-fork Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality. It's flagrantly ridiculous, for instance, that it contains a whole section on "Freedom from discrimination" without the main article's sources on how the church considers discrimination in employment, marriage, adoption, military service, and other aspects of life to be not only moral but obligatory. If this and other sub-articles are going to be used for advocacy, we must merge them back in. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 21:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the promotional crap about antidiscrimination. Reading over the article, I'm inclined to simply merge/redirect this article back into the main article; this level of detail is appropriate for a fan wiki, not for WP. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Restored template, given that discussion is ongoing and that the proposed merge specifically concerns the fact that this article is a disallowed POV fork. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
AlmostFrancis, in this edit you say that "This is from an interview on the Today show and comes directly without thirdparty sourcing so probably undue." The statement is a personal opinion. It was published by a reliable source. Can you please explain what third party you think is necessary? -- 20:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose selectively merging and redirecting this article back into Catholic Church and homosexuality. The article and its history clearly indicate that, rather than being a necessary content fork due to size, this sub-article is and has been an apologetic document seeking to explain and justify Catholic doctrine through extensive recaps of doctrinal primary sources and other subpar promotional sources, both in Wikipedia's voice and through quotation; in layman's terms, fancruft more appropriate for a fan wiki than Wikipedia. This is not a problem that an overhaul of the article would be likely to solve, because maintaining a separate article for the sole purpose of regurgitating Catholic teaching to Wikipedia users is inherently POV. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 21:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Good call; sorry I only noticed this now. Good luck with the merge. Mathglot ( talk) 09:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm about to remove more apologetic fluff from a non-independent source with an overt POV aim. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Alberto Uy, seems to be a priest without any secular academic credentials. His highest degree was a masters degree in "Sacred Theology" from a seminary not an Academic university. Landas has a miniscule impact factor and the whole editorial board is made up of priests. Is there any reason that his research in this journal is in anyway due in a secular encyclopedia. AlmostFrancis ( talk) 04:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Roscelese has removed this content saying that it is a misrepresentation of the source. The source reads as follows:
Having declared all same-sex genital activity to be objectively wrong, the Church also teaches that care and prudence should guide all pastoral judgements about a person's subjective responsiblity for such behavior (PH, 8). An indiviudal's culpability for any given instance of same-sex genital activity can be agrevated or mitigated, even removed altogether, depending on the circumstances (PCHP, 11). ... the degree a person can be judged culpable for such activity will vary. This means in a particular instance a person engaged in a homogenital activity may not be subjectively sinful. (emphasis in original)
I am not sure what she thinks is being misrepresented here. Could you explain, please? -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 14:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Under the "'Objectively disordered' and 'intrinsically disordered'" subsection, it says, "In a 2006 commentary, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger...". The thing is that his papacy began in 2005, so if it really was a 2006 commentary, then it should say "In a 2006 commentary, Pope Benedict XVI...", or if the year is wrong, then the year should be corrected. I don't know which one is right, but this part as currently written is certainly wrong. JMM12345 ( talk) 22:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)JMM12345
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Catholic teaching on homosexuality redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Contaldo is changing the verbiage of the lede to use direct quotations from church documents. However, as explained a little lower, " there "are hidden nuances which 99 percent of the Catechism’s readers cannot be expected to fathom." If Catholics can't be expected to understand it, then neither should the average Wikipedia reader. Additionally, WP:JARGON says that we should not use "specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do." This is especiall"y true in the MOS:LEDE which "should be written in a clear, accessible style." For this reason, I am reverting. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 13:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I have, once again, deleted the section on Austria. The source cited talks about a blessing performed in two parishes. It does not say that such a blessing is allowed in the entire diocese. This statement fails WP:V. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 13:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
In the section ""Objectively disordered" and "intrinsically disordered"", Contaldo has included language that implies that Ratzinger directly challenged a statement made by Hume. This is not supported by the source. Though both men are talking about the same issue, it is WP:OR (at least with the current sources) to imply that one was in direct response to the other. I am editing to remove the WP:SYNTH. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 13:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Though they were both known as Synods on the Family, the 2014 event was the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. The one in 2015 was the Fourteenth Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. They were separate events, with different participants, and each of them had a final report. It is not correct to say that the final report from 2015 encompassed discussions from 2014, although there certainly was some overlap. I am editing to remove the incorrect facts. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 13:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I have restored the content at Catholic teaching on homosexuality § Local perspectives § United States that was removed, as per WP:BRD. The removal of the content was the bold edit, which was reverted. Now it's time to discuss. It makes no sense to omit the United States content entirely from the section; why is it being removed? Also, why was content regarding other countries not removed, and only U.S.-based content? North America 1000 10:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
If we insist on putting in all the warm cuddly stuff about how lovely the catholic church is to gay people then we have to put in the reality (which is that it hasn't actually been very nice) otherwise the article demonstrates bias. The risk of this is that we then have a very long article that just repeats what is in other articles. Now if the consensus is to go down that route then I am happy to oblige. But three paragraphs on how the US church has been so inclusive towards gay people is not balanced and extremely misleading and has next to nothing to do with church teaching. Contaldo80 ( talk) 10:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Contaldo has asked for me to explain why I put tags on several citations. The reason is that they are either 1)in German, or 2) a bare URL. In the first case, WP:NONENG says that "editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page." The bare URLs are tagged per WP:LINKROT. -- BrianCUA ( talk) 12:52, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
BrianCua you made a recent edit explaining "I wish the editor who added these sources would include full details himself, but as a gesture of good faith I have done so". Can you clarify which editor you are referring to please and what exactly you mean by "full details"? Thanks. Contaldo80 ( talk) 23:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
<ref name="ABC" />
tags helps to reduce the bloat in the edit window. --
BrianCUA (
talk)
14:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)It has been suggested (although not explained) that this article should be merged with the main article on Catholicism and homosexuality. I disagree with that move. The motivation from a number of editors was that the main article had become too long and exceeded reasonable word length. Articles were subsequently spun out to allow for more detail on different aspects. To merge all of these articles make into the main article would be to make it unwieldy again. Contaldo80 ( talk) 00:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Slugger - suggest you focus your attention on one article at a time. Trying to amend related articles when you haven't achieved consensus for your preferred form of wording on other articles isn't generally helpful. Thanks. Contaldo80 ( talk) 00:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
At para 10: "But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered." Happy to help you read, Slugger. Frankly, the continuation of that paragraph came in for some hefty criticism in that it blames gay people for hate crime, so I've added that as well. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 23:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
This article cannot be used to POV-fork Catholic_Church_and_homosexuality. It's flagrantly ridiculous, for instance, that it contains a whole section on "Freedom from discrimination" without the main article's sources on how the church considers discrimination in employment, marriage, adoption, military service, and other aspects of life to be not only moral but obligatory. If this and other sub-articles are going to be used for advocacy, we must merge them back in. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 21:09, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the promotional crap about antidiscrimination. Reading over the article, I'm inclined to simply merge/redirect this article back into the main article; this level of detail is appropriate for a fan wiki, not for WP. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Restored template, given that discussion is ongoing and that the proposed merge specifically concerns the fact that this article is a disallowed POV fork. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
AlmostFrancis, in this edit you say that "This is from an interview on the Today show and comes directly without thirdparty sourcing so probably undue." The statement is a personal opinion. It was published by a reliable source. Can you please explain what third party you think is necessary? -- 20:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose selectively merging and redirecting this article back into Catholic Church and homosexuality. The article and its history clearly indicate that, rather than being a necessary content fork due to size, this sub-article is and has been an apologetic document seeking to explain and justify Catholic doctrine through extensive recaps of doctrinal primary sources and other subpar promotional sources, both in Wikipedia's voice and through quotation; in layman's terms, fancruft more appropriate for a fan wiki than Wikipedia. This is not a problem that an overhaul of the article would be likely to solve, because maintaining a separate article for the sole purpose of regurgitating Catholic teaching to Wikipedia users is inherently POV. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 21:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Good call; sorry I only noticed this now. Good luck with the merge. Mathglot ( talk) 09:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm about to remove more apologetic fluff from a non-independent source with an overt POV aim. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Alberto Uy, seems to be a priest without any secular academic credentials. His highest degree was a masters degree in "Sacred Theology" from a seminary not an Academic university. Landas has a miniscule impact factor and the whole editorial board is made up of priests. Is there any reason that his research in this journal is in anyway due in a secular encyclopedia. AlmostFrancis ( talk) 04:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Roscelese has removed this content saying that it is a misrepresentation of the source. The source reads as follows:
Having declared all same-sex genital activity to be objectively wrong, the Church also teaches that care and prudence should guide all pastoral judgements about a person's subjective responsiblity for such behavior (PH, 8). An indiviudal's culpability for any given instance of same-sex genital activity can be agrevated or mitigated, even removed altogether, depending on the circumstances (PCHP, 11). ... the degree a person can be judged culpable for such activity will vary. This means in a particular instance a person engaged in a homogenital activity may not be subjectively sinful. (emphasis in original)
I am not sure what she thinks is being misrepresented here. Could you explain, please? -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 14:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Under the "'Objectively disordered' and 'intrinsically disordered'" subsection, it says, "In a 2006 commentary, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger...". The thing is that his papacy began in 2005, so if it really was a 2006 commentary, then it should say "In a 2006 commentary, Pope Benedict XVI...", or if the year is wrong, then the year should be corrected. I don't know which one is right, but this part as currently written is certainly wrong. JMM12345 ( talk) 22:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)JMM12345