Talk:Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS

Archives (Index)

1 2

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

PEACOCK

This is one of those WP:PEACOCK articles that evidently crop up from time to time - trying to present the Catholic church as looking much more progressive than the reality. Somewhat of concern. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Lede

"This position has been criticized by some." Are we actually being serious here?! I mean it's beyond embarrassing. Is that all we're prepared to see about policy that has condemned millions of people to death? Let the Catholic church publish its own material setting out what it believes - let us ensure that wikipedia maintains a neutral and factual voice and is not an excuse to slip in apologetic language on behalf of the Catholic church. This is intellectually dishonest. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

St Vincents

Slugger you actually removed my addition to this article "St. Vincent's also downplayed its work with AIDS patients in the early days as they were worried about scaring away other patients" by saying that you don't remember it in the podcast. You seriously removed this addition by saying you don't remember it in the podcast? Seriously? Can I suggest you sit down and listen to it again and if you don't hear something that supports this statement then please do come back and tell us. Contaldo80 (talk) 05:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, I did listen to it again. It's not in there. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

And I listened to it again and it is. But I don't remember hearing a lot of the stuff from the podcast that you added material from. Shall we make it simple and take out any material relating to the Plague podcasts from all articles seeing as the source is not written down and relies on people giving their views on what was said? Unless you can supply a transcript Slugger? Or maybe assume WP:GOODFAITH. But I appreciate that the sentence about St Vincents doesn't sound so sympathetic to the Roman Catholic Church. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, Could you please cite for me the minute and second where this is stated? Thank you. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Plague podcast

I've listened to the plague podcast and I'm afraid I cant' remember hearing any supporting material for the claims made in this article. Before reinserting can I ask editors to provide clarify as to the episode and minute at which each of these claims appeared so that they can be verified. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, it is obvious what you are trying to do. In the section above, I say that I can not find the material you are trying to say is in a given source. I have asked you to give me the time in the podcast where the material supposedly can be found. Either you are unwilling or, as I suspect, unable to do so. You should know that making your WP:POINT in such a way is disruptive, especially since you just deleted a warning for the same behavior on your talk page. That you are doing this on multiple articles is especially problematic. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

As it is a three hour podcast I think episodes and at least general timestamps are in order. Do you happen to know if they have offered transcription for the podcast? AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, In every instance where I have added material from the podcast, I have included an episode. I'm not aware of an episode that is three hours long, however. I'm also not aware of any transcripts. If there was a specific piece of material that was in question I would be inclined to go back and find it (even when others are free to do the same), but I am not going to do so for every single instance it is cited because someone is throwing a tantrum. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not a tantrum to insist that information you have added be verifiable. I would point out that this started with you removing something and insisting it be timestamped.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, No, it isn't. But he was clearly trying to make a WP:POINT. I, on the other hand, listened to his source multiple times and found the verification failed. There's a difference. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to get involved in ABF. You have been asked to verify the timestamp of content you have added since another editor was unable to verify the content, this is something you have asked others to do. Are you unwilling to provide the requested information to verify your content?AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, As I said above, if I thought it was a good faith request then I would be glad to do so. However, as he tagged every single instance the podcast was cited -- in multiple articles -- and since he aped my language, "I cant' (sic) remember...", I don't believe this was a good faith request. As such, I believe I have met the WP:BURDEN of proof with inline citations. If I had a book someone else didn't, I wouldn't be asked to copy the entire chapter. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

No but you could be asked to provide a page number from a book which is the same as a timestamp. If you have met the burden then he has also met the burden for his content. I was hoping you would be more collaborative but if you insist on assuming bad faith then there is not much more I can do. He went to multiple pages because you have used this source on multiple pages and never added a timestampAlmostFrancis (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, Except that the verification for his content failed. Even if we take him at his word, he "can't remember" the content being on the podcast, which isn't the same thing. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Tantrum was a poor choice of words. I should not have used it. I apologize. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Both I and AlmostFrancis have asked you for time-stamps Slugger. And rather than do that you have decided to chuck a personal insult at me by saying that I am throwing a "tantrum". I am warning you very carefully about this continued personal abuse. Having listened to the podcasts I have serious doubts that the material you have inserted into this and other articles is actually expressed in the way that you have set it out in the material. So we're asking again, are you going to provide time-straps for all the material within articles that is referenced to the Plague podcast? Contaldo80 (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, For good faith requests, like AF's below, then yes. To satisfy a WP:POINT like yours, no. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Slugger. You've refused to respond to a request from two editors. The next step is for us to seek guidance from administrators as to how to proceed. For the benefit of other editors the original sentence I added and which Slugger removed because they don't remember hearing it was "St. Vincent's also downplayed its work with AIDS patients in the early days as they were worried about scaring away other patients." The source is Episode 2: The Catholic hospital that pioneered AIDS care 17:22 "...There were fears early on that if St Vincent's were too closely associated to AIDS it would scare away other patients." Contaldo80 (talk) 03:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, As stated elsewhere, that isn't the citation you provided. I listened to what you cited multiple times. It wasn't there. Now you are changing the citation. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I thought you said you listened to ALL the podcast repeatedly and still couldn't find it? Contaldo80 (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, No. I listened to what you cited. It wasn't there. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

To clarify you overturned the first edit I made by saying "I don't remember this in the podcast." A podcast is an episodic series of spoken word digital audio files that a user can download to a personal device for easy listening. Select your words better if you are not going to assume good faith edits. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, I apologize. I should have been more clear. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Slugger you were asked by an administrator to provide timestamps for the Plague podcast you cite in this article. But you haven't. I suspect you haven't done it for the other article either. Can you clarify whether and when you intend to provide these. Or are you refusing to abide by the administrator's decision? Contaldo80 (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I Note that Slugger O'Toole has decided to ignore a ruling by an administrator to provide time stamps as requested. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Timestamp for specific plague podcast

I was not able to verify "Catholic hospitals were among the first to treat HIV/AIDS patients" for use in Wikipedia voice with the plague podcast. First the podcast was forty minutes long and switches between the narrator and snippets very often. Without a timestamp it is hard verify if this was one of many claims or acutally edited commentary.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, I've added a new source that indicates this claim was made at 34:17. I even provided a quotation for you. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Which episode of the podcast? You haven't provided this. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, Yes, I have. Check again. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not playing games. I asked you what episode. I can't see it and I'm not going to hunt for it. State it here. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, I'm not sure why you can't see it. It is the episode entitled "Surviving the AIDS crisis as a gay Catholic." -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

After having listened to the podcast I consider the quote an aside that does not form the main thrust of the episode and does not meet the necessary level for due content. Since this podcast was funded by the Catholic Health Services and published by a Jesuit priest, along with its other shortcoming I believe it is not adequate for the content it is being used for.AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, Could you cite a policy to back up that assertion? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Its an editorial decision. We don't write every single thing written everywhere in an article. At some point we have to be discerning on what is added and this does not meet that threshold in my editorial opinion. The fact you can not find a better source I think proves my point.AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The other problem is that its very US centric. In the UK the first hospitals treating AIDS patients about the same time weren't catholic ones. It really reflects the make-up of the US health system and the location of hosptials in urban areas with lots of gay residents. At the moment it implies that catholics were more compassionate that other health professionals. Slugger never mentions (deliberately?) that many of the doctors in St Vincents were actually gay. Would that spoil the narrative? Contaldo80 (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion

I would be interested in hearing the views of other editors. In the lead I added "This position has been criticized by some public health officials and AIDS activists who argue the Church's stance is unrealistic, ineffective, irresponsible and immoral." Slugger O'Toole removed this to say "This position has been criticized by some". This strikes me as a massive understatement - no doubt deliberate. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Timothy P. Broglio

Slugger can you please quote what part of the source verifies in Wikipedia voice that Timothy P. Broglio, "advocate for years for increased funding". The source is about a letter and maintaining funding. Also the source doesn't mention social justice. Can you also explain why this would not just be random trivia.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, I started to write this section but then got pulled away. I have additional sources I'll be adding. The connection to social justice is that he advocates for funding as chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on International Justice and Peace. I'd be glad to work with you to fill this section out. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You need sources to tie the content to social just not just your own opinion. Also you did not explain how the sources verifies the content. Please don't fill the section up with more primary sources as you did the first time. Also it would be best if you would use at least some non catholic sources. Could you also explain why you added the content before the much deeper content on Condoms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlmostFrancis (talk • contribs) 19:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

How come you don't use many non-Catholic sources Slugger? Are you able to clarify please. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, I believe I do. However, it makes sense that publications that focus on the Catholic Church are frequently going to be cited in an article on the topic, just as science journals would frequently be cited in a scientific article, or medical journals would be cited in a medical article. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Science periodicals and medical journals are based on empiricism and are open to peer review and challenge. Are Catholic sources equally based on evidence or are they based on religious teaching and adherance to religious authorities (regardless of what the evidence says)? If articles are dealing with issues relating to catholicism, surely we should generally be using independent third party sources, referring to specific Catholic sources when we need to? There are plenty of third party sources we could use. However, you do seem to use Catholic sources almost exclusively (in this and other articles) and it troubles me as to why you are doing that? Particularly when dealing with contentious issues that require balance and neutrality. The subject of the Catholic church's engagement on AIDS is highly fraught - and your avoidance of non-Catholic sources seems to only tell one part of the story. Why are you only telling one part of the story - is this wise?Contaldo80 (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, Just because a publication focuses on Catholic issues, that does not mean it is not independent or reliable. Also, I believe your criticism is unfounded. In the last few days I have added sources from a book about world religions, the LA Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, among more. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

But always to make a statement in the article sympathetic to the role, activity and ethos of the Roman Catholic Church. How is this not cherry picking the sources? Contaldo80 (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

POV addition

Slugger it is very hard to assume good faith when you use a source title "Vatican AIDS Meeting Hears O'Connor Assail Condom Use" and don't even mention that O'Conner once again denounced the single most affective way to fight HIV. You also used a Washington Post article that specifically calls out the Pope for once again maligning Gay people and Condom use. These comments are in the first paragraph of the source you had to have seen them. Do you have an explanation of why you did not add this obvious content?AlmostFrancis (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, I do. The reason is that we already have an extensive section that outlines what O'Connor and the pope felt and said about condoms. Didn't think we needed to repeat it. I wouldn't be opposed to a quick reference that they reiterated their opinions, but I was primarily looking to add new content, not shore up what was already existing. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

If you want to have a section on the conference then we follow the sources on the conference. The main thrust of the sources are that once again the Catholic Church and the Pope put Catholic teaching ahead of alleviating the HIV crisis while also saying nice things about supporting people with AIDS. When you skip the first part you misrepresent the conference. Also there is too much quote mining. AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Well spotted AlmostFrancis. Slugger it seems to me that you are cherry-picking the sources to present a particular narrative. You do realise this goes against the ethos of wikipedia don't you. You seem to have cherry-picked the Plague podcast elsewhere - not mentioning that many of the doctors in the Catholic hospitals were gay themselves. But then adding quite a bit of material to emphasise who John O'Connor went to treat people with sores etc. Deeply troubling. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

New lede

With the new additional content, we need a WP:LEDE that reflects it. I have proposed the following, but Francis objected. Let's work something out here and then move it to the main. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The Catholic Church has been involved in the care of HIV/AIDS patients since the earliest days of the pandemic. As one of the largest providers of care on the planet, it treats those who are sick, helps to stop the transmission, offers pastoral care to those who are infected, and cares for orphans whose parents have died of the disease. Due in part to its focus on social justice, much of the church's work is focused on the developing world, though programs exist in the Global North as well.

Catholic theology of sexuality prohibits the use of artificial contraception, including condoms, which can be effective in helping to prevent transition of the HIV virus. Instead, the Church argues for abstinence before marriage and being faithful to one's spouse as the preferred methods for halting the pandemic. This position has been criticized by some. In 1989, the Church hosted a conference at the Vatican on the issue that drew more than 1,000 attendees.

The focus on social justice seems to be made up by you and does not follow sources. The churches treatment of homosexuality is well documented and is the exact opposite of social justice. Helps stop transmissions is again ridiculous when you take into account the church has outlawed condoms which are the best way to limit transmissions. That a church offers pastoral care is meaningless in context. The earlieer lead is betterAlmostFrancis (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, I actually cite an entire book by doctors and theologians that puts the issue in the context of social justice, so I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that I made it up. Also, this article is obviously closely related to homosexuality due to the disparate impact AIDS has had on that community, but they are not synonymous. Finally, and most importantly, the lede should serve as a " a concise overview of the article's topic." There's a good deal of new content here (e.g. the conference) that isn't reflected in the current lede. Would you like to track a shot at formulating a new one that summarizes the rest of the article? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the book you built the section out of mentions social justice once and then about how another book examines catholic teaching in a social justice context. You source doesn't use social justice for any of the earlier content in the section.AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, "Social justice" are not magic words. You could write a library's worth of books on the topic without ever once using that phrase. That said, "social justice" comprises only one clause of my proposed new lede. Even if I were to concede that it shouldn't be there, how would you propose we word the rest of it to meet the requirements of MOS:LEAD? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, too be clear you are saying that your source does not tie the content you are adding to social justice? The content being tied to social justice is completely your own original research? If not please supply a source that explains the content you added has any tie to social justice or the social justice movement.AlmostFrancis (talk) 06:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, No, that isn't what I am saying. It ties it in directly: "Today, the Church continues to point to the broader problems that HIV/AIDS reveal, no longer in terms of ethics, but encompassing different social justice issues related to the pandemic." What I am saying is that you don't need a magic formula of words. Again, I am still waiting on your suggestion for a new lede. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"Instead, the Church argues for abstinence before marriage and being faithful to one's spouse as the preferred methods for halting the pandemic" - how does that work for people that are gay? Contaldo80 (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

With some additional content, I am proposing a slightly modified lede. I'd appreciate the thoughts of others on how best to word it to bring it into conformance with WP:LEDE. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The Catholic Church has been involved in the care of HIV/AIDS patients since the earliest days of the pandemic. As one of the largest providers of care on the planet, it treats those who are sick, helps to stop the transmission, offers pastoral care to those who are infected, and cares for orphans whose parents have died of the disease. Due in part to its focus on social justice, much of the church's work is focused on the developing world, though programs exist in the Global North as well.

Catholic theology of sexuality prohibits the use of artificial contraception, including condoms, which can be effective in helping to prevent transition of the HIV virus on an individual level. Instead, the Church argues for abstinence before marriage and being faithful to one's spouse as the preferred methods for halting the pandemic. This position has been criticized by some. The Vatican periodically hosts conferences on the issue for experts and pharmaceutical executives that have resulted in additional antiretroviral and diagnostic treatments getting to children in poverty.

You've not reflected anybody's earlier concerns so really what was the value of you suggesting your revised version of the lead? Other than to take out the bits you don't like - yet again. I'be banged my head on brick walls that have provided more give than you. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, Your edit summary was inaccurate. You offered a change on the talk page and people disagreed with you they didn't ignore you. No one obligated to reply to you after they have already said their piece.AlmostFrancis (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, I explicitly asked you, multiple times, for improvements to what I proposed. You declined to do so. You also never mentioned anything about the order of the paragraphs either time I proposed text. I am not a mind reader. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Both Contaldo80 and I explained that your lead was not an improvement and the old lead was fine. We are not obligated to work on what you proposed as I didn't think it was worthwhile place to begin.AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, First, if I said the sky was blue then Contaldo would disagree with me. Secondly, he didn't offer any constructive remarks until after I made the edit on main. All he offered was a question that goes beyond the scope of this article, or indeed of Wikipedia. Third, and most importantly, the old lead did not adequately summarize the expanded article per MOS:LEDE. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Honorifics

Slugger O'Toole, can you explain how your edit reverting my removal of cardinal is in line with MOS:HON ? AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)updated with pingAlmostFrancis (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, I don't consider Cardinal to be an honorific so much as a title. The honorific would be to say His Emenince Cardinal Joe Schmoe. In my edit summary I cited MOS:DOC which, admittedly, is not a perfect fit here. However, I think the goal is the same: it "may occasionally be used within an article where the person with the degree is not the subject, to clarify that person's qualifications with regard to some part of the article." To say Cardinal indicates that they are a high ranking cleric, and their comments should be filtered through that lens. As I alluded to in the summary, perhaps their role could be "better explained in descriptive wording," but I think this would make it unnecessarily wordier. So, instead of writing "Cardinal Joe Schmoe said thus and so," we would have "Joe Schmoe, the bishop of Big City, said thus and so," or "Joe Schmoe, the Secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Prohibition of Artificial Contraceptives, said thus and so." It saves a couple of words. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Exact quote from the clergy section "cardinals generally go by their full name (both first name and surname) alone, without the title 'Cardinal'". Your opinion is noted but against consensus.AlmostFrancis (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, WP:NCCL applies to titles of articles. I think WP:MOSBIO, andMOS:DOC specifically, is more applicable. I'm not going to edit war, and I am not willing to die on this hill. I don't feel that strongly about it. If you really oppose the use of cardinal then we can put their roles in running text. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with AlmostFrancis - I don't think cardinal is needed. Instead it seems like it is adding an unnecessary honorific to a individual Catholic clergyman when anyone can click through on the link to see if they think they are significant enough or not. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd just like to put on record here that both I and AlmostFrancis agreed that honorific titles and geographic diocese of Catholic prelates were not appropriate or needed in this context. I removed them but Slugger has gone against consensus and immediately restored them. I won't be reverting again. I just want to draw the attention to other editors and administrators to the editing style and behaviours of Slugger O'Toole. As ever I welcome thoughts. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, 1) AF is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. 2) I haven't seen him say that. 3) There is no consensus... yet. I hope we can work towards one. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I know AlmostFrancis can speak for himself. I wasn't speaking for him. I was pointing out that two editors have argued against the inclusion of titles such as "cardinal". I think you misunderstand - or deliberately misrepresent WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus isn't about getting you to agree to something (no matter how many editors are of the contrary opinion to yours) - and without your explicit agreement the material stays unchanged. That is veering towards WP:OWN and you were blocked from the Knights of Columbus for these sorts of behaviours. You're pretending to "work towards consensus" but instead the pattern is to stay as close as possible to your original form of words. I would like to draw this to the attention of administrators for their thoughts. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, In a discussion where there is a difference of opinion among a small group of editors that is less than 48 hours old, I am not sure how you can claim there is a consensus. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a majority against you. And yet you insist that your version stays in place. You've done this on countless Catholic related articles. This has been noted by a number of administrators. I won't make and changes to the text - I will leave as it is to show another instance of your less than desirable behaviours. Others please note. Contaldo80 (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, 1) There is no majority in either direction regarding whether or not we should note someone is a bishop. 2) Consensus isn't determined by majority vote anyway. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 11:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no winning against you either way. You want something that's "consensus". You don't want something that's "consensus". You pretend to collaborate and engage but you really don't because you are worried when the Roman Catholic church is perceived negatively and so your edits are designed to minimise that. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Were catholic run hospitals the first?

This article says that "Many public hospitals nationwide were in the forefront of responding to the epidemic". This seems to contradict the thrust of this article that catholic run hospitals were the first? http://essentialhospitals.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Early.pdf Contaldo80 (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I left this comments a few days ago and no-one has sought to engage. Probably because it contradicts the pro-catholic narrative that is being pushed on this and other articles. Contaldo80 (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, Public hospitals were among the first. Catholic hospitals were among the first. I don't see any contradiction. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Well they can't both be first can they? The article gives no indication that religiously run hospitals were in the vanguard. Why are you so determined to push a particular narrative regardless of what sources say? Contaldo80 (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Wasnt able to verify

Slugger O'Toole, can you please quote from the sources where this was verifiable "Experts in the field, including researchers, theologians, and health officials, discussed "people-centered approaches" to prevent HIV transmission, to treatment and care of those infected with it, and economic support to those in greatest need." I can't find anywhere were third party sources say that theologians are experts or that economic support was objectively part of a people-centered approach.

I agree with AlmostFrancis - what does the euphemistic "people-centred approach mean"? You can't use a condom but someone will sit and pray with you until the urge to have sex wears off? How can a theologian be an "expert" in HIV transmission. Gross violation of neutral language I feel. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, This source states "The event brought together experts on HIV to discuss “people-centred approaches” to the provision of HIV prevention, treatment and care services and economic support to people most in need." This source says: "Also heading to Vatican City over the weekend, theologians, health officials and researchers for a meeting about the treatment of HIV and AIDS." Your two concerns about primary sources and synth are well taken. As I consider the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS to be a reliable source, I have used it with care. I'd be interested to hear what you think would prevent its use. To address synth concerns, I propose we split it up into two sentences, to wit: "Experts in the field discussed 'people-centered approaches' to prevent HIV transmition, treatment and care of those infected with it, and economic support to those in greatest need.[1] Attendees included theologians, health officials and AIDS researchers.[2]" What do you think? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The UNAIDS source said "the event brought together experts on HIV to discuss “people-centred approaches” to the provision of HIV prevention, treatment and care services and economic support to people most in need". Are you saying that you merged thus with the statement from the PBS source which said "Also heading to Vatican City over the weekend, theologians, health officials and researchers for a meeting about the treatment of HIV and AIDS" to make the claim that "Experts in the field, including researchers, theologians, and health officials, discussed..."? Nowhere in the cited sources does it say that theologians are "experts in HIV". This seems to me to be synthesising material to support a bias that suggests Catholic prelates know what they are talking about in relation to the treatment and care of HIV/ AIDS. This is a view not supported by the evidence which rather implies that religious adherance to dogma and a rejection of condoms has led to poorer health outcomes for people with HIV and death. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, I have already addressed the synth concerns. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Why did you do this only when challenged? Why didn't you do this from the start? AlmostFrancis I would appreciate your thoughts on this? Contaldo80 (talk) 04:48, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, Perhaps I should have. However, now that the issue has been brought to light, I have taken steps to rectify it. Would you like to comment on the proposed new language so that we can move the ball forward, or are you more interested in pointing out my shortcomings? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Text showing bias?

Slugger you added material to say "The Christian tradition has been opposed to contraception for as far back as one can historically trace. Many early Catholic Church Fathers made statements condemning the use of contraception". One of the sources is a deadlink, another goes to a website called "byzantine.net" which just lists some random religious sources with no discussion, the Klimon source is a Catholic blog, another source is "The Rock" (deadlink), and the last is from Father Hardon's archives. You seem to want to push a view that the Catholic church has long forbidden contraception as a way to justify its policy on non use of condoms to prevent the transmission of HIV. But to do this you have selected a very tenuous set of sources. Are you trying to find sources to match your own personal view, or are you adding material after having read a set of reliable sources on the subject matter. It looks like the former to me. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, I copied that text from Catholic_theology_of_sexuality#Contraception. You'd have to find the original author if you want an explanation of the sources used. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Am I right in understanding that your argument is essentially that because you copied this dubious stuff directly from elsewhere into this article then you have no intention of checking its reliability or suitability for this article - even where I have expressed serious concerns? I would appreciate a view from other editors and administrators. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

No response - sounds like you are content to add content to article that comes from dubious sources and make no effort to address concerns. Contaldo80 (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, As noted previously, I didn't add that content to the project. The content, and the source, were added by Hazhk in August of 2013. Over the last seven years, the community has deemed that statement and that source are good enough to include. That was good enough for me. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Slugger O'Toole: I would rather not involve myself in this discussion. For what it's worth, I am not responsible for the wording of the text. I copied that portion from Christian views on birth control (which date backs further than my revision you have linked to) but apparently didn't clearly attribute this copying in my edit revision (I'll hold my hands up to that problem). I note that one of the citations is a dead link. --Hazhk (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hazhk, Fair enough. I just didn't want to be talking about you without letting you know. Thanks for the additional context. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for alerting me. --Hazhk (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the language was originally added in on February 11, 2006]. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It is still highly contentious. Can you stop trying to find ways to avoid having to amend material that you seem personally sympathetic to - for whatever reason - and try to agreeing a form of wording that can be more reliably supported by sources. I'm sure Catholics do believe that they've always opposed contraception. I'm not a Catholic and I don't trust statements such as this unless they are reliably sourced. On the contrary I am aware that Catholicism has tended to evolve on issues over a long period of time, often covering up its tracks to present a position as always resolved when in fact that was not the case. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, You apparently have missed the edits where I found an additional source for the material that satisfied both AF and myself. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, Please strike the above as it pertains to me. You source did not satisfy the original content as I had to change it. Also please call be either my username, francis, or almost.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, My apologies. I won't call you that again. At the time I wrote this comment, you had edited that citations on that sentence but didn't reword it until the next day. I had no way of knowing you would want to do so in the future. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Gay people

Who wrote this article? I don't think I can find a single reference to gay people in it. I find that extremely odd. There is lots of flowery self-congratulating material about various Catholic prelates though. Can we really say that this article is neutral and informative?Contaldo80 (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Deadlink

The source - "Fathers Know Best Contraception". EWTN. Retrieved 20 March 2009 - is dead. And makes a highly dubious claim. If no other source can be found to support this statement then it needs to come out. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Slugger I am tired of you restoring deadlinks - particularly when they support particularly contentious material. Instead you refer to guidance that refers to keeping deadlinks in place but without doing anything to shore up a shoddy and biased sources. The sentence I removed read "The Christian tradition has been opposed to contraception for as far back as one can historically trace". You provided one link to the Rock magazine and a website provided courtesy of "Eternal Word Television Network"! Do you really think this is sufficient for such a claim? I've already expressed serious concerns that you've used a whole set of dubious and non-neutral sources and you've made no attempt to address them. Yet you are determined to push a particular narrative - despite having not drawn upon reliable sources to do so. Pulling the cart before the horse. Administrators please note.Contaldo80 (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, 1) I've pointed you to WP:LR numerous times in recent weeks. There you will read "In general, do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. " 2) Thanks to the deadlink tag you (mis)placed on the text, there is now a live link to the source. 3) Yes, I believe an international media outlet that specializes in Catholicism is a reliable source when it comes to the history of Catholic teaching. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I challenged the source as insufficient Slugger the onus is on you to find something in addition to support this highly dubious claim. EWTW was founded by Mother Angelica - I don't think this can be relied upon to be the sole source for a claim that looks like WP:PEACOCK. Can you please stop relying so heavily on Catholic sources. Can you also try to stop sourcing your material with dead links - once is unfortunate, twice starts to seem like a pattern. Contaldo80 (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, It is you who is making a contentious edit. There has been a consensus for 14 years that that source is good enough to support hat statement. The onus is on you, not me, to change the consensus. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Slugger, it has been challenged now. The source you are offering is not RS. What source do you plan to use to add the information back. AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not required to be unbiased; Catholic Answers Magazine has editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. gnu57 04:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, Why isn't it a RS? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 11:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Its a self-admitted advocacy organization not a news or academic organization. As such it produces position paper and not news or historiography. It also is self admittedly dedicated to Catholic apologetics not accurate historiography. It is once again admittedly run by catholic ministers and not people experienced in news or historiography. It would only be RS for its own opinion and since it is not a source of expert opinion would be undue. Slugger O'Toole, I will remove it shortly and if you add it back I would ask you to explain why an article with the following content should ever be used to put content in Wikipedia's voice "How badly things have decayed may be seen by comparing the current state of non-Catholic churches, where most pastors counsel young couples to decide before they are married what form of contraception they will use" AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, I am not going to argue about this particular source as we've found a better one to use, but will remind you that WP:BIASED sources can be reliable. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Catholic News Servides in wiki's voice

Slugger O'Toole, I have made a real effort to treat you fairly, but after two day I come back and find you are creating whole paragraphs, in Wikipedia's voice, based off of source owned and operated by catholic bishops. You couldn't possibly of missed, while using CNS sources, that the about link points to a catholic bishop owned subsiderary. This is honestly the last bit of good faith I am willing to show. Either start using third party sources in a NPOV sense or we are going to arbcom. It is not worth the effort to clean up at this point.AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, I was truly unaware that CNS was owned by the bishops. According to CNS's website, they are "an editorially independent and a financially self-sustaining division of the [Bishop's Conference] Communications Department." They've also been around since 1920 and serve nearly every English language Catholic newspaper in the world. An editorially independent, established, widely-used agency seems to indicate that they would be a RS. Still, however, they are an arm of the bishops. It's a good question, and one I don't have a good answer to. I'll open up a query at WP:RSN. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Quotes for verification

Slugger O'Toole, what parts of the third party "gift" source are you using to verify the content "The Christian tradition has been opposed to contraception for as far back as one can historically trace.". Moreover I am not sure why we should care. This article is about HIV and the Church. While there view on condoms is primarily important as it pertains to the spread of HIV/AIDS, I don't see any reason we need a treatise on catholic teachings in this article.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, On page 226 you will find "But the Pope holds firm to the millennia-old tradition against birth control..." I fully agree that the church's teaching on condoms is not the most important part of this article, but you have continued to move it to the top based on it's number of citations. That said, I do think the fact that this is a long standing tradition is relevant to the discussion here. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Lefist AIDS theorists

AlmostFrancis, I'm not entirely certain what your objection is to using the word "lefist" in this edit. I'm also troubled by your threat of escalation. The source uses both "Leftist" and "Left-leaning." I would be OK with either one, or perhaps you would like to suggest alternative language? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Three days having gone by without a response, I am going to insert "left-leaning" back into the text in place of "leftist." I remain open to other suggestions. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Stigma paragraph

AlmostFrancis, I was a little clumsy in my multiple edits to create a new paragraph on reducing stigma, so please allow me to answer your question. In my first edit to move this sentence, I noted in the edit summary that it was about a different topic than the rest of the paragraph. The two sentences preceding it, and the three following it, all talk about getting more medications to children in the developing world. Your new sentence--which is good and should absolutely be included--was about working to reduce stigmas. It seemed awkwardly placed in the middle of a paragraph on a different topic. I first moved it to the end of that paragraph and then remembered there was already a sentence in that section about this very topic. I combined them into a new paragraph all by themselves. I thought it was self-explanatory and so didn't leave an edit summary. Does that make sense now? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, a few things about this edit. First, I didn't read her comment as criticism, so it wasn't a matter of moving criticism down. Secondly, in that spot it remains disjointed, with the content on either side of it about a completely different topic. Third, you deleted a new source with your edit. Please try to be more careful. I have reworked the section to address all of these issues as best I can. However, the main purpose of the meeting was about getting drugs to kids. Her comment about stigma was ancillary. Insisting that it remain way up top, above content about the primary purpose of the meetings, is both undue and not in line with your earlier comment about following "the main thrust" of the sources. I'm not willing to edit war over something so inconsequential, however. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

They are obviously criticism. As they are the only content with a direct tie to the sections content and that go against the bias of the source I believe they are an important part of the content. The sentence is already three sentences in to the content so is not overly prominent.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Bias

The pro-Catholic bias in this article is just beyond belief. The lead is a preening self-congratulating piece about Catholicism. And now we have removed the sentence "This position has been criticized by public health officials and AIDS activists who argue the Church's stance is unrealistic, ineffective, irresponsible and immoral" to "This position has been criticised by some". Shall the rest of us just give up editing - we seem to be superfluous. Why not just outsource the editing of the article to Propaganda Fide. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it's egregious. Slugger O'Toole needs another reminder that the purpose of content forks is not to create more exciting opportunities for POV-pushing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Roscelese, First, welcome back. Haven't seen you in a while. Second, this was no content fork of mine. This article existed for over a decade before I made my first edit to it. Finally, as always, I'd welcome your edits and additions. I think you've pointed out a couple places above where the article could use some expanding. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

1989 conference

Was it two weeks or three days long? Right now we have sources saying both. Cheers, gnu57 13:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Genericusername57, Nice catch. The news articles about the opening and closing the sessions are only a few days apart, so I think we should stick with three days. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Liturgy Training Publications Kasza source.

It looks like Liturgy Training Publications is operated by the Archdiocese of Chicago and has an admittedly spiritual and not academic or histiography mission. I don't think it should be used on an article where NPOV of the Catholic church is such an issue.AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Right. I'd like to add that on reflection, I agree with your removal of the "pastoral care" section. Unless we have some meaningful indication that the CC provides any kind of pastoral care specific to PWA, you're right that this is just "church does church things." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Roscelese, I've asked about it at RSN. Let's see what the community thinks. Regarding the removal of the Pastoral Care section, I thought you said in the RFC above that you thought it should be its own section. Have you changed your mind? Also, you might know what a church is and what a church does, but not everyone else will. Additionally, there are plenty of other churches that take a very different approach. I'm not sure you can paint with such a broad brush. Finally, I would suggest to you that doing things like hiring paid staff to coordinate AIDS ministries is a pretty meaningful indication.

@Slugger O'Toole: At that time, I had not yet realized that the "pastoral care" section contained no meaningful content, nor did I, I notice, even mention at the time that it should be retained anyway. Why don't you try to find out if any reliable sources discuss what this "pastoral care" might entail and how it differs from the "pastoral care" provided to people who do not have HIV/AIDS? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, Not sure what RSN has to do with anything. It is certainly reliable for the churches views of its own liturgy and could be quoted as such. Without third sources though it will never meat the burden of Due Weight.AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, Perhaps if you are going to caution me to let the RFC on the pastoral care section run its course (well taken, by the way), it might make sense for you to do the same before you go and delete it all, especially when there is content with sources not in question. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Does not establish due weight for the information. Should not be included without third party sources. buidhe 01:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Since there seems to be no support for this unreliable source, I've removed it again. Would anyone check that the statements which were cited to Kasza and also to something else are actually supported by the other source/s? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Pastoral care

I created a new section under the heading of "Pastoral care." AlmostFrancis moved it under "Medical care." After I expanded the section, I put it back in it's own section. AF again removed it saying "Catholic churches serve the public so no evidence for "pastoral" press release care maybe." I'm not entirely certain what that means. In any case, I think that content talking about medical facilities and content talking about why HIV-positive people shouldn't be discriminated against are different enough that they deserve their own sections. AF, could you explain further why you combined them? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed it as it did not seem to have anything to do with Pastoral Care. It seemed to fall under advertising to remove stigma. To be clear I don't mean advertising in a poor way as it seemed to be for a good cause.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, There's more in the section than just reducing the stigma. It seems to me to be pastoral care, but I would be open to other titles as well. Washing the feed of AIDS patients on Holy Thursday or saying those infected with HIV should be "embraced with unconditional love" certainly isn't medical care. What would you call it instead? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

PR? What do non-Catholic sources call it? AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, I am not aware of a source, Catholic or otherwise, that lumps these disparate events together. However. the pastoral care wiki article describes it as "a postmodern term for an ancient model of emotional, social and spiritual support that can be found in all cultures and traditions." The statements and activities described in this article seem to me to be emotional, social and spiritual support. Would you agree? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

No. It seems more likely that a bishop servicing 12 chosen people is performing PR. Its akin to the marvel actors showing up in character to hospitals. Pastoral care would be the services they receive from their everyday priest. AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, As you well know, there is more in this section than just a single foot washing. Also, whether a ritualistic foot washing or an actor visiting kids in a hospital, there are benefits that accrue to both the person performing (e.g enhanced reputation) and the person receiving (e.g. brighten their day) the act. To the person who gets their foot washed or the kid who meets his (super)hero, it matter little if the actor gets a PR boost as long as they are deriving support from the action. I'm going to issue a RfC to see if we can get some additional perspectives. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Is that unconditional love for gay people or are there conditions. I noticed that in the source they mentioned it was all people who contracted the disease due to drug use, yet you did not add that to the content. Did you not think it was notable that Francis specifically sought out people who were straight?AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, I didn't read anything about the addicts' orientation so, no, I didn't add anything about it. I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that he specifically sought out straight AIDS patients. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Note to administrators - as long as no-one acts to rein in the cherry-picking and inherent pro-Catholic bias of Slugger O'Toole on a range of articles then many other editors simply won't bother contributing to editing articles, as there seems to be little point. An absolute mockery to the integrity of wikipedia. Maybe its best days are behind it.Contaldo80 (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should the medical care and pastoral care content be seperated?

Should the content discussing the medical care the Catholic Church provides to AIDS patients be in a separate section than the content about the statements and actions church officials have taken to otherwise support them? If so, what should this section be called? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Additional details can be [above] in the section entitled "Pastoral Care." I contend that actions of moral support and actions of medical support are different enough that they should be separated. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, information on the medical care available to patients should be distinct than the ideological reasons behind the care. Dimadick (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, two distinct areas within the overall topic. --John B123 (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Not seeing what point this RFC is making. It is so overly broad as to have no meaning on this article. Statements about support are all over the article. AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, I specifically did not use the phrase "pastoral care" in the RFC so as to avoid biasing anyone. Perhaps it could have been worded better. However, if they read the section above, I think it is pretty clear what the RFC is about. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, Also, if you would like me to rescind this RFC so that we can issue a new one with mutually agreeable language, I'd be more than glad to. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• The wording of the RFC begs the question egregiously. Yes, medical care is only one part of the church's response to HIV/AIDS, like support of PWA, opposition/hostility to PWA, sex education, etc. and it is reasonable for it to be a section. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• As Legobot has now removed the RfC ID, and as it has been a few weeks since anyone has commented, I think we can say that this RfC has run its course. Most editors seem to agree that it is appropriate to separate the two sections. As the phrase "pastoral care" has seemed to cause some heartburn, however, I am instead going to create a new section entitled "Ministry to people with HIV/AIDS." If anyone has a better suggestion I am all ears. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Social vs moral

In a series of edits, AlmostFrancis and I have disagreed over a word in the following sentence: "In 1989, the United States Bishops Conference, in an attempt to move the discourse around AIDS from a medical view to a [social/moral] one..." AlmostFrancis prefers moral, but I think social more closely follows the source. The relevant line from the source is as follows, and it uses "social:" "Focusing on the social dimensions of AIDS allowed this bishops to remove the disease from the medical context in which most public health experts and many mainstream gay and AIDS activists understood it." Could you explain why you think moral is more appropriate, Franics? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Fancruft

I've started addressing the WP:FANCRUFT problem in this article by removing a few of the citations to Kasza's book from "Liturgy Training Publications" and other promotional organs of the RCC. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Roscelese, This is the first time I have encountered FANCRUST. However, I dispute it's application to much, if not all, of what you have done here. According to that essay, fancruft is content "of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question." However, much of what had a source to Kasca was also sourced to other RS. Additionally, to delete a line that says the church provides pastoral care to those with AIDS, which is demonstrably true and supported by many other citations, is hardly a minor detail important to only a small population of people. The same is true of other content you cut. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

If it's important, you should be able to find a reliable source for it. I would say that even if we limited it to only reliable sources, the article is chock-full of fancruft (a blow-by-blow of every church publication and bishop's statement, while the statements of experts are waved off as "oh, some public health officials think that condoms might help"? this does not reflect how reliable sources treat this issue), so removing crap sources can only help us on this path to making the article usable and policy-compliant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Roscelese, Whether or not Kasza is a reliable source is a different issue. I happen to think it is perfectly acceptable to use a Catholic source for information about Catholic practice. If you disagree, we can take it to RSN. Additionally, if the article is missing something, the proper response it to add it, not to cut other stuff out. As you will note above, when I thought that the section on the Catholic teaching on condoms had undue weight (75%+), my response was to add the missing material, not to cut out stuff I didn't like. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think the article needs to contain pointless fancruft to "balance" the real coverage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Organizational structure needs work

Not everything is about the photo ops of popes - for instance, The Social Impact of AIDS (which is in our bibliography, but I don't think we cite it?) notes that the church in NY intervened to oppose AIDS education for young people and would not provide AIDS prevention information in its hospitals, as unaffiliated hospitals did. This isn't exactly tied to a specific pope. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

sectioning order

Slugger O'Toole are you arguing that the section on Condoms is not the most built out and does not contain the greatest depth of third-party sources? IF third party sources consider it the most important concept why are you moving it down?AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, I'm not arguing that at all. I'm saying I don't think it is the most important information. I think caring for more than 25% of the world's AIDS patients is more important and more useful to readers than a theological discussion about the propriety of condoms. I tried to find some policy guidance on how to order sections but couldn't. If you know of any, I would love to read it. Until then, I think it comes down to an editorial judgement.

My recent addition of new content was inspired by you moving this section up. It occurred to me when you did how limited this article was. One might even be able to make the argument that so much content on condoms compared to everything else is UNDUE. My preferred solution to that problem, however, is to fill in the underrepresented areas. I think there's probably a lot more that could be said about the conference. Do you want to work on filling that section out with me? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Please can we stick to one subject at a time. You agree that the section on Condoms, which I will also consolidate some of the anti-gay content into, is objectively the one with the most third party in depth sourcing. Do you have any reason other than your own opinion for why we should not use the amount of third party interest to decide the sectioning of the article.AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, Just because that's the amount of content currently in the article doesn't necessarily mean that's the content with the most sourcing. As has been seen, there was a lot of material missing from this article. It also doesn't mean it has to go first. Like I said, I can't find any policy guidance to say one way or the other. Can you? Absent that, I think it is an editorial judgement on which reasonable people can disagree. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, and what objective criteria will you be basing you editorial judgement on? I have explained my reasoning can you please explain you criteria.AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, It is a subjective judgement, not an objective one. We can objectively say that this flower has more petals than that one, but that does not mean it is more beautiful. Likewise, we can look at which section has more citations, but that does not mean it is more important. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I share the concerns of AlmostFrancis. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

A month ago, before the recent expansion, this article was made up of 17k of readable prose. The section on condoms made up 13k, or more than 76%. I think we can all agree that was undue weight given to that topic. As of right now, the article has 29k of readable prose, of which the section on condoms has 11k, or nearly 40%. I still think that percentage is probably too high but the content is all relevant and I hesitate to cut any of it. The better solution is to expand the rest of the article and I would appreciate some help in that regard. I remain of the opinion that this article should be re-oredered such that the section on care for AIDS patients should come before a deep dive into the history and theology behind the Church's teaching on prophylactics. The section on condoms contains far more minutia than is relevant to the average reader. I didn't, and don't, want to edit war over this. However, as seen from the discussion above there has never been a consensus on the proper order of sections. With that in mind, and per WP:NOCONSENSUS, I am going to restore the section order to the last stable version. If any other editors object we can seek additional opinions. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems you are trying to stonewall. I have given my reasons for the section order and you have given yours, mine is objective and your is subjective. Now there is nothing wrong with a subjective reason but it sees to be only you that so far has shared it. As above it is two on one and in the absence or other editors two is greater that one so should be the one we stay with.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, Yes, yours is objective, but that doesn't make it the best option. We could objectively say this section has more Qs than that section, but that doesn't mean it should come first. I'll open up another RFC. In the meantime, since there is no consensus for how we should proceed, you should consider self-reverting. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, BRD is good advice. It's also why I think you should self-revert. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't necessarily oppose this renaming of sections but, given that there is an active discussion on DRN, I'm not sure now is the best time to make it. Perhaps that process should run it's course first. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, Due to your comment above, which I believe unfairly limits forward movement on this artilce, I have declined to join your DRN. I believe that will be the end of the process so you should probably articulate any complaints you have on the content changed.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, That is disappointing. I'm sorry to hear that. As I said, I don't oppose Roscelese's restructuring. I think it is an improvement and thank her for suggesting it. I also didn't revert her, or tell her not to do it. I simply believe it would be more helpful if all the restructuring conversation happened in a single place, i.e. in DRN. For the sake of the article, I'd encourage you to reconsider. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggested sources

It sounds like one of the general themes behind the disputes on this page is over sources, so I'm going to suggest a few.

• Carey, Timothy James (2018-09-15). Muslim and Catholic Responses to HIV and AIDS in Kenya. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-4985-7829-5.
  • Why? Because one of the easiest ways to understand "X and HIV/AIDS" is to compare it with "Y and HIV/AIDS". Also, it's about Kenya, which is an important country for HIV/AIDS work. Secular, academic publisher.
• Reimer-Barry, Emily (2015-04-09). Catholic Theology of Marriage in the Era of HIV and AIDS: Marriage for Life. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-0-7391-9629-8.
  • About HIV+ US married women. The US tends to think that HIV is a problem of gay men. The publisher is secular and focuses on scholarly and similar expert works of relatively little popular interest, so you may have to use interlibrary loan to get a copy. As is typical for sociological works, this is likely to be informative if you sit down and read the whole thing, cover to cover. You will miss the value in it if you just do a quick search to see whether you can find some POV-matching factoid in it.
• Jacquineau, Azetsop (2016-09-15). HIV & AIDS In Africa: Christian Reflection, Public Health, Social Transformation. Orbis Books. ISBN 978-1-60833-671-5.
  • Scholarly work, with each chapter written by a different professor or other expert. Authors come from multiple secular and religious universities and organizations on at least three continents, from a Catholic publisher. Contains some information about non-Catholic Christian churches and Muslim groups involved in HIV support.
• Burchardt, Dr Marian; Dijk, Dr Rijk van; Rasing, Ms Thera; Dilger, Professor Hansjörg (2014-09-28). Religion and AIDS Treatment in Africa: Saving Souls, Prolonging Lives. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 978-1-4724-2841-7.
  • Secular publisher. Most chapters are written by scholars from secular universities. Includes a chapter on a Zionist Christian Church that might be useful for compare/contrast purposes. Note particularly p. 247, which lists some recent scholars who have written about the Catholic church's response to HIV that investigates further than their anti-contraception stance (so it leads you to more sources), and p. 99, which says that in Zambia, men's refusal to use condoms apparently had nothing to do with Catholic teachings.

I hope that anyone who really wants to see this article improved will make an effort to obtain at least one of these books. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Orbis books isn't just a catholic publisher but unabashedly religious and Marxist. Is their a specific chapter you think is written by a notable scholar.AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I mostly ask this because the two chapters Slugger just added are both written by Catholic Priests.AlmostFrancis (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, I tried to get all four books but, given the current pandemic, was unable to through my usual channels. I was not about to spend €100 to purchase any of them. HIV & AIDS In Africa was the only one I was able to obtain, and only in the Kindle version. I began reading the book and added content that I thought was relevant. Much of it was theological in nature or not specific to the Catholic Church, and so I didn't include it. However, as is my stated practice, I will bring this book to RSN and not add anything further until gaining clarity there. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing to stop Catholic priests being notable scholars, and there's certainly nothing to stop Catholic priests being sources for theological opinions about double effect. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course there is nothing stopping a Catholic priest from being a notable scholar, they are published all the time in academic publishing houses. That they can be a notable scholar does not mean that these specific priests are notable scholars. Friar Egan seems to be of no note as a scholar. He lectures at a college but works for the Jesuits instate of South Africa as his full time job. Friar Mkenda as far as I can tell is an administrator and not a scholar. Some sources called him a "freelance researcher" for what it is worth.AlmostFrancis (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Slugger, Are you messing about?

Slugger O'Toole, are you being serious when you add an actual diocese published source to the article? At this point I can't tell. To be clear a catholic diocese is not a reliable publisher of facts. Do you get that? The tagline was literally "serving Christ" so I find it unlikely you did not realize you were adding a diocese newsletter.AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, What aspect of WP:RS would you say it fails? Certainly they are WP:BIASED, but biased sources can be reliable. For bishops to repeat what has essentially been the party line for several decades is hardly an extraordinary statement, and a diocesan newspaper seems like an entirely reasonable place to find such a statement. I must confess that I am not very familiar with this particular source, though, so if you have any evidence that shows they are not reliable I would be very open to reading it. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

"a catholic diocese is not a reliable publisher of facts." The Catholic Church does not have a history of honest reporting or fact checking. I guess we could go through all of the church scandals but what would be the point. They are a church not a journalist publisher. There is not even the fig leaf of independence that CNS has as this is the actual Diocese newsletter and not even claiming to be independent.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, I think this is exactly why we have a guideline about WP:BIASED sources, but I've asked for other's input at WP:RSN. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

If you are still concerned about using an affiliated publication, then it appears that the statement in question is also available at https://zenit.org/articles/african-bishops-tough-love-statement-on-aids/ by the independent, non-self-published (but still "biased") Zenit News Agency. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell they just reproduced the Bishops statement verbatim with no reporting at all. As such it should be treated as the underlying speech itself and a form of churnalism. As for biased they admit they are "staffed by a team of professionals and volunteers who are convinced that the extraordinary wisdom of the Pontiff and the Catholic Church can nourish hope, and assist all of humanity to find truth, justice and beauty." This article is bylined by "staff" so could be professional or amateur. I can't find the staff on the website and their doesn't seem to be any corrections or COI statements that would show reliability. If you have a link to the EIC that would be great or why you believe this is a reliable cite. The publisher is probably Father Andre Lasana but that was pretty hard to track down as they didn't make it obvious.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

RFC: What is the proper order of sections?

In what order should the sections of this article appear? Should the section about the Catholic teaching on condoms appear first, or should the section on the care provided to AIDS patients come first? Prior discussion can be found above. Relisting to get further discussion. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC) Original RfC --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that neither of those sections should come first. Maybe start with the Vatican conferences? The opposition specifically to using condoms feels like yesterday's news in a world of Truvada. Also, presumably their opposition is specific to potentially fertile heterosexual couples? Condoms don't have a "contraceptive" effect when nobody involved is capable of getting pregnant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, If the Vatican conferences come first, what would you propose to be second? Third? Etc. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• This RfC has now run for more than a month. It didn't get much attention, so I will relist it and hopefully we can get some further participation. In the meantime, however, per WP:NOCONSENSUS I am going to restore the last stable order of sections. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• A little background on the history of this article seems to be in order. The section on medical care has been above the content discussing condoms since February 2013. On May 6, 2020, AlmostFrancis switched their order. I objected and, after adding some new content, reverted. AlmostFrancis then reverted back to his preferred version with the condoms on top and I opened up this RfC. As seen above, it generated little discussion and no clear consensus. So, AlmostFrancis is correct when he says that there is no consensus to have medical care on top (aside from the seven year silent consensus). However, there is also no consensus to have condoms on top. There is WP:NOCONSENSUS at all. With that, we retain "the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Prior to AlmostFrancis' bold edit, medical care came above condoms. That's what I restored at the end of this RfC. AlmostFrancis has reverted that, however. Could you explain why, AlmostFrancis, and why you think NOCONSENSUS doesn't apply here? If it would help move the ball along, I would be willing to put the section of Vatican AIDS Conferences on top, per the suggestion of WhatamIdoing.--Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I have already explained my thinking to you, as you well know, in a section you just archived. Another editor agreed with me and you argument amounted to stonewalling and that you just liked it one way over another. Archiving a section and then pretending it didn't exist is not collaborative behavior.AlmostFrancis (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, As I said multiple times on my talk page, if you want to bring back an archived talk section, please do so. That said, all your past explanations show why you think one should be above the other. They don't address the issue of what to do when there is WP:NOCONSENSUS, which is what we have now. Would you care to address that? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I have answered you multiple times. That you have chosen to hide my answers directly before asking your question again is you business.AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis Since you have refused to do it yourself, and since you have refused to identify the archived talk section you want restored, I have moved the entirety of the archive back onto this page. Now, you were bold. You were reverted. Discussion produced no consensus for your edit. Why should we keep it? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

And now people can view the "sectioning order" section and see that I have exhaustively answered your questions on where I think consensus lays and how and why the article should be sectioned the way it is. You of course were part of that discussion and knew what section involved this content so your unarchiving of everything including sections from a decade ago is nothing but disruptive behavior AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

No one is questioning why you think condoms should go on top. That point you have made plainly clear, though I disagree. As I look at it, I see four editors espousing three preferences. You and Contaldo think condoms should go on top (though if you said the sky was red and I said it was blue, Contaldo would agree with you to oppose me). I think medical care should go on top. WhatamIdoing thinks the conferences should go on top. Where in there are you finding a consensus? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

If you are going to insult someone you should at least ping them. The rest had has been asked before and answered before. AlmostFrancis (talk) 06:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, We don't seem to be making any progress here, so I have requested some outside help at WP:DRN. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole, For those who might be taking Slugger at his word I think there are a couple points he has elided in his background recap. First while the section titled condom use was technically below the care section since 2013, the actual content on condoms and artificial contraceptions was primary for the majority of that time and above Healthcare in both the lead and the body. As this diff shows the first sentence of the lead until January of this year was "The Catholic Church's position on HIV/AIDS prevention has attracted controversy due to its opposition to condom use" and the first section of the content was background on the churches views on artifical contraception such as condoms. In January Slugger killed the background section, rewrote the lead, and moved the healthcare section to primary. He did this without using even a single edit summary so it is no wonder it slipped by page watcher. Since Slugger is aware the he is the one who moved the sections around in January without an edit summary, I am confused why he is claiming that Healthcare before contraceptions has a silent consensus since 2013.AlmostFrancis (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'd like to note that I missed the earlier suggestion to start with the conferences, and I oppose that suggestion because "compromising" by putting an insignificant and trivial section first seems like a dumb idea. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• I would put the section on medical care for AIDS patients at the top. The condom controversy impacts the spread of HIV/AIDS but isn't directly related to it. Catholics have been preaching chastity before condoms or AIDS. But its medical care for AIDS patients is very directly related to the pandemic.VR _talk 12:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

And the catholic church and it various charites have been running hospitals since before the AIDS pandemic. Their care for AIDS patients is no more dirctly related to the pandemic than their treatment of condoms or LGBTQ issues. I would like to understand how the spread of a disease is not directly related to a pandemic.AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The order of sections has become an issue again. For those keeping score at home, we have several options, to wit: medical care on top (myself, Vice regent, GizzyCatBella), condoms on top (AlmostFrancis and Contaldo80), and Vatican conferences on top (WhatamIdoing). A prior attempt at Dispute Resolution failed when a majority of editors invited to participate declined to do so. I think we should try that again but am hesitant to post again at DRN without a commitment from several others (especially those pinged here) that they will participate. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I can commit to participating at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard for this particular matter.VR _talk 14:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Slugger O'Toole - I'll participate, I genuinely believe that opening lines are out of order mainly due to the article's title. Did you fellows considered renaming/splitting the article to "Catholic Church and usage of condoms" for example? As it is written now, it focuses on that issue the most anyway (yes, including the opening sentence), which caught my attention immediately after I came across this article.- GizzyCatBella🍁 14:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Major cuts

Roscelese, before you start making huge, sweeping cuts to this, I urge you to please come to talk to discuss them first. While I happen to agree with you that "morally sustainable" is not an appropriate way to phrase it, that text has been in the article since its first week of existance, in May 2009. As such I believe it desrves greater consideration that simply deleting it as "francrut," what ever that means. Perhaps it could be better phrased, but you are not even trying. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The article is incredibly POV and removing a small handful of blatantly unusable sources is a small step towards bringing it in line with policy. I do not believe that anyone is obliged to find a way of rewording a claim made in Wikipedia's voice about the morality of condom use or abstinence; it's fine to just remove things that violate policy. Do you have any meaningful objections? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Roscelese, I don't know of an obligation either, but that doesn't mean it is a best practice. From WP:NPOVFAQ:

While the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time. Obvious exceptions are articles about living people or clear vandalism, but generally there is no need for text to meet the highest standards of neutrality today if there's a reasonable chance of getting there. ... Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted. It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased."

I didn't add this text, and I haven't looked at depth at it. However, at first glace, it appears that L'espresso is a RS. I'd encourage you to use a little more care and discretion. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't remove L'Espresso, and I reiterate that there is no need to "reword" the claim in Wikipedia's voice that abstinence is moral. Especially if we're already working on dealing with a huge WEIGHT problem, we can just remove things that aren't appropriate for an encyclopedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Roscelese, I have already stated multiple times that I agree with you that there is a weight problem. It existed before you or I started editing the article. By making huge cuts of text, without even attempting to fix them, you are making it worse. You've identified several places above where the article could be expanded, which would help with the weight problem. What do you say we work together on creating a section on sex education? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

We can do both of those things: expand the things that reliable sources find important, while removing unencyclopedic claims and insignificant information. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Roscelese, The article still lacks a section on sex education. Would you like to work together to create one? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not believe you should be spending more time editing this topic area and I will not encourage you to continue your tendentious editing here. I can put it on my to-do list. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Big cut

AlmostFrancis, you made a sweeping cut here, but only referenced a single sentence in your edit summary. Could you please explain each of the cuts for us so that we can discus them? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

If that was a sweeping cut then you made a gargantuan addition without even a single sentence of an edit summary. So I explained myself infinitely more than you did. Are there parts of the change you think are wrong? It did not look like an improvement to me and had non encyclopedic writing and content. AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, Fair point. I am pretty bad about using edit summaries. It's something I need to work on. However, I made those additions in small increments over several days. You undid many of them in one fell swoop. I, obviously, thought all of the content was worth including. It's difficult for me discuss them if I don't have any idea what your objections are. Again, would you mind going through them and explaining your thought process? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

As is said I didn't see them as an editorial improvement and it will also be difficult for me to discuss without knowing why you thought they were positive additions. Making many small edits does not make any difference if you don't use edit summaries. Perhaps you should now explain your reasoning for making them on this talk page?AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, Everything I added was sourced to RS and relevant to the topic. Some edits didn't even add new content. This one, for example, simply rearranged content. The original paragraph had two sentences about the Vatican AIDS conference. It then had two sentences about a trip JPII took to East Africa. In then concluded with another statement about the conference. I separated out the content about the Africa trip and made two paragraphs, each about a single topic. You reverted. How is it an improvement to have a single paragraph jump back and forth between events? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I missed removing the part from the convener. Doesn't seem important enough for this higher level article but could be an addition on an article about the conference.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

And for those following along who might not be checking up on Sluggers claims. The edits I undid were done over a single hour on a single day, not multiple days. Also at least one of Sluggers small changes was 1412 while mine was 1771. Hardly a significant difference in size.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, In one edit, you made sweeping changes throughout the article. I did mine one section at a time. It's a matter of scope as well as size. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

But you agree that the edits I changed were made over a single hour and not the multiple days as you claimed and that your small increments weren't much smaller than my sweeping change.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, Yes. I was wrong about the timeline. My mistake. Please accept my apology. I maintain that by making both content, formatting, and flow changes across the entire article that your edit was much greater in scope than any of mine, however. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I have attempted to identify every change AlmostFrancis made with this sweeping edit so that we can discuss them individually.

1. I combined all the activities of bishops of the United States into one section. You separated them out so that the activities of the American bishops collectively are in one section, and the activities of particular states or activities of a single bishop are lumped into another section with the activities of the French bishops. It seems to me that the bishops of California or Chicago have more in common with the United States Conference of Catholic bishops than they do with the Bishops' Conference of France.
2. You deleted this sentence, which served as a thesis statement for the section but was cited independently anyway: "A number of pastoral documents from both the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and from individual bishops have highlighted the responsibility the church has to to care for those with AIDS." Also, in doing so, you removed the only wikilink to the Conference.
3. You deleted this sentence: "In the document they said the church must provide pastoral care to those infected with HIV as well as medical care."
4. You deleted the bolded phrase: It called discrimination against people with AIDS "unjust and immoral" and said the church had a special obligation to "stand in solidarity with and reach out with compassion and understanding" to those with AIDS. Rejecting one thing and actively doing something else are different enough to be mentioned independently.
5. You deleted this sentence, with served as a thesis sentence for the section but was cited independently anyway: "Catholic organizations responded to the call of the bishops by creating new programs for those with HIV and for their families." Without it, the section stands a collection of disjointed facts.
6. You deleted this sentence: "The annual National Catholic HIV/AIDS Ministry Conference began in 1987 and ran at least through 2006."
7. You deleted this sentence: "The Catholic Health Association of the United States has published guidance for Catholic healthcare institutions to help them develop policies based on the principle of justice to care for those with AIDS and to prevent its spread."
8. You removed the citation from this sentence: "Ethicist Lisa Sowle Cahill has said that the "primary cause of the spread of this horrendous disease is poverty."
9. Also, with this edit, you removed the following sentence: "Archbishop Fiorenzo Angelini, the convention's convener, said "victims are our brothers and we should not sit in judgement of them."" Your edit summary stated "No (sic) that important of a person saying nothing of interest." I don't find the argument to be convincing. He clearly had a large role to play in the convention as convener. Please note that this sentence stood for over a month, during which time you have been very active. I think that is enough to have demonstatred consensus and am reverting. To your point above, as far as I know there is not an article existing about this convention. Should you wish to collaborate on one, however, I would be glad to work with you.

Would you kindly explain your rational for each? Thank you. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC) PS - This summary largely does not include instances of where text was retained but moved to another section or position within the same section. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Most of it seemed life cruft to me. There was a "document" or there was a "conference". Unless the was some notable effect it seemed editorially unimportant. I am unsurprised you reverted more positive statements by clerics into the article. AlmostFrancis (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, I, obviously, disagree with the idea that it was "cruft." However, even putting the addition of new content aside for a moment, you didn't address several of your other reversions, to wit: 1) Why not keep all the activities of American bishops together? 8) Why remove the citation? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Pope Francis and stigma

AlmostFrancis has twice removed a line from the article about a trip Pope Francis took to a church run home for people with AIDS. I have found a longer version of what is apparently the same AP story. The source states "Francis visited a church-run home for people infected with HIV, sending a strong message of acceptance in Panama, where AIDS carries a stigma." I would like to use it to support the following sentence: "The visit was intended encourage acceptance of people with AIDS and to reduce the stigma of the disease." Does anyone have any objections? --

Too be honest, pope visits sick kids is more of a dog bites man story and probably doesn't belong in this article for due weight reasons. It is not even the main thrust of your article, which is about stabilizing the country. Also your source said nothing about intentions anyway. I say remove it whole cloth as a not important enough.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis, Who says dog bites man doesn't belong here? Also, it does not have to be the main thrust of the article. Both sources do speak to intentions, to wit: "as the church wants." If that's still not enough for you, another source is even more explicit: "He has also sought to break the stigma that haunts HIV sufferers in many parts of the world — Panama included." If it is important enough to mention that he made the trip to the home, it is important enough to mention why. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with you. Its a non story as it pertains to the overriding topic. This article shouldn't be a blow by blow of every time a pope visits sick kids. Should be add every possible time a pope said condoms were bad or that homosexuality is a sin. This article would be forever long.AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Cuts to ministry section; problems with Gravend-Tirole

I've cut some of the pointless fancruft and repetition in the Ministry section. In doing so, I also had a chance to look at the Gravend-Tirole source that a lot of the section is cited to, and I'm very disturbed that this lengthy discussion of the role of the RCC in the AIDS crisis is primarily being used to add popes' photo-ops to the article. Ditto, for instance, the NYTimes article on the high controversy surrounding JP2's visit to San Francisco, which is only being used to add quote fluff. I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but Slugger, you've shown over and over again that you are profoundly incapable of editing this article in an NPOV-compliant way and I suggest that you step away. Perhaps you can suggest edits via the talk page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Slugger O'Toole: You've now (I say "now," I haven't checked to what degree this is persistent behavior) escalated to making multiple reverts per day in order to insert your POV into the article. You appear to be ramping up your disruptive editing to a point that cannot be addressed by normal mainspace and talkpage interaction, and this seems like as good a time as any to let you know that if your disruption continues, it will probably be time for the users who have been trying very hard to rein it in to start preparing a filing for Arbcom. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Roscelese, I am trying to voluntarily abide by 1RR. As far as I know, this was the only reversion I made today. If you point out another, I will self revert. It will have been inadvertent. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I think you'd have a hard time arguing that this restoration of a removed section, for instance, was inadvertent. If it was, what are you claiming you meant to do instead? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Roscelese, I didn't think there was an objection to the section. You removed the section heading when you eliminated all references to an unreliable source. After doing so, there were only two sentences left. Both of them remained in the article but I agreed that with such little content that it didn't seem viable as a stand alone section. Your edit summary did not mention anything about objecting to a section on this topic.

I only used already existing content and sources that had previously been deemed acceptable to flesh out the new section. I didn't expect an objection to it for that reason. However, since you do, I'll self revert and we can work out the language here on talk. The language is as follows:

The Church teaches that illness is part of the human condition and explicitly rejects the notion that AIDS may be a manifestation of God's displeasure or punishment. There were some church authorities who considered HIV/ADIS a possible retribution for sin, but John Paul II rejected prejudice against those infected with it. His embrace of a four year old boy with the disease, for example, was seen as a repudiation of the notion that AIDS is a form divine punishment for sinners."

While insisting that there was a personal responsibility to avoid risky behavior, the American bishops rejected the concept that there may be "innocent" or "guilty" victims of the virus. The church also teaches that sickness is not directly related to personal sin, even when personally destructive behavior leads to personal suffering. In these instances the Church draws a distinction between the person, who is to be loved and cared for, and the behavior, which should be corrected. Anyone with the disease, whether acquired through a tainted blood transfusion, hetero- or homosexual sex, drug use, or otherwise, should be afforded the same care and compassion.

--Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "but I thought it was a good idea!" doesn't magically make a revert not a revert anymore. You restored a section that had been removed, and you moreover did so while several different users (myself and AlmostFrancis at the least) were working on removing your tendentious additions of more and more and more fancruft. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Roscelese, I apologize for the misunderstanding. Now that we have cleared it up, do you have any edits you would like to make to the text above? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion is to not add back fancruft junk after it was removed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Slugger I see you tried to sneak another reorg by with a nondescriptive summary "per talk". Never change. I switch it back tonight. FYI "yesterdays news" it literally what we do here. AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Why was this content removed? Unless I'm missing something, it seems like a notable point of discussion.VR _talk 13:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Synth and POV. It's possible that a line could be included in another section, and I believe it still is, but it's not appropriate to synthesize a section about it where we say the same thing five different ways (while excluding the sources that disagree because they'd be "off topic"). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with not saying the same thing 5 different ways and this text can be worded differently. But saying it once should be ok. And dissenting viewpoints should also be included.VR _talk 13:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent, Would you like to suggest some alternative language? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Sure, which is why it's fine if it's mentioned in another section, if reliable sources discuss it in this way. But it seems you agree with the removal of a section about it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

How about this as proposed text: "The church rejects the notion that AIDS is divine punishment, and advocates compassion for all patients regardless of how they acquired HIV. The Church draws a distinction between the person, who is to be loved and cared for, and the behavior, which should be corrected." It can be put in this section: Catholic_Church_and_HIV/AIDS#Ministry_to_people_with_HIV/AIDS without making a new section. Slugger O'Toole since you put the original text, can you confirm that this proposal is a true representation of the RS say?VR _talk 13:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

In light of contradictory statements from the church, it's probably best if we refer to the specific source. We can also do better at not putting controversial statements in Wikipedia's voice. I agree that the choice of section is fine. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, how about this: "The Catholic church rejects the notion that AIDS is divine punishment, and advocates compassion for all patients regardless of how they acquired HIV. According to Raymond Smith, the Catholic belief system advocates both caring for the person while also trying to correct the person's behavior." I verified the source. Both sentences are attributed to either the Catholic church or Raymond Smith.VR _talk 08:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I was starting to draft out a suggestion that built on yours but that attributed the first statement, too, since other sources contradict it, but...I kind of them had a lightbulb moment about how it doesn't really make sense to do that. Some bishops and Catholic entities have, obviously, said that AIDS is the fault of the sinners for sinning. Can we sum up this disagreement in some way? Some bishops have said/done X, others have said/done Y? What do you think? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Where are the views that are contrary to the one you presented? Can you give some links?VR _talk 22:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer we add "according to doctrine" or "officially" to the first sentence since it would be almost impossible to make it universal otherwise. You can also drop the "all" but that is purely editorial :).AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I might support that if we had a statement from eg. the catechism, that we could support with "According to the Catechism..." (or a bull, etc.) Right now, it seems like we have press-conference-y type statements from both sides. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

References

AIDS conferences

I've removed some of the promotional nonsense from the section on AIDS conference. I think the slightly longer-term view would be to collapse these into a single section, if that; Wikipedia is not for news, and the blow-by-blow of each conference appears to be fundamentally the same: everyone thinks they're going to say that condoms are okay now, they say that condoms are still bad, they pledge the full support of the Church to PWA, but it's also kind of the patients' fault. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Prevention education - notes

From Social Impact p. 292pp in chapter "The HIV/AIDS Epidemic in New York City":

• 1986 proposal to provide condoms in public senior high schools - coalition of religious groups led by Archd. of Bklyn and NY persuaded school board to reject. RCC officials opposed similar proposal in late 1990, saying that to provide condoms would be to say that the principle of opposition to extramarital sex could not be "taught by our schools nor accepted by our students". This proposal was specifically framed around HIV and other disease prevention, not pregnancy
• NYS Public Health Council voted to exempt Catholic care homes and hospitals from the requirement that HIV/AIDS patients receive prevention information, condoms/contraceptives, and abortion services. AIDS activists opposed public funding of hospitals that would not provide AIDS prevention info. Church stated that providing this info violated its "institutional conscience" and that the info could be obtained elsewhere
• Archdiocese would not lease unused religious school classrooms to the B of E for use for special education classes in AIDS prevention, unless board waived its sex ed curriculum which included information on contraception

Various social science journals have articles on what is and isn't being done to teach HIV/AIDS prevention in the developing world - just starting with notes on sources that are already here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Roscelese, I think you will find that two of these bullets are already in the article. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

This is for the purpose of potentially spinning out a section on HIV prevention education. I see that currently the info about the NY archdioceses' activism is buried, for some reason, in "Criticism from outside the church", which is obviously inappropriate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Restore

Restored version before POV-motivated removals. The suggestion that we create a POV fork in order to conceal the fact that the Church's opposition to AIDS prevention is a major focus of the scholarly and news coverage of its relationship to AIDS is a non-starter. Sorry to anyone whose legitimate edits got rolled back. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Roscelese, I agree that the removals went too far and was starting to restore some when you rolled everything back. However, rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater, I think the better solution would be to make targeted fixes. I'd encourage you to do so. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Seriously guys, is this article about usage of condoms and Church or Church and HIV/AIDS? Why are you starting the article with condoms and usage of condoms? - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: Because that's what the sources consider important with regard to this issue. @Slugger O'Toole: Nah, I saw a series of destructive edits and I rolled them back. Now it would be appropriate for GCB to try to get consensus for them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

What reliable sources say that the article about the Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS must begin with the first opening line about the condoms[3], and then the word condoms must to repeated 53 times here Roscelese? I got the issue of the importance of condoms in fighting HIV, and if that is this article about, then renaming the title is the way to go. Alternatively, you can create a new piece titled "Catholic Church and the use of condoms" and link it here. Now... you wrote, "I saw a series of destructive edit" - this is according to your opinion, and it would be helpful if you could refrain yourself from attacking fellow editors. Word "destruction" might be understood as "vandalism"; you have been here long enough, so you should understand that.

You also wrote, "it is time to get a consensus" so here is your chance to accomplish that, but you can't achieve that by rolling back edits of others involved and answering "Nah".GizzyCatBella🍁 19:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Roscelese, But, as you say, there were edits in there that were not destructive. Your revert returned some sentences that were just grammatically incorrect, like this, for example. All I am asking for is a little more care. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to restore these sorts of grammar edits. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Roscelese, If it was an honest mistake, I would have no problem doing so. However, 1) I don't want to get caught up in an edit war. 2) You acknowledged that "legitimate edits" were going to be reverted. You knew you were using a hammer when you should have used a scalpel. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• • That is, in fact, exactly how the bold, revert, discuss cycle works. You must gain consensus for the changes you wish to implement, not slash whatever text you personally dislike and then demand that people justify keeping it. You can observe that the RCC's opposition to AIDS prevention is a key part of the coverage of their relationship to AIDS by taking a quick look into both scholarly and news coverage of their relationship to AIDS. Some such sources were in the article, but you removed them because, as you stated, you believe that it should be covered in a separate article. If you are interested in participating in good faith, you could propose the individual edits you wish to make on the talk page, and make your arguments for why they should be implemented. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Roscelese I got that. My biggest issue is an introductory sentence when we dive right into the topic of condoms, "The Church opposes the use of condoms.."[4] In the first paragraph, on the article about Church and HIV/AIDS....(wait for it........) come condoms. The other secondary issue is the repetition of the Church's opposition to the usage of condoms. Like how many times it has been stressed out and repeated over and over? Even though the Church opposes any artificial fertility control, including the pills etc. GizzyCatBella🍁 20:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The pill doesn't do anything to prevent HIV/AIDS, so sources correctly focus only on the things that are relevant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

It is relevant very much so Roscelese, in the context that the Church is not preoccupied with condoms only but opposes all artificial fertility control.GizzyCatBella🍁 21:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not an article about your personal views. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Please stop debating about me and my alleged personal views. You don't know me. Come on Roscelese; I'm surprised I have to point out to you these elementary things. I believe I don't have to link the policies here; you should know them by now. So, please explain how the article that supposes to be about the Catholic Church and HIV turned to be about the use of condoms right from the start. From an opening line, from the initial section and opposition to the use of condoms must be stated there 53 times? I'll remind you again that the tile of the article is Catholic Church and AIDS/HIV, not the Catholic Church and condoms.GizzyCatBella🍁 23:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Just for the reference, this is how an original author that started the article intended the piece to look like.[5] It’s about Church and HIV, not condoms. If they desired to write about condoms, they would title the article accordingly. Don't you think? Then somebody came along (I'm not telling who it was) and turned this article into "condoms". That's fine; I'm not opposed to writing about it but quit calling this article "Church and HIV", change the title to "condoms" and write about as much as you wish.GizzyCatBella🍁 23:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I beg pardon? What you're showing me is an "original intent for the article" that is almost entirely about the RCC's opposition to AIDS prevention, instead of treating it as a very significant part of the larger topic of their relationship to AIDS - which is what the sources do, and on Wikipedia, we follow reliable sources, rather than going with users' personal views that it's somehow unreasonable for reliable sources to talk about the Church's opposition to things that prevent HIV since they also oppose things that do not prevent HIV. Nevertheless, this was eleven years ago and we are not stuck with the article creator's intent; that's very, very fundamentally not how Wikipedia works. Do you intend to seek consensus for your proposed changes or not? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Roscelese You haven't adequately addressed my concerns, I hope you recognize this. Now, on top of everything, you are throwing in a problematic question. Of course, I'm seeking to achieve a consensus, do you? I believe you do, so; please discuss my concerns (refer to my previous comments, please). Start with - why the article about Church and HIV/should begin with the opening line about opposition to the use of condoms, please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no issue answering your question. Per the balance of the sources in the article, yes, the catholic churches ongoing and obsinate opposition to the use of condoms in the face of the AIDS epidemic should be in the first sentence. Too be honest the only thing really missing it this article is how the catholic churches teaching on homosexuality has affected the AIDS epidemic.AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The Catholic Church's (capital letters) opposition to the use of condoms is extensively covered in the article already. The article title is "Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS" only for this simple reason, the opening sentence should not be about condoms because there are a magnitude of other areas Church is involved in the problem of the Aids epidemic. Want to write about condoms only and stress the mistake Church makes opposing the usage of them, then create a dedicated article about it. Plain and simple.GizzyCatBella🍁 06:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

The lead follows the body. Now that we have cleared up that the body extensively covers the subject I am not sure why you are trying to remove if from the lead. Even if there was an article about the generic idea of the catholic churches opposition to the use of condoms, that does not mean that we would remove content from this article. The vatican's treatment of condoms is integral both in the sources and out article, which is as it should be.AlmostFrancis (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems that you are not paying enough attention AlmostFrancis... This is the link to the lead which you reverted [6] with the edit summary Undoing pov push (by the way, cease accusing fellow editors of the POV pushing also please). Right in the fourth sentence of that lead, (you reverted) there was a line "The Church opposes the use of condoms even though they are effective in preventing transmission of HIV." So your argument dismisses itself because the lead followed the body, and on top of that, you are claiming that I was trying to remove that from the lead, which is false. Here is the link to the area where I incorporated the very sentence about the Church's opposition into the lead myself [7] You arrived here and before joining this discussion, you placed condoms back again right at the opening sentence, as if this article was about condoms and the Church. You also reverted several other helpful edits at the same time, such as these[8],[9] I would like to hear convincing arguments why an article about the Church and HIV/AIDS need to begin with the line about condoms and why it can not be located in the fourth sentence of that lead. I'll remind you again that the title of the article is Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS and not Catholic Church and the acceptance of condoms.GizzyCatBella🍁 07:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I have given you my reasons. That you do not find them convincing is your business. That condoms are overrepresented in this article is your POV and you moving the content down is a POV push. It has been discussed on this page and at DRN so should not be changed without consensus. I agree that one of your edits was helpful but the other was not necessarily a positive. The problem with making such drastic changes to an article is that some edits might be caught in the crossfire.AlmostFrancis (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Roscelese and agree that GizzyCatBella's edits were not an improvement and had more to do with their personal beliefs than the balance of sources.AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, as to not be accused of casting aspersions Gizzy has acknowledged being a practicing Christian.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Roscelese and Slugger O'Toole I think we may need a broader audience to join this discussion. Do you think posting this issue on the related board to seek a third opinion is a way to go? I think it is, you guys? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@AlmostFrancis - I appreciate you agreeing with Roscelese but cease casting aspersions; you don't know me. Being a Christian does not influence my edits, and I would be equally opposed to turning this article[10] into the subject that focuses entirely on condoms. Okay? Thank you.GizzyCatBella🍁 04:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree on the influence of peoples professed faith. However pointing out a Christian is Christian is not an aspersion.AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@AlmostFrancis - Please do not assume what my edits are motivated by anymore. Okay? Would you accuse Roscelese of the same because she declared herself a female, gay and Jewish [11] I don't think so; it would be very inappropriate. So, once again, halt this kind of behaviour. Thank you. PS @Roscelese I hope you don't mind bringing you into this part of the argument, just to let you know, I recognize and respect you. If you don't want me to use you as an example here, please let me know, I'll cross out this part about you.-GizzyCatBella🍁 05:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

As I said we wil have to agree to disagree.AlmostFrancis (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

NO, there is no agree to disagree here. Do I understand you correctly? Are you insisting on having a free ticket to accusing other editors of what was discussed above and you will continue doing that? Please clarify.GizzyCatBella🍁 07:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, Third opinions are meant for when there are disagreements between two users. I'd suggest WP:DRN instead. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@AlmostFrancis: I don't think GCB's being a Christian is relevant here. The relevant thing is that their argument for removing the coverage of condoms is that they personally feel it doesn't merit discussion, given that the church also opposes birth control. However, reliable sources clearly feel differently. @GizzyCatBella: while there's no reason not to bring in other users (although I would suggest not canvassing users who have just been topic-banned from the subject of Christianity), I'm at a loss as to what other answer you need to your question of why an article on the church and AIDS should mention its well-documented and frequently discussed opposition to AIDS prevention efforts. Reliable sources discuss this. You know this, because you have gone to efforts to remove those reliable sources from the article. The rest is all your personal feelings. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Either way it probably did not belong on the talk page and has to my regret become a distraction.AlmostFrancis (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

AlmostFrancis Please do not assume/suggest what other users edits are motivated by and use this as an argument ever again.GizzyCatBella🍁 15:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

You will probably find the edditing environment more conducive to enjoyment when you realize you can not command other editors to do as you wish.AlmostFrancis (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Roscelese - You do it again...Please re-read my comments above this conversation. Where did I say that the coverage of condoms doesn't merit discussion? Where did I say that the article on church and AIDS shouldn't mention its well-documented and frequently discussed opposition to AIDS prevention efforts? Also, re-read this comment [12] (you claim is canvassing) - where did I ask that user to join this discussion? This comment was contrary to canvassing. So if you're at a loss of what answers I need, please re-read my comments and answer them, but don't put words in my mouth I never said, please. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

You asked a user, with a related topic ban that you fought tooth and nail to stop, to not only edit the article but to do so carfully as to not break their topic ban. You are fully aware that this user will in all likelyhood share your POV. I could not think of a better example of Canvassing if I tried.AlmostFrancis (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@AlmostFrancis - You STOP interpreting what I said in that comment; it was NOT what I wrote and what I indicated (reread it if you need to[13]). And most importantly - You STOP assuming what motives are behind other users edits. If you do it AGAIN, this will be dealt with somewhere else. Do you understand? - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

People can intrepret that diff however they like. I did not question your motives but commented on your actions.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Lede proposals

1

Here is my recommendation for the compacted lede section, it covers roughly all aspects of the article (yes, condoms as well) !vote please below.

"The Catholic Church has been involved in the care of HIV/AIDS patients since the pandemic's earliest days. Much of the Church's work is focused on the developing countries, though programs exist throughout the World. Catholic Church received significant criticism for it's continuous opposition to the usage of condoms, despite their effectiveness in preventing the spread of HIV. The Vatican periodically hosts conferences on HIV/AIDS care for experts and pharmaceutical executives."

• Support (as proposer) - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Yeah, that does not follow the body or the sources in the article. It doesn't follow any of the advice for leads in either its size or composition. Also it is almost completely the Catholic POV.AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Neutral comment. My only thought is that this is, as Francis says, indeed rather one-sided. It is not wrong per se (assuming the sources bear out), but I feel this should be balanced by the 'other POV' per, well, NPOV. Frankly, I don't know much about it but my first thought here is that the Church is responsible for spreading of HIV/AIDS due to their long-standing objection to the use of condoms... PS. This article needs a better lead summary. It currently opens with "The Church opposes the use of condoms, although they are effective in preventing transmission of HIV." which is just as bad, just fromt he other POV. We should start neutral, and introduce both POVs in the second and further sequences. But I am not sure how to say what effectively seems to be that "The Church is responsible both for spreading AIDS due to their opposition to condoms, and for helping the sick through their charity works". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Good suggestion, thank you Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• It's a start, but as written, no. I don't think the conferences are important enough to mention in the lede, obviously "it's" should be "its", and I'm not sure our article currently supports the unqualified statement "involved since the pandemic's earliest days," etc. (it is factually true but omits the fact that this happens to be because the church runs a lot of hospitals; non-Catholic hospitals were also "involved since the pandemic's earliest days"). I approve of the removal of the apologia cruft, and I think that the retention of these two parts of the medical-care factor (in the US where their opposition to AIDS prevention and homosexuality hit the ground running and set the stage for half a century of similar criticism, and in developing countries) is fair. Piotrus and AlmostFrancis, I'm not sure what "other POV" you think needs to be added to balance it out; a statement that the church is responsible for the spread of AIDS due to its opposition to AIDS prevention seems like, uh, overkill, the reader can infer whatever they want to infer from the factual statements about the church's opposition to condoms, sex ed, whatever. Is the issue that this version doesn't specify that the criticism comes from public health officials and AIDS activists? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree about the catholic church not being involved in the spread of AIDS. Not sure where that came from, but there is a world of difference ethically from hindering efforts to stop the spread and actually spreading a disease. My issue was the devaluing of the issue of condoms and sex education. The first two sentences are mostly meaningless. Everyone who owned a hospital was involved from the beginning and what "work" are we even talking about and in which time frame. Also it is too short.  :)AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Hm, what do you feel is devaluing about the proposed "Catholic Church received significant criticism for it's continuous opposition to the usage of condoms, despite their effectiveness in preventing the spread of HIV."? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Its placement below the content about care and work. Also I really do think that where the criticism is coming from is important.AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose baloney. The Church killed millions with its rejection of science. All real medical writing on this is unanimous, and fluffing this up misleads Wikipedia readers with Church miracles and magical psedudo-science. --Horace Snow (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

2

• Modified proposal. This is not the first time this issue has been raised, as you can see above, and I've previously expressed the same concerns as Piotrus. I'd like to propose the following lede:

The Catholic Church has been involved in the HIV/AIDS pandemic since its earliest days. As one of the largest providers of care on the planet, it treats those who are sick, helps to stop the transmission, offers pastoral care to those who are infected, and cares for orphans whose parents have died of the disease. Due in part to its focus on social justice, much of the church's work is focused on the developing world, though programs exist in the Global North as well.

Catholic theology of sexuality prohibits the use of artificial contraception, including condoms, which can be effective in helping to prevent transition of the HIV virus on an individual level. Instead, the Church argues for abstinence before marriage and being faithful to one's spouse as the preferred methods for halting the pandemic. This position has been criticized by some. The Vatican periodically hosts conferences on the issue for experts and pharmaceutical executives that have resulted in additional antiretroviral and diagnostic treatments getting to children in poverty. The church's role in the pandemic has been complicated by its sometimes difficult relationship with the LGBT community.

I think this better encapsulates the entire article, which the current lede does not adequately do. If you oppose it, I would appreciate a substantive comment on how to improve it, particularly the Wikipedia:Lead sentence, and not just a "no." --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Perhaps replace all commas and periods with the word condom, then this will work for sure? You know, like "The Catholic Church has been involved in the HIV/AIDS pandemic since its earliest days condom As one of the largest providers of care on the planet condom it treats those who are sick condom helps to stop the transmission condom.." and so on? But now seriously, yes, I think your version is even better. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per NPOV. We don't need a glowing review of how the church treats sick people. The RS on the matter are focused on how the church's oppression of contraceptives and sex education contributed and continue to contribute to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. We go by RS, not by what editors that seem to have a pro church POV have to say on the matter. Also, Slugger, you cannot dictate how people "should" respond to your proposals. The closer that take whatever responses they want into consideration when closing an RFC. Valeince (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

How on earth is this a glowing review of Church? Come on! Then please propose something that, in your opinion, is not as such, but please don't make it look like this: "The condoms and condoms including condoms plus the Catholic Church and condoms have been involved in the HIV/AIDS pandemic condoms since its earliest days of condoms....." For f.sakes, this article is about Church and HIV, not condoms. Maybe just change the title of this article folks, this is ridiculous, seriously. :) or include a looooooooooong sentence in the lede about the mistake Church makes not allowing to use condoms but don't start with the first sentence to be about condoms and don't turn this article to be about Church and condoms if the title is going to remain as it is now. :). Sorry Slugger O'Toole (talk I'm out of here.- GizzyCatBella🍁 18:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Please; if you're not going to make coherent arguments and just lay out an unfiltered stream of consciousness about why you don't personally like the article then why are you even here? You've put so much more effort into building Wiki then I have and I can't believe that this is how you contribute to a consensus building exercise. The pro church POV I am referring to is the complete opening paragraph about the paragons of the church helping the sick. Example "Largest providers of care on the planet" and "Due in part to its focus on social justice, much of the church's work is focused on th.." blah blah blah. Don't you know we write articles based on what RS say about the subject and not what you want them to say? Valeince (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Look Valeince, the article always started like this[14] until on May 7, 2020 AlmostFransic made the change[15] and moved the usage of condoms into the lede's opening sentence. So my point is (and only point) If the fact of a mistake Church is making is stressed out throughout the article, including the opening sentence, then this article effectively becomes about something else and is only connected to Church and HIV. I'm saying this repeatedly, and all I hear from you are accusations of my pro-Church POV. No, I think the Church makes a terrible mistake with its Ortodhox stance on the usage of condoms, but what is this article about? Condoms or Church and HIV? - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose modified proposal This is a ridiculously one sided lede. The ideas that the catholic churches "social justice", assuming you don't count the homophobia and sexism, is more important than their views on condoms is absurd. I will give a more detailed breakdown of its deficiencies ifit looks like it is catching on but for now I don't think it is worth the effort.AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Proposing the addition of more spam to the lede at a time when multiple users are trying to remove spam from the article is simply disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

No wondering Vice regent declined to participate in this argument any further.[16] Look Roscelese, first; you accused me of what I understood vandalism, or as you nicely worded it "a series of destructed edits",[17] (you never clarified what you meant by this or apologized for) now you're accusing Slugger of posting spam into this article and disruption as well. I don't aspire to be Slugger's advocate here, but don't you think you're going waaaay too far with your repeated accusations Roscelese? I see that all additions Slugger proposed are backed by the RS, right in the body of the article. I'm not sure if you realize this Roscelese, but your comments are not only hurtful but also drive other editors away. I was about to quit my involvement just for that very reason. I'm not sure Slugger O'Toole if you are okay with this kind of accusation, but I wouldn't be. Also Roscelese, it is not us who wish to implement the new changes. It was AlmostFrancis, who introduced these changes[18] on May 7, 2020 and AlmostFrancis is now backed by you. So, it is you guys who should try to establish consensus for these changes, not the other way around, as you claimed here.[19] I could continue presenting more wrongdoings, but I will rest here, awaiting your response. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

As I have explained before it was Slugger who changed the long standing order of the article, doing so without an edit summary so that it could not be easily seen. When the change was caught it was changed back. If you purposely don't use an edit summary while making large changes to the article you can not be surprised that editors miss the changes for a while.AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay AlmostFrancis, I didn't know that. I'm shifting my judgment about this part of the argument then. Thank you. Let me review the complete history of this article; I'll get back with my conclusions. Perhaps the article name adjustment is the best solution here.GizzyCatBella🍁 05:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment Hey guys, this is an excellent guide[20] I was just given. It says there, "The title indicates what the article is about..." and "..the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject".... What is the subject of this article as of today? Mind the opening line.GizzyCatBella🍁 22:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

If you are just looking for a more generalized and inclusive first sentence to add to the beginning of the lead I am sure an reasonable one can be created. "Due to the prohibition of condoms, involvement in the health care industries of both developed and developing countries, and its religious influence in many countries, the churches conduct has had a (insert agreed upon word) influence on the treatment and spread of the AIDS pandemic". Or something along those lines. At which point it would go on to the condoms section.AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support 2 but with the following modification: change the first sentence by adding "but this involvement has been controversial. One one hand...". And start the second paragraph with the "On the other hand...". This article is obviously torn between two POVs, likely rightly so, and the lead should reflect this. Otherwise we can have people argue which POV to cover first, and frankly, there is no good answer here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Second alternative proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Change the title of the article from Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS to Condoms, HIV and the Catholic Church.

• Support (as proposer) - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

then the opening line as it is now: "The Church opposes the use of condoms, although they are effective in preventing transmission of HIV" is very okay. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:POINTy,and not to be taken seriously. I responded to this at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot but I’m serious about renaming the article; it was not a joke or "an action to make a point”. Seriously, I believe the article should be renamed. I mentioned that several times before. (see my previous comments) Maybe the title choice sounds comical, but I didn't do it on purpose. If the proposed new title sounds terrible, then please feel free to make alterations.GizzyCatBella🍁 20:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Closed, I might take a different path later per this advice [21] - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)