Talk:Catholics for Choice

Deletion of the UN resolution

How would it be harmful to include the UN resolution? Here we are talking a campaign to downgrade the Holy See's status. Adding the information that the status was upgraded is clearly relevant. It is clearly connected to the subject matter. We are not making any unwarranted conclusion, such as "this happened because of the campaign". The only possible objection is that we are including information from a source that does not directly mention the campaign, but this is hair-splitting in a bizarre scale.

Let me quote Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not:

SYNTH is not a rigid rule

Wikipedia doesn't have them, supposedly. But if a policy gets enforced zealously, it can be hard to tell the difference. The solution is not to enforce policies zealously. Never use a policy in such a way that the net effect will be to stop people from improving an article.

And more:

SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition

SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. Given just about any two juxtaposed statements, one can imagine that something might be insinuated by the juxtaposition. Don't. If the juxtaposition really does constitute SYNTH, the insinuation will be obvious to everyone. Gray-area cases aren't SYNTH, just unclear writing.

And even more!

SYNTH is not obvious II

If something is obvious to anyone who reads and understands the sources that are supposed to support it, then it's not SYNTH. An example of a perfectly valid citation is given in the guideline on citations, at WP:Bundling: "The sun is pretty big, but the moon is not so big.[1]" The bundled citation uses one source for the size of the sun, and another for the size of the moon. Neither says that the sun is bigger than the moon, but the article is making that comparison. Given the two sources, the conclusion is obvious. So a typical reader can use the sources to check the accuracy of the comparison.

And a bit more:

SYNTH is not presumed

If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. You don't have to put the whole explanation in the edit summary, but if someone asks on the talk page, you should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH. You prove it isn't." The burden of proof is light: just explaining what new assertion is made will do, and then it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable. But in any disagreement, the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception.

-- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is about Catholics for Choice, not about the Vatican's Permanent Observer status. If the source doesn't draw the conclusion that the vote was a direct result of CFC's campaign, it is not appropriate to include in this article. You might want to copy it over to Vatican City, though.

Also, the WP:BURDEN lies with the editor adding the material. We don't have to prove it's synth - you have to prove it's relevant.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Already did that here. Cloonmore (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me quote again:

SYNTH is not presumed

If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. You don't have to put the whole explanation in the edit summary, but if someone asks on the talk page, you should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH. You prove it isn't." The burden of proof is light: just explaining what new assertion is made will do, and then it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable. But in any disagreement, the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception.

I am not making any claim not directly supported by the sources. How can it be synth? I am not saying that the UN resolution was a result of the campaign. I am just including that paragraph as a relevant fact. And it is relevant because it informs the reader of what happened with the UN's status, which was the point of the campaign.

The burden is on you to explain what new thesis is being introduced here, and why it is not supported by the sources. And remember,

SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. Given just about any two juxtaposed statements, one can imagine that something might be insinuated by the juxtaposition. Don't. If the juxtaposition really does constitute SYNTH, the insinuation will be obvious to everyone. Gray-area cases aren't SYNTH, just unclear writing.

-- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 16:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

"Catholic" in Lead

Added "self-described". Reverted. The organization is called "non-Catholic" by the competent ecclesiastical authorities in the jurisdictions within which the organization operates, as described in the three references to the declarations of those authorities in paragraph 2 of the lead. Just because members are Catholic, doesn't mean the organization is - is an ecumenical Bible study Catholic because it includes Catholics? Is NARAL Catholic because it includes Catholics? Are sedevacantists Catholic? Or Anglo-Catholics? Are Orthodox Christians Catholic (disregarding their official name, "Orthodox Catholic Church"), as they describe themselves as Catholic, and hold the same views as Catholics, for the most part?

As far as I understand it, barring an establishment of religion (in which case the decision would be how to weight the Church's definition with the Government's) those ecclesiastical authorities in the proper jurisdiction determine what does and does not rightfully use the name "Catholic", or to what groups and organizations "Catholic" is properly applied as a descriptor, given that the term Catholic (disregarding its ancient and deprecated meaning of "universal") is exclusively a religious term. I'd like some discussion/feedback on this matter. Thank you. JohnChrysostom (talk) 06:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, except that I wasn't aware that its ancient meaning was also deprecated. Elizium23 (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Generally people use the term "universalist" or "universal" today: I've never heard "Catholic" used outside of Catholicism and Orthodoxy (and some Anglicanism), and in the creeds recited by all Christians, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox (Apostle's and Nicene-Constantinopolitan): I've never seen a non-religious use of the word in English (I don't speak modern Greek, so I'm unaware of whether "kath oles" still is used in the sense of "Universal" in that language). JohnChrysostom (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Sondheim's song "I Never Do Anything Twice" sung by the courtesan in the movie "The Seven Percent Solution" provides an example:

And then there was the Abbot

Who worshipped at my feet

And dressed me in a wimple and in veils.

He made a proposition

(Which I found rather sweet)

And handed me a hammer and some nails.

In time we lay contented,

And he began again

By fingering the beads around our waists.

I whispered to him then,

"We'll have to say Amen,"

For I had developed more catholic tastes.

- Nunh-huh 12:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That half-counts, as it's a pun and poetry. JohnChrysostom (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Quick summary of past discussions on the matter:

• Talk:Catholics_for_Choice/Archive_1#Membership. The topic is about Catholicism.
• Talk:Catholics_for_Choice/Archive_1#POV again. Statements by Catholic hierarchy are relevant and should be summarized in the article, but they should not remove the Catholic identity of CFC.
• Talk:Catholics_for_Choice/Archive_1#"catholic" organizations. Wikipedia is beyond the fray, does not follow orthodoxy boundaries set by other groups. CFC sees itself as part of the Catholic debate, and identifies as Catholic.
• Talk:Catholics_for_Choice/Archive_2#not_a_Catholic_organization. Wikipedia greatly respects self-identification. And CFC is widely recognized as a Catholic organization, by reliable sources.
• Talk:Catholics for Choice/Archive 2#Big C -- small c. Wikipedia generally honors self-identification.
• Talk:Catholics for Choice/Archive 2#The lead paragraph. CFC does not need approval from USCCB to call itself Catholic and to be considered Catholic. Scholars freely describe pro-change groups in the church (such as the CFC) as "Catholic-based groups" and "Catholic groups". Binksternet (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• I see there is consensus and that this follows the contemporary practice of the community, to which wisdom I bow. JohnChrysostom (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Reversal

Would Roscelese explain her reversal (which, along with her edit summary, might perhaps seem to indicate "a battleground mentality") from

Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska, decreed automatic interdict, with effect from April 15, 1996, against Catholics in his diocese who held membership in any of 12 organizations, including CFC, stating that such membership "is always perilous to the Catholic Faith and most often is totally incompatible with the Catholic Faith". Against those who remained members for more than a month he decreed automatic excommunication.

to

Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska, issued an interdict in March 1996 forbidding Catholics within his diocese from membership in 12 organizations including CFC. Bruskewitz stated that membership in any of these 12 groups "is always perilous to the Catholic Faith and most often is totally incompatible with the Catholic Faith." Members of the diocese were given one month from the date of the interdict to remove themselves from participation in the named organizations or face automatic excommunication.

Perhaps the explanation lies in a misunderstanding of a canonical "interdict" as a decree issued rather than (as the article Interdict indicates) an ecclesiastical censure incurred or inflicted. The 19 March 1996 decree imposed an interdict on those who "attain or retain membership in any of the above listed organizations or groups after April 15, 1996", and in addition imposed excommunication, a more severe censure, for "contumacious persistence in such membership for one month following the interdict" (not "one month following the decree of 19 March 1996").

The text of the 19 March 1996 decree is given here. Esoglou (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I tried to remove your addition for reasons of undue weight but I was beat to the punch by Roscelese. My beef with your addition is about a part that you chose not to describe above:

In accordance with canon law, those under interdict or excommunication of any kind are forbidden to receive the sacraments, including the Eucharist,[ Vatican Code of Canon Law, canons 1331-1332] but a priest may not refuse Communion publicly to those under merely automatic censure, even if he knows that they have incurred this kind of censure;[Edward McNamara, "Denying Communion to Someone"]...

This addition uses sources that do not mention CFFC (later CFC) and so they constitute original research or synthesis, deprecated at WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. I thought the addition gave undue weight to Bruskewitz. Binksternet (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Esoglou, your months-long topic ban from abortion articles came about largely because of your persistent insertion of original research with the intention of pushing a POV. It's disappointing to me to see that the ban doesn't seem to have taught you anything. Please read the relevant policies so you can behave correctly in future. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

That is another matter, which I may discuss later (or may instead let pass). One question at a time is enough. That raised here is the accuracy of the account given of Bruskewitz's decree. Does Roscelese's account of it suffer perhaps (if not from something like original research or synthesis) from just plain simple inaccuracy? Esoglou (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The other matter is the one both I and Roscelese responded to. You are guilty of misdirection when you couch her reversion as being against the slight rewording of the 2–3 sentences about Bruskewitz and his decree or interdict. No, she reverted, and I would have myself, because of your addition of the unrelated bits regarding canon law and the conditions of giving sacrament—unrelated because they do not discuss CFFC. None of that stuff should have been added. Roscelese was right in calling it original research. It could also be called synthesis and undue weight. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

My only question is: Should we, or at least may we, de-revert what is said about Bruskewitz's decree, while leaving the rest as you and Roscelese like it? May we do that? Esoglou (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not, if you do not use the word decree to describe Bruskewitz's announcement. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Before acting, I would like to have the OK of Roscelese, who actually did the reverting, as well as that of Binksternet. Esoglou (talk) 06:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That seems fine. It's unnecessary to introduce the Catholicculture source though as it's an exact copy of the EWTN source; both sources are poor (reliable secondary sources reporting on the event would be better) so the least we can do is not put in more of them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I thank Roscelese and Binksternet for permitting me to make the correction. Since Binksternet rules out the word "decree", I must fall back on a word that I would not have preferred but that the two guardians cannot forbid, since it is the word used in the cited source. That word is "legislation".

I am not now pressing the question of their denial of the legitimacy and appropriateness of indicating, with reliable sources, the canonical effects (for anyone) of the ecclesiastical censures mentioned. Esoglou (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

That is your opinion of EWTN. It seems that others have said different. And I'll repeat that assertion: EWTN is a third-party source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and visible editorial oversight. Elizium23 (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether EWTN's reporting is reliable, the cited EWTN page is a copy of Bruskewitz's statement, ie. a press release. Like I said: reliable secondary sources would be better. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that what all other news sources do? Publish press releases? Perhaps with a little bit of editing, perhaps verbatim, but that's how organizations get word out to the public. Elizium23 (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, read the fine print on Wikipedia policy, and press releases are considered self-published. Nevermind what I said. Elizium23 (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The "ban" of latae sententiae excommunication

It was to be expected that ‎Binksternet would remove the indication of what ban follows excommunication. That is sad. Esoglou (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Your Easter egg piped link turned the word "ban" into something that is not expected by the reader. Also, "latae sententiae" does not appear in reliable sources about CFFC—it's your own addition. Is it true? Yes. Is it needed in this article? No. Binksternet (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Your own apparent inability to distinguish the latae sententiae excommunication enacted by Bruskewitz from a ferendae sententiae one shows that the article would benefit from an indication of the distinct effects of the two kinds. You are mistaken in thinking "latae sententiae" is not mentioned in the sources. For those who do not understand the technical term "latae sententiae", the phrase "ipso facto" is added. Esoglou (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

May I now restore the link? Esoglou (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

No. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Why? (Apart from your personal dislike of what the mention of latae sententiae/automatic/ipso facto both in the article and in the cited source means.) Esoglou (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Reading comprehension is key: "Your Easter egg piped link turned the word "ban" into something that is not expected by the reader. Also, 'latae sententiae' does not appear in reliable sources about CFFC—it's your own addition." There ya go. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Surely what the reader would expect from a wikilink to the word "ban" would be information on what the ban involved. What else do you think the reader would expect?
2. As you surely can read and comprehend, a source cited in the article states explicitly: "Contumacious persistence in such membership for one month following the interdict on part of any such Catholics will by that very fact (ipso facto latae sententiae) cause them to be excommunicated". Esoglou (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

That quote is from Bruskewitz's announcement, not from secondary sources. I still don't think the reader is served by putting a surprise link behind the word "ban". Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Since it is the only thing that the reader would expect, it is no surprise.

What Bruskewitz decreed/legislated was that form of excommunication, an "automatic" one, to use the term that the article employs. (Bruskewitz's decree is proof enough that the excommunication was of this form, but if you insist on secondary sources also as proof that it was the automatic form, they can be provided in plenty.) The article should surely indicate what an "automatic" or "latae sententiae" excommunication means. Esoglou (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I know you're not convincing me, and it appears that I'm not convincing you. The article as it stands now, without your wished-for change, is good enough. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

If (in your personal judgement) the article as it stands is "good enough", that does not mean it cannot and should not be improved. The permission of someone who is not the owner of the article is not required. Being unable to indicate anything else a reader could possibly expect, your claim that the link would surprise is unsubstantiated. Unable to deny the sourced fact that the excommunication is an "automatic" one, you fail to give any reason for excluding the practical meaning of this fact. Esoglou (talk) 08:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that since "automatic" is already linked to what you want in the beginning of the paragraph, and the previous sentence already says "he legislated automatic excommunication" that common sense by the reader would infer that latae sententiae also applies to the excommunications, regardless of whether 'ban' is linked or not. This doesn't seem to be a battle worth fighting. Elizium23 (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Elizium23, for intervening. I value your opinion and, if you judge that the link to the effects of excommunication is unhelpful in explaining what exactly is the ban spoken of, I am prepared to withdraw my proposal. Esoglou (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it is marginally helpful, if the reader has not connected the dots from the first linked "automatic" to read the whole article on latae sententiae, which I would probably not do, because it is rather technical and dominated by lists of offenses. I also don't think it is at all an Easter egg, because the reader can plainly see the context of "ban on receiving certain sacraments" is related to "forbidden to receive the sacraments". I would not object to extending the link to that entire phrase in order to remove all doubt as to the context of the statement. Also, it would be nice to clear up the discrepancy where this article says "certain sacraments" and latae sententiae#Effects just says "the sacraments" - I assume that Confession may be an exception, since this would be the way one seeks relief from an ecclesiastical penalty. Elizium23 (talk) 07:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I can now restore, in the form that Elizium23 suggests, the wikilink that explains the ban precisely. Also, as Elizium23 pointed out, "receiving certain sacraments" must be adjusted: the ban forbids receiving any sacraments, even Penance, absolution being granted only after the excommunication has been lifted at least provisionally (cf. canon 1357 of the Code of Canon Law. Esoglou (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Except that you still used a pipe link behind just the word "ban" even though Elizium23 recommended a larger phrase. Binksternet (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for inadvertently not putting into effect what Elizium23 "would not object to". Thank you for drawing my attention to it. In view also of your request in this regard, I am again restoring, with the adjustment that you have requested, the wikilink that Elizium 23 supports. Esoglou (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That works okay. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Esoglou (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Catholic organization

Instead of reverting good-faith edits, it would be a more constructive action to kindly specify the grounds for accusations of "POV pushing" (it would be sad if this only means disagreement with the reverter's own personal POV) and "OR" (all the statements in the reverted text are found in cited reliable sources that explicitly mention "Catholics for Choice").

If the reverter objects to some turn of phrase, such as perhaps "in spite of", it would be more constructive to indicate this, so that it can be modified by mutual consent, perhaps to something like "On the other hand". Esoglou (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Since even after three days the reverting has not been defended, I am restoring the well-sourced information, rephrasing it in the hope of overcoming the reverter's unexplained antipathy. Esoglou (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The change is useless POV from the Catholic Church point of view, which is not what defines this group. The Vatican source you cited is general, not specific to CFC. Using it here is a violation of WP:SYNTH. The post by Cathy Caridi goes against common usage; quoting her is undue emphasis on the black & white position taken by the church, against the way the rest of the world uses the word "Catholic". Binksternet (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice that you'd made a post here, but I did comment on your talk page to warn you about your pattern of adding original synthesis in order to push your political views even after your several-month topic ban from the subject for that very behavior. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The next topic ban will likely be longer, and soon if this behavior is an indication. Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

A humble request to the two guardian reverters: Discuss the edit, not the editor.

Cathy Caridi's article is the work of the holder of an academic degree in the canon law that binds members of the Catholic Church (whether they observe the law or not), as a country's civil law binds citizens of that country (whether they observe the law or not). The link to canon 216 of the Code of Canon Law, which accompanied the citation of Cathy Caridi's article, was given only with a "cf." and therefore not in support of any statement in the Wikipedia article - it makes no mention of "Catholics for Choice" - but just as an illustration to Cathy Caridi's article, which cites that very canon. Binksternet objects to the presence of that link. In collaborative fashion I am removing it.

Cathy Caridi's article explicitly states that, under canon law (which binds Catholics), "Catholics for Choice" cannot call itself a Catholic organization, while also explicitly stating that, under United States civil law, it can call itself a Catholic organization.

Binksternet objects to giving the Catholic Church's point of view ("useless POV from the Catholic Church point of view"). But surely the view of the Catholic Church on whether the organization in question really is of the Catholic Church is relevant. That view deserves at least a mention, even if Binksternet's idea of "the way the rest of the world uses the word 'Catholic'" were both specified and sourced.

Roscelese still has not specified the "original synthesis" that she claims to discern in the edit.

If I were as combative as the two guardian reverters, I would have proposed inserting into the article items such as a Washington newspaper's view of "Catholics for Choice" as a "small operation ... intended to look like a Catholic grass-roots organization. Yet it is funded largely by secular foundations including the Ford, Rockefeller and Playboy foundations. It is not, according to the Catholic bishops, a Catholic organization." I haven't. But I wonder if they would find that more acceptable than a calm statement that according to Roman Catholic canon law it is not a Catholic organization.

To take account of the observations made, I am now adjusting my proposal. Esoglou (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

In brief: Caridi's degree is irrelevant if she can't get her thoughts published in a reliable source; as I've said, you're synthesizing sources to draw the conclusion that reliable sources call CFC Catholic in error and that there is a contradiction between their being Catholic and the bishops pursuing them; Washington Times is a fringe-y paper and the author of the column is a right-wing activist, so you're not really doing a good job of supporting your claim that there are totally reliable sources which say it isn't Catholic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I commented on the AE discussion but I will repeat my points here:

I confess to not having read all the previous Talk discussion about the usage of the term "Catholic" in this article. However, I will point out that what Roscelese and Binksternet seem to be objecting to is the linkage of "The group is called Catholic" (sourced to Reuters) with "the USCCB and CCCB have declared that it should not be considered a Catholic organization" using the words "in spite of". It should be noted that neither Roscelese nor Binksternet seem to be arguing that the sourced opinion of the USCCB and CCCB should be removed from the article. Their reverts seem to be solely around the removal of the linking phrase "in spite of". Personally, I don't think Esoglou's edits are that POV but, even if they are, I don't see the need for Arbitration Enforcement here. It seems to be a case of "I'm tired of having to deal with the other POV, so I'm going to call the cops on this guy." If I were writing the sentence, I would say something more along the lines of "Despite the fact that the group's members are primarily Catholics, the USCCB and CCCB have declared that it should not be considered a Catholic organization citing the canon law which prohibits groups from claiming to be Catholic without the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority." In summary, I oppose Arbitration Enforcement in this matter although I think a bit of copyediting could improve Esoglou's proposed text. At the end of the day, the point is the CFC claims to represent a number of Catholics but the Catholic Church objects to the use of the word "Catholic" in the organization's name because it does not represent the Catholic Church. This point can and should be made in an NPOV manner.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The point is that CFC is a Catholic organization per Reuters: they said, "A Washington-based Catholic group yesterday accused Pope John Paul II and the Vatican of seeking to impose orthodox views..." Many of the highest quality sources (encyclopedias, scholarly books) call CFC a Catholic group without qualification. It is only the Catholic hierarchy that disputes the description. What I am seeking is that Esoglou stay away from the "Catholic" description sourced to Reuters and instead restrict himself to adding text based on reliable sources, not biased ones, and on sources that specifically name CFC. This kind of behavior in the past was what got Esoglou blocked. Binksternet (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

There are also plenty of other sources which describe it as Catholic, rather than just Reuters; it's just that adding every single one is disruptive, even if it proves the point that reliable sources describe Catholic groups as Catholic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a failure here to see that there are two uses of the word "Catholic" (and, no, I don't mean the difference between "catholic" and "Catholic"). What most people mean by "Catholic" when they say that the CFC is a "Catholic" organization is that it is made up primarily (or entirely) of Catholics. That, in common parlance, makes it a "Catholic" organization. However, the Catholic Church insists that only organizations sanctioned by an "appropriate ecclesiastical authority" can claim use of the word "Catholic". In essence, the Church is insisting that only it can decide what is an official "Catholic organization" and what is just a bunch of Catholics using the name "Catholic" without proper authorization. We also have to consider the distinction between civil law and canon law. Presumably, the Catholic Church cannot sue CFC for infringing on its "trademark" by using the name "Catholic" without its permission. Based on Canon 216, the church can, however, condemn the CFC for laying claim to the title "Catholic" without the "consent of competent ecclesiastical authority" and use whatever remedies are provided for by canon law. The best analogy I can come up with is the Microsoft Corporation going after a group claiming to be the "Microsoft Developer's Group" when it has no connection or authorization from Microsoft to use its name. So... IMO, Esoglou makes a fair point in insisting that we include the POV of the USCCB and CCCB as long as we do it in an NPOV way. If Roscelese or Binksternet want to argue that the "in spite of" wording should be changed, I'm OK with that. I just think we need to present both sides of this issue, precisely because the USCCB and CCCB think it's important. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Consider this... if a bunch of Catholics formed an organization and called it the "Catholic Man-Boy Love Association", would that be a Catholic group? By the standards of Reuters and many other reliable sources, it probably would be. However, the Church would protest mightily and rightly that such an organization in no way represented the position of the Church. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

WP is not in the business of policing anyone's religious identification. You get into serious BLP-vio territory there. The USCCB and other such interest groups are free to express their opinions all they like on their own websites; we give way more than enough weight to them here already, considering the lack of proper sourcing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

But this is the essence of NPOV. We should neither say whether they ARE a Catholic organization or ARE NOT a Catholic organization. We should clearly state what its name is ("Catholics for Choice") and who their membership is composed of (Catholics) and also state the Church's criticism of the organization WITHOUT taking a side on one side or the other. What the reader makes of this issue is up to him/her. Pro-choice Catholics will certainly see things differently from pro-life Catholics. It is not our role to slant the reader for or against CFC, simply to report the facts. And the fact is... the USCCB and CCCB criticize the CFC on a number of points, including the use of "Catholic" in their name. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Balance of views, on Wikipedia, does not mean treating all views as equal, but rather giving views weight in proportion to the weight they hold in reliable sources. (Similarly, we wouldn't write in the lead of Earth that "reliable sources say the earth is round - on the other hand, a guy with a website says it's flat.") Reliable sources refer to and discuss CFC as a Catholic organization, and given that all sources being put up on the other side are self-published, fringe, or otherwise poor, that's not likely to change. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Another example to consider: Are Mormons Christians? They self-identify as Christian; they use "Jesus Christ" in the name of the church. And yet it would be highly unencyclopedic to take this self-identification at face value and dismiss any mention of the fact that many Christians do not consider Mormons to be Christian. It would violate NPOV for Wikipedia to assert that Mormons ARE Christians AND it would also violate NPOV for Wikipedia to assert that they ARE NOT Christians. NPOV demands that we explain that Mormons consider themselves Christians (in fact, they consider themselves to be the only true Christians) AND it demands that we explain that many Trinitarian Christians consider Mormons to be something other than Christian because of their non-Trinitarian beliefs. A similar argument can be made for Jehovah's Witnesses. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Good example. Mormons are Christian in Wikipedia, because of self-identification. Naturally, we also hear from those notables who say that Mormons are not Christian. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

From the article on Mormonism...

According to Bruce McConkie, a general authority of the LDS Church, "Mormonism is indistinguishable from Christianity."[31] In many ways, however, the religion differs from orthodoxy as held by Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christianity. To those for whom Christianity is defined by that orthodoxy, Mormonism's differences place it outside the umbrella of Christianity altogether.[32][33]

Both sides of the issue are presented here. Wikipedia doesn't actually say that Mormonism is a Christian denomination. Wikipedia does NOT say that Mormons are Christian but neither does it say that they are NOT Christian. It says that Mormonism "was founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. beginning in the 1820s as a form of Christian primitivism. During the 1830s and 1840s, Mormonism gradually distinguished itself from traditional Protestantism. Mormonism today represents the new, non-Protestant faith taught by Smith in the 1840s." Note that the wording very carefully avoids saying that Mormonism IS or IS NOT Christian. When put together with the above-quoted text, you can see how NPOV requires Wikipedia editors to stay completely neutral when there are two equally notable POVs. The same approach should be applied here. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

WP does actually treat Mormonism as a branch of Christianity...the categorization structure reflects this, and it's referred to several times as a form of Christian primitivism in the lead. However, the analogy is not exact, since the balance of sourcing on Mormonism and Christianity is very different than in this article. Like I said, it's not about making sure all views are given equal weight; it's about making sure we reflect the weight in the body of sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a fairly good example except for the fact that Rome and the bishops are a competent legal authority who have real jurisdiction over Catholic organizations, and according to following the law (Canon law in this case, but it's really no different from a federal law or international treaty) if CFC is composed of Catholics, then they are not legally allowed to call themselves Catholic. I heard a news story the other day about a guy who contends that Google has not defended their trademark, allowing too many people to use "google" as a generic verb i.e. for web searching. Therefore he registered hundreds of domains containing the word "Google". If his organizations self-identify as Google companies, but are not allowed by US law to call themselves Google, how would a hypothetical Wikipedia page treat that controversy? Elizium23 (talk) 04:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, we would go with sources, just as Binksternet and I are doing here. However, like I said, WP doesn't police religious identification; I don't think anyone religiously identifies as a google. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The CFC is specifically called Catholic in Feminism and Women's Rights Worldwide, page 136, ABC-CLIO. This is an academic book. CFC is given as an example of a feminist Catholic group. Binksternet (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter how many sources we find or how "academic" they are. The point is that there are two significant POVs (really, two different meanings of "Catholic organization"). Most sources probably use the meaning "an organization composed primarily of Catholics" whereas the USCCB and CCCB are using the meaning "an organization sanctioned by the Catholic Church". It's true that we are not required to give all POVs equal weight but the Catholic Church's position on what is a "Catholic organization" is surely a significant POV. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

An attempt to reach consensus

I congratulate Binksternet on making an edit that was not a wholesale reverting, presumably as a contribution towards reaching agreement. Roscelese has undone that edit. "What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not" (cf. 1Co 11:22 KJV). Esoglou (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what the real issue is here. I have to say that I don't understand what Esoglou is trying to accomplish or what Roscelese is objecting to. As far as I'm concerned, any text that presents the POV of the USCCB and CCCB is adequate and efforts to insert words such as "in spite of" or "On the other hand" are unnecessary to make the point. Binksternet's last edit removed the words "On the other hand". Previous edits have removed the words "in spite of". While I think I'd be OK with using those phrases, I don't feel they are necessary to communicate the point that the USCCB and CCCB have criticized the use of the word "Catholic" by the CFC. That point seems to have been in the article before the current kerfuffle and it seems to have been accepted by Binksternet and Roscelese (though perhaps grudgingly). While I don't agree with the sentiment in Binksternet's edit summary, I think we could settle on something close to the text resulting from that edit. Is there any problem with agreeing to use that text? This is the proposed revision [1]. Going back to that revision would involve reverting Roscelese's last edit. Is there any objection to doing that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudo-Richard (talk • contribs) 17:25, June 7, 2012‎

Yes, yes there is. It gives even more weight to self-published and poorly sourced criticism that, by its presence in the lead along with news- and academically-sourced material, is already grossly undue, it claims that CFC's positions are in opposition to Catholicism, and it (clearly intentionally) suggests that CFC should not be calling itself Catholic (and that only the US govt.'s failure to enforce canon law prevents it from being sued), which is not WP's place. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To clarify: while I do believe that the USCCB's self-published criticism does not belong in the lead, I recognize that, because both CFC and the USCCB are American organizations, it may be suitable for inclusion in the article even without a better source. I have strongly opposed, and continue to strongly oppose, the inclusion of the Canadian and Mexican bishops' comments anywhere in the article; they're clearly irrelevant to an American organization and are just included by users who want to push an anti-CFC POV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeh, I was wondering about the inclusion of the CCCB's position. I assumed that CFC was active in Canada as well as the U.S. If this is not true, then I would agree that the CCCB's position is not relevant to this article. Likewise with the Mexican bishops (although I was not aware they were cited in this article).

I do want to draw attention to the fact that you seem to be misconstruing the phrase "self-published". "Self-published" really does not apply to major, notable organizations. All official statements by government officials (federal, state and municipal) are "self-published" but, if the source is notable, the issue of "self-publication" is really not relevant. A similar argument can be made of governing groups such as city councils. Again, the argument can be applied to official statements made by NGOs such as UNICEF, Red Cross, NAACP, etc. And again with the USCCB which is, after all, the governing body of the Catholic Church in the U.S. We should not be using the USCCB's opinion to determine whether or not the CFC is or is not a "Catholic organization". We should be simply reporting on the fact that the USCCB's position is that the CFC is not a "Catholic organization" and should not claim to be. It is up to the reader to decide whether they agree or disagree with the USCCB. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a separate Canadian organization, CFC Canada. We don't have an article on them. If we did, the CCCB's opinion might be relevant there.

In my opinion, the USCCB's activism against abortion means that they're not commenting here merely as a legal or scientific body (the way we might quote the AMA or the APA) but as an interest group. For such a group's opinion, one really should have reliable secondary sourcing. However, as I said, I'm willing to accept it in the article; I just don't think it belongs in the lead without better sourcing (on par with the sourcing for the rest of the article - reliable news and/or scholarly works, preferably the latter), and the foreign organizations don't belong at all. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I prefer to have the criticism by the Catholic hierarchy brought into the second paragraph of the lead section, not the first. Thus I prefer not to revert Roscelese. Basically, the group advocates legal abortion, and that should be the first thing the reader is told. First is pro, second is con. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, now the ball is in Esoglou's court. Why is it so important for you to bring the Church's position into the first paragraph? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It is important because the other editors are hell-bent on calling it a "Catholic organization" in the first paragraph. I would be happy to place the criticism in the second paragraph if the Catholic claim were also moved there. It is inappropriate, based on WP:NPOV, to present the first paragraph as honest, settled truth and then to try to put the toothpaste back in the tube later on. Elizium23 (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"Hell-bent" is particularly grinworthy in this discussion. Thanks for the smile! Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

We are "hell-bent" on following what reliable sources say and on adhering to WP's policies on identification. We are not going to make an exception for your personal religious beliefs, however deeply felt. As I said, WP:NPOV does not entail giving all views equal weight, but rather giving views weight proportional to their weight in reliable sources. Reliable sources agree that the organization is Catholic. The opposing views of anti-abortion organizations like the USCCB may be relevant to the article, but they do not refute reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

[ec]Richard the problem as I see is is that the first sentence said "Catholics for Choice (CFC), formerly Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC), is a Catholic pro-choice organization based in Washington, D.C" is right now making a statement that it is a Catholic organization. In effect it gives the impression that the WP community agrees with CFC that they are Catholic. If other people want to have the statements about whether they are Catholic or not later in the lead, then "Catholic pro-choice organization" also doesn't belong early in the lead. It would be simple to just remove the word "Catholic" from "Catholic pro-choice organization" and you will remove much of the debate. Marauder40 (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If the group claimed to be a "Methodist pro-life group" and the Methodist church said, "No they are not a Methodist group" the debate would be over. The Catholic Church explicitly declares that while the group uses the word "Catholic" in its name and claims to be a Catholic group, that it is not a catholic group. I have no problem with them identifying themselves as a voice for catholic or a group of Catholics, but when the governing body to which they claim membership explicitly says, "No they are not part of our group" then you have to give that position primary credit. It is not not the purvue of others to say, "The Methodist church says they are not methodist, but I know better." Nor can somebody claim to be a branch of hte US Government, when the government says otherwise. The authorities whose job it is to discern who/what are representatives of the group have explicitly spoken on this subject. Anything else is POV.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The WP community does agree with religious self-identification. That's how we work. We also do not put the question of (ex.) whether or not progressive or conservative Muslim organizations are "really" Muslim up for debate. It would not remove much of the debate to remove the word "Catholic" - have you been paying no attention at all? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am paying attention, are you? The word Catholic is already twice in that initial sentence, why put it in again, it isn't needed and is in fact pronouncing a judgement that the WP community views it as such. If it remains you need to put in the opposing/significant viewpoint. It it doesn't remain it can wait for a later paragraph. Marauder40 (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Like I said: the WP community does accept religious self-identification. It's not a debate. We treat criticism of its identification just like any other criticism: as potentially but not necessarily relevant, but certainly not as fact. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that there is no governing body for the Islam that could speak on this subject. However, if a group claimed to be a specific brand of Islam, and the governing body explicitly said no, that's a different story. In this case we have an authoritative body, which regardless of what CFC wishes, has the authority to speak on this subject. The bishops and by extension the USCCB are the authorities in the US. We don't have to listen to claims, we have declarative statement from the governing body. It's pretty black and white.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

WP does not recognize religious authority and is not subject to it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I would also be satisfied with adopting phraseology such as "CFC calls itself a Catholic organization" or "CFC is identified as a Catholic organization by <reporter in secondary source>" Elizium23 (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Again, it is not WP's place to undermine what sources say by attributing unnecessarily. We recognize that your personal feelings on the subject are strong, but we will not discard the views of reliable source upon reliable source for them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

For me it is not important to bring the Church's position into the first paragraph. It is important to put it close to the claim that CFC is indeed a "Catholic organization", whether that claim is in the first paragraph or not. I agree in fact with an observation by Binksternet above: "Basically, the group advocates legal abortion, and that should be the first thing the reader is told." First place should not be given instead to whether and in what sense it is or is not a "Catholic organization". Esoglou (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You see this as a debate (and thus belonging together), while we see it as an excellently sourced fact about the group (belonging up front) and some criticism (not so much belonging up front). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

It is not a Catholic Organization. It is an organization of Catholics. A catholic organization would be supported by and recognized by the Catholic Church, instead the Church explicitly declared that it is not such. The CFC was excommunicate in Lincoln.[2][3] The Diocese of Venice declared, "'Catholics for Choice' is neither Catholic nor supportive of authentic human choice?" The Catholic League calls them Catholics for Choice, a notoriously anti-Catholic front group? Or how about A Brazilian Catholic bishop has filed a $328,000 lawsuit against “Catholics for the Right to Decide,” the Brazilian version of America’s “Catholics for Choice,” for moral damage due to the misleading use of the name “Catholic.” A group whose fundamental principles are condemned by the group to which it claims and the group to which it claims membership has decreed that such groups are not part of it... I think it's pretty clear. CFC is a group of Catholics; but it is not a Catholic Group. Like it or not, the Catholic Church gets to decide who/what are Catholic Organizations. To say otherwise simply defies logic and reason---regardless of what some non-authoritative source might say

The president of the CFC acknowledges that the group that is responsible for determining what is a catholic group, the USCCB/NCCB, stated: “On a number of occasions the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) has stated publicly that [the group] is not a Catholic organization, does not speak for the Catholic Church, and in fact promotes positions contrary to the teaching of the Church as articulated by the Holy See and the NCCB.” The bodies whose compromise the leadership of the chuch in the US, the USCCB/NCCB issued an edict, which explicitly states, CFC "is not a Catholic organization" and "Catholics for a Free Choice merits no recognition or support as a Catholic organization"[4]. That is a primary source from the defining group. Any reporter/newspaper which says otherwise, is interjecting their POV/Bias/misunderstanding/lack of knowledge into the debate. It is a group of Catholics, but that does not make it a Catholic Group. Similarly, I could create a group tomorrow called "Republicans for Obama" or "Democrats for Romney"; my making such a group would not make the group a Republican or Democrat group---especially if the Republican/Democratic party explicitly states the group is not part of the group.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to reply at length to this, since you should just make the effort to read previous discussion on the subject about how WP doesn't accept, as reliable, denial of someone else's religious identification, how fringe sources like LifeNews and the Catholic League are not acceptable, how "we should ignore mainstream news and scholarly literature because reliable sources don't agree with me" is not going to win you any arguments on WP, etc. I'll just take a moment to laugh at your last comment, though, since there are groups called Republicans for Choice and Democrats for Life in spite of those positions being in opposition to the parties' platforms. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

What Roscelese calls the excellently sourced "fact" about the group being "a Catholic organization" (in which sense?) is disputed. It is not just a matter of criticism of the organization. It is a questioning, in an excellently sourced manner, of the alleged "fact". Editors here disagree about the relative weight to give to the claim and the questioning. It seems that only B and R want the "fact" to be stated in isolation from the questioning. Esoglou (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Again (how many times have I said this?) religious identification is not up for debate. Criticism of identification is, in fact, criticism, and, like other criticism, needs to be treated as opinion rather than fact. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is questioning the "religious identification" of the CFC members. The qualification of the organization as "Catholic" is a different matter. Esoglou (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why the same would not apply. WP does not police religion and is not subject to religious authority. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Because the organization which has the authority and responsibility for identifying groups which are part of the organization has spoken. This is not an abstract. The USCCB has the right, power, and responsibility to make these declarations. You don't. I don't. Reuters doesn't. CFC doesn't. Some professor somewhere else doesn't. The UCSSB does.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If it were an individual who was making a claim to being a certain religion made a claim, then you are 100% correct. We would not be debating it---unless the organization to which that individual claimed membership explicitly states otherwise. If I claimed to be member of the ABC Church; but the ABC church explicitly excommunicated me, then guess what, I would not be part of that church even if I claim membership. For Wikipedia to place priority on my claim, over that of the ABC Church would be a violation of policy and credibility. The same is true for any organization. If the governing body for the organization says, "No." Then that organizations stance has to be accepted as authoritative---especially if it is the authoritative body for the organization. E.g. if the Methodist Church makes a statement at its annual conference, that statement is binding because of the structure of the Methodist Church. If a Baptist Church makes a statement at its annual conference, that statement is only bindng on those baptist churches which acknowldge the conference because the Baptist Church does not have a singular ruling body. The Catholic Church does. We are NOT bound by personal interpretation/opinion, the group which has the responsibility AND authority in the US has made a statement. That statement is authoritative.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

A similar statement can be made about race. We do not debate race here on WP, but will generally let the person self identify their own race. That is the general practice. But take a look at Ward_churchhill#Ethnicity. Ward Churchhill claims membership to a specific Cherokee tribe, but that tribe doesn't recognize it. If the tribe didn't have a governing body that had the authority to speak on the matter, we would accept Churchhills claim. But they do. As a result, we do not include his ethnicity in the lead. Similarly we should not make the declaration that CFC is a "Catholic organization" just because they claim it---especially when we have an authoritative body saying otherwise.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, that's not actually how we work at all. Can we agree to discuss this issue based on what WP policy and practice actually are, and not what we wish they would be? 1. We absolutely do not allow excommunication to override someone's religious identification. Just look at the articles on excommunicated people. 2. WP does not recognize the bishops' authority. This is very unlikely to change. Sorry. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Catholicism is NOT the same as Catholic Church. Please read Catholicism article for a detailed explanation of the use by different churches. There you can find that Catholic Church is only one of the many denominations who consider themselves Catholic. Also note that term Catholic redirects to Catholicism article, and NOT Catholic Church article. So, to say that some organization is Catholic does not imply any connection with the Holy See. Catholic Church, of course, can determine who is a member of the Catholic Church, but has no monopoly to determine who is and who is not Catholic, because Catholicism is far broader term.--В и к и T 19:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Really? Your argument might have weight if the group wasn't trying to identify itself with the Roman Catholic Church and presented itself as such.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)