Wikipedia

Talk:Catholic Church and abortion/Archive 3

< Talk:Catholic Church and abortion
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Roscelese in topic Revert
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Freedom of conscience for medical personnel

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Roscelese changed the section title to "Anti-abortion medical staff". I changed it to "Freedom of conscience for medical personnel" which is closer to Esoglou's original title. I don't know a lot about this issue wrt abortion but I do know that it is an issue for pharmacists who do not wish to dispense contraception or "the morning after pill". There are laws to protect the freedom of conscience of those pharmacists while ensuring that patients can ultimately get their prescription filled by some pharmacy. The section is also tagged with an {{unreliable sources}} tag. While the sources are perhaps biased, I think the problem is not only with the bias of the sources (a source can be both biased and reliable) but with the overall approach of the section. Once again, we are citing specific pronouncements and facts (which are trees) and not presenting the overall issue (i.e. the forest). The issue here is, as my title says, "freedom of conscience" for medical and pharmaceutical personnel who are morally opposed to abortion (and contraception). We need to emphasize that, at least in the United States, state governments have sought to find a compromise between "freedom of conscience" and the right of a patient to procure contraception and abortions. We should look for secondary sources that discuss the general issue first and then present an overview of the Catholic Church's involvement in the issue. The USCCB's statement is relevant but kind of boring and predictable. It should be enough to comment that the USCCB supports freedom of conscience for medical personnel. If we must have the quote, shove it into the reference so readers don't have to read a polemical statement.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I was putting my hands out before me in case of being tripped up on grounds of irrelevance to Catholic Church and abortion. That was an objection loudly raised against mentioning the suspension of Baudouin, which some even now accept as admissible to the article only because Baudouin was praised by representatives of the Church for his refusal to sign. Esoglou (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Calling it freedom of conscience is a POV position to take in Wikipedia's voice, as you yourself (P-R) seem to agree given the scare quotes. Opponents of abortion and contraception might say it's freedom of conscience; others might say that they're trying to get out of doing jobs they were hired to do (and possibly point out that, IIRC, some anti-abortion organizations encourage followers to take such jobs and then invoke this "conscience" legislation as a means of preventing people from having abortions or using contraception). For the same reason, we don't frame the refusal of communion to pro-choice politicians as a violation of their freedom of conscience. Agreed re: soundbites; "the church hierarchy commented on something, so it belongs in our article" is getting old very quickly.
That said, we avoid the header issue entirely if we do, as I suggested, combine the stuff on medical personnel into one section. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
@anybody who cares - Well, what do you think of the section after my recent edits? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
(i) Poorly sourced, (ii) appears to be written (and titled) purely from the orthodox/authorised Catholic perspective. The section is badly in need of reliable third-party sourcing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

95% figure and www.freedom2care.org

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

“How would a lack of conscience protection affect access to care in California?” asked Freedom2Care in a June 9 press release. “According a recent survey, 95% of faith-based doctors said they would stop practicing medicine if forced to choose between performing an abortion or losing their jobs. A total of 9,381,606 patients in California are cared for by 69 faith-based hospitals each year. Current projections also indicate a 200,000 physician shortage by 2025.

[1]

Is a www.freedom2care.org (a "coalition" directed by Christian Medical and Dental Associations, which only has 16k members) press release a WP:RS for this figure? Presumably if www.calcatholic.com thought it was absolutely reliable, they wouldn't have put the claim in quotation marks. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What do you suggest we do about it? Omit the sentence? Or can it be remedied? Esoglou (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I'd omit it unless we can find evidence that the survey was conducted by a professional polling company (or a similar survey by such a company can be found). There's just too much potential for amateurs to bias such a survey (e.g. by surveying only their own members, but also by far more subtle and esoteric mistakes). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Please try to find non-advocacy sources, Esoglou. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Roscelese about non-advocacy sources. In general, too much of this article is anecdotal in nature. We need to step back and paint a picture of the whole forest rather than describing individual trees. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I will of course take the advice offered and remove the sentence; but in view of sensitivities about what might be reverts I'll wait a day or so before doing so. Esoglou (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I forgot about those sensitivities and made an edit today that included removing the sentence; but I have now undone my edit, which I perhaps wrongly was not thinking of as a revert. Esoglou (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Undoing your own edit is not a revert... –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Europe

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I removed the following text from the article because it didn't fit in the section on "Recent events". However, when I looked for a better place to put it, I couldn't find one because there really isn't a section that describes the interrelationship between the Catholic Church and the legality of abortion in various regions and countries around the world. If we're going to talk about the influence of the Church on the legality of abortion in European countries, then we should also talk about it in regions like Latin America and countries such as the U.S. and the Philippines. If there is no objection, I'm thinking about starting a new section to discuss this topic. (There is an article on Catholic Church and abortion in the United States. Some of that article would be summarized in this proposed new section.)

Abortion is legal in nearly every European country although there is a wide variation in the restrictions under which it is permitted. Restrictions on abortion are most stringent in countries that are more strongly observant of the Catholic faith. This can be seen in Rome as the laws are much stricter there.[1]

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for calling attention to this. We should remove the bit about Rome, certainly (it's not mentioned in the source, and what are we talking about, the Vatican? I'm sure there's a lot of unwanted pregnancy there...) What do you think we should do with the rest of the "Medical personnel and hospitals" section? McBride is still in that section now, and I think if* we move Halappanavar out to a geographic section we should move McBride out as well, but looking at the other stuff in the section, "conscience clauses" are also quite a recent development and I'm not sure where we'd end it.
*I'm uncertain as to whether or not we should move it out, and it may be that the final decision will have to wait until there's more information on the case. I think it's best to organize information by the most relevant theme, and this case both a) called attention to standards of care in Catholic hospitals where pregnancy is concerned and b) provoked protests of the country's laws. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I did notice that the "Medical personnel and hospitals" section seemed not to fit with the rest of the article structure. However, since I was already focusing on (1) Halappanavar and (2) "influence of the Church on European abortion laws", I figured my hands were full without taking that issue on as well. Please allow me to work on the other stuff first and think about this issue in the meantime. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ostergren, Robert C.; Le Bossé, Mathias (7 March 2011). The Europeans: A Geography of People, Culture, and Environment. Guilford Press. p. 203. ISBN 978-1-59385-384-6. Retrieved 30 December 2011.

Irish Bishops Statement

Latest comment: 11 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I personally believe that Roscelese repeated removal of the Irish's bishops statement in regards to the Irish abortion case borders on vandalism. To include one sides view of the situation without covering the Catholic response is POV pure and simple. The Irish bishops are stating what the policy is and has always been. Just because a portion of what is in the statement was stated before doesn't mean a thing. They are restating what Catholic policy is to make it abundantly clear. The entire section borders on being and issue involving recent-ism. Also the repeated removal of other improvements concerning animation and other also shows a clear effort to keep the article showing only one POV, not allowing improvement based on valid sources.Marauder40 (talk) 13:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that the "Catholic" position is represented almost exclusively in this article, right? Since you evidently agree that the statement was not made in response to the situation, I see little reason to include it other than to use the POV phrase "(unborn) baby" a few times.
Your preference of revisionist sources which focus on the relevance of the history to the RCC's current political agenda, over a statement of the history, is clearly an (unsurprising, but not policy-compliant) grab at making the article promote that particular political agenda. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a streetcorner where whoever can get on the soapbox "wins." (The 1869 bit is already in the article; the Basil quote I had to track down in a reliable source, since as added it's only in a bunch of unreliable sources, but I found a different translation in Bakke. What might help the section be a bit better would be separating it into two paragraphs so that we could first discuss - in brief, since there's an article on it already - the belief in delayed animation, and then discuss how some theologians cared about the distinction and some believed in it but didn't care. On the other hand, that could also get mixed up with some of the stuff under "Juridical consequences" vis-à-vis how abortion was punished.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes I realize what this article is about, but to have a section entirely based on one side of an argument and not present the response by the appropriate "Catholic" source which is the purpose of this article, a lot more then the statement of one doctor that said this happened because it is a "Catholic country". Which person has more authority in what is actually Catholic teaching and the Catholic view of things? Maybe the statement can be shrunk down, but it does need to be there. Just your labeling the sources as revisionist sources shows your POV. I have not seen a RS state that this is revisionist history, if you can provide that source I would appreciate it. It would be interesting to get some comments from the person that actually put the changes in, in the first place.Marauder40 (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
No, the purpose of this article is not, contra your first sentence, to be a free platform for the RCC hierarchy; that's what they have press offices for. As for the rest, we're not stating that the doctor who is reported to have said this was correct in interpreting Catholic beliefs in this way; that's not our job. It's not necessary to have RS about a source, that's a red herring; the source is clearly spinning historical information for its own political goals. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of this article is to give information about the Catholic Church and abortion, not one doctor's view of abortion in Ireland. YOU are basically giving more weight to ONE DOCTOR's view then the people that have the ultimate say in Ireland on what the Catholic's church view is. You are only presenting one side of the situation without presenting the "official" Catholic response from the Church in Ireland, making the entire paragraph POV pure and simple. You are claiming "spin" without providing sources to say it is spin. Marauder40 (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I moved the text to its own section in "Recent Events" because it is a recent event.

I agree with Maraudaer40 that the text as currently written is POV because it doesn't present the view of the Catholic Church. It also does give undue weight by not making clearer who said "because this is a Catholic country".

I think the phrase in quotes "because this is a Catholic country" must be attributed to the doctor. I also think the Catholic Church's response should be included although it doesn't have to be quoted verbatim. The fact that it is a "copy-paste of a statement prior to the incident" is irrelevant. First of all, why would you expect any institution to change what it says before an incident to something else after the incident if the underlying position or policy hasn't changed? Secondly, it's important to indicate that the Catholic Church did not back down from its prior position. The thrust of the pro-choice response to this incident is to argue that the "Catholic" laws in this "Catholic country" caused this tragedy. The Catholic Church seems not to have flinched and seems not to be open to reviewing their opposition to abortion. Making this point to the reader is more important than quoting the specific words of the Irish Bishops.

I think it's time to move past arguing over these two issues ("this is a Catholic country" and the statement of the Irish Bishops) and present more of the debate. What specific changes are being proposed by the pro-choice movement in Ireland?

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Er, the text did attribute the quote to the doctor. What is your suggested text for including the bishops' response? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I may have been confused as to who was in favor of what but there was a diff that showed a version of the text with no mention of the doctor, just "this is a Catholic country" without attribution. My feeling is that it is necessary to have the attribution to the doctor. It seemed that part of the debate above was about whether or not to mention the doctor and so I was coming down on the side of mentioning specifically that it was a doctor involved in the case who said "this is a Catholic country". And yes, I see that the current article text does that.
I think we should consult the Wikipedia article on the Death of Savita Halappanavar, in particular the section titled "Reaction". There are two subsections titled Response of pro-choice organisations and Response of pro-life organisations. Assuming these span the range of significant responses, I think those POVs should be presented here. In particular, I think the statement of the Irish Bishops seem insufficient because the statement doesn't seem to address the specific incident. Perhaps they wanted to be non-committal until they had more facts in hand and time to prepare a more cogent response. The pro-life response, as reported in the Death of Savita Halappanavar article, argues that Irish abortion laws did not have anything to do with her death. Father Boquet is quoted as charging that pro-life activists were "demonizing the church's position on abortion". (NB: I am not taking a side here. I'm just saying that this article does an inadequate job of presenting the pro-choice and pro-life POVs.) My recommendation is that we summarize the pro-life and pro-choice subsections of the "Response" section of the Death of Savita Halappanavar article.
--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

In re Recent Events: United States

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hmmh!? Why is an entire subsection devoted to Catholics for Choice, an organization that (1) is in no way affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church and (2) has no official membership at all? It is simply a professional advocacy outfit that solicits funds from the general public. Is the frosty "relationship" between the RCC and this minuscule organization really the most important ongoing story concerning the Catholic church in the US and abortion over the past forty years? Badmintonhist (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

We don't have an article for Catholics and abortion that's separate from this one, so it's the best we can do - besides, I rather think many Catholic thinkers on both sides of the abortion debate would disagree with the idea that the Church is only its hierarchy. As for your last question, I refer you to reliable sources, which obviously care a great deal; that's not to say that other material couldn't be added if a user would make the effort to find reliable sources and write neutrally. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
The RCC may be regarded as more than just its hierarchy but, again, with Catholic for Choice we are really just talking about a paper organization. It has no membership at all, Catholic or otherwise. It's a pro-choice advocacy outfit which uses the word Catholic in its title. How newsworthy has it been over the past quarter of a century? WP:UNDUE. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Please stick to discussion of the article, rather than using the talk page as a forum to complain about an organization you don't like. What changes are you suggesting, and how do they reflect the coverage reliable sources give to the issue? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
What gives you the idea that I don't like the organization? Is anything I've said about it factually incorrect? Given the organization's relative obscurity as a player in the debate over abortion, I would pare down the current subsection by about a third. I'll suggest new wording that eliminates some of the padding. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Glad that I didn't make myself look like a fool with my edit of this section. I believe that Roscelese and Professor Dillon (not exactly a neutral observer from what I can gather) overstate the degree of controversy created from the CFC's ad and the RCC's reaction to it but I'm not going to contest the issue. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of recent event information

Latest comment: 11 years ago29 comments5 people in discussion

Would Roscelese please explain more clearly on what grounds she deleted sourced information about the recent public protest by the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales at the decision of the English civil authorities not to prosecute two doctors who had contravened the law against using sex selection as a reason to abort? Her edit-summary claim that the church's protest "isn't really related to the church at all" is obviously unfounded. And it is obvious too that the episcopal conference's action was a "doing" of something - in spite of her other edit-summary claim: "Everyone's got opinions, but they [who?] didn't actually *do* anything." Esoglou (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The church didn't participate in the event and wasn't affected by it; it doesn't belong in the article simply because they have an opinion on it - especially not without sources that aren't glorified press release agencies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
The event was a church-participating public protest and it is precisely because this was an abortion-related action of the Catholic Church that it belongs in an article called "Catholic Church and abortion". You surely don't claim that an article on "Catholic Church and abortion" cannot be allowed to include what the Catholic Church says on the subject!
Are you suggesting that the sources cited for the episcopal conference's protest are not reliable? Esoglou (talk) 06:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I think what you're calling a "protest" is a press release. We already know the church thinks abortion is wrong. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I presume indeed that the protest was issued as a press release. How else do you think it would be issued? But it was then reported on by agencies that provide news concerning the Catholic Church (such as ICN) or more general religious news (such as SIR). They are reliable sources. Even a press release (which we could perhaps find on the website of the bishops conference) can be a reliable source for a declaration by the Church on the morality of a certain action. Do you deny that the sources cited are reliable sources for the fact and content of the Church's protest? Esoglou (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the sources made up the comments, but that's not the same thing as the comments belonging in the article. Please do try to address what I've already said. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you not accept that this is well-sourced information about a recent declaration by the Catholic Church concerning abortion, with particular reference to sex-selecting abortion? The information thus concerns the "Catholic Church and abortion". What part do you deny? Not, it seems, the reliability of the sources for the fact and content of the declaration. Is it not a declaration by the Catholic Church? and a recent one? Is it not about abortion? Does it not make particular reference to sex-selecting abortion? Esoglou (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it's fairly poorly sourced information about an issue that has to do with the church only in that they have an opinion on it - which is to say, it doesn't have to do with the church at all. Contrary to what you seem to believe, Wikipedia isn't a press release agency for the church, and is not bound to print all of the church's statements on everything that happens in the world. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

"Fairly poorly sourced information". After your "I don't think the sources made up the comments", I thought that question was settled and we could advance further. But no, we are still there. So please state clearly, one way or the other: Are the sources reliable for what they are cited for, or are they not? Esoglou (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Come now, you've been here long enough to know that verifiability is not the only bridge that has to be crossed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I know. So be just a little collaborative and cross it. Then we go on to the next bridge. Esoglou (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
As I've already stated, the fact that the statement was made does not mean that it belongs in Wikipedia, especially without being covered in a reliable secondary source. But even if a reliable secondary source covered the statement, it still wouldn't belong: it's a church comment on an entirely unrelated issue. The CPS isn't part of the church, the doctors aren't Catholic, the law that was violated doesn't exist because of Catholic beliefs. It's not part of the article topic. You need to learn that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide a wider platform for the church's statements. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
You continue to give only disruptive responses to a straight question. To get this out of the way, so as to advance to other points, again one at a time, do we have to get a ruling elsewhere? Esoglou (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
You don't need my permission. I've explained why your edit didn't belong and you obviously disagree; it doesn't make my comments "disruptive," nor yours unless you persist in this WP:IDHT. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Very well. As you have read elsewhere, "in order not to imitate her and become the second party in an edit war, I have to start a discussion on the talk page that usually, even if it concerns only a single sentence or even a single word, turns out to be lengthy, unless I bring it for discussion on a noticeboard". Esoglou (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Reversion

The discussion at WP:RSN stated that the source was reliable. The fact that the roman church decided to protest by releasing a public statement instead of manning the barricades is not especially relevant. The fact is that they did protest and take a public position on the prosecutor's declining to do their official duties is relevant to this article. GregJackP Boomer! 22:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It is regrettable that a posting on the noticeboard was needed to get acceptance of the reliability of the cited sources for what they said. This bridge has thus been crossed in spite of resistance. We can now go on to discuss what the cited sources say. What they speak of directly is the Church's public declaration, and only indirectly of the civil authorities' decision not to prosecute. For that discussion, the presence of the text within the article is appropriate. I hope there will not be an edit-war deletion. Esoglou (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

GregJackP, the discussion at RSN didn't establish anything that we hadn't already established here. What was under discussion here was the suitability of the content for the article. I disagree that merely having an opinion on an unrelated event qualifies that unrelated event for inclusion in the article, but, as a secondary concern, we would really need to find something other than a press release even to consider it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

On the noticeboard, as here, Roscelese refuses to state explicitly that the cited sources are reliable or that they are unreliable for what they say. Nobody there, as here, has yet called them unreliable. Roscelese must be hoping that someone will, and so she wishes that we wait for the noticeboard result and only then stop suggesting (without stating) unreliability because of supposedly being press releases. That's fine.
What do the cited sources state? It's disruptive nonsense to represent them as making a non-news statement that the Church merely has an opinion! What they state is that the Church has issued a public protest against the impunity that enables doctors to break the law by accepting to perform forbidden abortions. What they state is that there has been a recent action by the Catholic Church concerning abortion - a public protest that, as GregJackP says, is relevant to an article on the Catholic Church and abortion. Esoglou (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Ignoring your incoherent first paragraph, you don't seem to understand what a press release is. It's an announcement from a company or organization about something they think or are doing, and as such, a self-published source. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on reliable secondary sources, and not merely a means for promoting the church and spreading whatever it says to a wider audience, the sources cited for this statement, which appear to be a press release that has been lightly edited at best and reprinted in niche sources, are insufficient to support inclusion. However, as I've repeatedly pointed out, the lack of relevance to the article is the main problem here. If this is really an event and not just an opinion, where are the reliable secondary sources that have picked up on it? Please point me to a real newspaper that has written about this "protest" (not reprinted a released statement). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
There are, of course, all sorts of sources besides the ones that Esoglou has produced, some quite unconnected to the RCC, for the news that Catholic Bishops in the UK have protested the CPS's non-prosecution of sex selection abortion. Saying that all of this amounts to a self-published press release is silly. Even more silly is the notion that a news item clearly having to do with the Catholic Church and abortion somehow doesn't belong in an article entitled the "Catholic Church and abortion". Badmintonhist (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Where are these sources? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
That the sources already cited are reliable is the only view expressed on the noticeboard where the question has been proposed. We should confine ourselves to these, and not let anyone sidestep this contradiction of the curious claim she has often expressed that Catholic news agencies and publications are unreliable sources for information about - of all things - statements of the Catholic Church! Esoglou (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Remember how I told you that you were making yourself look like a fool by pretending that the issue might be that the sources just fabricated the material? You're still doing it. Unless you suspect that the sources might be fabricating this claim, which would have been a good thing to consider before you inserted them, then stay on topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
"Remember how I told you that you were making yourself look like a fool. . ." Sounds like Alice Kramden (Audrey Meadows) talking to her husband Ralph (Jackie Gleason). Badmintonhist (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

A quote from a bishop was rm because he didn't actually "do" anything except complain that an apparently legal statute was not enforced in the UK regarding the use of abortion to de-select an unwanted sex of the infant.

Okay, but the only thing that bishops do is talk, right?

It seems to me that this should be somewhere. I admit that the bishop doesn't have to be quoted as saying it. It seems like "selective enforcement." The authorities don't want to arrest anyone, so they ignore the law. Doesn't this belong somewhere? Student7 (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, if reliable, mainstream sources cared enough to talk about it, it might belong in another article, one that was on a related subject instead of an unrelated one. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Which other article would that be Ros . . . War on Incipient Women? Plenty of reliable sources cover the story of Archbishop Smith's objection to the CPS's non-prosecution, and recent events about the Catholic Church and abortion are definitely related to recent events about the Catholic Church and abortion. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, we do actually have articles that are about sex-selection abortion and about abortion in the UK, which are the two articles that this event might be relevant to. If reliable sources document any controversy, it might go there. Unrelated articles like this one and Smith's aren't a good place for it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Francis

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

"Pope" Francis is very liberal on abortion matters, shouldn't we add this to the article? --212.186.0.108 (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

  Done Elizium23 (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, but that was not what I meant. Some months ago, he said something like to "forgive women who perform an abortion and accept it" or so. Also, we should add Francis' travel to the U.S. where he didn't say a word to Obama about his anti-Life politics. --212.186.0.108 (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the point of adding this recent statement, especially without a better source. It doesn't represent any chance in position. Unless a good source identifies it as non-routine (as an example, say, of a difference from Francis's usually marginally more liberal positions) then there is no reason to include it. "The Pope is Catholic", shocking film at eleven. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps 212.186.0.108 (talk · contribs) is referring to the decree by which Pope Francis allowed all priests in the Church to absolve the sin of abortion and lift the associated excommunication during the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy. That fact is certainly germane to the Church's position on abortion, and definitely merits inclusion here, although based on my understanding of the structure of the article, it might be difficult to find the proper location to include it. As for the other reference, to his silence in the company of Obama, we can't report on a non-event unless other WP:RS have analyzed his silence and commented on it. While you're welcome to suggest sources of this time, I'm also not sure it merits inclusion here, because in the scope of things it is really insignificant, the United States is simply one country among many, and the Pope clearly intends to fight his pro-life battles in forums where he will have a good chance of changing hearts and minds, e.g. for pro-life activist groups and doctors and gynecologists. It is to these groups which he makes the strongest and clearest pro-life statements. Elizium23 (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree that a non-event isn't worth inclusion unless a reliable source comments on it, obviously, but as I said, I also think that the sourcing (obviously WP:ROUTINE, could be better quality) doesn't justify the inclusion of the recent anti-abortion statement either. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I am referring to what Elizium23 said, thank you for adding it to the article. The travel to the U.S. is but also important because Obama is strongly anti-Life and Francis hasn't even mentioned abortion in front of him (nor anything about Obama's support for the homo agenda), but made like they would be best friends. The USA are a big, important and powerful nation + it has an anti-Life president and one of the most liberal abortion laws in the world, so Francis should have made some statements there about abortion and not simply during his travel ignore the tousands of killed babies in the U.S.. He could have e.g. made an electoral recommendation for Ted Cruz or Donald Trump, but he didn't say anything like this, and I think that the fact he didn't say anything against the abortion in the U.S. is a relevant information for this article.
--212.186.0.108 (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 26 June 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago20 comments7 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is clearly a lack of support for the nominator's proposed titles. However, the alternate format of "Abortion and the Catholic Church", etc. did pick up a bit more traction, although not enough to be called a consensus. No prejudice against a new RM discussing that as the proposed title(s). Jenks24 (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

– Given the extremely controversial nature of the abortion debate, it would be best to avoid running into WP:AND–related issues of potential perceived bias. These changes also have the happy result of placing the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at the front of the name, WP:CONSISTENTly with Veneration of Mary in the Catholic Church, Prayer in the Catholic Church, Marriage in the Catholic Church, etc. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 14:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment The nom makes a good case, but the proposed change makes these articles sound like they are about abortions happening within the Catholic Church. They are in fact much wider, dealing the Church's attitude to abortion in society as a whole. Any new title should reflect the broad scope of the articles, rather than narowing them in this way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Not to jump down your throat, but I disagree; the new names don't constrict the scope. The "Catholic Church" consists of both the hierarchy/leadership/clergy (which is what you seemed to be referring to) and the laity. Thus "the Church's attitude to abortion in society as a whole" is still perfectly within the proposed title's scope. If the title were to be drawn out into more of a sentence, it would be "treatment of the topic of abortion within the whole of the Catholic Church (both the hierarchy's position and lay opinion)". Obviously that's terrible style, but it's the thought the nominated title presents rather well. Same goes for Christianity in general. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 17:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jujutsuan: I read the new title as including the laity. The point I was making is that unlike your comparators of Veneration of Mary in the Catholic Church and Prayer in the Catholic Church, the church's stance on abortion is one which it seeks to apply to non-Catholics. Whatever anyone's views on the merits of that, the Catholic position on abortion is not just "in" the church; it is a major player in critical public debates. About half of the article Catholic Church and abortion is about that political stance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: Oh, okay. I see what you mean now. I still don't really agree that it's much of a problem, though. Do you have any suggestions for better names? IMO the "and"s very much need to go. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 20:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
We're gonna disagree, then. I think there is a big problem with narrowing the scope, unless you have a proposal for handling the displaced material and that all adds up to a better way of organising everything.
My initial response didn't consider the WP:AND issue, just the consequences of the proposed change. But the more I lok at this, really don't see a WP:AND problem here. This isn't a matter of outsiders trying to create a WP:COATRACK by stitching together two issues; the Catholic Church itself has been very assertive in making abortion one of its big things. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: the Catholic Church's beliefs on abortion extend beyond affecting only members of the Church. It also attempts to change and affect legislation and attitudes towardss abortion more generally. The proposed move would cause a dramatic narrowing of the scope of the article by my reckoning over half of the current content would have to be cut to fit within the proposed titles parameters. Ebonelm (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have the same concerns as BrownHairedGirl and Ebonelm. Perhaps an alternative title could be something like Catholic Church's views on abortion? I am also not necessarily convinced that there is a WP:AND problem here, though... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Support reversing title orders to "Abortion and XXXX": I think this request should be left open for longer than usual. I agree with BrownHairedGirl in thinking and is good description but the order should be reversed to be more WP:RECOGNIZABLE to "Abortion and Christianity", "Abortion and the Catholic Church", and "Abortion and the Catholic Church in the United States". I agree with Jujutsuan The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, i.e. subject matter, is abortion while the range, or scope, is in relationship to a group: Christianity or an organization: Catholic Church and more specifically Catholic Church (United States). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC); modified 20:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl, Caeciliusinhorto, and Ebonelm: how would in vs and change the scope of the articles? Both ways describe the set of ideas about abortion in the Catholic Church and (in the current articles) sections about dissenting opinions. Do you speculate that WP:BALANCE of Catholic Church doctrines vs dissenting opinions might change? The title change would not affect content about engagement in the public sphere or about civic participation. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@BoBoMisiu: I explained at length above why "in the Catholic Church" would exclude all the ways in which the church pursues political campaigns in the public sphere on abortion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: I agree with you that in does "sound like they are about abortions happening within the Catholic Church" and that and is better. Yet, I don't see how in would exclude content about engagement in the public sphere or about civic participation – in my opinion in also implies in the context of but I have no convincing argument for that opinion. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@BoBoMisiu: I don't see how "in" implies "outside". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@BoBoMisiu and BrownHairedGirl: Because it's still Catholic Church activity. It's not about the US government initiating interaction with the Church, it's the other way around. The activity detailed in the article is still within the Church, though the impact is outside. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 18:45, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl: I did not write outside, I wrote "in my opinion in also implies in the context of" and wrote that the term and is the better connector. I think placing the term abortion as the first term in the titles would be semantically precise and more search friendly in the Wikipedia search box – people will input abortion before they input Catholic Church and they will have better scoping suggestions in the search box. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jujutsuan: I agree with you that the "activity detailed in the article is still within the Church" and the criticism sections, i.e. dissenting opinions of church members and opinions of non-members, are in the context of Catholic Church doctrines. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current article title is perfectly understandable and appropriate. It tells the reader that the topic is about the interaction of a religion and the issue of abortion. The suggested titles are more confusing; they may be misunderstood as being about abortion among particular religious figures rather than the general populace. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@Binksternet: I think of the subject matter in almost the same way you do, but with a subtle difference: abortion in the context of a religion, instead of "interaction of a religion and the issue of abortion". The act, i.e. abortion, is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and words that follow are the range, or scope, of the topic. That is why "Abortion and Christianity", "Abortion and the Catholic Church", and "Abortion and the Catholic Church in the United States" seem like better titles. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 5 July 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved by unanimous support. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 23:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

(non-admin closure)

– Since the "in" RM (above) failed but several editors had supported reversing the order from "Catholic Church/Christianity and abortion" to "Abortion and the Catholic Church/Christianity", let's get this discussion going. Is the order reversal supported, to put the wp:PRIMARYTOPIC first and improve accessibility (since most people will type in "abortion" before "Catholic Church/Christianity")? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 15:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Abortion and the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I set the above to "true" because of the 5 links, 4 of them are working. I'm not sure what the fifth one was supposed to point to, if anything, as it appears to just be an archive of the Vatican home page, so I will report it separately as a bot bug. TheBlinkster (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abortion and the Catholic Church. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Doctrine on Contraception vs Abortion

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

After an earlier IP-editor objected to my source, I added two sources so that the added material would be more heavily sourced. Then @Roscelese: objected to a sentence that seemed to be interpreting the Council of Trent quote (rather than letting it stand on its own), so I deleted that. I don't want to delete either of the two additional references (to the Council of Trent and to The Story of Jane) because an earlier editor objected to having just one source. Thanks.NightHeron (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not just about whether or not you wrote a sentence that seemed to be "interpreting" the Trent quote. You need a source that shows the connection between the Trent quote and this article; that's what makes it WP:SYNTH. I understand that you're worried about having just one source, but anecdotal evidence, even if from a usable source, doesn't necessarily bolster your addition that much - and anyway, the IP user that removed your addition in the first place seems to just have been disruptive. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@Roscelese: Thanks for giving more clarification, but I'm still confused about what I should do. The Council of Trent quote simply gives the authoritative Catholic definition of contrition, which clarifies what the issue is for many Catholics. I'm trying to make it clear that there's nothing controversial about this, it's simply a neutral statement about what's an issue for many Catholics. The Story of Jane is, I believe, a classic treatment of the period in Chicago before Roe v Wade, and the story of "Molly" was included by Laura Kaplan not as a stray anecdote, but rather to make the same point as made in Koblitz's book concerning a possible Catholic reason for a woman to prefer abortion to contraception. So I think that both sources add to the short section. NightHeron (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@NightHeron: What you need to do in order to include the Trent quote is to produce a source which connects it to the article subject. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@Roscelese: Both Koblitz and Kaplan connect the article subject to Catholic beliefs about sin and contrition, which is the subject of the Trent quote. The Trent quote is the most authoritative source I could find that briefly defines contrition as it is understood in Catholic doctrine. I could delete the sentence with the Trent quote, but I think it is important for readers to understand what Koblitz and Kaplan are referring to when they speak of the Catholic view of contrition, and to understand that they are not misrepresenting or inventing Catholic doctrine. In the absence of the Trent quote, it will be easier for hostile IP-editors to attack the two sources for supposedly misstating Catholic doctrine.NightHeron (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@NightHeron: Do either of those sources mention the Council of Trent? If not, how do you know that that's "what [they] are referring to"? Don't worry about hostile IPs; for now, what you should be worrying about is making sure that your edits are policy-compliant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Roscelese: Could you point me to where the policy you're referring to is explained? I'd like to read what the policy is and what the rationale is. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@NightHeron: it's WP:SYNTH, like I've linked several times. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Roscelese: Yes, I read that carefully when you first linked, but I thought you might have something else in mind as well. The policy says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." In the passage in question I've not implied any conclusion other than what's explicitly stated by Kaplan and Koblitz concerning the effect of Catholic doctrine about contrition on how some Catholic women view abortion vs contraception. The Trent quote is only a factual reference for readers who aren't familiar with an authoritative statement of that doctrine. The two examples given in WP:Synth are clear cases of editorializing. I don't see how including the Trent quote is editorializing. Should I ask for a "Third Opinion" about whether or not including the Trent quote violates policy? NightHeron (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know how I can explain this to you any more clearly. You're combining the Kaplan/Koblitz sources, which are directly relevant to the article, with another source. You state as much yourself! Anyone at WP:NORN (no original research noticeboard) will tell you the same. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Roscelese is correct. The problem is one of synthesis of sources, adding A + B to get to conclusion C. You need a source explicitly declaring the conclusion. Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Roscelese:@Binksternet: Would it be acceptable to put the Trent Council quote in a <ref> note but delete it from the text? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
No. By doing so you are still violating WP:SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Relevance of Catholic views on abortion/contraception

Latest comment: 6 years ago23 comments3 people in discussion

This section is on Catholic doctrine, which condemns avoiding pregnancy through abortion or through contraceptive use, and the previous paragraph mentions the history of differing opinions by Catholic theologians on their relative sinfulness. This is central to the question of abortion, at least for Catholics, since women who want to avoid pregnancy are likely either to choose contraception, or choose abortion, or choose contraception followed by abortion if the contraception fails. The way historical and current Catholic doctrine influences women who are faced with this decision is totally relevant to this section. NightHeron (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Why are you working from The Story of Jane which is a series of anecdotes rather than a comprehensive analysis of the problem? You are conflating the story of Molly with the much more complex story of all Catholic women. The unique experience of one woman has no place in this article.
An example of why this is a problem, is that virtually all American women ages 15 to 44, regardless of religion, have used contraception if they have been sexually active with a man. Among Catholic women who are at risk of unintended pregnancy, 87% are using contraception.[2] The story about Molly makes it seem as if more women might worry about the morality of contraception, when very few do – about one percent. So your tale of contrition and forgiveness is terribly out of place. Binksternet (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Binksternet: Please don't disparage the source, which is a respected and widely-used book. The story of Molly was not the "unique experience of one woman" but rather a story the author told to make a point about a large number of women. The source is not a biography of a woman named Molly, but rather a history of the experiences of abortion providers in a certain period in Chicago.
What you point out is interesting, and could be added as a counterpoint. But it's one thing to say that, statistically, your source says that large numbers of U.S. Catholic women are violating Catholic doctrine on contraceptive use. However, that does not show that Catholic doctrine on contraceptive use has no effect on abortion decisions among Catholic women, and it does not negate the point made in the two sources I used. It's widely recognized that negative pressures on women over contraceptive use -- whether coming from difficulty of access, legal restrictions, high cost, stereotypes about women who use them, or doctrines that say that it's wrong or disreputable -- have the effect of increasing abortion rates. That Catholic doctrine on contraceptive use can have this effect is certainly relevant to an article titled "Abortion and the Catholic Church".NightHeron (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Your task, then, is to find a suitable source analyzing the effect on abortion rates of Catholic doctrine on contraception. Binksternet (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Binksternet: If you mean a source giving statistics based on surveys of women in Catholic countries, I know of no such study. The absence of a statistical study does not mean that the issue cannot be included in the article. Please don't hold me to a much higher standard for sourcing than other sections of the same article. Consider, for example, the subsection on unintentional abortion, which starts out: "The principle of double effect is frequently cited in relation to abortion." Three sources are given for the subsection. None of the sources gives statistics or other evidence supporting the word "frequently" (I couldn't check source [63], which seems to be a dead link). The sources [61]-[62] are theoretical in nature, and have no information about the actual importance of the doctrine of double effect, for example, how often it's cited by doctors in Catholic countries or what its effect is on the abortion rate. I'm not bringing this up in order to criticize that subsection. I'm just saying that requirements for sources should be reasonable; the absence of a statistical study should not mean that the topic must be avoided or that qualitative rather than quantitative sources should be disparaged. NightHeron (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I trimmed the redundancy of the section you referred to, and I removed the Molly story as well as another news item about an individual story. We should not be trying to tell the larger narrative with a few examples. Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Binksternet: You deleted my source (Laura Kaplan's The Story of Jane) unilaterally, without answering my defense of using that source. I believe that it is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia to cite an RS that uses a story to make a point. It is not the editor who's telling the story, it's the source that's telling it. If you think I'm wrong, please point me to a Wikipedia policy against using such a source. Another possibility would be to ask for a Third Opinion on including that source.NightHeron (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT says that sources should be used in proportion to their relevance. An anecdote about one person is not very relevant when the topic is about millions. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
@Binksternet: The book The Story of Jane is a classic historical treatment of the subject. The "undue weight" policy does not apply to an author's use of an illustrative story to make a point. It is the source, not the editor, who is mentioning a single story, as I said. An example of what I'm referring to is: Death of Savita Halappanavar. If a single case is highlighted in a source, then there's no violation of WP:Weight. The "anecdote" about Halappanavar is relevant even though the topic is about millions.NightHeron (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't see what why we keep arguing about the story of Molly when Molly's experience is not typical. Why would an encyclopedia article about a general subject choose an atypical, individual case? Telling the reader about such a case would put undue weight on that kind of experience. The author, Laura Kaplan, was not intending to show anything more than the breadth of experience by telling her readers about Molly. If Kaplan were to describe a typical Catholic experience of the issues, she would not select Molly. Let's refrain from anecdotal stories altogether, and just give statistics. Binksternet (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
@Binksternet: Laura Kaplan was illustrating what she thought was an important type of Catholic women's reaction to the implications of Catholic doctrine. In many countries or regions the rate of abortion among Catholic women is comparable (or even higher) than among non-Catholic women, and the story of Molly is Kaplan's explanation of a factor that influences some women. Kaplan does not make any statistical claim about what proportion of Catholic women share Molly's experience. But there is no Wikipedia policy that says that all sources used should "just give statistics." Since you and I are somewhat going around in circles -- repeating ourselves -- I've asked for a Third Opinion.NightHeron (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Now you are saying that Molly represents the experience of women from other countries? In the source, Molly is American. This is another case of you conflating the source material, trying to stretch it beyond its intended meaning. Binksternet (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
After disparaging a source that is a classic book on the subject, you are now impuning my motives; please see WP:GF. I am not conflating or stretching or misrepresenting the source. I did not say that Molly represents women of all countries. I said that the clear point of the author is to suggest an effect that Catholic doctrine has on some women. The author studied Chicago, and of course it's possible that the women she knew in Chicago were affected by Catholic doctrine in a way that women in no other city or country were. All of that is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Laura Kaplan's point in telling this story is acceptable or unacceptable as a citation in Wikipedia. As I've said, I've asked for a TO on that, and if no one responds, then we can go from there. In the meantime, please don't make accusations against me.NightHeron (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm done talking about the case of Molly. I have not heard any good argument why one case should be used to represent some sort of larger truth. Instead, I have argued that we cite sources actually working with the larger truth, such as polls, studies and statistics. Stick a fork in Molly, she's done. Binksternet (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
The issue is not Molly, it's Wikipedia policy on sources. One editor's preference for quantitative studies does not constitute Wikipedia policy. I think you'll find that most scholarly historical writing is not quantitative. I find nothing in WP:RS that says that a source such as The Story of Jane should be disparaged or avoided; on the contrary, that book is a well-regarded scholarly work published by University of Chicago Press, and so satisfies WP:RS. If no TO comes in to help, our disagreement can be resolved using other Wikipedia procedures.NightHeron (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
We already have three people here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@Roscelese: Thanks for rejoining the discussion. Since you have, I'd like to return to the question of the Council of Trent quote, which I said I was willing to put into a note (to give it less prominence). But I've looked further into Wikipedia policy, and I really don't see how the quote violates WP:SYNTH. Please see WP:SYNTHNOT, especially the two short sections WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH is not presumed and WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH is not a policy. Thanks.NightHeron (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@NightHeron: So you haven't been paying attention to anything I've said this whole time, have you? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Roscelese: On the contrary, I've paid close attention to everything you've said. The last comment on this was: "I don't know how I can explain this to you any more clearly. You're combining the Kaplan/Koblitz sources, which are directly relevant to the article, with another source." If you look at WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH is not presumed and WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH is not a policy, you'll see that the burden of proof is on you to show an inference I have made that is not explicitly in the sources; without that, synthesis is not SYNTH. A sourced informational note that appears along with two substantive sources does not constitute SYNTH. Wikipedia policy (WP:GF) is also to discourage an accusatory tone or a tone of exasperation. Please let's keep this civil. We're both trying to make the article as good as possible. Thanks.NightHeron (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@NightHeron: The relevance of the Council of Trent to this article IS the inference! My first reply to you said this. This WP:IDHT is getting very tiring. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@Roscelese: Having a disagreement is not the same thing as being disruptive, and your implication (by citing WP:IDHT) that I've been disruptive is insulting. The word "contrition" is not widely used among non-Catholics, and its meaning in Catholic doctrine is not well known outside the Church. Wikipedia policy is that the language in articles should be accessible to a secondary school student, and so specialized language should be avoided or explained. The explanatory note I want to put in after the word "contrition" is simply to help the reader understand the term as used in a section of the article on "Catholic doctrine." When the sources talk about contrition, it's helpful for readers to know what that means. The two sources are explicitly talking about Catholic doctrine. No inference is being drawn when I cite an authoritative definition of a term that a source is using. Have you read WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH is not presumed and WP:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH is not a policy? NightHeron (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Wikilink "contrition". –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@Roscelese: Thanks for the constructive suggestion. I hadn't thought of that. I see that the main body of Contrition starts out with exactly the same quote that I wanted to put in the informational footnote. Although I still think that a footnote would be more effective than a wikilink (in the sense that it takes less effort for a reader than leaving the page to read a longer explanation), a wikilink to an explanation is far better than nothing, so that's fine. There's still the question of the use of The Story of Jane that User:Binksternet is strongly objecting to, so I won't withdraw the RfC. Thanks again.NightHeron (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC on two references to history sources in the Church doctrine section

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No. The question asked was "are the two references compliant with Wikipedia policy" but it is clear that it is being used as a proxy for "should they be included in this article in this way". Which is the right question to ask, this is the discussion page for this article, not for references in general. There weren't many different voices but what there were have clearly concluded that no, these should not be used here in this way, because 1, the Council of Trent statement is an important statement, but doesn't mention abortion, while 2, the story of Molly in The Story of Jane is about abortion, but is only a single anecdote in a single book, not sufficient to represent the views of all, most, or even many modern Catholics. For those who prefer blue abbreviations, the relevant policy and guideline links are WP:SYNTH and WP:WEIGHT. --GRuban (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Are the two references in dispute -- (i) an informational note to the Council of Trent statement on contrition and (ii) a reference to the story of Molly in the book The Story of Jane -- compliant with Wikipedia policy? (Please see previous 2 sections of this talk page.) NightHeron (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Wrong RFC. The question should be whether the two sources are being used in an appropriate manner, with respect to this edit which introduced a source talking about the Council of Trent http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm and a source talking about the case of "Molly" in the book The Story of Jane. The intent of NightHeron using the sources is to prove to the reader that one or two instances of abortion may be considered a greater sin than the daily use of contraception. The problem with the newadvent.org source is that it doesn't talk about abortion at all. The problem with the story about "Molly" is that it misleads the reader to think one particular individual stance might be prevalent among Catholics, when the actuality is that by far the great majority of Catholic women have used contraception. Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I stated the question as neutrally as possible. You claimed that my use of the two sources violate WP:SYNTH and WP:WEIGHT, both of which are parts of other policies (OR and NPOV, respectively). I responded that there was no violation. For the first, I make no inference that is not explicit in the sources, so there is no violation; please see WP:SYNTHNOT. For the second, it is not undue weight to cite an author who makes her point by telling a story rather than by gathering statistics, see WP:RS. As I said, most historical sources do not have statistics, and your statement "Let's just give statistics" does not represent Wikipedia policy. Your statement that the great majority of Catholic women have used contraception is true in some parts of the world and not in others, but in any case is irrelevant, since that still leaves a huge number of Catholic women who do not use contraception and do use abortion. For the information of RfC, the paragraph in dispute can be found immediately preceding Section 1.1 in the version of 03:22, 1 May 2018.NightHeron (talk) 11:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The old edit cited above by [User:Binksternet] is not the correct one, as I later agreed to de-emphasize the Trent Council reference in response to other editors, placing it in an informational footnote. Please see this edit.NightHeron (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I have two comments not on sourcing but on how, from what I've learned, the more dominant opinions of moral theologians today would suggest that this article should go. 1) Comparisons with contraception should not be brought up in this article since it is a very conflictual topic in itself and so not likely to clarify Catholic teaching on abortion. 2) When discussing sin the emphasis should be more specifically on purpose of amendment than on "contrition", and that absolution not be used as a criterion for forgiveness since absolution itself has a complex history. If you agree with these two points then your present question will not need resolving. Jzsj (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Why #2? Avoiding the occasions of serious sin was Christ's criterion for forgiveness (go and sin no more) and was used up to the Middle ages: "contrition" was demonstrated by true repentance (evidence of resolve to avoid the sin in the future) and this was required before absolution. By the Middle Ages penances were assigned but penitents were failing to return for absolution, and so the Church began giving absolution before the penance was performed, certainly not in accord with the early Church's excommunication, where penance on the church steps during Lent was often required for recommunication at Easter. Trent fixed the modern practice, but at a time when they were out of touch with the early history of the Church, and in a Counter-Reformation mode against the Reformers that lasted up to Vatican II. The classic work on Reconciliation is Poschman, where we read in part: "If what was later called 'absolution' existed—and this is doubtful—it was given by lay as well as ordained advisors who heard confession" (on web). Jzsj (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, it's SYNTH, as Binksternet says above The question should be whether the two sources are being used in an appropriate manner to which the answer would have to be No. I am not familiar with Catholic sources, but assume that newadvent is reliable as to the nature/evolution/place of contrition in RC belief, however because newadvent says nothing about abortion or the relative 'sinfulness' of contraception vs abortion, it is being used to reach a conclusion that it does not express. This wording is a bit of a give-away "a belief among many Catholics that abortion is less of a sin than contraceptive use can be understood by taking into account the role of intent as a determining factor in Catholic doctrine on contrition", very possibly it can, or hypothetically could be understood in that way - but do any RC sources come to that conclusion about modern RC women or catholic dogma regarding contraception vs abortion? Also, the use of the individual anecdotal example seeks to exemplify the text that such a belief is relatively common. Why should we take one example as being anything other than that - a single anecdote. I'm sure one could find many individual justifications for either contraception or abortion, but how can these be weighed and what conclusions could be reached as to how significant/prevalent such beliefs are. Possibly NightHeron is in good faith trying to explain why some RC women may have this belief, unfortunately, that isn't what we do here. Pincrete (talk) 19:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@Pincrete: The sentence you quote does nothing but paraphrases what's in the sources, but I have no problem with deleting it, since it's a bit redundant anyway. What I'm really surprised by is the dislike of a historical source -- the classic book The Story of Jane by Laura Kaplan. You are correct that "the use of the individual anecdotal example seeks to exemplify the text that such a belief is relatively common", but it's the source, not me, that is using the example for that purpose. I'm simply citing it. If you or others dislike what a source says, then by all means locate a different RS that says the opposite. Also, you're suggesting that all sources should be RC sources ("but do any RC sources come to that conclusion...?"), but that's not true. In an article about the Catholic Church and abortion there's nothing contrary to Wikipedia policy about using a book (such as The Story of Jane) that was not written by a Roman Catholic.NightHeron (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure newadvent is reasonably authorative about contrition, the point is that it doesn't say anything about abortion or contraception. I don't think only RC sources should be used, but they are probably preferable when expounding dogma. The Story of Jane may be interesting, but what reliably does it tell us? That a particular individual woman felt a particular way - according to another particular woman - in a particular place and time. Pincrete (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@Pincrete: Thank you for your prompt reply. First let me clarify that after I posted RfC, User:Roscelese suggested a solution to the Trent Council quote question that seems to resolve that issue. Namely, I can put in a wikilink to the article on Contrition for a reader who needs an authoritative explanation of the issue; that Wikipedia article features the Trent Council quote at the beginning of the main body. My reason for initially wanting that quote was that many non-Catholic readers would need help understanding what the term "contrition" means in the RC sense. But the wikilink should be helpful to such a reader.
  • Concerning The Story of Jane, what the story reliably tells us is that a certain RS -- namely, the author Laura Kaplan, who wrote the book based on an investigation of the actions and ways of thinking of the women who were involved in the "Jane" project, both abortion providers and patients -- concluded that, as you put it, the anecdotal example exemplifies that such a belief is relatively common. If you can find a reliable source stating that the women Kaplan studied (the Catholic ones) were very atypical in their understanding of Catholic doctrine, then by all means add a sentence saying that.NightHeron (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Revert

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I reverted the recent edit because even if that material belonged in the body, it would not be suitable for the lede. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catholic_Church_and_abortion/Archive_3&oldid=1136596076"