Talk:Catholic Church and homosexuality

Insistence that Italian civil "marriages" include same-sex unions

Contaldo, in view of the fact that the Italian state recognizes no type of same-sex unions (much less same-sex "marriages"), on what grounds do you keep inserting the statement that "non-religious marriages by the (Italian) state ... can include same-sex unions"? Esoglou (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The term and debate in Italy can include same-sex unions. Surely that is evident? And pertinent to this particular article. Are you trying to demonstrate that Pope Francis has no intention of referring to same-sex unions when he made his statement? That it never even crossed his mind? Let's stop the politics shall we please. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Your personal interpretation of Pope Francis's mind is not a reliable source for a Wikipedia statement. And whatever Pope Francis had in mind is no basis for your unsourced nonsensical claim. It is a documented fact that in Italy there are non-religious state marriages, but that there are no state same-sex unions, much less marriages. Is there any source with an ounce of sense that says, on the contrary, that same-sex unions can be included in Italian state marriages in Italy? Is it politics or what else that underlies that nonsensical statement?

And to think that you object to sourced pertinent edits as "editorializing"! Esoglou (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I really have no opinion as to what is in Pope Francis' head. All I care about is faithfully covering media reports of Catholicism and homosexuality. The over-whelming majority of media reports that have covered this story have referred to homosexual unions. I'm sure you feel uncomfortable that it's been reported in this way - and it may not be what Francis intended - but there we have it. We respect secondary sources and don't just go with what we would like. The point I have made - and which you have deliberately twisted - is that there is debate in Italy about the introduction of civil unions (not marriages) which would particularly serve gay people. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Clearly it is a fact that same-sex unions are part of the civil union issue in Italy, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're relevant here. Do you have a source that interprets Francis's comments as including same-sex civil unions? It would be easy, then, to write "Some...interpreted this as suggesting that the Catholic Church could tolerate some types of non-marital civil unions, including same-sex unions as a practical measure for the purposes indicated." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Roscelese. I've done this now with a Reuters source that talks about a separate issue on gay parenting but still makes the point that the media report the discussion on civil unions in Italy primarily in the context of recognising same-sex relationships. It's frankly dishonest for some editors to pretend otherwise. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That's an appreciated advance: no longer presenting an unsourced comment on what the pope said to Corriere della Sera in March, and instead making a comment on what he said to a group of religious superiors in January. Esoglou (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

So in January Francis might have been referring to same-sex unions when discussing civil unions in Italy; but by March there was no certainty that Francis was talking about same-sex unions when discussing civil unions in Italy. Is that right? Contaldo80 (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material

An editor, on grounds of not having granted consensus and that the material is "potentially WP:OR", has deleted material that includes exact quotations of two early Church documents, supported by secondary sources. Whatever it is that the editor means by "potential original research", exact quotations supported by secondary sources certainly are not in fact original research. There is no justification for deleting it. Esoglou (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I therefore call upon editors to delete the quote from Rick Rogers on Theophilus as it is not an original research and is the only dissenting translation of Theophilus. Furthermore, Rogers has not been quoted by the Roman Catholic Church indicating that the original translation is the accepted translation. Leaving this quote misleads all that read this wiki to believing that Theophilus condemned homosexuality, that the quote supports the Church's stand against homosexuality. By leaving the quote editors are assuming that what Theophilus was talking about was indeed homosexuality. There is no proof, no facts, no documentation that lends to this spurious assumption. Where is the documentation that proves Theophilus spoke of homosexuality. Where is it defined that pedophilia is a "homosexual act?" If the wiki was edited to demonstrate that the Church has condemned homosexuality by accepting that Church doctrine is what defines her condemnation of homosexuality, then say so. Otherwise remove Rogers' translation. I've attempted to demonstrate this invention of the Church condemning homosexuality. I've documented my attempt. Show proof that you are right or delete Rogers' translation.AlaskaTW (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

This comment about Theophilus has nothing whatever to do with the two early Church documents that were deleted. Esoglou (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

What Eary Church documents are you referring to Esoglou? This comment has everything to do with why Rogers' quote needs to be deleted and I'm researching other quotes too. As long as you insist Early Church documents speak of homosexuality you have misinterpreted those writings. To interpret that filthiness is homosexuality, is misleading readers to believe that Early Church documents spoke of homosexuality. They did not. I am researching documentation making this inference about homosexuality and, once again there is a misrepresentation that readers will believe that such documentation speaks of homosexuality as to what the Early Church writings were teaching; this is not so. I document this invention of homosexuality. It does have everything to do with how the Church gets to condemning homosexuality today. This wiki must be edited to demonstrate this invention of homosexuality within the Church or remove all references to Early Church Fathers writings being inferred as teaching about the condemnation of homosexuality.AlaskaTW (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The deletion in question was indicated in the middle of the first line of this section. Here again is the link. Esoglou (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits

Could editors please explain why: 1. It's necessary and relevant to refer to Andrew Sullivan as "noted for advertising for unprotected anal sex preferably with "other HIV-positive men". If not simply to portray him as some sort of hypocrite. That may - or may not be true - but is it relevant? (and personally it says something quite interesting about some editors if they have noted it). 2. It's needed to keep making the be-laboured point that the term sodomy is of interest to those discussing the Spanish Inquisition. When the article already covers what the term was intended to mean - and there is a seperate wiki article for those that want to read more. 3. It's not appropriate to aid the context of the AIDS crisis when talking about the explusion of Dignity from church property. Even though the Ratzinger letter encouraged diocese to kick such organsiations out and Allen rightly points out that the letter and the fall-out happened against the backdrop of the AIDS crisis - suggesting a church that severely lacked compassion. I can't be bothered to undo "even at the approach of death" in the context of the Council of Elvira - it's another of these tedious edits that add nothing and make the whole article more laborious to read. But perhaps that's the intention. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

What needs to be explained is the insistence of an editor on making and repeating the following edits:

as well as moving the information that reliable sources give about the meaning that the word "sodomy" had in Spain at the time of the Spanish Inquisition to a part of the article where it is presented as information about the meaning of the word throughout Europe in medieval times and thus removing it from its proper context, he later deleted any meaningful reference to it in discussion of convictions for sodomy in the context of the Spanish Inquisition, and any mention of its Spanish-Inquisition context in the section to which he moved it;

he presented the exclusion of DignityUSA from US Catholic church property as directly associated with the AIDS crisis, when no such direct association is made in the cited source, and he edited out any mention of the cavalier attitude to "the magnitude of the risks involved" in the AIDS crisis shown by the person quoted as criticizing a Holy See document for referring to the magnitude of those risks, and who is a good example of the people who, the document said, "remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved";

he made it appear that the early Christian penalty for a certain activity was simply excommunication, normally lifted nowadays immediately upon repentance, when the penalty in question was excommunication, not just for a limited time, not even for many years, but instead for life, so that it could not be lifted even on the point of death. Esoglou (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

(1) Are you really saying that this definition of sodomy only and exclusively applies to the terms of reference of the Spanish Inquisition? Your edits are always so pedantic that they serve to create a clumsy and amateurish read. I'm sorry to say so, but that's how it is. (2) Your statements above about individuals being a good example of "refusing to consider the magnitude of risks" are clearly original research and represent personal opinions and politics. The less we say about that, the better. I've advised you before about resisting bias - it seems a real struggle. (3) I still don't think the adding of 'until death' really adds that much value; but it seems very important to you so I can live with it. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you realize that what was understood as sodomy in, for instance, your England of the Victorian era, is different from what was understood as sodomy in the Spain of the Inquisition (early modern) era. It is not irrelevant to indicate place and period. Thanks for withdrawing your objection to specifying the inordinate length of a penalty and so indicating the notable difference that there is, for instance, between a fortnight's jail sentence and a life sentence. Esoglou (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as the section dealt clearly with the Medieval church (as is labelled as such) I hardly think we'd confuse anyone interested in late-Victorian attitudes on homosexuality. With regards to the second point the section now reads: "However, the early 4th-century Council of Elvira (305-306), the first church council to deal with the issue, excluded from communion, even at the approach of death, anyone (not merely members of the clergy), who had sexual intercourse (stuprum) with a boy:[80] "Stupratoribus puerorum nec in finem dandam esse communionem"[81] (Those who sexually abuse boys may not commune even when death approaches)". The same point is made 3 times (if you include the latin). It might be the style in - say a church homily - to repeat and be-labour a point. But I think in an encyclopaedia entry we should still try to aim for a degree of brevity and non-repetition. Would you not agree?Contaldo80 (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "latimes":

• From Knights of Columbus: "Knights of Columbus tip the balance with big anti-gay marriage donation". L.A. Times. August 20, 2008. Retrieved 2013-08-15.
• From California Proposition 8 (2008): Dolan, Maura (July 17, 2008). "Bid to ban gay marriage will stay on ballot, California Supreme Court rules". Los Angeles Times. David Hiller. Retrieved August 7, 2008.
• From Homophobia: Rainey, James (28 November 2012). "No more 'homophobia'? AP raises the question". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 16 December 2012. Baltimore Sun language authority John McIntyre described it as "reasoned, principled, and wrong-headed," while National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association President Michael Triplett advocates terms such as "LGBT rights opponents"

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Inadmissible alterations

Today I have had to undo certain alterations, examples of which I give here. Esoglou (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposition 8

The California Attorney General summarized Proposition 8 as follows:

• Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
• Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Contaldo removed the quotation of this official summary and replaced it with "to strip same-sex couples of the right to wed in California". His attempt to justify his action was: "Original Research yet again. This isn't what the source actually says is it? The source talks about stripping rights."

It is indeed what the source actually says. It is indeed what the Attorney General wrote. Contaldo's suppression of sourced facts and choice of emotive language ("strip people of", rather than "eliminate") is inadmissible. Esoglou (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It's perfectly admissible. I was citing the secondary source rather then going to the primary source. The source said "strip people of". Your claim of "suppression" is ludicrous, and I really not agree that "strip people of" is more emotive than "eliminating" rights. And once again my user name is Contaldo80 - do please keep up. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The statement you removed was well sourced. If you wanted to question the reliability of the source, you could have tagged the citation rather than suppress the statement. If you see no emotive difference between "strip people of something" and "eliminate something", what then was your reason for reverting to "strip people of"? Esoglou (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Esoglou the third party source I originally used had the language "strip people of". You didn't like this as it looks too critical of the Church. So you went to find another source and found the Attorney General's statement which spoke about "eliminate". Thus you deliberately sought out language that suited a personal agenda. This, in my view, is not acceptable and your claim of "suppression" sounds pretty hollow when that's exactly what you did with the first source. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I deliberately sought out the most authoritative source. It used more objective language, as was to be expected of a statement drawn up as use as the official statement of the question to be voted on. Your accusing a fellow editor of bad faith is something I have grown accustomed to. Esoglou (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I fail to understand why this was needed. There was no reason to reject and remove the original secondary source used unless you felt it represented the argument either incorrectly or unsympathetically. This return "ad fontes" risks violating NPOV as it is deliberately selecting the most positive material in support of a particular narrative. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you really not understand?

What was explicitly voted on was the proposal to amend the California constitution by inserting the phrase, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." That was the wording that was voted on (see this or any of the other books listed here). The aspect of not allowing same-sex marriage was implicit in this, but only implicit, not expressed. Yet you refused to allow any mention of what the voters had before their eyes when voting! That surely should not be omitted. Indeed, truly reliable sources are able to specify the initiative by mentioning no more than the explicit aspect, the wording people voted on. Take the Encyclopaedia Britannica as an example.

The phrase, "to strip same-sex couples of the right to wed in California" was not originally yours but Roscelese's composition, inserted without citing any source whatever. When I replaced it with a sourced wording that mentioned both aspects of the vote (I didn't insist on mentioning only the principal aspect, the explicit aspect), you proceeded to restore Roscelese's text, still with no supporting source whatever, and instead claimed (against the evidence of your eyes) that the source I gave spoke only of the implicit aspect, and that it spoke of it in terms of "stripping". That was twofold nonsense.

I presumed your good faith when you stated above that, in speaking of stripping same-sex people, you were "citing the secondary source rather then going to the primary source. The source said 'strip people of'." I again presumed your good faith when you later wrote: "The third party source I originally used had the language 'strip people of'." And again later you wrote of "the original secondary source used". What is that source that you consider so much superior to any other, that you say is the basis of your edit, but that is extremely hard to find cited anywhere in any version of the article? I hope you can show me that you did in fact cite it.

I still presume your good faith, but I wonder do you really think it correct to accuse another Wikipedia editor in these terms: "You deliberately sought out language that suited a personal agenda ... It is deliberately selecting the most positive material in support of a particular narrative"? I don't think I'm the person the cap best fits. Esoglou (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

On the Pastoral Care

The 1987 letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said that some groups were trying to get Church pastors to support changing legislation and that advocates of the practice of homosexuality were ignoring the magnitude the AIDS crisis: "Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved" (section 9 of the document). John Allen quoted that part of the letter (p. 202 of his book). Contaldo removed this doubly sourced statement and replaced it with a remark of his own that John Allen (not the document) noted the AIDS crisis context and that Allen did so in some unspecified part or other of his book. Contaldo's removal of what was said not only in the document itself but also in Allen's account of it and his replacement of that with what is really an unsourced attribution to Allen of a supposed independent noting is inadmissible.

Another suppression by Contaldo was of the reporting of why, after the letter, US dioceses excluded Dignity USA from church facilities: the letter had said that it was misleading and often scandalous to provide church facilities for organizations that tried to undermine the Church's teaching, were ambiguous about it or ignored it entirely. Contaldo wanted no mention to be made of the real and explicitly sourced reason for the exclusion and made it follow instead the mention of the AIDS crisis. Esoglou (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, Contaldo is right that the mention of AIDS is from John Allen, not the document. It's Allen who states (actually quoting McNeill, whose response it really behooves us to detail - as far as I can tell from the snippet view, which is also telling me this is page 204) that the claims about homosexuality being harmful are a reference to HIV/AIDS. Using secondary sources rather than engaging in our own analysis of primary documents is a good thing, Esoglou. Without a secondary source, we have no reason to believe this isn't the usual nonsense about homosexuality being harmful. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The Allen reference you saw on page 204 relates the AIDS crisis not to the CDF document, but to a document of the US bishops conference. On page 202, immediately after quoting the CDF document, Allen also cites Andrew Sullivan as saying this quotation was about the AIDS crisis. So, sorry, Contaldo was not right: the CDF document, which Allen quotes, does refer to the AIDS crisis, and Sullivan, whom Allen cites, again without making the comment his own, confirms that the CDF document does speak of the AIDS crisis. I don't see where Allen suggests the relation between the CDF document and the AIDS crisis was something he himself noted, and I don't believe Contaldo is right in saying that Allen does suggest this anywhere in the book. Esoglou (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

My point is that the document doesn't mention the AIDS crisis and we shouldn't be claiming that it does without reference to a secondary source which interprets its vague and generic statements about the "threat" of homosexuality n that way. If you have full access to the Allen source, that's more than I have, but the McNeill piece that Allen is quoting is certainly in reference to the Vatican document, not a US document. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I simply don't understand what else, other than the AIDS crisis, you can imagine the CDF document meant when it spoke of the situation "when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people". You may know of some other such threat that the practice of homosexuality brings, but I don't. In spite of the CDF document's comment, you declare: "The document doesn't mention the AIDS crisis." Allen quotes someone who on the contrary said that "this comment, coming at the peak of the AIDS crisis, was 'extraordinary for its lack of compassion'." That someone is Andrew Sullivan, who in Wikipedia terms is a more reliable source than you and whose personal cavalier attitude to AIDS is noted in the Wikipedia article about him. (I see now in what I have just written an unintended pun that is rather apposite in his regard.) Don't just take my word for the Sullivan remark: read this page 202 snippet. Esoglou (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It is neither of our jobs to "imagine" what was going through the CDF's head when they put out the document. You need to learn that your original research is not acceptable here. Again, the claim that homosexuality is a threat is not unique to this document. I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make by telling me that these various secondary sources say that this claim was about AIDS, since using secondary sources rather than "imagining" is exactly what Contaldo and I have been saying we should do. Relatedly, we don't actually need to reproduce the entire document here, and should restrict ourselves to quoting those parts which reliable secondary sources have deemed significant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

So, you tell me, you have been saying that using secondary sources rather than "imagining" is what we should do. Then practice at last what you have been preaching. That's the point I have been trying to make in telling you what secondary sources say, rather than making personal declarations about what the CDF document does or does not mention. Ask yourself to whom applies your rebuke: "You need to learn that your original research is not acceptable here."

Is it too much to hope that you will stop sourcelessly asserting that the CDF document "doesn't mention the AIDS crisis", and will instead accept what the cited secondary source says. Andrew Sullivan, cited by John Allen, deemed significant – indeed highly significant, as showing lack of compassion – the part of the document that spoke of the AIDS epidemic, the part of the document quoted in line with what, you say, we should restrict ourselves to. Esoglou (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Esoglou this apologist agenda for the Catholic church really has to stop please. Can I ask you to be more neutral in your edits and interventions. Yes, Sullivan noted (as quoted by Allen) that the comment from the CFD document about threatening lives lacked compassion at the height of the AIDS crisis. (This might help us/ readers understand incidentally why many gay and straight people felt the Catholic church spectacularly let them down during a time of genuine need - but that's a personal aside). I removed the quote because I felt it wasn't needed as it was you inserting from a primary source something that could be said just as well from a secondary source. The letter then went on to ask that LGBT support groups be expelled from church property. This happened at the same time as the AIDS crisis - the same time that Sullivan noted a lack of "compassion" - it wasn't earlier or later. So I don't understand why this troubles you. Are you suggesting SYNTHESIS perhaps? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sullivan and Allen said the document spoke of the AIDS crisis. What grounds have you for invoking a "primary source" pretext for suppressing well-sourced information? Esoglou (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you just explain in clear English the point you are making please. I find some of these long-winded exchanges quite convoluted. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I presume you consider this plain English: Your "It was you inserting from a primary source something that could be said just as well from a secondary source" was followed by my reply that the insertion was from a secondary source (Sullivan and Allen). Esoglou (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

"Scare children away"

Contaldo has reinserted his own unsourced personal interpretation of words of Pope Francis, instead of allowed the pope's words to be quoted. Why? Yet he dares to defend his action by saying: "We're not interested in what you think such and such said. We use sources to set out their views on what has been said." This when he replaces what Pope Francis actually said with what he thinks Pope Francis said, and when he cites no source whatever for the interpretation that he personally places on what the pope said! Esoglou (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

My edit was based on the report of the National Catholic Register. I didn't just happen to hear what Francis said in a TV broadcast of something and then jot it down on the back of an envelope. I don't think it's appropriate to quote Francis' words in full as that then leaves the reader to decide what they mean and why they are important - and is effectively Original Research in that we think they're important without a source to back us up. Instead I have used the interpretation given by a referenced secondary source. Do you get what's going on here? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The National Catholic Register did not speak of "scaring children away". So was that original research into what's in your own head? Esoglou (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Haha. No. It's what Reuters reported. And I'm pretty sure you removed the original source reference in one of your "clean-ups". I've restored so there's no confusion. But I have no doubt that you'll want to add one of your standard caveats - "According to Reuters..." etc. In fact why do you find it necessary to mentioned each news agency or author explictly within the text if there is already a reference that makes clear where such and such a statement has originated? The only reason I can think of is that by singling out the names of individuals you specifically want it to look like it is a minority view and avoid the impression that many other people are indeed thinking the same thing. Am I right? Is that your tactic?Contaldo80 (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It's what Reuters said, not what the pope said, and so it may be given in Wikipedia, but as what Reuters said, particularly when we can give what the pope actually said. Esoglou (talk) 13:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Or what you think the pope said. Can we overcome this belief that somehow the pope's comments can be clearly understand by anyone in isolation just by having them in front of them. There is centuries of context and politics behind every statement and that is why it is more important to see what seasoned political commentators think of such statements rather than to rely purely on the words themselves. It is misleading to approach such material by implying that "Reuters or such and such a commentator believed the pope said this, but look for yourself at what he really said..." This risks violating NPOV. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not what I think the Pope said. It's what he said. You began your defence here by saying you based your edit on National Catholic Register, but when challenged you said you based it on Reuters. Why choose Reuters rather than National Catholic Register? Because Reuters is "a seasoned commentator on politics"? So that makes it a better source on matters of religion than a seasoned commentator on religion? And what about other seasoned commentators on politics such as Network 2 and CNN? They were able to report the Pope as saying what he actually said, but you weren't? There would have been no problem with presenting the Reuters paraphrase as the Reuters paraphrase. But it was not a good thing to make Wikipedia present it as what the Pope actually said. Esoglou (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's tackle these quotefarms together

I am pretty willing to summarize everything except where secondary sources specifically note the significance of particular wording, so I'd like to ask users who have restored quotations to explain why they believe they should be included at such gratuitous length. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm also keen to summarise as I've made clear on many occasions when editing this article. I'm aware that some editors ignore secondary sources and simply quote blocks of a speech or paper from primary sources in the hope of clarifying a "misunderstanding" of interpretation by those secondary sources. That has been done again and again, and I have repeatedly tried to address that. But at the same time there are some nuances to this discussion which cannot be summarised too loosely - particularly if they represent key passages such as those citing "intrinsic moral evil" or "intrinsically disordered" etc, and such passages are identified by secondary sources as being of genuine significance. The risk is that we blandly summarise statements in a way that makes them look benign; when clearly commentators or opponents do not see them as benign. But I'm always keen to cut out superfluous detail so can I suggest that if there are particular sections/ quotes that cause concern that we identify them and then consider how best to handle them (for example to pointing clearly to a secondary source that notes why the wording is important). Contaldo80 (talk) 09:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've already done a couple of subsections, but my edits seem to have been unpopular. Below the collapse are the changes I'd already tried to make:

On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

The letter stressed: "What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable". It also stated: "although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder." The letter also stated that: "It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs." to The letter said that homosexuality as an orientation was not a sin, but was a disorder because it was a tendency toward the "evil" of homosexual sexual activity, which the letter said was still culpable regardless of natural orientation. and The letter asserted that, while Christians rightly oppose any violence against homosexual persons, it is wrong to then claim that the homosexual orientation is good or neutral: "But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behaviour to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase". The letter also warned bishops to be on guard against homosexual presssure groups seeking to undo this doctrine. It noted the Church's concern about those "who may have been tempted to believe" the "deceitful propaganda" of advocates of homosexuality. Homosexuality has "a direct impact on society's understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy". It warns that social tolerance of homosexuality unleashes other demons, "Other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent actions increase". Finally, "All support should be withdrawn from any organisations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church". to The letter asserted that, while Christians rightly oppose any violence against homosexual persons, it is wrong to then claim that the homosexual orientation is good or neutral, and that legislation protecting the civil rights of homosexuals leads to violence. The letter also warned bishops to be on guard against LGBT Catholic organizations seeking to undo this doctrine, saying that social tolerance of homosexuality was damaging to the family and society and that no support should be given to LGBT Catholic organizations.

(I'm aware of other objections people have raised to my specific phrasing here and I think those are fine; I'm just not sure why we need to quote repeatedly and at length.)

Hume's Note

In April 1997, Hume issued A note on the teaching of the Catholic Church concerning homosexuality, which included the following statements: "The Church recognises the dignity of all people and does not define or label them in terms of their sexual orientation. The pastor and counsellor must see all people, irrespective of their sexuality, as children of God and destined for eternal life." "The Church has always taught that the sexual (genital) expression of love is intended by God's plan of creation to find its place exclusively within marriage between a man and a woman; and the sexual (genital) expression of love must be open to the possible transmission of new life". "When the Church speaks of the inclination to homosexuality as being 'an objective disorder' (Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, para. 3), she does not consider, of course, the whole personality and character of the individual to be thereby disordered. Homosexual people, as well as heterosexual people, can, and often do, give a fine example of friendship and the art of chaste loving." "The Catholic Church advocates and defends the fundamental human rights of every person. The Church cannot, however, acknowledge amongst fundamental human rights a proposed right to acts which she teaches are morally wrong. Nevertheless, it is a fundamental human right of every person, irrespective of sexual orientation, to be treated by individuals and by society with dignity, respect and fairness." to In April 1997, Hume issued A note on the teaching of the Catholic Church concerning homosexuality, which stated that the Church recognised the dignity and right to respectful treatment of all people and did not see homosexual people, as opposed to homosexuality per se, as entirely disordered. It also said that sexual activity ought only to take place within an opposite-sex marriage and disagreed that people have a right to commit acts which the church considers wrong.

Always our children

It stressed that parents should not break off contact but continue to show love for their son or daughter who has a homosexual orientation, and that "having a homosexual orientation does not necessarily mean a person will engage in homosexual activity", and conclude: "By itself, therefore, a homosexual orientation cannot be considered sinful, for morality presumes the freedom to choose." It explained the Church's teaching that, while "homogenital behaviour is objectively immoral", "the fundamental human rights of homosexual persons must be defended and ... all of us must strive to eliminate any forms of injustice, oppression, or violence against them. Homosexual persons must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity." They "should have an active role in the Christian community. Homosexual persons living chaste lives should have opportunities to lead and serve the community." to It stressed that parents should not break off contact but continue to show love for a gay child, since, it said, homosexuality was not sinful as an orientation but only as a sexual activity. It explained the Church's teaching that homosexuality was wrong but that gay people should be treated with respect and compassion, and allowed to participate in the Christian community if chaste.

Why is it necessary to reproduce these quotes? They add nothing to the article and serve only to make Wikipedia a press release service for an organization that has PR of its own. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Esoglou:, I'm talking to you too, as you have been the single biggest culprit in adding this ridiculous material. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. But at least recently I did not undo your work by restoring the quotations that you summarized, but only made the summaries more objective. When Contaldo then not only restored the quotations that you had got rid of and proceeded to give more, again I did not simply undo another editor's work, but added something of the context of his quotations, which meant increasing their number and length. Esoglou (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you hope to gain by blaming Contaldo? I'm already talking to Contaldo about unnecessarily restoring quotations. You're still adding quotations! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not blaming Contaldo. His giving exact statements may be a better thing than instead giving perhaps slanted interpretations, either sourced or own-work, of the statements. Building on such edits is, at the very least, more courteous than deleting them en bloc as some have been known to do. Esoglou (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point of why I pinged you. Because you have been the one to add the most gratuitous quotation, I'd like you to explain which parts you find necessary to quote rather than paraphrase and why. Adding gobs and gobs of self-serving quotation simply because you can't be bothered to paraphrase in a way that you find acceptable is lazy and non-neutral, and if that's not what's happening, I'd like you to explain which parts should be quoted, preferably with secondary sources that demonstrate that the wording is significant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Instead of talking about editors and blaming them in rather general terms, how about starting a discussion on some concrete section of the article (one at a time) and fixing it? There is no rush. Wouldn't that be more productive? Esoglou (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If you and Marauder and I agree, we could warn Contaldo that, if he insists on making changes all over the article on the basis of the latest book he has been reading, we will revert it all except for whatever section we are concentrating on at the moment. If Contaldo too agrees to such concentration, that will be better still. Just a suggestion. Esoglou (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I find this sort of comment simply astounding. You are complaining that I edit "on the basis of whatever book I'm reading"! My intention is to improve articles on wikipedia by adding material to improve coverage on issue where relevant, and removing material where there is a need for sharpening. I make no apology for that. Articles are not meant to stand still in aspic. Would you prefer an alternative approach where I wait for a religious superior or somesuch to instruct me as to what additional material should be put into the article. How about you come clean and admit that you've no interest in neutral and objective editing but are only interested in protecting the interests and reputation of the Roman Catholic church? And every single edit you make is made purely in that light. If you can point to one section or aspect that you've independently added that can be seen as critical of Church policy or doctrine then you'd have some credibility. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Not joining in the blame game but I think the process has been similar to this. You come in and trim a "quotefarm", Esoglou and/or I clean it up a little or expand on it without putting everything back in then Contaldo80 comes in a basically reverts everything and then Esoglou comes back in and cleans the things up putting things in context again. Sort of an "if it must be there there it should reflect things properly" attitude. Not saying anyone is right or wrong in the situation. Need to have more discussion and less wholesale revert sessions. Marauder40 (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If my "cleaning up" you mean improving grammar, page numbers etc then I have no problem. If, however, by "cleaning up" you mean the need to correct material so that it is line with what you think the Catholic church has stated then this is original research - as it does not take account of the interpretation of the secondary source. But rather is intended as a "damage-limitation" exercise. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Much of the cleanup involves undoing selective interpretation of secondary sources or undoing the use of poor secondary sources that misquoted or selectively quoted the original.Marauder40 (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

If you think a secondary source misquotes or selectively quotes then use another secondary source to demonstrate that there is indeed disagreement. Do not simply express your view that something has been misquoted based purely on your own personal opinion and your interpretation of a primary source. This risks introducing personal bias and a strong element of POV.Contaldo80 (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

We have done so, just because YOU reject the sources doesn't make them not reliable sources. You need to get a better grasp on when the use of a primary source is appropriate vs. when it isn't. Also just because it is in a secondary source doesn't make the secondary source reliable for what it is stating. Opinion in a secondary source is still that, just opinion, not fact that should be stated in wikivoice as fact.Marauder40 (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Except you haven't done so. But rather material is challenged as "misquoting" simply where it is not sympathetic to the Church! This happens again and again. It is simply one-sided. I have no problem with identifying when secondary sources are of poor quality or there are glaring errors. I absolutely welcome this. But it would be more constructive to identify those clearly on the talk page and then consider whether there are better alternative sources that make the same point (or indeed whether the source simply stands alone). Contaldo80 (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said when you originally made this change. The last portion is incorrect. It isn't "no support should be given to LGBT Catholic organizations." It should be "no support should be give to LGBT Catholic organizations that seek to undo Catholic doctrine." or the rest of the sentence should be modified to make it clearer. The Catholic Church has no problems with groups like Courage or other similar groups that promote Catholic teaching in regards to members of the LGBT community. It does have problems with groups like DignityUSA that oppose Catholic teaching.Marauder40 (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I find it hard to accept the argument that Courage can be described as a "LGBT group". Only in the same way, perhaps that Exodus International can be described as one (ie not at all). Father Harvey, who oversaw the group for many years, has gone on record as saying: "The only genuinely sexual orientation is heterosexual. ... There are no homosexuals but only heterosexuals with a homosexual problem". Imagine a parallel therefore - Christians set up and oversee a group for Jews to come together. The group rules are that no-one should celebrate their "Jewishness", they cannot partake in the Sabbath or read from the Torah. And that they should accept that there are no genuine "Jews", only Christians that who think they're Jews. Would you then describe this as a Jewish group? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It honestly doesn't matter what you accept. That is part of the problem with many of your edits. They are putting your own interpretations of things in the article or using poor sources to do the same thing. The quote you attest to Father Harvey was actually said by someone else (the founder of NARTH) The entire quote is actually a misquote in NCR. The actual source document linked to in the NCR article doesn't have that quote. Using NCR as a source on the Catholic Church is not much better then using a blog as a source. The only place that quote appears is the NCR article and commentaries that just quote the NCR article.Marauder40 (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any supporting material for your claims. If the NCR article is wrong on this point then I'm happy to stand corrected (although I've only used this material on the talk page and not made the claim in the article). But I'd rather not just take your word for it. Thanks. In any case I still remain convinced that you can make the claim that Courage is really a "LGBT Group". Contaldo80 (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you accept. YOU are not a reliable source. As for the supposed quote in the NCR article. The source document is here [1]. Can you find the quote anywhere in the document? This is one of those cases where the original document needs to be consulted. MANY secondary sources will play games with the "..." and drop out very important parts. In this case the statement isn't even in the document as quoted anywhere.Marauder40 (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

As I've said previously where we notice that a source is mistaken then it is more constructive to bring it for discussion to be clear where it is wrong and what can perhaps be done to improve the sources on the broader point under debate. I always welcome that. But in any case, seeing as the point above on the Knights of Columbus is not used in the article I do rather think we're using a lot of energy to little point. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes - I addressed this in my previous comment. See my note under the changed text: "(I'm aware of other objections people have raised to my specific phrasing here and I think those are fine; I'm just not sure why we need to quote repeatedly and at length.)" I just copied/pasted my initial edits, not any subsequent edits people had made that I didn't have an issue with, such as your clarification. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, yes I saw your clarification, wasn't clear whether that applied to the entire thing, just the second one in that collapsed section or what. Things sometimes get a little confusing when having discussions related to collapsed areas.Marauder40 (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah - I didn't want to clutter the talkpage, but also wanted to make sure your comment didn't get hidden in the collapsed section. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Can I remind certain editors that we cannot simply rely on an ad fontes approach to everything. We must use secondary sources in preference to primary ones where necessary. Esoglou's complaint about "slanted interpretations" is a freudian slip revealing concern that anything that challenges the position of a traditional Catholic interpretation of homosexuality is inevitably "slanted" or biased. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Attributing in-text

@Esoglou: What Contaldo's saying is pretty simple. You can't just attribute in-text to authors that you disagree with or that you want to undermine, as though it's just their personal opinion instead of a reliable source. If you are emphatic about attributing in-text, I recommend that you demonstrate good faith by going through the article and also attributing the statements you're not trying to register your disagreement with. I see plenty of statements in the History section, for one instance, that aren't attributed, and the ones that are are attributed simply because they're primary sources (which we really shouldn't be relying on anyway). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I must take note of what you say, justified or not, and endeavour to give you no further occasion to repeat it.

Your latest changes are an improvement, although they can be further improved. I will examine them more closely tomorrow. What should I do, if another editor again replaces your changes with a lot of quotations, both overt and unacknowledged? Hitherto I have limited myself to doing little more than provide balancing information. His edits are mostly done while you are still enjoying your beauty sleep. What would you tell me to do in this matter? (I know that what you would like me to do is perhaps to disappear! :-) ) Esoglou (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

"Do not add any content at any point without a secondary source. Never include a quotation." It's extreme, but you've abused the privilege. If Contaldo or another editor makes an edit you disagree with, try to discuss what you see as wrong with it on the talk page, rather than taking the opportunity to make the article even worse. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Quotation request

Template:Qn says:

Please add this template after an unquoted reference to a source that you think may be inaccurate.

This is used to request a direct quote from the cited source, so that it may be verified that the source can verify the statement or that the editor has interpreted the source correctly.

This is particularly helpful for:

• sources that are not available online ...

Is a request of this kind that I made as unreasonable as has been claimed? Esoglou (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

This request has not yet been answered by the editor who removed the quotation request. It is time to restore the request. Esoglou (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not necessary to include a quote in the article. I'm really tired of your edit-warring due to what appears to be pigheaded unwillingness to consult a source that is available online. Cornwell includes a quotation from the trustees saying that the Catholic view is that this is not a civil rights issue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Only snippets from the Cornwell book (which I think you have not referenced properly) are available online. No snippet that I have been able to find says the trustees believed that framing gay rights as civil rights conflicted with the church's teaching. Saying, as you now say, that he quoted the trustees as saying the Catholic view is that "this" is not a civil rights issue is not the same thing. Catholic teaching is that (certain) rights of homosexuals (but not a supposed right to homosexual activity) should be protected by law. So what is the statement by Cornwell that you say means the trustees believed that framing gay rights as civil rights conflicted with the church's teaching? Whatever it is, it is not available online and is therefore one of the things for which the qn template "is used to request". Please quote it. It's there, of course, for I presume your good faith, so it should be easy to quote. Esoglou (talk) 19:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking at the whole page online right now. We obviously can't create our own interpretation of the trustees' statement the way you're trying to do - you're going to have to accept that we're not going to write any apologetics about how the mean gays think having sex is a civil right. That's not what's in the source. Cornwell talks about the policy as an anti-discrimination clause, which is what it was. The quotation is preceded by his explanation of the way that "a proposal to ban discrimination against homosexuals on campus" reflected tensions over a "gap in moral values between secular society in the United States and official Church teachings." A compromise that might work is "The trustees rejected the amendment to the university's non-discrimination policy because they believed that framing non-discrimination as a civil right conflicted with the church's teachings on homosexuality and that such a policy could allow the University to be prosecuted if it restricted homosexual conduct." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no difficulty in accepting that in California or wherever you are Google provides a preview or even a full view of the book. Here it is not so generous, and only gives snippets. Questia also does not give the book. So I hoped that you, who have access to the text, would be less niggardly. So far, all I have got from you is that the book quotes (or does it actually quote?) the trustees as saying: "the Catholic view is that this is not a civil rights issue". That is no basis for what you put in the article. Nor is a basis for saying that the trustees "believed that framing non-discrimination as a civil right conflicted with the church's teaching on homosexuality". Even this seems to be an imposition on whatever they said of a questionable personal view. Esoglou (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Your refusal to quote here on the talk page the text that you say you base your summary on puts a further strain on my presumption of your good faith. I must ask for verification of your claim. Esoglou (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Was I mistaken in thinking that you had accessed the quote in another source? I thought that's what you were talking about with "this." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Quite obviously, you were mistaken. I merely quoted what you said Cornwell said the trustees said: "that the Catholic view is that this is not a civil rights issue" - whatever you meant by "this". Esoglou (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The quote from the trustees is "Whereas in a secular environment this is seen as a simple matter of civil rights, that's not the way it's viewed through a Catholic prism." Framing non-discrimination as a civil right conflicted with the church's teachings on homosexuality is obviously an accurate representation of their position here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for quoting Cornwell. I presume that "this" means amending the university's legal statement of non-discrimination to include sexual orientation alongside characteristics like race, color, gender, and national and ethnic origin. The quotation is no basis for your statement that the trustees "believed that framing gay rights as civil rights conflicted with the church's teaching". If you insist that it is, perhaps we had better consult the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Esoglou (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the text I've proposed several times: Framing non-discrimination as a civil right conflicted with the church's teachings on homosexuality. Do you or do you not think this is an accurate representation of the trustees' statement? Another potential compromise wording: A policy of non-discrimination against gay people [or similar representation of the proposed change] was not a civil rights issue and framing it as such conflicted... This has the specificity about the policy that you implied may be desirable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Cornwell doubtless knew that in more than one document the Church has declared that the intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law. Whether he knew it or not, he did not attribute to the trustees the statement that framing a policy of non-discrimination against gay people as a civil rights issue conflicted with the church's teaching on homosexuality. Don't try to impose your personal interpretation, instead of reporting what was said, just quoting it if that is necessary. Esoglou (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Cornwell directly quoted the trustees. Whether or not they were familiar with On the Pastoral Care is neither here nor there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It is still difficult to see how what Cornwell wrote means what you say it means. I am asking for opinions on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where discussion should be less personal and more objective. I will of course abide by any consensus that emerges there. Esoglou (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

On the noticeboard, nobody has defended the Roscelese interpretation. The only comment has been that "editors are possibly interfering with the primary non-negotiable policy of 'neutral point of view' in favour of 'the Catholic Church is wrong and must be asserted to be wrong about homosexuality'." A more objective account must therefore be put in the article. Esoglou (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Your post deliberately misrepresented the source and any "result" that came about is therefore useless. The question is not whether Cornwell accurately interpreted the events, but whether he accurately quoted the trustees. It is easy to verify that he did, as their statement is quoted in many other sources. Your persistent refusal to believe that any other Catholic or any other source could disagree with your personal opinions is resulting in disruption to the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Let us discuss it on the noticeboard. Esoglou (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC) And don't undo the work of other editors for the sake of reinserting what you choose not to defend in a place where your ideas will be open to wider scrutiny. Esoglou (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Another request

I have already restored the "Verify source" tag to the citation Roscelese gives as the source of what she makes Wikipedia say. I am now restoring also to Wikipedia the quite different information that three sources other than Cornwell give as the reason for the trustees' decision, information that Roscelese has repeatedly deleted. According to what Roscelese attributes to Cornwell, the trustees believed that "framing gay rights as civil rights conflicted with the church's teaching". The Catholic Church, on the contrary, has more than once taught that the dignity of homosexual persons must be upheld in law. The three secondary sources that I have now restored to the article (and which are freely available on the Internet) give no support to the claim about the Catholic Church's teaching that Roscelese attributes to Cornwell.

Doubt about the accuracy of what Roscelese attributes to Cornwell is strengthened both by these considerations and by her refusal to quote the source she cites. This doubt gives rise in turn to doubt about the accuracy of what Roscelese attributes to Cornwell elsewhere in the same paragraph. I am therefore tagging with a verification request also the statement she says Cornwell makes about the Notre Dame University students going on hunger strikes in reaction after the trustees' decision. Other sources (which can be freely checked on the Internet) tell instead of some students fasting for three days while awaiting the decision. Esoglou (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You have been here too long to engage in the n00blike original research that you have engaged in in setting up the CDF letter as though it refutes Cornwell's quotation of the Notre Dame trustees. If the CDF thought the trustees were wrong, they had every opportunity to say so, and then we could have brought in their remarks. But they didn't. Go and write your own book - Wikipedia is not the place to be synthesizing these sources. Your behavior here - this, continuing to frivolously tag sources for no other reason than that you personally disagree with them (for how else would you describe "Cornwell's account of the trustees' statement differs from statements made by another organization, and the latter gives the image of the church that I prefer, so I will tag every statement from Cornwell") is incredibly out of line. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I have given my answer above to the claim you put in the article about what the trustees believed. What is in question here is something different: the statement you inserted about the students going on hunger strike after the trustees' decision, something that according to sources that can be freely checked preceded the decision. Perhaps the students embarked on some fast both before and after, but it would be good to verify that this statement is more securely based on Cornwell than the claim discussed above. Esoglou (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It literally states that the students reacted by calling hunger strikes and demonstrations. Again, frivolously tagging an obviously reliable source because you're sore about its daring to quote people who disagree with your favorite church statements is disruptive. Don't do that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Instead of making accusations of frivolity and attribute soreness as an editor's motive, just quote here what Cornwell "literally states", and the statement will be verified and the problem solved. Esoglou (talk) 05:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said, "The students reacted by calling hunger strikes and demonstrations." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for giving the quotation. That is fully satisfactory. Esoglou (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of sources for a certain statement

It has been claimed that the statement "the trustees of Notre Dame University believed that framing gay rights as civil rights conflicted with the church's teaching" is supported by the following sources:

1. Notre Dame Magazine, Summer 2004
2. The Tablet, 13 February 1999
3. Pamela Schaeffer, "Notre Dame shuns Big Ten, fears losing "distinctiveness'" in National Catholic Reporter, 19 February 1999

I see no basis for considering them a source on which to base that statement. Esoglou (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, the claim has now been withdrawn, and the statement they were cited for is now based on a different source. Esoglou (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It's in the same source it's always been in. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

As indicated in the text that you deleted, I was saying only that these three failed verification. I did not say that the citation that you have kept, without the others, failed verification. I only asked for a quotation from it. Esoglou (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for reliable sourcing of a claim

The questioning of a claim of culpability of all homosexual activity has yet again been deleted, this time with the further claim that the primary source supports the claim of culpability (although the deleting editor says others should use secondary, not primary sources - but let that be). Would she quote the passage of the primary source that she believes supports the claim? Or does she reject the idea that objectively wrong actions can sometimes not be culpable? Esoglou (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

As I have already pointed out to you, this is a paraphrase of the (previously quoted) part of section 11 where the document disagrees with people who say that the innateness of homosexuality means same-sex sexual activity is not culpable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

That is faulty synthesis. Esoglou (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Is there something unclear to you about "people who say it isn't culpable for homosexual people to have sex are wrong"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course not. But you are reading into it more than it says, and so perhaps it is not sufficiently clear to you. Rejection of the claim, "I'm homosexual in orientation, and so I can't help engaging in homosexual sex", does not mean that having homosexual sex is always culpable. Even civil law recognizes several grounds for absence of culpability. Canon law even more. You should reframe your statement to say no more than that the Church holds that even on the part of homosexual persons having homosexual sex can be culpable, not that it is necessarily culpable. Then you'll be saying what the source says. Esoglou (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you think some version of "that the culpability of homosexual sexual activity is not mitigated (erased, other verbs?) by natural orientation" accurately reflects the text? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course not. The document denies that a homosexual activity by a homosexual is merely, so to speak, the action of an automaton and so is inculpable, and does so in the context of explicitly stating that in some individual cases, some "given instances", circumstances may reduce or remove the culpability of a homosexual activity. It made no statement for or against the idea that those instances may include cases of individual homosexuals whose actions may in certain circumstances, even if not always, be inculpable. That's why I was asking you for a source to support what you were putting in the article and what seemed and now seems more than ever to be an imposing of your own ideas, your POV, on the document, rather than reporting what it does in fact say. Esoglou (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It is surely time to amend the text so that it reports what the document does say. Esoglou (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah dang, I meant to reply to this and forgot. Can you explain why you don't think my summary is accurate? Homosexuality being natural is not, according to the document, identified as a factor that reduces or removes culpability, as it is not a case where the person has no choice, so your argument that the document talks about reduced culpability in "given instances" is tangential. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Because your first summary, "The letter said that homosexual sexual activity is still culpable regardless of natural orientation", is obviously not an accurate summary of a document that does not say a homosexually oriented person's homosexual sexual activity is necessarily culpable, and only says that it isn't necessarily inculpable. And because your second summary, "The letter said that any culpability that pertains to homosexual sexual activity is not mitigated by natural orientation", is perhaps even worse. The document even states that culpability can be mitigated in given instances (such as Tom or Dick or Harry, or Joan or Liz or Rosey); and I thought everyone knew that such factors mitigate culpability for anyone, not merely for homosexually inclined people and not merely in sexual sins. You surely don't disagree with what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about a similar matter: "To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability." The writers of the document were not so silly as to think that this one factor is the sole exception and cannot diminish culpability. It is silly to suggest, and still sillier to say, that they held that silly notion. Of course, preconceived ideas and prejudices also diminish responsibility for such false presentations. Esoglou (talk) 06:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

But we're not talking about masturbation or about any factors of immaturity, habit, anxiety, etc. which might mitigate it. All we're saying is what the document actually says - that the fact of homosexuality being natural doesn't mitigate culpability for sex. I have no idea what sort of essay you're trying to write here, but Wikipedia isn't the place. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

We're talking about the Catholic Church's stated view that "imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors". The Catholic Church adds to this statement no "except for ..." In particular, it makes no exception for homosexual acts. The CDF document that we are reporting stresses: "What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always [it does not deny that in some cases their action may be inculpable, even completely] and totally [it does not deny that their action may be only partially culpable, even always] compulsive and therefore inculpable." What statement in the document do you imagine means: "The fact of homosexuality being natural doesn't mitigate culpability for sex"? It certainly said no such thing. Esoglou (talk) 06:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want to bring in other parts of the Catechism, you're going to have to use reliable secondary sources. I'm sure you're writing a really interesting book, but Wikipedia can't be your publisher. Without reliable secondary sources, we can't engage in this sort of analysis or apologism. We can only go with what the relevant sources say, and if you have a better paraphrase of "It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable....What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable" than the one I've proposed (which avoids the multiple negatives of "it's not inculpable"), feel free to suggest it. Do not use your own original analysis or unrelated documents. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I quoted the Church's teaching on this talk page in the hope of wakening you to the baselessness of your claim about the Church's teaching. You want the article to report the CDF denial that people's homosexuality means their homosexual acts are always and totally inculpable as instead a CDF affirmation that people's homosexuality never means that their homosexual acts are anything but completely culpable. That is a ridiculous personal interpretation, unsupported by any secondary source. Shall we take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and see if anyone thinks it is not ridiculous? Esoglou (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think RSN will be interested in your book either. You need to find a publisher that isn't Wikipedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

What you call my book (the Catechism of the Catholic Church) I quoted, not published, for you alone and within this discussion. Respectfully I point out that, in view of your edit of Wikipedia, it is you who "need to find a publisher that isn't Wikipedia" for your attribution to the document of the opposite of what it explicitly says and of what it is recognized as saying here (footnote 16) and here and even on a pro-gay blog ("It is gratifying that the Holy Office doesn't see homosexuality as any more compulsive than heterosexuality"). Let us see what contributors to the Noticeboard think of the unsourced personal view that you are insistently publishing on Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

On the noticeboard, nobody has defended the Roscelese interpretation. The only comment has been that "editors are possibly interfering with the primary non-negotiable policy of 'neutral point of view' in favour of 'the Catholic Church is wrong and must be asserted to be wrong about homosexuality'." A more objective account must therefore be put in the article. Esoglou (talk) 07:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You deliberately misrepresented the issue (I mean, literally the phrase you quoted as the article text is not the article text) and still didn't get anyone agreeing that any source was unreliable or being misused. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Let us discuss it on the noticeboard. Esoglou (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Here from RSN - The source does not back the absolute statement that culpability is not reduced by orientation.The text clearly says that "certain circumstances may reduce or remove culpability" but that one should not assume that homosexual behavior is always compulsive. That clearly allows that sometimes it may be, and therefore the characterization as asked is not backed by the source. However, if other sources satte things in more abosolute terms, then those also eserve due consideration. Gaijin42 (talk) 1:10 pm, Today (UTC−5)

I think your addition is fine, although I would suggest rephrasing for grammaticality. Esoglou? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin42 saw the obvious baselessness of the Roscelese claim that the document said homosexual orientation doesn't mitigate the culpability of homogenital activity. Unfortunately, Gaijin42's attempt to correct the Roscelese text mistakenly spoke of culpability being compulsive, when it is the orientation that some (e.g. Dignity USA) say is compulsive (leaves a person with no choice) and so removes culpability. This the CDF document denies: that homosexual orientation leaves the homosexual person with "no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable". I'm sure Gaijin42 agrees that "The letter denied the claim that a homosexual person's orientation leaves that person with no choice but to engage compulsively and therefore inculpably in homosexual activity, and warned against such generalizations" is a better reflection of what the document does say. That is my account of what the document says, supported also by a couple of secondary sources. I also think Gaijin42 will agree that discussion of the Roscelese claim is best made not here but on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where Roscelese has not responded to Gaijin42's stated view that the Roscelese characterization is not backed by the source she cites. Perhaps Gaijin42 will be good enough to comment there also on the other Roscelese claims questioned there. Esoglou (talk) 08:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Gaijin is here and I will continue to discuss with him here. It's pretty ballsy of you to go to RSN and intentionally misrepresent my comment about your misrepresenting. Unfortunately for you, it's still misbehavior, it's not mitigated by bravado. @Gaijin42:, I've retained your version of the text, but edited for grammaticality. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I would again suggest to Gaijin42 that the place for this discussion is the more public venue of RSN, where Roscelese hasn't been brave enough to defend her interpretation of the primary source she has cited. By the way, she is still falsely presenting the document as saying that homosexual orientation doesn't mitigate the culpability of homosexual acts. It says no such thing. Esoglou (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Gaijin42 has stated on the noticeboard that "the document does not say that any culpability is not mitigated". So – unless you find some other editor, even one, who agrees with you – do act like a good and reasonable editor and stop repeatedly trying to make Wikipedia declare, on the basis of your insistent will alone, that the document does say it isn't mitigated. Esoglou (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Your guys' discussion is so convoluted and full of rehtorical devices it is impossible to follow. If you want more input, please clearly and succinctly state the text you would like to include, and the source(s) that you think back it. I see no reason this discussion has to take place on RSN. The boards serve to bring additional eyes to discussions, the most proper place for a full discussion of a content dispute is on the talk page of that article (where people will be easily able to find it in the future). My only statement so far is that the source I mentioned before does not support an absolute statement in either direction (eg, it does not say that all homosexual acts are compulsive and therefore do not have attached culpability. it also does not say that all homosexual acts are not compulsive and therefore do have attached culpability). It clearly states that there are considereations that may vary on an individual basis that may or may not mitigate culpability. It also says that it would be insulting towards gay people to assume that they are all working under an overriding compulsion of which they have no control. Its a very wishy washy statement, and unless the goal is to document the current wishy-washy position of the church on the matter, I do not see that it likely backs ANY more concrete statement. If you disagree with this reading, please point out the specific text that contradicts it. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Gaijin42. That is just what I have been saying. Roscelese, on the contrary, has been insisting that the document says homosexual orientation does not mitigate culpability ("The letter said that, as homosexual sexual activity is not always compulsive, any culpability that pertains to it is not therefore mitigated by natural orientation"). The document says no such thing. Esoglou (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if something I said gave the impression that I was claiming what you put in bold, that the document said that all homosexual acts are compulsive and therefore do not have attached culpability. The document explicitly denied that! The other idea, that the document said all homosexual acts are not compulsive and therefore do have attached culpability, is close to what Roscelese claims, and you rightly disagree with her claim that the document says that. The concrete statement in the document is that, while orientation can in individual cases sometimes diminish or even remove culpability, it is false to claim that it always does so. There is nothing wishy-washy in that direct denial of a claim put forward, for instance, by DignityUSA. Esoglou (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you guys may be subtly splitting hairs based on ambiguity of how the question is being phrased. If one were to ask "Is it the position of the Church that orientation (always/in general) mitigates culpability" the answer is indeed "No", because the question is asking for the general case, and the document indeed states that it would be incorrect to say that homosexuals always have no choice in their acts. If you ask "Are there any cases in which orientation may mitigate culpability" (without commenting on how rare/common such cases are) the answer is yes, because the quote leaves open that possibility. My wording change clarifies away from the absolute/general case and reveals the wishy-washy nature of the statement. Of course other documents and other statements by the Church may shed further light on the position of the church (with the caveat that the chruch's position may change over time so contradictory statements are not necessarily a real contradiction in position)Gaijin42 (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there a change you would suggest making from my text in the current version of the article, "The letter said that, as homosexual sexual activity is not always compulsive, any culpability that pertains to it is not therefore mitigated by natural orientation"? Natural orientation is not identified by the letter as a mitigating factor. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the double negatives make everything complicated, and as there is dispute to what the letter means, it may be better just to quote the letter directly. Further the "is not therefore mitigated" is an absolute, where the statement does allow for the possibility of mitigation for some individuals/circumstances. Also the "pertains to it" is confusing - what is "it"? Orientation? Activity? non-complusive activity? The letter says we should not asssume that the activity is compulsive. It does not say the activity is not compulsive or never compulsive. Why don't we just quote the statement? Its not that long, and then we avoid the problem of interpreting it ourselves? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I actually think the original statement contains far more multiple negatives and relies on about a paragraph of context that we can avoid including by successfully paraphrasing. If we don't fall down the rabbit hole of imagining every possible circumstance where the culpability of sex might be decreased or increased (which secondary sources might discuss, but which isn't evident in the gaps here), we can successfully paraphrase the letter's opposition to the idea that natural orientation makes sex compulsive and therefore inculpable. Re "pertains to it," surely it's clear that "it" is "homosexual sexual activity," the only possible antecedent. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Gaijin42 is right. "The letter said that any culpability that pertains to homosexual sexual activity is not mitigated by natural orientation" is a false claim, no matter how often repeated. As Gaijin42 has stated, the letter does not say that. Esoglou (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Attempted intervention on 16 July

I have placed a request for full page protection. Hopefully the admins agree that the slow moving edit war with multiple parties that is continuing on this page needs to stop and more discussion needs to happen here, not in edit summaries.Marauder40 (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Block alteration of many statements

In the second paragraph concerning the 1986 CDF document, Roscelese says that the document "claims that legislation protecting the civil rights of homosexuals leads to violence". What it says is that legitimizing homosexual behaviour (not homosexual persons' civil rights) may lead to further violence against homosexuals. The text that Roscelese deleted states that the Church is in favour of protecting their dignity by law. The document is not saying that doing something the Church wants will lead to violence. Roscelese also changed the unambiguous term "homosexual behaviour", which accurately reflects the document, to the ambiguous term "homosexuality". She also presents as Catholic organizations that the document does not specify as such, and takes it that it was precisely the United States effects of the AIDS epidemic that the document was referring to (well, that's where she's viewing it from). Again, she avoided the precise term "homosexual practice" that the document referred to, and presented the document as claiming that it was "homosexuality" that was threatening the lives of many people. Trivial things, some might perhaps think (though I doubt it), but that makes it all the more curious why Roscelese thought the less accurate account must be made Wikipedia's. I have been kept busier than I would have liked this evening and perhaps there are even more peculiarities in Roscelese's many changes within a single paragraph. But that must do for now. Esoglou (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Trying to get to these in order...

I can see that both of our versions might have issues; yours elides the fact that we're specifically talking about legislation protecting people from prosecution from having sex with others of the same sex, and the legal status of homosexuality is an important component of the document. (The letter does not claim, contrary to what you said, that the church supports efforts to legally ban discrimination.) How about changing "Its claims that legislation protecting the civil rights of homosexuals leads to violence were seen as controversially blaming gay people for homophobic violence and encouraging homophobic violence" to "Its claims that accepting and legalizing homosexuality [I don't think excess verbiage about practice is necessary here, no one ever talks about somehow banning an orientation] leads to violence were seen as controversially blaming gay people for homophobic violence and encouraging homophobic violence"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you warmly for giving as explanation for your edits something more informative and more edit-related (rather than editor-related) than accompanying the blanket undoing of many edits, each of which had been accompanied by an objective explanation, with "Rv tendentious editing by user with no interest in constructive encylcopedia-building". Esoglou (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It is your text that "elides the fact that we're specifically talking about legislation protecting people from prosecution from having sex with others of the same sex". My text speaks of "legitimizing homosexual behaviour". Yours speaks of "legislation protecting the civil rights of homosexuals". So who was "eliding the fact"? Esoglou (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Please answer my question about possible compromise wording, which I specifically suggested in order to address your concerns. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC).

Strange idea of a compromise. It doesn't even overcome the difficulty that you yourself raised! It "elides" (eludes?) the fact that we're specifically talking about legislation protecting people from prosecution from having sex with others of the same sex! It is quite difficult to reconcile your insistence on ambiguity with the presumption that you are interested in building a good article. One whose aim was objectivity would surely be happy to use clear language and say "homosexual behaviour" when it's behaviour that is spoken of, and "homosexual tendency" when it's tendency that is spoken of, instead of insisting, yes insisting, on saying "homosexuality". But in spite of the difficulty presented by your edits, I am endeavouring to maintain that presumption in your regard. Now it's your turn to try to give some concrete explanation (instead of expressing your presumption that I have "no interest in constructive encylcopedia-building") of what you find wrong in the text you deleted, each phrase of which is clearly based on a reliable source and is not a personal re-elaboration, and an unfaithful one at that. Here it is again. (I am putting an asterisk at each point where a reliable source was cited):

The letter condemned violence, even verbal,* against homosexual persons, and said that reaction against such violence should not be utilized as grounds for legitimizing homosexual behaviour,* While the church maintains that the dignity of each individual must be respected in "word, action, and law",* the letter claims that legitimizing homosexual behaviour, something to which, according to the letter, "no one has any conceivable right",* can lead to increased violence against people of homosexual orientation.* Critics have seen this as controversially blaming gay people for homophobic violence and encouraging homophobic violence,* and as "a classic example of blaming the victim".*

What in that does not accurately report what the document says and what other sources explicitly say about it? Esoglou (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

In order: there's no real reason to include verbal when we're summarizing; "reaction against such violence should not be utilized..." is bad English and less reflective of the sources than the previous text; redundant to condemnation of violence; "legitimizing" in English does not convey "legalizing," hence my references to legality (what are you talking about when you claim my versions haven't mentioned legality??) and there's no real reason to quote, no new information is added; splitting this into two sentences creates redundancy; someone writing in an academic context doesn't become a "critic" just for describing an action of the church in a way you personally dislike (just as he isn't a "supporter" for stating in the paragraph immediately following that the church opposes unjust discrimination). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Siker thought the mention of verbal violence important. Do you know better than Siker? Esoglou (talk) 06:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that since we're not reproducing or attempting to reproduce Siker's book, his inclusion of given small details is not necessarily an indicator that we need to include them as well. I'm sure that if we combed over a bunch of secondary sources for the parts they saw fit to quote, we would be able to reproduce the entire letter here, but I don't think that's really in the spirit of relying on secondary sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

We're not trying to reproduce Siker's book. We are trying to report correctly what the CDF document says. So you do think that your choice of what to report (which is different from mine) is better than Siker's? Esoglou (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If verbal abuse is included with violence by Siker and the CDF, I don't see why we report it separately when summarizing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Neither do I, and it isn't reported separately but is instead part of the same phrase ("even verbal"). The important thing is that it is faithfully reported, whether separately or not. Esoglou (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The alleged need to better the English is one of the arguments to avoid for deleting. Esoglou (talk) 06:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The whole reason it's considered an argument to avoid is because poor writing can be corrected through editing. It's not an argument for reverting corrections. What a silly thing to say. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The possibility of correcting the writing is no reason for instead deleting it. Esoglou (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

In your opinion, what meaning is lost when editing the nonsensical "reaction against such violence should not be utilized as grounds" to~the proper English "this condemnation [of violence] did not mean..."? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

"This condemnation" referred to the condemnation in the CDF letter ("The letter condemned ..."). What is in the article is unambiguous: "reaction to violence against them should not be utilized ..." Esoglou (talk) 06:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I see what you're getting at. I will remove "this." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It was your text that did not reflect the source, for the source didn't say the letter's condemnation did not mean that homosexual sexual acts should be permitted. The document was explicitly speaking of "the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons", which my text makes clear. Esoglou (talk) 06:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

"Legitimizing" is a more accurate term to reflect what the document says: "when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behaviour to which no one has any conceivable right". Condoning, in addition to legislating, is more than "legalizing".

Siker thought the statement that "no one has any conceivable right" to homosexual behaviour important enough to quote. I prefer Siker's judgement about what to quote to yours.

Is it just about possible that your accusations of editing to suit one's likes and dislikes could maybe apply to you, if I were to echo them? Esoglou (talk) 06:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

In order: If you want to make sure the article text conveys both social and legal acceptance, as the document does, you should have no problem with my text, "accepting and legalizing." Instead, you reverted it to something unclear. I think we could find a way to use the quote if we avoided redundancy by changing text elsewhere. Probably not! But go right ahead restoring inaccurate text while ignoring points you are unable to refute. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I willingly accepting your preference "accepting and legalizing", instead of my "legitimizing". I have now made the change. Esoglou (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that small bit of good behavior. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Esoglou (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Nobody here said that the letter says that the church supports efforts to legally ban discrimination. But the church does say it, and my text cited Siker, not the letter, as testifying to that. And in fact the letter does say it: read section 10. Esoglou (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

You know well that Catholic Church documents insistently make clear that homosexuality as a behaviour ("homogenital activity" some writers call it, but this term is not used in official Church documents) is not the same as homosexuality as a tendency. It is a distortion of Church documents, not a removal of "excess verbiage", to report them as not making that distinction. Esoglou (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that would be the effect. Again, no one talks about banning an orientation, even the church. The meaning is clear already. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

If you think the effect is the same, what's wrong with presenting the document in a form faithful to the document? Esoglou (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Summary style and avoiding the unnecessary use of jargon. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a good reason to refuse to report faithfully what the document stresses again and again. Esoglou (talk) 11:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If you really think there's the potential for confusion by an actual human being reading this article, then I don't see broad reasons beyond MOS not to change it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, I do really think that there's potential for confusion, as has been demonstrated even on this talk page in the past (not now, I think). Objective editors will prefer unambiguous language. Esoglou (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I was going to implement this change, but realized I'm no longer sure where in the article it's talking about. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Homosexuality vs. homosexual practice as a counterpart to married heterosexuality vs. married heterosexual practice just seems like an obvious paraphrase. What's the benefit of adding words about practice here?

You know well that Catholic Church documents insistently make clear that homosexuality as a behaviour ("homogenital activity" some writers call it, but this term is not used in official Church documents) is not the same as homosexuality as a tendency. It is a distortion of Church documents to report them as not making that distinction, on the pretext of making an obvious (to you) paraphrase. Esoglou (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

All right, I'll make a change that incorporates practice but uses as little POV jargon as possible. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC).

Marvellous. One little bit restored out of a vast blanket revert. Thank you. Esoglou (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The source does actually state that these organizations are Catholic (or rather, that they claim to be Catholic and aren't, but we obviously can't adopt their biased POV here). I left "LGBT" out of "LGBT Catholic" out after realizing it was an error, since these might be otherwise tolerant/progressive organizations that aren't necessarily made up of LGBT people, but we're also not talking about totally random secular or Jewish groups. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The source clearly does not state "that these organizations are Catholic". It says: "Some of these groups will use the word 'Catholic' to describe either the organization or its intended members". You understand the word "some". The CDF document that we are describing does not say that even these "some" are Catholic organizations. Yet you, on the pretext that it is only because of its "biased POV" that the document says the organizations are not Catholic, think it right to report it as saying on the contrary that they are Catholic. What the document says is what we are reporting. How can you defend reporting it as speaking with a POV not its own, indeed as speaking specifically with yours, which isn't mine and presumably is not that of many others too? Esoglou (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

How about "organizations, including Catholic organizations" as a nod to "some"? (Re their supposedly not being Catholic, you know we've been through this before and you know we're not going to state or imply that they're not just because someone else thinks they're not. Don't waste your time or mine.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

We are reporting what the document says. If you wish you can add the phrase "some of which, the document says, claim to be Catholic". But it should be obvious that you cannot present your personal view about the Catholicity of those "some" organizations as what the document says. In fact, it isn't for you to insert your personal view into the account, even if you weren't to present it as part of the document. This is another edit that seems to conflict with the presumption that you are aiming at an unprejudiced article. Esoglou (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you again not to waste time. It is not Wikipedia policy to allow religious identification to be dictated by third parties. If there is a reliable secondary source which talks about the significance of the church's refusal to call these people Catholics, it is possible that a brief mention could be included. Otherwise, we will use the usual neutral and descriptive language with no concessions. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It is certainly not Wikipedia policy to allow religious identification to be dictated by Roscelese, who is wasting time in trying to impose on Wikipedia her own undocumented view that the unidentified groups in question were in fact Catholic. In the document, the Congregation indicated that it did not consider them Catholic. We might need a reliable secondary source to declare the Congregation right or wrong in its judgement, though not to declare that the Congregation expressed that judgement. We would certainly also need a reliable source - maybe even a primary one would do - to declare that Roscelese was right in considering those groups Catholic, when we don't even know who they were. But what we are doing here is not declaring either the Congregation or Roscelese right or wrong. We are only reporting what is in the document, and there is no doubt about what is in the document. Isn't it quite ridiculous to suggest that Wikipedia should present it as saying the very opposite of what it did say? Esoglou (talk) 06:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure we can find reliable secondary sources identifying some of the groups in question, if you think it would help. What we can't do is deny someone's religious identification (and even this document biased against them agrees that they identify as Catholic) on the word of opposition groups. The inappropriateness of using biased primary sources for those sorts of claims is obvious and common knowledge. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Since the document did not identify the organizations, it is hard to see how anyone else can. Americans may speculate that it meant certain American groups and name them, and Italians speculate that it meant certain Italian groups and name them, but speculating isn't identifying. For some reason you want a mention to be made of the alleged religious affiliation of the groups. I have no difficulty in accepting that wish, of course without inserting also your unsourced personal interpretation of their religious affiliation. As I indicated above, what the document said about that question can be indicated, making clear that the alleged qualification is the document's, not Wikipedia's (nor Roscelese's). You cannot deny that the document said what the document said. Esoglou (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources, as you might know if you had ever at any point cared about RS and OR, can make connections that we as users cannot. (For instance, a few sources mention the LGBT Catholic organization Dignity with regard to the following section, s. 15.) I appreciate your efforts to clarify that the denial of these groups' religious identification came from a biased primary source and not from Wikipedia, but we could be clearer about the fact that this isn't a wild shot in the dark by the CDF by writing withdraw support from Catholic organizations not upholding the Church's doctrine on homosexuality [note: I reverse my previous mention of "some" because I'm looking at secondary sources that mention only the Catholic organizations targeted) which it said were not really Catholic [or some equivalent statement]. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

"If you had ever at any point cared about RS and OR"? Esoglou (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Your edit was unacceptable. Homosexuality as such, either as an orientation or a practice, is patently not a "threat" (any more than heterosexuality, as such, is) and as no one is going around telling people to have more gay sex, "advocating homosexual practice" is a ludicrous phrase. (It's also not even reflective of the source!!) If you don't find the neutral wording satisfactory, please suggest another version that isn't ridiculous. Re the link, it seemed like the best target since the sources state the document was directed at the US and the article's pretty detailed, but I'm not picky; it just got caught up in my reversion of the rest of your ridiculous edits. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you really believe that, in the context of the AIDS epidemic, homosexual behaviour was "patently not a threat" to lives and well-being? Esoglou (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you should learn more about the transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted illnesses. There are many educational websites out there, particularly aimed at teenagers, who are so susceptible to misinformation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)~

And so the ignorant writers of the document we're talking about were the only people who failed at the time of the AIDS epidemic to know, as you know, that it was unconnected with male homogenital activity? Esoglou (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

If the document said that the AIDS epidemic was concentrated among gays/MSM, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead, it said that homosexual sex was threatening people's lives. Either the writers were indeed ignorant, as you state, or deliberately being vague to the point of providing misinformation in order to enforce their doctrine. Again, if you don't know about how HIV and STIs are transmitted, it's a really important thing to learn, and you should go to some of these teenage educational websites. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Whether the writers were ignorant or vague or were not, what they actually said is what we are reporting. Esoglou (talk) 06:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

If that's your position, you should have no problem with my text, which accurately conveys what they said without pretending that it is factual. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The document did associate the AIDS epidemic with homosexual activity. Reliable sources say it did. Even Cornwell, p. 130, says it did. You refused to report it as doing so. (You also said the document said the organizations were Catholic. The document did not say that.) You weren't reporting what the document said. That was the problem with your text. Esoglou (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we're done here. Enough space has been wasted on your posturing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

"Posturing"? Esoglou (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The document says: "Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred". What makes you think that "advocating homosexual practice" is "not even reflective of the source!!" (the double exclamation mark is yours)? Esoglou (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't cherry-pick, and instead read the sentences immediately before it as well. The version currently in the article is both more reflective of reality and of the document's references to groups advocating changes to legislation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Permit me, please, to respectfully say that that is complete nonsense. What is it that the document explicitly said seriously threatened the life and well-being of a large number of people? It said quite explicitly that "the practice of homosexuality" did so. You may not believe that the practice of homosexuality had any such effect, but that's what the document did say. And we're reporting what the document said, not what you think. The previous sentence said nothing about what seriously threatened the life and well-being of a large number of people. And the following sentence seems to confirm what it explicitly said, stating that the Church would never be so callous as to act as the advocates of the practice of homosexuality were acting in those circumstances. Esoglou (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I know you have the document in front of you just as I do, so I'm not going to bother quoting at you. You know what it says, you know the groups it's talking about, and you know that your insistence that it's unrelated to civil legislation is wrong. Now you're just taking the opportunity to soapbox about how merciful the church is and how horrible the murderous gays are, and and I see no reason to continue this thread in order to give you further opportunity to do so. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You first claim without quotation that the document has nothing corresponding to "advocating homosexual practice". I quote the document as explicitly speaking of advocates of homosexual practice. In response you say, but don't "bother to quote", that the document says something else, and follow up the account of how you picture the document with an account of how you picture me. Esoglou (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I take it you don't insist on changing the wikilink to AIDS epidemic, which I gave, to one that points to the US situation. Esoglou (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I still think the US article is better for the reasons I explained, but if you change the link without making other destructive edits at the same time, I won't revert you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I would have preferred if you yourself restored another tiny fraction of your great block of a not really explained general revert (the latest of a series), but if you can't bear to do it, I will. Esoglou (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, thank you for giving an intelligible explanation of your reverting together a series of edits. Esoglou (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I invite you to demonstrate good faith by reverting your destructive edits of your own accord. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

And I invite you to cease trying to present Church documents as declaring the opposite of what they actually say. Esoglou (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

One more chance. (I'll also note that I haven't reviewed your article edits in-depth and have only been addressing talk page comments, but I notice that you've made other poor edits that you haven't brought up here. These, too, you should revert.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

For instance? Let us discuss them. Esoglou (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

For instance, your refusal to write Wikipedia as the common encyclopedia it is rather than as a mouthpiece for the church in insisting that the word "gay" can't be used. The church's preferring the pathologizing "homosexual" (in such combinations as "found to have homosexual tendencies" or whatnot) is not a reason to refrain from using words the way they are used by reliable sources. But this is all moot now, since your insistence upon being disruptive has obliged me to revert you myself. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Roscelese, for not repeating on personal non-objective grounds your blanket deletion of all edits. To change only some was a decided advance and should be much more productive. Thank you. Esoglou (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Organizations mentioned by the Congregation

To assist discussion by outsiders with an objective non-personal view, who may come from the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, the following is copied from above as a separate section.

The source does actually state that these organizations are Catholic (or rather, that they claim to be Catholic and aren't, but we obviously can't adopt their biased POV here). I left "LGBT" out of "LGBT Catholic" out after realizing it was an error, since these might be otherwise tolerant/progressive organizations that aren't necessarily made up of LGBT people, but we're also not talking about totally random secular or Jewish groups. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The source clearly does not state "that these organizations are Catholic". It says: "Some of these groups will use the word 'Catholic' to describe either the organization or its intended members". You understand the word "some". The CDF document that we are describing does not say that even these "some" are Catholic organizations. Yet you, on the pretext that it is only because of its "biased POV" that the document says the organizations are not Catholic, think it right to report it as saying on the contrary that they are Catholic. What the document says is what we are reporting. How can you defend reporting it as speaking with a POV not its own, indeed as speaking specifically with yours, which isn't mine and presumably is not that of many others too? Esoglou (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

How about "organizations, including Catholic organizations" as a nod to "some"? (Re their supposedly not being Catholic, you know we've been through this before and you know we're not going to state or imply that they're not just because someone else thinks they're not. Don't waste your time or mine.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

We are reporting what the document says. If you wish you can add the phrase "some of which, the document says, claim to be Catholic". But it should be obvious that you cannot present your personal view about the Catholicity of those "some" organizations as what the document says. In fact, it isn't for you to insert your personal view into the account, even if you weren't to present it as part of the document. This is another edit that seems to conflict with the presumption that you are aiming at an unprejudiced article. Esoglou (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you again not to waste time. It is not Wikipedia policy to allow religious identification to be dictated by third parties. If there is a reliable secondary source which talks about the significance of the church's refusal to call these people Catholics, it is possible that a brief mention could be included. Otherwise, we will use the usual neutral and descriptive language with no concessions. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

It is certainly not Wikipedia policy to allow religious identification to be dictated by Roscelese, who is wasting time in trying to impose on Wikipedia her own undocumented view that the unidentified groups in question were in fact Catholic. In the document, the Congregation indicated that it did not consider them Catholic. We might need a reliable secondary source to declare the Congregation right or wrong in its judgement, though not to declare that the Congregation expressed that judgement. We would certainly also need a reliable source - maybe even a primary one would do - to declare that Roscelese was right in considering those groups Catholic, when we don't even know who they were. But what we are doing here is not declaring either the Congregation or Roscelese right or wrong. We are only reporting what is in the document, and there is no doubt about what is in the document. Isn't it quite ridiculous to suggest that Wikipedia should present it as saying the very opposite of what it did say? Esoglou (talk) 06:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure we can find reliable secondary sources identifying some of the groups in question, if you think it would help. What we can't do is deny someone's religious identification (and even this document biased against them agrees that they identify as Catholic) on the word of opposition groups. The inappropriateness of using biased primary sources for those sorts of claims is obvious and common knowledge. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Since the document did not identify the organizations, it is hard to see how anyone else can. Americans may speculate that it meant certain American groups and name them, and Italians speculate that it meant certain Italian groups and name them, but speculating isn't identifying. For some reason you want a mention to be made of the alleged religious affiliation of the groups. I have no difficulty in accepting that wish, of course without inserting also your unsourced personal interpretation of their religious affiliation. As I indicated above, what the document said about that question can be indicated, making clear that the alleged qualification is the document's, not Wikipedia's (nor Roscelese's). You cannot deny that the document said what the document said. Esoglou (talk) 07:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources, as you might know if you had ever at any point cared about RS and OR, can make connections that we as users cannot. (For instance, a few sources mention the LGBT Catholic organization Dignity with regard to the following section, s. 15.) I appreciate your efforts to clarify that the denial of these groups' religious identification came from a biased primary source and not from Wikipedia, but we could be clearer about the fact that this isn't a wild shot in the dark by the CDF by writing withdraw support from Catholic organizations not upholding the Church's doctrine on homosexuality [note: I reverse my previous mention of "some" because I'm looking at secondary sources that mention only the Catholic organizations targeted) which it said were not really Catholic [or some equivalent statement]. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

"If you had ever at any point cared about RS and OR"? Esoglou (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You still have not cited a reliable source in support of your claim a) that the document spoke only of Catholic organizations; and b) that these organizations were in fact Catholic. Esoglou (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The question has been taken to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Esoglou (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

On the noticeboard, nobody has defended the Roscelese interpretation. The only comment has been that "editors are possibly interfering with the primary non-negotiable policy of 'neutral point of view' in favour of 'the Catholic Church is wrong and must be asserted to be wrong about homosexuality'." A more objective account must therefore be put in the article. Esoglou (talk) 07:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No one agreed with you that the source was being misrepresented, in spite of your obviously deliberate failure to mention the secondary sources which discussed these Catholic organizations. If you can't get any support for your position even when you deliberately leave out the sources that disagree with it, how can you possibly claim it is the consensus position? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Let us discuss it on the noticeboard. Esoglou (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC) And don't undo the work of other editors for the sake of reinserting what you choose not to defend in a place where your ideas will be open to wider scrutiny. Esoglou (talk) 09:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Blame for persistence

To assist discussion by outsiders with an objective non-personal view, who may come from the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, the following is copied from above as a separate section.

Your edit was unacceptable. Homosexuality as such, either as an orientation or a practice, is patently not a "threat" (any more than heterosexuality, as such, is) and as no one is going around telling people to have more gay sex, "advocating homosexual practice" is a ludicrous phrase. (It's also not even reflective of the source!!) If you don't find the neutral wording satisfactory, please suggest another version that isn't ridiculous. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The document says: "Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred". What makes you think that "advocating homosexual practice" is "not even reflective of the source!!" (the double exclamation mark is yours)? Esoglou (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't cherry-pick, and instead read the sentences immediately before it as well. The version currently in the article is both more reflective of reality and of the document's references to groups advocating changes to legislation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Permit me, please, to respectfully say that that is complete nonsense. What is it that the document explicitly said seriously threatened the life and well-being of a large number of people? It said quite explicitly that "the practice of homosexuality" did so. You may not believe that the practice of homosexuality had any such effect, but that's what the document did say. And we're reporting what the document said, not what you think. The previous sentence said nothing about what seriously threatened the life and well-being of a large number of people. And the following sentence seems to confirm what it explicitly said, stating that the Church would never be so callous as to act as the advocates of the practice of homosexuality were acting in those circumstances. Esoglou (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I know you have the document in front of you just as I do, so I'm not going to bother quoting at you. You know what it says, you know the groups it's talking about, and you know that your insistence that it's unrelated to civil legislation is wrong. Now you're just taking the opportunity to soapbox about how merciful the church is and how horrible the murderous gays are, and and I see no reason to continue this thread in order to give you further opportunity to do so. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You first claim without quotation that the document has nothing corresponding to "advocating homosexual practice". I quote the document as explicitly speaking of advocates of homosexual practice. In response you say, but don't "bother to quote", that the document says something else, and follow up the account of how you picture the document with an account of how you picture me. Esoglou (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The question has been taken to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Esoglou (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

On the noticeboard, nobody has defended the Roscelese interpretation. The only comment has been that "editors are possibly interfering with the primary non-negotiable policy of 'neutral point of view' in favour of 'the Catholic Church is wrong and must be asserted to be wrong about homosexuality'." A more objective account must therefore be put in the article. Esoglou (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't undo the work of other editors for the sake of reinserting what you choose not to defend in a place where your ideas will be open to wider scrutiny. Esoglou (talk) 09:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Active role

I see that in an edit summary Roscelese declared that "participate actively in the Christian community" means no more than "participate in the Christian community". The exact words in the bishops' letter were "have an active role in the Christian community". The bishops explained: "What does this mean in practice? It means that all homosexual persons have a right to be welcomed into the community, to hear the word of God, and to receive pastoral care." While some of us may perhaps agree with Roscelese that there is no difference between having an active and having a passive role in the Christian community, the bishops apparently thought there was a difference, and it's their declaration we are reporting. Esoglou (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

But Wikipedia uses words the way they are used in the real world, not how they are used in specialized jargon. In your opinion, what is conveyed by a failure to include "actively"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

We should report documents accurately. Do you really want to present the document as suggesting that homosexual people should only be passively tolerated in the Christian community? Esoglou (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Why, did someone write something about "passive toleration" somewhere? I didn't. I'm asking you how, in your view, omitting "actively" changes the meaning, since "participate" is already an active verb. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

"Resist" is also an active verb, but I understand there is such a thing as passive resistance. Your mind can and apparently does "passively note the content of your thoughts without evaluating them". But let's not get into semantics. It's you who want to alter what the document says. It is not necessary to do so. Esoglou (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Please answer the question. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It's the editor who wants to alter what the document says who must explain why we should think it necessary to do so. So far, you have given no valid reason. There is a decided difference between actively participating and being a wallflower. Do you maintain that there is no such thing as passive participation? Others disagree: example; example; example; example; etc. Esoglou (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

If you're not going to make any arguments other than "we have to use the church's wording directly at all times," there's no point in continuing this discussion, because we both know that's not correct. You should find a goal on Wikipedia that isn't "disrupt it in order to promote Esoglou's personal beliefs" or "waste Roscelese's time." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I have not argued that "we have to use the church's wording directly at all times". I have said that, in reporting the content of a primary source without the aid of reliable secondary sources, we must report it faithfully. Do you think that, without making any attempt to explain away the reliable sources that note the important difference between active and passive participation, and without even in any other way "continuing this discussion", you have the authority to represent the US bishops as stating that the participation in the Christian community to which homosexual persons, chaste or not, have a right is something less than active participation? What they did say must be restored to the article.

I answered your question about the difference between "active participation" and mere "participation": mere "participation" can refer to passive non-active participation. Please answer the question: Do you deny that the US bishops declared homosexual persons, chaste or not, have the right to participate actively, not merely passively, in the Christian community? Esoglou (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm obviously aware of what the document says, and I'm really not invested in this one-word difference. I just don't think failing to use the bishops' exact phrasing makes the paraphrase inaccurate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

To quote yourself, "Please answer the question." Saying you're not "invested" (whatever that means) is no answer, and it hasn't stopped you from again investing energy into making the bishops say something different from what they did say. So, please answer the question: Do you deny ...? Esoglou (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Insistent removal of corrections of Allen

Why does Roscelese keep inserting the Allen's statement that the Homosexualitatis problema was published "in English rather than Italian, suggesting it was aimed especially at the United States", while removing the evidence that Allen was mistaken? The document was published on the same day, 31 October 1986, in Latin, Italian, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, and English. Some of the Italian and French newspapers that published it on that day bear the date of 1 November 1986, as is customary for serious newspapers published in the afternoon. But the afternoon was 31 October. Esoglou (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Because Allen is a reliable source for analysis of the primary documents, and you are not. Additionally, the Italian and French newspapers, etc. are not in fact the Vatican press office. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

If Allen's book is a WP-reliable source, other sources are also. Here Allen was not analysing a primary source. His book is instead a primary source for the statements: a) that on 1 October 1986 "Ratzinger released Homosexualitatis problema"; and b) that "it was released in the Vatican press office in English rather than Italian, suggesting that it was aimed especially at the United States". No other source whatever supports these statements. Instead, various WP-reliable sources, including English-language ones, state: a) that the document was released on 31 October 1986; and b) that on that date it was made available in languages other than English too. Indeed, the well-sourced statement that English was not the (only) language in which the document was released suggests that, in spite of what Allen surmised, the document was not aimed especially at the United States, although an America-centric person might be tempted to imagine it was. What makes you think that Allen's unsupported affirmation is sufficient basis for the truth of his claim and, more important, that citations of reliable sources that contradict Allen's claim must be deleted from Wikipedia? Esoglou (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You really have no idea how WP:RS works. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

So please enlighten me about how, according to you, WP:RS works to admit what Allen's book says, but not to admit what McNeill's book and various English-language and other newspapers say. As things stand, this seems to be another bit of nonsense coming from you, an intelligent person. Esoglou (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Insistent (minor) copyright violation

Unless it be for the sake of inserting into a cited document some original-research phrases that are not in the document, why does Roscelese, who has been so insistent (for instance in speaking to Contaldo) that it is copyviolation to copy words without quotation marks, insistently change

In a statement released in July 1992, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith expounded on the letter, and stated: "There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, when placing children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment."

to

In a statement released in July 1992, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith expanded on the letter, and stated that there are areas in which it is "not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account", for example when placing children for adoption or foster care, in refusing to employ teachers or athletic coaches who are gay, and in restricting gay men and women from recruitment into the military

?

A small matter, admittedly, but it is just one sample of what she insists on. Esoglou (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Basically an oversight, although a paraphrase is preferable to a quote. "Discrimination in selecting adoptive and foster parents and in employing teachers, athletic coaches or military servicemembers was not unjust"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

If you are prefer a paraphrase, it would be better to compose one that that did not suggest that the Congregation used terms such as "gay". A better paraphrase would be "A July 1992 document of the Congregation, which made reference to the 1986 letter, stated that it is not unjust to take sexual orientation into account when selecting adoptive or foster parents for children, teachers and athletic coaches and military recruits." I'll put it in the article. Esoglou (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No, we use words the way they are used in the real world. We won't ban the usage of the word "gay" just because the CDF prefers an antiquated and pathologizing word. Additionally, your "paraphrase" is closer to a copyright violation of the cited source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you move in some narrow circle in which the word "homosexual" is not welcome, but in the real world it is alive and well. It is even used, in the abstract form, in the title of this article. Don't try to fit the CDF into your circle. Report it faithfully. Esoglou (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You've been warned before about making snide remarks about my sexual orientation. You're not fooling anyone here. I am not going to continue to engage with you on the talk page - Gaijin, yes, but you have repeatedly demonstrated a total lack of interest in improving the article and an abiding interest in trolling me and disrupting the article in order to promote the church's agenda. I will continue to revert you if you continue to make destructive edits, but until you demonstrate an interest in constructive editing, I'm done talking to you here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

And I am joining Roscelese in likewise not engaging with you on the talk page, Esoglou. I have rarely come across a more disruptive editor in all my years of working on Wikipedia. I don't know what you think you're gaining by twisting every last phrase to try and put a positive spin on the doings of the Catholic authorities? I'm also extremely unhappy at your snide remarks and the fact that you follow me around Wikipedia amending edits to completely unrelated articles. This is harassment. Contaldo80 (talk) 07:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I should have remembered how sensitive Roscelese is and explicitly restated the context of my comment: "If that is your idea of how words are used in the real world, perhaps you move ..." Esoglou (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Contaldo's general revision of 5 August 2014

Contaldo's revision of 5 August, while at some points inferior to the version that Roscelese has been insisting on, is on the whole somewhat superior for objectivity, since it lets documents speak for themselves instead of filtering what they say through an editor's slanted paraphrasing. There is no point in making improvements in it before it undergoes the usual reverting – unless this very comment may (hopefully) help save it. User:Gaijin42 also spoke in favour of quoting what a document says, instead of giving an editor's interpretation. Esoglou (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Explained edit

Sourced relevant information was deleted on the grounds that it was unexplained. The fact that it was relevant and sourced should be explanation enough. The article contained and still contains the claim, on the basis of a single source, that the document Homosexualitatis problema was issued on 1 October 1986 and firstly in English. The several sources cited in the information that was deleted said it was issued on 31 October 1986, saying so either explicitly (source; source; source) or implicitly (source; source) and several other cited sources say it was published in various other languages at the same time. Deletion of that information allowed mention only of the viewpoint expressed in a single source. This was in evident violation of WP:UNDUE. If anything should have been deleted, it was what was built on a single source, contradicted by so many others: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Esoglou (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Edits by 174.255.192.167

At 08:48 on 6 August editor "174.255.192.167" reverted a wide-ranging set of edits to the article on the grounds of "removing propaganda". Many of these were unrelated to one another. It is unclear what particular aspects of the material could be seen as "propaganda". I invite "174.255.192.167" to engaged in discussion to see whether we may resolve the matter. I suggest other editors avoid further disrupting the article until we are able to ascertain the problem. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleting the IP editor's work without answering the defence of it given immediately above is not praiseworthy. Esoglou (talk) 08:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Your suggested text was WP:OR. It was either different from te references or an interpretation of them that was not supported by the source material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.231.212 (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we deserve a slighly more sophisticated level of debate. Can you clarify which particular aspects were original material and then we can consider. Otherwise you have removed a good deal of unrelated material and I can only view such edits as disruptive in the absence of proper justification. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Why do you keep reverting the text to read that the ICHR case ended? There was no trial! The case was dropped, just like the reference says! You keep reverting it to confirm to your woldview, rather than what the reference says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.231.212 (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Editor "174.255.192.167" has just justified an edit complaining that it removed material which they had added. However, this IP editor did not add such material - this editor has only reverted material made by me. The material disputed was actually added by editor Esoglou. I think we now have evidence to make a case against Wikipedia: Sock Puppetry. I would be grateful if colleagues and administrators could advise me how to proceed. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It's bad enough that you manipulate the references, now you don't even keep track of the material that you're reverting? I wrote that on August 5th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.231.212 (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for further clarifying. In fact yes you did make that change on 5 August at 07:34 but not as 174.236.231.212, but as Esoglou. You're getting yourself into a real muddle aren't you. Anyway I've set up a sock-puppet investigation which should get to the bottom of things. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholicism&diff=620012392&oldid=619936608 Have you even been reading the page before you click the "undo" button?

And why do you, Contaldo, keep deleting the abundantly sourced information that contradicts your preferred view that Homosexualitatis problema was issued with an eye especially on the United States so that it was given in English 30 days before it was actually released in many languages at the same time? Repeated inverting to remove that information doesn't mean that it isn't there and that it shouldn't be mentioned on Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 13:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)