This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
I've removed promotional rambling added to the article. As encyclopedia editors, we must present reliably sourced material in a non-obfuscatory way that observes due weight. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 07:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
No. Please forgive me for not being more clear. Are you saying that The Catholic Weekly is not a RS? -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 20:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
The issue of the lede has been discussed elsewhere, but is tangled up in a discussion about another topic. WP:LEDE states that "As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic..." I contend that the current lede does not do so. The Church Teaching section is clearly the most important section in this article. However, the sentence describing it in the lede is the shortest of the entire section. Judging by word count alone, it would seem that the entirety of the church teaching is just as important to this article as is a list of notable LGBT Catholics. This clearly fails WP:DUE. This is especially true when you look at the next two sentences. Both are quite long and speak to history. It is undue to have 15 words about the teaching and then 41, almost three times as many, about history.
The MOS also says the lede should also "summarize the most important points." To simply say that the Church considers homosexual acts to be a sin does not adequately or accurately summarize the Church teaching section. Furthermore, that is the opening sentence of the article. However, the MOS:FIRST sentence is supposed to "tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is." The current first sentence just summarizes one aspect of church teaching. It's doesn't even cover the whole teaching, much less the rest of the article.
Along those lines, the MOS:BEGINning of the article should "establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it." The current version does not do that. Why, for example, would the church provide pastoral care to LGBT people (and have some calling for more) if all they were was a bunch of sinners, end of story? For all of these reasons, I believe that the lede needs to be expanded and so am proposing a new first paragraph below. I would welcome the contributions of others in proposing edits so that we can gain consensus and move it to the main.
What do others think? -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 19:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Freeknowledgecreator: if you're still interested in this article, any thoughts on how to expand our summary of the history article in a WEIGHT-compliant manner and if there's any more of it that could be in the lede?
– Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Roscelese. I've been away, and have not been able to pay close attention to this article. I'll review things and consider the issues you mention. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 03:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
As I explained in my recent edit summary, "punishment" or some word that does not cast a pejorative light on the activity, should be used instead of "persecution" in describing the Church's actions against homosexual activity in the Middle Ages. If the source we are using here also happened to say "persecute" then we should state the fact more objectively or else tell the reader right in the text that this is how a particular source sees the situation. 68.0.205.15 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Natemup: I've removed your addition since our section here is a brief blurb of List of LGBT Catholics - there, if anywhere, is the better place to list more marginal individuals, while the ones identified here are some of the more notable ones. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the mention of/link to Vine and Fig - is there a source indicating that it is notable? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I saw that there was a suggestion to merge this article with another. Would this be helpful? I've never merged before, I just saw it suggested and thought it would be interesting to talk about it. Amethystloucks ( talk) 20:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
However, Pope Francis has said he supports LGBT civil unions, which, by Papal Infallibility, means that the Catholic Church now supports Same Sex Civil Unions. -- 188.96.185.39 ( talk) 13:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
At this point I have carried out most of the selective merge from Catholic teaching on homosexuality. (I'm not able to finish it up today but I have left the stuff I still need to get to in a separate revision before converting it to a redirect, so it's easy to return to shortly.) Essentially, I imported things that this article did not contain, while declining to import repetition, glurge/fancruft/apologetics, and other stuff that wasn't meaningful (like Chaput's 2015 statement to the press vaguely waving at reconsidering the phrase "intrinsically disordered," which obviously didn't go anywhere).
I have also taken the opportunity to remove from this, the target article, 1. the statement that Veritatis splendor was the first papal encyclical to refer to homosexuality - I don't consider this meaningful to the reader in light of the several previous paragraphs which are about all the airtime the church has given to the Gay Question, and the contents are repetitive - 2. the bit about Francis's possible support of civil unions, in light of the Vatican's later retraction of that statement. I could see an argument for including a line about Francis's vaguely more accepting views (and would be happy to participate in workshopping one), but I can also see an argument for omitting anything that doesn't actually change the church's position or activities in regard to gay people, and 3. some unproductive external links.
Back soon?
– Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
There was a consensus for a "selective merge" from Catholic teaching on homosexuality to this article. Now that they have been merged, there is a dispute about which content from the merged article belongs here. A new sub page, Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality/teaching, has been created to work on the language and then move it into the main. Please consider helping in that effort. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 03:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I've reverted the recent removal of the reference to the church's political activities against gay rights. It's a brief sentence in the history section which links to another article section (which itself summarizes a whole sourced article). This is also part of the church's history on this topic. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Someone could expand the article on love (without sex) between same sexes. If I understand it correctly, the Catholic Church has no issue with love, as long as the lovers keep their pants on, so to speak. Perhaps love in itself is not regarded as homosexuality? Is one homosexual if in love but not having sex? 2A02:AA1:1005:8678:E162:1956:E287:2029 ( talk) 22:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. This position is not mainstream Catholicism, I think. But i just added a sentence about this under "Church teaching": Eve Tushnet, a gay Catholic herself, has argued that Catholic teaching accepts "non-sexual love" between same-sex partners.
⠀Trimton⠀ 08:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
If one reads, and most importantly understands, the Catholic Church teachings, it is quite obvious that love is what Christianity is all about. Mainstream indeed. Homosexuality - the act of sex between people of the same sex, is not regarded as love by Catholic teachings. Eve Tushnet uses the word "partner". I am not certain that the Catholic Church would accept two people of the same sex as being partners, partners of what? Matrimony in the Catholic Church is basically a sacrament for couples that in principle can produce offspring (by themselves). Without the ability of reproduction there would not be any need for this sacrament. 2A02:AA1:1002:CF0E:B8E8:F19A:7772:2667 ( talk) 13:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Have removed citation needed tags for cited material. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Decades old, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryn78 and User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AWilliamson. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Pope Francis did NOT accept same sex civil unions. he stated that we (Catholics) must act civilly towards homosexuals. 2600:1007:B03D:5BDF:4D3C:4531:3A81:6704 ( talk) 13:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Elizium23 has recently changed the sentence in the lead from "The Catholic Church broadly opposes the acceptance of homosexuality within society. to "The Catholic Church broadly opposes the acceptance of homosexual activity within society."
I disagree with this change for the following reasons: 1 It overlaps partly with the first sentence of the lead (homosexual activity is a mortal sin). 2 A link to the homosexuality article seems a good idea. 3 The church is not only opposed to homosexual activity but also against celibate homosexual people living together, marrying,.... It is in favour of discrimination against homosexual people even when they don't have sex (in housing, the army, teaching, becoming priests...). It wants to keep its right to kick out homosexual children from Catholic schools. 2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:50F3:D47B:F97F:C82A ( talk) 14:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Undo WP:POVFORK and proliferation of overlapping articles re: LGBT/Catholic topics. Elizium23 ( talk) 19:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
I've removed promotional rambling added to the article. As encyclopedia editors, we must present reliably sourced material in a non-obfuscatory way that observes due weight. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 07:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
No. Please forgive me for not being more clear. Are you saying that The Catholic Weekly is not a RS? -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 20:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
The issue of the lede has been discussed elsewhere, but is tangled up in a discussion about another topic. WP:LEDE states that "As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic..." I contend that the current lede does not do so. The Church Teaching section is clearly the most important section in this article. However, the sentence describing it in the lede is the shortest of the entire section. Judging by word count alone, it would seem that the entirety of the church teaching is just as important to this article as is a list of notable LGBT Catholics. This clearly fails WP:DUE. This is especially true when you look at the next two sentences. Both are quite long and speak to history. It is undue to have 15 words about the teaching and then 41, almost three times as many, about history.
The MOS also says the lede should also "summarize the most important points." To simply say that the Church considers homosexual acts to be a sin does not adequately or accurately summarize the Church teaching section. Furthermore, that is the opening sentence of the article. However, the MOS:FIRST sentence is supposed to "tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is." The current first sentence just summarizes one aspect of church teaching. It's doesn't even cover the whole teaching, much less the rest of the article.
Along those lines, the MOS:BEGINning of the article should "establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it." The current version does not do that. Why, for example, would the church provide pastoral care to LGBT people (and have some calling for more) if all they were was a bunch of sinners, end of story? For all of these reasons, I believe that the lede needs to be expanded and so am proposing a new first paragraph below. I would welcome the contributions of others in proposing edits so that we can gain consensus and move it to the main.
What do others think? -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 19:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Freeknowledgecreator: if you're still interested in this article, any thoughts on how to expand our summary of the history article in a WEIGHT-compliant manner and if there's any more of it that could be in the lede?
– Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Roscelese. I've been away, and have not been able to pay close attention to this article. I'll review things and consider the issues you mention. Freeknowledgecreator ( talk) 03:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
As I explained in my recent edit summary, "punishment" or some word that does not cast a pejorative light on the activity, should be used instead of "persecution" in describing the Church's actions against homosexual activity in the Middle Ages. If the source we are using here also happened to say "persecute" then we should state the fact more objectively or else tell the reader right in the text that this is how a particular source sees the situation. 68.0.205.15 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Natemup: I've removed your addition since our section here is a brief blurb of List of LGBT Catholics - there, if anywhere, is the better place to list more marginal individuals, while the ones identified here are some of the more notable ones. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 03:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the mention of/link to Vine and Fig - is there a source indicating that it is notable? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I saw that there was a suggestion to merge this article with another. Would this be helpful? I've never merged before, I just saw it suggested and thought it would be interesting to talk about it. Amethystloucks ( talk) 20:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
However, Pope Francis has said he supports LGBT civil unions, which, by Papal Infallibility, means that the Catholic Church now supports Same Sex Civil Unions. -- 188.96.185.39 ( talk) 13:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
At this point I have carried out most of the selective merge from Catholic teaching on homosexuality. (I'm not able to finish it up today but I have left the stuff I still need to get to in a separate revision before converting it to a redirect, so it's easy to return to shortly.) Essentially, I imported things that this article did not contain, while declining to import repetition, glurge/fancruft/apologetics, and other stuff that wasn't meaningful (like Chaput's 2015 statement to the press vaguely waving at reconsidering the phrase "intrinsically disordered," which obviously didn't go anywhere).
I have also taken the opportunity to remove from this, the target article, 1. the statement that Veritatis splendor was the first papal encyclical to refer to homosexuality - I don't consider this meaningful to the reader in light of the several previous paragraphs which are about all the airtime the church has given to the Gay Question, and the contents are repetitive - 2. the bit about Francis's possible support of civil unions, in light of the Vatican's later retraction of that statement. I could see an argument for including a line about Francis's vaguely more accepting views (and would be happy to participate in workshopping one), but I can also see an argument for omitting anything that doesn't actually change the church's position or activities in regard to gay people, and 3. some unproductive external links.
Back soon?
– Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
There was a consensus for a "selective merge" from Catholic teaching on homosexuality to this article. Now that they have been merged, there is a dispute about which content from the merged article belongs here. A new sub page, Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality/teaching, has been created to work on the language and then move it into the main. Please consider helping in that effort. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 03:10, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I've reverted the recent removal of the reference to the church's political activities against gay rights. It's a brief sentence in the history section which links to another article section (which itself summarizes a whole sourced article). This is also part of the church's history on this topic. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Someone could expand the article on love (without sex) between same sexes. If I understand it correctly, the Catholic Church has no issue with love, as long as the lovers keep their pants on, so to speak. Perhaps love in itself is not regarded as homosexuality? Is one homosexual if in love but not having sex? 2A02:AA1:1005:8678:E162:1956:E287:2029 ( talk) 22:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. This position is not mainstream Catholicism, I think. But i just added a sentence about this under "Church teaching": Eve Tushnet, a gay Catholic herself, has argued that Catholic teaching accepts "non-sexual love" between same-sex partners.
⠀Trimton⠀ 08:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
If one reads, and most importantly understands, the Catholic Church teachings, it is quite obvious that love is what Christianity is all about. Mainstream indeed. Homosexuality - the act of sex between people of the same sex, is not regarded as love by Catholic teachings. Eve Tushnet uses the word "partner". I am not certain that the Catholic Church would accept two people of the same sex as being partners, partners of what? Matrimony in the Catholic Church is basically a sacrament for couples that in principle can produce offspring (by themselves). Without the ability of reproduction there would not be any need for this sacrament. 2A02:AA1:1002:CF0E:B8E8:F19A:7772:2667 ( talk) 13:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Have removed citation needed tags for cited material. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Decades old, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryn78 and User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AWilliamson. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Pope Francis did NOT accept same sex civil unions. he stated that we (Catholics) must act civilly towards homosexuals. 2600:1007:B03D:5BDF:4D3C:4531:3A81:6704 ( talk) 13:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Elizium23 has recently changed the sentence in the lead from "The Catholic Church broadly opposes the acceptance of homosexuality within society. to "The Catholic Church broadly opposes the acceptance of homosexual activity within society."
I disagree with this change for the following reasons: 1 It overlaps partly with the first sentence of the lead (homosexual activity is a mortal sin). 2 A link to the homosexuality article seems a good idea. 3 The church is not only opposed to homosexual activity but also against celibate homosexual people living together, marrying,.... It is in favour of discrimination against homosexual people even when they don't have sex (in housing, the army, teaching, becoming priests...). It wants to keep its right to kick out homosexual children from Catholic schools. 2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:50F3:D47B:F97F:C82A ( talk) 14:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Undo WP:POVFORK and proliferation of overlapping articles re: LGBT/Catholic topics. Elizium23 ( talk) 19:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)