This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
text deleted restore only with refs
|
I don't see why this page should be deleted... I think Roma is a very worthy and appropriate article to be included here. M.brandonclark 18:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to not see this page deleted. It'd be nice if it could be improved upon a bit. I don't know enough about Roma to be able to help myself. -- 68.96.52.228 05:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Mentions Roma only so doubt it's worth including. Benjiboi 20:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The coi of the leading editor (in terms of number of edits) of this gushing bio is closely linked to the subject. The bio needs to be cleaned up. I also removed the picture of Jesus which seems to be intentionally offensive. Smallbones ( talk) 22:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Do please note the dates of my comment here and the following comments - 3 years difference explains a lot. I have noticed people putting in gushy pr pieces as references again. "Nark" is not a reliable source. "Sister Roma, pictured here nonchalantly worshipped by hot San Franciscans," is the lede of one reference. Whoever put that in as a reference ought to be ashamed of themselves. I'll also remove the photo, since it seems to have been put in by pr people and intentionally insults some people's religious beliefs. Smallbones ( talk) 12:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
It's clear that a group of users here just don't like Sister Roma and what she stands for. The sources added were two news articles about her and two interviews with her all tied to her being elected as a Grand Marshal for the Pride parade. The Nark interview was not used to back up any big claim and even if you don't like Nark, it was still an interview with Sister Roma. So I think this is just a case of these users not agreeing with her politics. Their cause should be taken up with the thousands of people that voted for her and the news media that reported on her. User:Panther Pink —Preceding undated comment added 08:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I still think Narc was fine for what it was covering but I've removed that interview. I hope that satisfies all the concerns. Panther Pink ( talk) 09:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
BTW, I've reviewed the article again, and there is one instance of puffy language that I think ought to be reworded so that it gets the point across without all the subjective terms:
There are two problems with this text. The first is the puffery, and the second is that it's news—it's the sort of thing that changes over time, yet it's presented as if it could be permanently true. So I'd encourage the editors of this article to improve this text. But this is not the sort of text in a BLP that qualifies for speedy removal—it's the sort that qualifies for discussion on the talk page. Abhayakara ( talk) 15:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the Sisters' website Sister Roma is not listed as an officer or board member. I also changed the wording on the quote to be specific of the context. Panther Pink ( talk) 05:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, this is better. However, the language I was referring to earlier is still there. The problem with language like this is that it isn't factual, and is very arbitrary. It's also passive voice—we don't know who considers Sister Roma to be "one of the most..." And compared to whom? It's better to just leave this out—I don't think it adds to the story. If you want to get the point across, it would be better to express it directly instead of comparatively—she joined, and then became very outspoken, giving examples. Like that. When you use comparative terms, it invites the question, compared to whom?
The other thing is that the lead-in to that paragraph is weak—you don't know what you're getting in to. It's a good story, but it might be nice if the first sentence set the context, rather than immediately launching into the story. Something along the lines of "Sister Roma first came into contact with the SPI when ..." I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I won't rewrite it, but I think something along those lines would improve it. Abhayakara ( talk) 14:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I've tried to make the reasonable suggestions you mention. She is being compared to all the other members of the Sisters' group. To be fair I don't know how many there are but it comes off as being how many have been active for at least 25 years and logic gives us a number equal or less than however many were in the group when she joined. Panther Pink ( talk) 09:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I just reviewed the edit history for this article, based on User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' assertion that his recent edits represent consensus. Seven people have expressed an opinion on the question in the past month; the same seven are the only seven who have edited the talk page at all in the past two years, with the exception of a couple of bot edits and a bot cleanup edit. One of these editors feels that the article should be deleted. Two seem to agree that the larger version of the article violates BLP for some unspecified reason. The remaining four, myself included, disagree. So there is no consensus for Wolf's edits, nor is there even a majority. If we were to take the opinion of the majority, it would be that Wolf's edits are not wanted. So the claim that there is consensus for the edits Wolf and Small have made is simply wrong, and it's surprising that an editor with Wolf's long track record on Wikipedia would make such a claim. Abhayakara ( talk) 16:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
One of the seven I mentioned above last edited in 2009, so my statement about "in the last month" was not accurate with respect to this edit. However, the analysis still stands; if we take just the past month, then we have parity—no consensus for either position. Abhayakara ( talk) 16:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd originally changed "Grand Marshall" of the parade in the lede, to "one of thirteen Grand Marshalls" of the parade - there is quite a difference - the first is grossly misleading. Upon consideration, however, the second is "damning with faint praise." If that accomplishment is important enough in this person's life to be placed in the lede (or even in the last paragraph), then there is a problem.
Roma was the ONLY voted for Individual grand marshall. The rest were chosen by SF Pride. Panther Pink ( talk) 09:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
One of thirteen is only technically true and is the least way of acknowledging this; she was the ONLY individual grand marshal to be elected by the public. This would be evident if you had not also deleted the sourcing that confirmed this. Panther Pink ( talk) 09:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
User:Panther Pink, you need to calm down with the promotional content. -- DanielKlotz ( talk · contribs) 09:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I've also removed the PR foto of Christ carrying the cross and waving to passers-by. Why? It looks like hate speech to me, provided as a photo-op by a PR firm. There is no rule that compels Wikipedia to include such material in an article. The sisters readily acknowledge that they do agitprop against the Roman Catholic Church, and this is a perfect example. Don't know the term "agitprop"? It comes from "agitation-propaganda" and in Soviet terms means the same as PR. Mocking people's religion - especially the crucial point in their God/leader's life - is being intentionally offensive. Perhaps we may include such material according to Wikipedia's rules, but there is no rule that says we have to include it. It's a matter of consensus, as far as I can tell, and I'd like to see a clear consensus before anybody tries to include it again. Smallbones ( talk) 15:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
From Wp:Images "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article."
So there are reasons not to include an intentionally offensive images put forth by what's in effect a PR firm. There doesn't seem to be any reason to add this image - what does it ad to the article? If you don't think that mocking Jesus as depicted during the prelude to his crucification is not offensive, then you need to be able to step outside yourself and consider what others might think. The stations of the cross are included in almost every Roman Catholic church. I've never seen one where it says "Gay Jesus smiles and waves to the crowd." BTW I am not Roman Catholic, but I am offended that somebody would go so far out of their way to offend another human being. Smallbones ( talk) 22:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Please go ahead and edit the picture. Head shot only, or head and body (of Roma), makes no difference to me. One last try on explaining why mocking the Passion of Christ would be considered offensive by almost all Christians. The Passion of Christ is where Christ was beaten and tortured as he carried his own cross to his own execution site. The guy who said "Blessed are the meek" was tortured to death for saying this. It is the central event of his life, along with the following resurrection. Mocking this is pissing on the central tenets of Christianity. If anybody doesn't understand why this is offensive, please go talk to somebody who understands something about religion. Smallbones ( talk) 02:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Re-added the image from this well-known event. I also found [3] a whole section why Wikipedia doesn't censor. Panther Pink ( talk) 09:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The only reason to change this image is to change it's meaning from Sister Roma emceeing a Sister event that is known around the world to one of just her which would end up being a poor shot. Censorship remains censorship no mater how you crop this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panther Pink ( talk • contribs) 09:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | I want to be clear here that the offensivenss of the image to Catholics is not at all valid. A major part of the reason this person is notable is because they are deliberately offensive to Catholics, so it is only to be expected. Also, arguments relating to who initially wrote the article were also rejected. That has no relevance to a content dispute. That all being said, the argument that the image is not a particularly good fit for this specifc article and that there is another, better image already added in its place mean that consensus does in fact favor excluding that image and favoring the one currently in the onfobox instead. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC) |
There's been a big debate on this talk page about this version of the Sister Roma article. Many points have been raised—I'm requesting comment on one point, and then I'll raise the next one when and if we have some clarity on the first point. The subject of the article is a member of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, which is a group of activists who dress up in drag as nuns as a form of street theater in opposition to the Catholic hierarchy's anti-gay stance. The picture shows Roma at a SPI event with another sister and a man dressed to look like Jesus and carrying a cross. I contend that this image is appropriate and relevant, because it shows Roma doing what she is notable for doing. Others contend that because some Catholics would be offended, perhaps deeply offended, at this image, it ought not to be included in the article, regardless of its relevance. I would like to hear opinions from the wider community about this. Abhayakara ( talk) 18:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
It's censorship to remove or change this image, it shows Sister Roma doing exactly what she is known for in a worldwide known event produced by the group she is known for being a part of plain and simple. Panther Pink ( talk) 09:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
text deleted restore only with refs
|
I don't see why this page should be deleted... I think Roma is a very worthy and appropriate article to be included here. M.brandonclark 18:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I would also like to not see this page deleted. It'd be nice if it could be improved upon a bit. I don't know enough about Roma to be able to help myself. -- 68.96.52.228 05:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Mentions Roma only so doubt it's worth including. Benjiboi 20:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The coi of the leading editor (in terms of number of edits) of this gushing bio is closely linked to the subject. The bio needs to be cleaned up. I also removed the picture of Jesus which seems to be intentionally offensive. Smallbones ( talk) 22:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Do please note the dates of my comment here and the following comments - 3 years difference explains a lot. I have noticed people putting in gushy pr pieces as references again. "Nark" is not a reliable source. "Sister Roma, pictured here nonchalantly worshipped by hot San Franciscans," is the lede of one reference. Whoever put that in as a reference ought to be ashamed of themselves. I'll also remove the photo, since it seems to have been put in by pr people and intentionally insults some people's religious beliefs. Smallbones ( talk) 12:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
It's clear that a group of users here just don't like Sister Roma and what she stands for. The sources added were two news articles about her and two interviews with her all tied to her being elected as a Grand Marshal for the Pride parade. The Nark interview was not used to back up any big claim and even if you don't like Nark, it was still an interview with Sister Roma. So I think this is just a case of these users not agreeing with her politics. Their cause should be taken up with the thousands of people that voted for her and the news media that reported on her. User:Panther Pink —Preceding undated comment added 08:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I still think Narc was fine for what it was covering but I've removed that interview. I hope that satisfies all the concerns. Panther Pink ( talk) 09:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
BTW, I've reviewed the article again, and there is one instance of puffy language that I think ought to be reworded so that it gets the point across without all the subjective terms:
There are two problems with this text. The first is the puffery, and the second is that it's news—it's the sort of thing that changes over time, yet it's presented as if it could be permanently true. So I'd encourage the editors of this article to improve this text. But this is not the sort of text in a BLP that qualifies for speedy removal—it's the sort that qualifies for discussion on the talk page. Abhayakara ( talk) 15:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the Sisters' website Sister Roma is not listed as an officer or board member. I also changed the wording on the quote to be specific of the context. Panther Pink ( talk) 05:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, this is better. However, the language I was referring to earlier is still there. The problem with language like this is that it isn't factual, and is very arbitrary. It's also passive voice—we don't know who considers Sister Roma to be "one of the most..." And compared to whom? It's better to just leave this out—I don't think it adds to the story. If you want to get the point across, it would be better to express it directly instead of comparatively—she joined, and then became very outspoken, giving examples. Like that. When you use comparative terms, it invites the question, compared to whom?
The other thing is that the lead-in to that paragraph is weak—you don't know what you're getting in to. It's a good story, but it might be nice if the first sentence set the context, rather than immediately launching into the story. Something along the lines of "Sister Roma first came into contact with the SPI when ..." I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I won't rewrite it, but I think something along those lines would improve it. Abhayakara ( talk) 14:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I've tried to make the reasonable suggestions you mention. She is being compared to all the other members of the Sisters' group. To be fair I don't know how many there are but it comes off as being how many have been active for at least 25 years and logic gives us a number equal or less than however many were in the group when she joined. Panther Pink ( talk) 09:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I just reviewed the edit history for this article, based on User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' assertion that his recent edits represent consensus. Seven people have expressed an opinion on the question in the past month; the same seven are the only seven who have edited the talk page at all in the past two years, with the exception of a couple of bot edits and a bot cleanup edit. One of these editors feels that the article should be deleted. Two seem to agree that the larger version of the article violates BLP for some unspecified reason. The remaining four, myself included, disagree. So there is no consensus for Wolf's edits, nor is there even a majority. If we were to take the opinion of the majority, it would be that Wolf's edits are not wanted. So the claim that there is consensus for the edits Wolf and Small have made is simply wrong, and it's surprising that an editor with Wolf's long track record on Wikipedia would make such a claim. Abhayakara ( talk) 16:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
One of the seven I mentioned above last edited in 2009, so my statement about "in the last month" was not accurate with respect to this edit. However, the analysis still stands; if we take just the past month, then we have parity—no consensus for either position. Abhayakara ( talk) 16:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd originally changed "Grand Marshall" of the parade in the lede, to "one of thirteen Grand Marshalls" of the parade - there is quite a difference - the first is grossly misleading. Upon consideration, however, the second is "damning with faint praise." If that accomplishment is important enough in this person's life to be placed in the lede (or even in the last paragraph), then there is a problem.
Roma was the ONLY voted for Individual grand marshall. The rest were chosen by SF Pride. Panther Pink ( talk) 09:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
One of thirteen is only technically true and is the least way of acknowledging this; she was the ONLY individual grand marshal to be elected by the public. This would be evident if you had not also deleted the sourcing that confirmed this. Panther Pink ( talk) 09:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
User:Panther Pink, you need to calm down with the promotional content. -- DanielKlotz ( talk · contribs) 09:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I've also removed the PR foto of Christ carrying the cross and waving to passers-by. Why? It looks like hate speech to me, provided as a photo-op by a PR firm. There is no rule that compels Wikipedia to include such material in an article. The sisters readily acknowledge that they do agitprop against the Roman Catholic Church, and this is a perfect example. Don't know the term "agitprop"? It comes from "agitation-propaganda" and in Soviet terms means the same as PR. Mocking people's religion - especially the crucial point in their God/leader's life - is being intentionally offensive. Perhaps we may include such material according to Wikipedia's rules, but there is no rule that says we have to include it. It's a matter of consensus, as far as I can tell, and I'd like to see a clear consensus before anybody tries to include it again. Smallbones ( talk) 15:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
From Wp:Images "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article."
So there are reasons not to include an intentionally offensive images put forth by what's in effect a PR firm. There doesn't seem to be any reason to add this image - what does it ad to the article? If you don't think that mocking Jesus as depicted during the prelude to his crucification is not offensive, then you need to be able to step outside yourself and consider what others might think. The stations of the cross are included in almost every Roman Catholic church. I've never seen one where it says "Gay Jesus smiles and waves to the crowd." BTW I am not Roman Catholic, but I am offended that somebody would go so far out of their way to offend another human being. Smallbones ( talk) 22:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Please go ahead and edit the picture. Head shot only, or head and body (of Roma), makes no difference to me. One last try on explaining why mocking the Passion of Christ would be considered offensive by almost all Christians. The Passion of Christ is where Christ was beaten and tortured as he carried his own cross to his own execution site. The guy who said "Blessed are the meek" was tortured to death for saying this. It is the central event of his life, along with the following resurrection. Mocking this is pissing on the central tenets of Christianity. If anybody doesn't understand why this is offensive, please go talk to somebody who understands something about religion. Smallbones ( talk) 02:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Re-added the image from this well-known event. I also found [3] a whole section why Wikipedia doesn't censor. Panther Pink ( talk) 09:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The only reason to change this image is to change it's meaning from Sister Roma emceeing a Sister event that is known around the world to one of just her which would end up being a poor shot. Censorship remains censorship no mater how you crop this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panther Pink ( talk • contribs) 09:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | I want to be clear here that the offensivenss of the image to Catholics is not at all valid. A major part of the reason this person is notable is because they are deliberately offensive to Catholics, so it is only to be expected. Also, arguments relating to who initially wrote the article were also rejected. That has no relevance to a content dispute. That all being said, the argument that the image is not a particularly good fit for this specifc article and that there is another, better image already added in its place mean that consensus does in fact favor excluding that image and favoring the one currently in the onfobox instead. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC) |
There's been a big debate on this talk page about this version of the Sister Roma article. Many points have been raised—I'm requesting comment on one point, and then I'll raise the next one when and if we have some clarity on the first point. The subject of the article is a member of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, which is a group of activists who dress up in drag as nuns as a form of street theater in opposition to the Catholic hierarchy's anti-gay stance. The picture shows Roma at a SPI event with another sister and a man dressed to look like Jesus and carrying a cross. I contend that this image is appropriate and relevant, because it shows Roma doing what she is notable for doing. Others contend that because some Catholics would be offended, perhaps deeply offended, at this image, it ought not to be included in the article, regardless of its relevance. I would like to hear opinions from the wider community about this. Abhayakara ( talk) 18:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
It's censorship to remove or change this image, it shows Sister Roma doing exactly what she is known for in a worldwide known event produced by the group she is known for being a part of plain and simple. Panther Pink ( talk) 09:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)