Talk:Catholics for Choice/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

not a Catholic organization

Would the editors trying to add the Cat:Catholic organization (of any kind) please stop? It is not a Catholic organization -- the Catholic Church (USCCB) has said so. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There are a number of problems with that view.

1. Wikipedia generally respects the self-identification of individuals and groups. It would be immensely problematic if we were to attempt to determine who is and is not observant enough for a particular category. The USCCB, as a pressure group opposed to CfC, is not exactly a neutral source here.
2. It is inconsistent with the status-quo for categorizing Catholic organizations specifically. The Society of St. Pius X has been condemned by the pope, and I don't think there's ever been any real dispute about categorizing it as Catholic.

(And I'm not sure if you have to be an admin to add the sanction notice, but I hope not, because I think you were right to add it.)

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Last I heard, the world Catholic wasn't trademarked so they can call themselves that if they want. I could call myself Catholic if I wanted, obviously, I don't want to. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 01:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You could call yourself Napoleon, too. Would that make you Napoleon? --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparently because I like filing reports, I have filed a report at RSN. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It's always an amusing exercise to see if a committee of experts can arrive at the obvious truth. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

What is the "obvious truth"? That category has several organizations in it that are not official Roman Catholic bodies. --B (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

All I know about the category is that CfC does not belong in it; the Catholic Church says so. And that's the truth! --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not their call. The question is whether it is widely recognized as being a Catholic group. Most Protestants don't consider non-Trinitarian religions like Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witnesses to be Christian, but Wikipedia uses the definition that if you self-identify as a Christian and reliable sources call you a Christian, we call you a Christian. This is NOT a theological statement - Wikipedia is not God - it's just a recognize that for the sake of neutrality and not picking sides, we're going to use the commonly accepted term. Similarly, I don't think the Roman Catholic Church gets to be the final arbiter on who Wikipedia is going to call Catholic. If an organization calls itself Catholic and reliable sources call it Catholic, I don't think we should say that you aren't Catholic. Besides, categories aren't a value judgment - they are simply a convenient way to organize articles. --B (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well said. Binksternet (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, while there are other organizations in there that aren't official, the cat tree makes it obvious they shouldn't be there either. Category:Roman_Catholic_organizations_established_in_the_20th_century is a child of Category:Roman Catholic organizations by century, which is a child of Category:Roman Catholic Church organizations, which is a child of Category:Roman Catholic Church organisation. Therefore, if a group isn't part of the organization of the Church, it shouldn't have that cat on it. I've gone through and removed a bunch of others that didn't match that criteria as well. It's entirely possible this should have some sort of "organization of Catholics" tag on it -- just not that one.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

God bless you, Sarek, my son! I hereby grant you a plenary indulgence (provided you meet all the requirements). --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

What are you trying to do, start a WikiReformation here? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean wikiCounterReformation. And, Griswaldo gets a partial indulgence for suggesting a look at the Cat tree. --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea to make these sorts of sweeping changes without discussing first (perhaps at WikiProject Catholicism). And they would be sweeping - Sarek removed a few from the category, but there are loads more (shall we begin with Human Life International?) Part of the issue is that we don't have a category to replace it (ie. "organizations of Catholics" as opposed to "official Catholic organizations"). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

One distinction that needs to be made, and that hasn't been, is that Catholic =/= Roman Catholic. There are Catholic movements that are not associated with Rome, and allowing decisions made by the church hierarchy to speak for all Catholics is akin to allowing the Southern Baptist Convention to speak for all Protestants. Kansan (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it should probably be discussed somewhere more visible than this -- WPCatholic is probably a good spot. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Kansan makes a good point. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I started a general discussion on how to handle these categories at WP:CATHOLIC. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Kansan is wrong. There is no distinction between the terms "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic". In the sense we're intending here, both mean the exact same thing; that is, the church connected to the Holy See. It is true that other churches and groups do call themselves "Catholic" (Old Catholics, independent Catholics, breakaway groups, etc.) or use the term to describe themselves (the Orthodox Church, the Church of England, and many, many others). However, it is not the case that "Catholic" is a catch-all term for all groups calling themselves Catholic, while "Roman Catholic" is reserved for the one sub-group connected to the Pope. Both "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" are used for, and by, the church connected to the Holy See, and there is no catch-all term for all groups calling themselves Catholic.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Their founder was de-frocked and much of their membership has been ex-communicated. They are, by definition, not Catholic. Catholicism is not as vague an affiliation, not as debatable as, say, being Christian. There is a bright red line with regard to what is and is not Catholic and these folks are decidedly on one side of that line. - Haymaker (talk) 18:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to comment on the description of the SSPX as Catholic? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

1 - I don't think it would be illogical to remove them as well.

2 - They haven't been excommunicated. - Haymaker (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

2. Going by the sources currently cited in the article, neither has most of the membership of Catholics for Choice. Bruskewitz isn't the Pope. Not that it matters, though, because Wikipedia is not the Vatican and is not bound by the hierarchy's decisions. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

But we write about the decisions of that hierarchy and we are obligated to write about them accurately. There is nothing ambiguous about being Catholic, there is a bright line and this organization is outside of it. - Haymaker (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"nothing ambiguous about being Catholic" -- Wrong. I'd strongly suggest keeping that POV on the talkpage and out of articles.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

They have a legal system, they excommunicate people, there are (ecclesiastical) court cases over this, there are definitive answers to some questions and this is one of them. - Haymaker (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no ambiguity whether CfC is a Catholic organization -- it is not, and it should not be described as being one. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it an organization of the Catholic Church? No. Is it an organization of Catholics? Yes. Is it a Catholic organization? Depends on the definition. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL -- not keeping up with things, are you? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I have been. I wouldn't mind moving them out of the category, but it is understandably as to how they got mixed in there. - Haymaker (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• Matthew 7:1-5. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as my comment goes, I didn't intend it to mean that any group was "Catholic" or not, only that there is no hierarchy of terminology wherein "Catholic" refers to the entire set of churches and "Roman Catholic" refers to a particular subset. That's just not how the terms are used.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Joseph P. O'Rourke

People keep claiming that the section about Joseph P. O'Rourke is a BLP violation. The valid source itself says "On Sept. 6, 1974, the order officially dismissed him for having baptised an infant whose mother favored allowign women free choice in obtaining abortions."..."A long trail of discontent, often testing the authority of the church, led up to the cause celbre." Claiming BLP does not work. You can try fighting the validity of the source, but it isn't a BLP violation.Marauder40 (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"Trail of discontent" is Jesuit POV and not a neutral statement. Also, O'Rourke was not removed from the priesthood, he was expelled by the Jesuit order. Binksternet (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

What? Did you even read the source? This phrasing comes from the article, and the article seems more friendly to Joseph O'Rourke than to the Jesuits. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"Trail of discontent" is exact phrasing from the article. While you were typing this I was in the process of removing priesthood portion until a source can be found to say if he was laicized.Marauder40 (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to quote the reporter's exact words as the reporter is not notable. "Trail of discontent" is simply not neutral—it's simultaneously an accusation and a dismissal. Instead of using that phrase, why not describe the history of O'Rourke and the Jesuits, the history of who was not content (probably both parties), what happened and why? Binksternet (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, that history belongs at his biography, not here. Binksternet (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutral or not, it leaves a more accurate impression than saying simply "was expelled after a forbidden baptism". Read my comment below with my comparison to WWI. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 21:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is not the place to discuss it in detail. If detail was desired, the neutral stance would also have to question why a bishop went so far as to order that a baby not be baptized Catholic. You would certainly expect to describe the finer points of the events leading up to WWI in the World War I article, but you would give the very briefest version in the article about Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I would expect the sentence about WWI to be at least "World War I was triggered by the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, in a climate of serious diplomatic confrontation caused by imperialism". The article on Sophie contains less then this, but it at least has an excuse: it speaks about WWI in the Introduction, and the Introduction is supposed to be very concise. And even then they had the wisdom of using the word SPARK, which makes it clear that the assassination was not the sole cause of World War I. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it, there are several possible solutions:

1. Go with what the damned source says. It talks about a long trail of discontent that led up to the baptism. It also explicitly says that it was the baptism that was responsible for the dismissal. We cannot therefore say or imply that the cause of the dismissal was anything other than the baptism. The phrasing "after a long trail of discontent" does this. Yes, it was "after" chronologically, but we would never write "he was expelled from the Jesuits after eating a sandwich" or "he was expelled from the Jesuits after baptizing a baby whose mother opposed abortion," even though both of those are almost certainly true. The phrasing implies causality. We can't say that.
2. Find another source of equal or better quality that supports the claims you want to make.
3. Provide the bare minimum of information, ie. "ex-priest," and let O'Rourke's article do the explaining, since he does have his own article.

--Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ex-Jesuit, not ex-priest. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Beg pardon, I took a look at O'Rourke's article and he died in 2008. And I know I knew this a while ago, so I apologize for forgetting. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You beat me to the punch I was going to ask how this was a BLP violation when the person is no longer living.Marauder40 (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup, not BLP. Just V. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with the wording of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholics_for_Choice&oldid=438908687? It says "Joseph O'Rourke was expelled from the Jesuits in 1974 after the baptism of the baby of a pro-choice woman he was expressly forbidden to perform. This was preceeded by a long trail of discontent, often testing the authority of the Church"

And saying simply "was expelled after babtizing the baby of a pro-choice woman" is unacceptable. It is like saying "World War I happened after the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand". It insinuates that one event caused the other by itself, which is so simplistic that it is wrong. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, there is more at play than just that one act. - Haymaker (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The one act was the specific point at which O'Rourke was expelled. This is not the O'Rourke article, and we do not need such detail. Binksternet (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic accusation

We should not allow the Catholics for Choice and its enemies to exchange barbs here in this article without other observers taking notice of the exchange. We should not let the Catholic League issue a blast from their own pulpit at www.catholicleague.org, nor should we let the Catholic News Agency to let loose an unattributed barb from www.catholicnewsagency.com. By extension, we should not allow Catholics for Choice to answer these attacks by quoting from their own web site. Rather, any relevant attacks and responses should be notable ones that have been carried as a neutral news item. Binksternet (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The anti-catholic accusation is sourced with their channels of funding - they receive nearly no money from their own members; they receive 97% of their funding from organizations such as the Ford Foundation and George Soros.

There are also quotations from their members, saying things like "I don't believe in the Church" and "I want to change the Church from the inside because the Church is an agent of social change". And they even campaigned to kick the Holy See out of the UN!

Imagine if Rush Limbaugh sponsored an organization called "Democrats against Obama". Imagine if "Democrats against Obama" tried to remove the Democrats recognition as a valid party. And imagine that these organization was repudiated by the Democratic Party leadership, and important Democractic commentators labeled them as "anti-Dem". Shouldn't this "anti-Dem" accusation be included in Wikipedia? Jorge Peixoto (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No, no and no. We would refer to the dispute as it appeared in news stories. We go by reliable WP:SECONDARY sources, not primary sources. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

We do actually have such an article - it's called Pro-life feminism, and we don't give undue weight to criticism of it, or print allegations about it sourced only to political organizations that campaign against it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no contradiction between pro-life and feminism, if we understand feminism as the just defense of women. But "Catholics for choice" makes as much sense as "communists for the free market" or "black panthers for slavery" Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Nor do we have quotes from pro-life feminists saying "I don't believe in justifce for women, I'm just here to change this from the inside" Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't have similar quotes from CFC members, either, so this is irrelevant. Please stop trying to police others' religious beliefs. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

“I spent twenty years looking for a government that I could overthrow without being thrown in jail. I finally found one in the Catholic church.” That is how Frances Kissling, the president of Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC), explained her mission to a reporter from the magazine, Mother Jones. As the record shows, her rhetoric is anything but empty.

One way that Kissling works to attack the Catholic Church is to challenge the status of the Holy See at the United Nations. The Holy See is a sovereign state and has maintained a diplomatic corps since at least the 15th century. Kissling is determined to try to convince the 170 countries around the world that exchange diplomats with the Holy See that it is unworthy of such recognition. To that end, she has orchestrated a “See Change” campaign to strip the Vatican of its permanent observer status at the U.N.

Kissling herself does not dispute the fact that her identification with Catholicism is based on her own definition of what it means to be a Catholic. “When I say I came back to the Church, I never came back on the old terms…. I came back to the Church as a social change agent; I came back to woman-church.” Admitting that she is “not talking about coming back to Sunday Mass, confession,” and the like, Kissling asserts that the hierarchy of the Church “doesn’t deserve our respect.”

Perhaps the most severe blow to the reputation of CFFC came on April 21, 1995. That was the day the National Catholic Reporter printed a letter by Marjorie Reiley Maguire blasting the reputation of CFFC. Maguire, an attorney who is divorced from the ex-Jesuit and Marquette theology professor, Dan Maguire, was for years a prominent CFFC activist. Indeed, she and her radical husband were once the CFFC’s poster couple. But like many others who came of age in the sixties, Maguire began to have second thoughts. Included in her intellectual migration were second thoughts about CFFC and Catholicism.

In her letter, Maguire branded CFFC as “an anti-woman organization” whose agenda is “the promotion of abortion, the defense of every abortion decision as a good, moral choice and the related agenda of persuading society to cast off any moral constraints about sexual behavior.” She explains that it is not the Catholic Church that is “hung up on sex.” Rather it is liberals who are obsessed with sex. Questioning the right of CFFC to call itself Catholic, Maguire said, “When I was involved with CFFC, I was never aware that any of its leaders attended Mass. Furthermore, various conversations and experiences convinced me they did not.”

In spite of all this, the media continue to portray CFFC as a Catholic organization in good standing. Yet even a perusal of CFFC’s literature should be enough to convince anyone that CFFC has no love for the Catholic Church or for any organization that proudly defends the Church. Its 1994 publication, “A New Rite: Conservative Catholic Organizations and their Allies,” lists as “the enemy” groups that range from the National Catholic Conference of Bishops to the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

At the top of the “enemies list” for CFFC is Pope John Paul II. At the time of the Cairo Conference on Population and Development, Kissling wrote, “If there is a devil in Cairo, it can only be released by the pope’s obstructionist meddling.” In similar fashion, Kissling stokes the fires of anti-Catholicism by charging that “The Vatican cannot be allowed to set policy for the whole world,” as if the delegation from the Holy See was doing something untoward by simply stating its position as a duly elected member of the United Nations.[1]

Among others. And please avoid emotional language such as "police other's beliefs"; I'm not policing; I'm merling stating, in accordance with the USCCB, that this organization is not Catholic. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

It's too bad you couldn't cite a reliable source for any of this. I found some of the quotes elsewhere, but unsurprisingly, Kissling isn't saying what the Catholic League is trying to make others believe she's saying. The rest are just unsourced and there's no evidence that the Catholic League didn't make them up in an attempt to discredit a woman they dislike. (I seem to remember there being some sort of fundamental commandment about bearing false witness, but perhaps it's just my memory that's faulty.) In any case, we've strayed from the topic; as I said, Wikipedia isn't in the habit of deciding that someone isn't the religion they say they are, especially not when the source for this information is a group that just happens to invest a lot of time and money campaigning against CFC. Nor is this actually relevant, since no one has expressed a desire to remove the USCCB statement; it's the Catholic League's drum-beating whose inclusion is being questioned. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Jorge, it appears you are strongly and personally invested in this topic. You have repeatedly tried to debate the topic on this talk page, but the talk page is not for that purpose. The talk page is for improving the article, and what improves the article is cited text from reliable secondary sources. Starting from that requirement, your further participation on this talk page should a) recommend specific changes to the article and b) cite specific sources to support the position. Please do not use this talk page to vent anger or try to change other editors' minds regarding religion. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 04:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

External links

Should all those three links really be included? they are all reachable from the main CFC link.

By including all links, it seems wikipedia is serving as a directory for the positions of CFC. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Condoms4Life is probably unnecessary as it's not exactly the largest part of their activism, but I'd keep the other two. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

So I can delete the unnecessary one? Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, though perhaps you should wait a little while longer to see if any other users wish to comment. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem deleting that one. Marauder40 (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensus achieved, will delete. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, someone deleted it before me Jorge Peixoto (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Better sources, not primary sources

I have a problem with many of the recent "Better sources" tags. Many of the better sources tags are on things where the quote is directly quoted in the article as coming from the organization (i.e. the USCCB says..., the Catholic League says...) In some cases having the direct link is the best link when you are quoting the organization itself. Especially in cases like the USCCB. If you are trying to explain what they think then non-primary sources are better. Marauder40 (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the objective there was to find sources that confirm that those organizations' statements are notable. Anyone can post their opinions on their website, but it doesn't mean we must include those opinions in our article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There is even a question about whether the USCCB is notable or not? An organization that consists of all the US Catholic bishops. Sounds pretty notable to me, without even having to look for a source that quotes them. Yes I agree you have to establish notablitity for organizations that are much smaller (like maybe CFC itself) or aren't really known, but in this case it isn't needed. I guess we should also add the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops also said the same thing linkMarauder40 (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if better sources, secondary sources cannot be found then the notability of the quote is not supported and we must remove it. The 'better sources' tags were placed in preparation for deletion of the tagged sections. I could not find secondary sources but maybe someone else can. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) USCCB is obviously notable, but not everything they say is notable. (FWIW, I'd keep their statement here - third-party sources can probably be found, but even if not, it seems reasonable to include it. It's the Catholic League and these other fringe organizations/publications that it is unnecessary to include without independent sourcing.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The problem is that USCCB is a good source. It is the primary speaking arm of the Catholic church in the United States. The only better source would be the Vatican itself, and the odds of them speaking up about a small insignificant group like CFC is slim. I can easily provide sources with the quote in it exactly as written from lots of sources but I am sure people would complain that a Catholic publication or a pro-life organization doesn't meet 3rd party qualification, etc. CFC themselves even talk about what the USCCB said. The fact that this statement was made has been mentioned in several opinion pieces including in the NY Times. This is a situation where a primary-source is the appropriate source. The USCCB meets all notability requirements. This honestly sounds like trying to throw out anything that says anything bad about CFC.Marauder40 (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please, the USCCB is notable. It is the conference of the bishops for a 2000-year-old religion that includes 1.2B people and one fourth of the American population. I don't want to go comb Wikipedia guidelines and act as a lawyer here. Isn't this common sense? If, for example, I reference the US Census Bureau to say that the US population is 310 million, do I then have to provide a secondary source to confirm that this statement from the US Census Bureau is notable? Frankly, that would be pedantic and counter-productive Jorge Peixoto (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned that we are describing a tree that fell in the forest with none to hear. Even if the Pope makes a statement, if there is no reporting of it then it is hardly notable. Binksternet (talk) 21:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The statement is clearly notable (even crucial) for this article; it is as notable as the CFC itself. I don't think it is fair to remove the statement without removing the whole article.

Imagine having an article titled "Greenpeace activists for GM food" and not including the Greenpeace statement that those activists don't speak in name of the Greenpeace. That would defy common sense. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet, if the Pope said "The CFC is excommuniated." Whether or not mainstream media picked it up or not it would be important in the article on CFC. The USCCB is the primary speaking arm of the Catholic Church in America which includes the location of CFC. To downplay a statement from them as JorgePeixoto says "defies common sense". Arguements can be made for statements from Catholic League and Priests for Life if other sources can't be found but not USCCB. Personally I think Catholic League should stand since the two groups are constantly sparing, so if CFC itself is notable enough, Catholic Leagues statements should be to. Especially since Catholic League's membership is so a lot larger and has the backing of many bishops.Marauder40 (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I think we're looking for notable cometary and that certain statements from the Catholic Church would be notable in and of themselves due to the religious nature of the organization in question. - Haymaker (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I can see opinions here support inclusion of the bishops' pronouncement. In that case I think we should pair it with CFC's response in the same paragraph. Binksternet (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we currently include CFC's response in any location, if they did respond; the Ruether bit is about "anti-Catholic" accusations, not about "not Catholic" accusations. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I am mistaken. I thought CFC had responded to USCCBs pronouncement. That makes the USCCB comment even more "tree in the forest." Binksternet (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, this issue is mooted. When I was reorganizing the article and improving the references, I found out that the wanted secondary source was already there. I then simply copied the source to the relevant places. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 09:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Now that we have secondary sources on some of this material, shall we remove the primary-source criticism, viz. the Catholic League and Catholic News Agency sources? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree; the New York Times, saying that "Critics dismiss Ms. Kissling’s organization as a mouthpiece for bigger, secular abortion rights groups and a front for anti-Catholic bigotry." establishes the notability of the criticisms from the Catholic League and the Catholic News Agency. Those two criticisms are precisely two concrete examples of what the NYT says about indefinite "critics". Jorge Peixoto (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Catholic News Agency is not a primary source any more than AP is. There maybe questions of whether it is biased or not, but that is not relevant as to whether it is a reliable source. NYT, LAT, NBC, and FOX all have demonstrable biases, especially in the areas of Catholic social doctrine, nonetheless they, like CNA, remain reliable sources. Catholic League, like ADL or NAACP, is also a reliable source for some purposes. Mamalujo (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Take 'em to RSN; the burden is on you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Condoms4Life

JorgePeixoto says one of the same things I was thinking: I'm not sure this is a particularly notable program of CFC. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. That they promote condoms is already mentioned in the previous section. We absolutely don't have to be a directory for every program of theirs. If no one objects in the next 2 days, I will delete that section. Alternatively, if more users opine and the deletion view achieves a clear majority, I will delete right away. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

No one complained, therefore I will delete it. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits by JP

Whoa there! What the hell do you think you're doing inserting your own opinion of what their mission is and citing it to a dead link, a page that says nothing about it [ed. specifically, the quote is "Countering the disproportionate weight that the views of the Vatican are given in policy making by campaigning against its special status at the United Nations and in other political systems" - "Expel the Holy See from the UN" is an obviously non-neutral and possibly inaccurate gloss], and two anti-CFC articles? How on earth can you possibly think you can source their mission that way? If the cited sources no longer reflect the text, then update the text or find other sources. Primary sources are completely acceptable here because we are describing an organization's views in its own article. We don't need to resort to making things up or to taking the word of CFC's enemies as to what their mission is. (And we don't need a secondary source for Ruether's response to the charges of anti-Catholicism. CFC is entitled to respond to charges against it, even setting aside the rules about SPS.) [Edit: Kenatipo has found a non-attack source that mentions it. Great! Unfortunately, it doesn't really justify including it as part of their "mission": if we're going to include individual campaigns from the "Religion in Public Policy" section of their website, include all of them.)]

Likewise, don't cite a statement to a source if the source does not contain that statement. It's extremely disingenuous to cite the New York Times for the USCCB's, Catholic League's, and Catholic News Agency's criticism of CFC when the article doesn't quote the USCCB at all, much less contain that criticism, and doesn't even name the Catholic League or CNA. Make your case for including the USCCB criticism without misrepresenting sources, please.

Don't tag-bomb in an attempt to make an article on someone you don't like look bad. Not only does three seconds of Googling find that CFC used to be called Catholics for a Free Choice, it's also in sources already cited.

And lastly (I hope it's lastly), don't waste our time by trying to claim, in Wikipedia prose, that CFC rejects and distorts Catholic teaching about the protection of defenceless human life. Put it in a quote or take it out. Seriously, you're not a n00b, you shouldn't have to be told this.

--Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

* Take it easy.

* I don't know exactly what part of the Mission section you are complaining about. Each of those bullet points links to a page of text, so I had to summarize them. I assume that you didn't like that I summarized the "Catholic Health Care scope" part as "Overturn religious exemptions and legally force the Catholic healthcare system to perform abortion and sterilization". However, that is an objective, honest description of what they are trying to do; they want to remove religious exemption laws, thus legally forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions.

If on the other hand you are complaining about the "expel the Holy See from the UN", then read the 4 sources I provided. One of them, from the CFC itself, says euphemistically that they want to "end the special status of the Vatican at the UN". The other, also from the CFC, quits the euphemism and says what this is really about, in even harsher terms than I used - they themselves say "that is, to get the Vatican, the Holy See, booted from its status as a non-member state permanent observer. " The other two sources state are about a US Congress resolution against this attempt.

* What is the dead link? Please be more specific; I don't want to check all the references to see which is dead.

* The New York Times source is indeed relevant; maybe you didn't pay attention to the paragraph saying "Many Catholics passionately disagree. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued statements challenging the right of Catholics for a Free Choice to call itself Catholic. Critics dismiss Ms. Kissling’s organization as a mouthpiece for bigger, secular abortion rights groups and a front for anti-Catholic bigotry."

This clearly confirms both the USCCB quotes I put in the Criticism section. Also, by saying "Critics dismiss Ms. Kissling’s organization as a mouthpiece for bigger, secular abortion rights groups and a front for anti-Catholic bigotry.", it supports the notability of the criticisms from the Catholic League and the Catholic News Angency

* Regarding the "tag bomb": if it is easy to find, then go and substitute the reference for the tag. My purpose was precisely to stimulate other editors to add the reference.

* Regarding the tag on Ruether's response: I suggest the tag stays. This way, other editors are encouraged to find a secondary source, which would better establish notability and therefore enhance the article. The tag being there does not necessarily mean that I will try to claim the response must be deleted.

* Regarding the lack of quotations: I actually didn't think about that. I now put quotes around the longest part. I argue that we don't need quotes around "is not a Catholic organization" because the USCCB has authority to define this objectively and finally. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

* Like I said - you're not a n00b. You're aware of NPOV. You're aware that statements in the article must come from cited sources. You're aware that you can't insert your own personal opinions into articles. So don't make foolish edits like "Overturn religious exemptions and legally force the Catholic healthcare system to perform abortion and sterilization" or "Expel the Holy See from the UN," or claim that a source says something it doesn't say when anyone can just go to the source and see that that's not true. You're wasting your own time and ours, because these edits will have to be reverted so that they accurately reflect reliable sources rather than the personal opinions of editors who really hate reproductive rights. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

* For the "expel the Holy See", I will then use a direct quotation: "get the Vatican, the Holy See, booted from its status as a non-member state permanent observer. ". For the "overturn religious exemptions", though, what exactly do you suggest? Using the euphemism "expand the scope of Catholic Health Care" is unacceptable euphemism; reading the referenced text, it is cristal-clear that they don't want abortion to be optional. Summarizing their stance as "expand the scope of Catholic Health Care" is like describing the legalization of slavery as "expanding the scope of possible work conditions". We don't have to accept euphemistic PR spin in Wikipedia; we have to be objective, clear and to the point. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

* Unfortunately, that quote is not from anything about CFC's mission. I recommend that you look at what sources say and then write it, rather than looking for sources to support the point of view you want to insert. Similarly, no one is "legally forced" to provide abortion; there are standards of care for institutions that want to call themselves healthcare facilities, for the sake of patients' health and well-being, and we'd never claim in WP text that a hospital was "forced" to have only one patient to a bed or "forced" to provide heart surgery. It's a non-neutral phrase. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If a Catholic hospital doesn't want to provide abortion services because it violates everything the Catholic church stands for and you require them to in order to get x, y, and z to whoever shows up requesting one. That is forcing them to provide abortion services. Even providing referrals to other locations isn't good enough for CFC and their supporters. Marauder40 (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Would you then consider "The Catholic Church wishes to force women to have children at the risk of their lives" an acceptable phrase? No, of course not - even though they oppose contraception and abortion, even when pregnancy poses a 100% risk to the mother's love. "Force X to do Y" is generally not going to be an acceptable phrase, whatever reasoning any given editor comes up with for using it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the Church defends the principle of double-effect and through it women can get, under reasonable conditions, treatments necessary to save their lives even if it may kill the baby. But let's stop this subject or else Binksternet will be mad. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is why a nun was excommunicated and a hospital lost its Catholic status for performing an abortion when the patient's chance of dying was close to one hundred percent. It's all very well to have exceptions, but not if a close to 100% chance of death for the mother and the fetus isn't enough to trigger that exception. But, off-topic. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You are misinformed, but I won't explain why, or else Binksternet will expell me from Wikipedia. Let's end here. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, changed "force" to "oblige", since "force" was considered non-neutral. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It's better, but not ideal. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I later changed "oblige" to "require", which AFAIK is the technical legal term

Regarding "getting the Vatican booted", I argue for it to stay. What we find in http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/politics/default.asp is a vague "campaigning against its special status at the United Nations and in other political systems.". To give context to the readers, we would have to complement this by saying that the Holy See has a permanent observer status, and that the CFC wants it reduced to a mere NGO. But it is better to use direct quotes than to write our own analysis, and Frances Kissling summarizes it objectively and to the point: "Get the Vatican, the Holy See, booted from its status as a non-member state permanent observer" And Kissling herself considered this to be a glory, and her career highlight; no one can claim I gave undue weight to a small part of their mission. That quote is the best way I found to objectively describe the CFC approach to "religion and politics" Jorge Peixoto (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said, the way to go is to look at the sources and write your article based on that, not to decide beforehand what you want to say and grab hold of any source that can be spun to support it. When we describe CFC's mission, why is this the only source we cite that isn't actually from their mission statement page? Could it be because it says what you want the article to say? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"As I said, the way to go is to look at the sources and write your article based on that" - when the sources say something vague, it makes sense to look for other sources for clarification. And in this case, the second source came from the same organization.

"When we describe CFC's mission, why is this the only source we cite that isn't actually from their mission statement page? Could it be because it says what you want the article to say?" - because:

* This is one of the points in their mission statement that I considered vague, and looked for other sources to clarify

* This is one point of which I had previous knowledge. Their are notorious for this; the US Congress passed a motion; Kissling ecstatically described this as a glory, a highlight in her career. I had "they tried to expel the Holy See from the UN" in my head, which is why, when looking for the source that would clarify the vague statement, I searched Google for "expel Holy See UN".

You can't blame me for the fact that their publicity stunt (I honest think this was a publicity stunt, a non-bloody form of Propaganda of the deed) grabbed my attention. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

And in fact, what do you propose? If I remove that quote, we will have to replace it with some paraphrasing with our own explanation, something like "campaign to remove the Holy See status as a permanent observer to the UN". And for that statement, I would need additional sources anyway, so what would be the point? And I think the article would lose accuracy, because getting info from the horse's mouth is better Jorge Peixoto (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"Booted" regarding Holy See and UN

The loaded word "booted" fails the test of WP:NPOV. Rather than quote Kissling for the purpose of making the reader angry, the entry should be neutrally worded. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The attempt by JP to use whatever source he can find to give the worst impression possible does shed light on a problem with that section, though - before, it was vague, but each bullet point was basically a summary of the page it was cited to, and except for one of the bullet points, it was cited only to CFC's mission statement pages. Are we now going to name every issue on every page? Because if we are going to name specific issues, rather than summarizing pages that list several issues, we can't pick and choose based on which ones are most likely to be the bugbears of the Catholic right wing. We must accurately and neutrally represent the sources, and accuracy and neutrality require due weight.

There really is no way of dealing with a "Mission" section other than by referencing their mission statements. "Activities" and such can be dealt with from third-party news sources, but CFC is really the only entity that can say what CFC's mission is - and a document that talks about one of their campaigns, out of context, is not an appropriate source for this even if it is published by CFC. It's due weight again. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Quit this cynicism and assumptions of bad faith, or else I will report you for incivility. Remember that abortion related articles are particularly patrolled by the administrators for incivility. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Please answer: Sources of funding

Why is CFC's source of funding assigned to the "Other critics" section? The funding should be neutrally stated, part of the history section. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I still don't understand what the criticism is. Binksternet (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The criticism is that Catholics for Choice is not an authentic grass-roots effort, but is a "mole". If you wish, we could par it with the criticism from Helen M. Alvaré, which is related. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I propose to add the text back, as it was, but paired with the criticism from Helen M. Alvaré, which makes sense.

Also, please discuss in talk first before deleting text in the future. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources of funding are what they are regardless of whether critics think that CFC misrepresents themselves as being a popular grassroots organization. The sources of funding are simple facts and should not be placed in a criticism section.

Regarding my editing style, the practice of Bold, Revert, Discuss is what I follow for the most part. I will discuss as I see fit rather than take direction. As far as "deleting text" goes, the funding bit was not deleted, it was moved by Roscelese. Binksternet (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No, information was deleted. It previously said "Critics of Catholics for Choice argue that only a negligible fraction of CFC's income come from subscription fees and over 97% of its funds are donated by tax-exempt groups and private foundations[9] including the Ford Foundation.[10][3]". Now it only says "In 2007, CFC had a budget of $3 million. It is supported largely by secular foundations such as the Ford Foundation.[5]" Jorge Peixoto (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The second, moved version is the better version. It avoids the fallacious straw man argument of "only a negligible fraction". Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not straw-man. No "straw-man" is being built and subsequently attacked here. Anyway, if you don't like that wording, I suggest "In 2007, CFC had a budget of $3 million. It is nearly exclusively supported tax-exempt groups and private foundations such as the Ford Foundation.[5] Jorge Peixoto (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the current version is fine. It reads, "In 2007, CFC had a budget of $3 million. It is supported largely by secular foundations such as the Ford Foundation." Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You think it is better than the previous version for what reason? The "straw-man" objection is wrong. Please explain what the "straw-man" is here. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please answer - Infobox: advocacy vs activism

I support "advocacy" more than "activism" in the infobox, and especially not "militancy". Advocacy is the larger set which contains activism plus more gentle methods, and is a more fitting description of CFC. Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

They very often speak in activist language, and refer to their work as activism, and to themselves as activists. Will add sources Jorge Peixoto (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yet advocacy contains or includes activism. Proving that they use "activist" language does not unprove that they advocate. Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

What is your point? If we found an even more generic word that contained "advocacy", should we use it? For me it is common sense to use the more specific word that describes their activities. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

In this case, "activism" is the less specific word as it does not include all acts of "advocacy". Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hum I think you confused yourself there. If "advocacy" includes "activism", then "activism" is the more specific word, and "advocacy" is the more general. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Not confused: CFC has a wide variety of activities, some of which are not activism. The more general term "advocacy" covers all of the activities, thus it is the more accurate term. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

They are far more notorious for their activist methods, such as lobbying, handling fliers to people in Catholic Youth Day, and trying to expel the Holy See from the UN, then from their advocate methods such as ??? (maybe their magazine can be counted as "advocacy", but I have not read it to certify, and I suspect no one reads it too). Jorge Peixoto (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up their journal Conscience which is exactly the sort of advocacy work I have been referring to. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The current infobox is factually wrong. Since much of their activity (if not all) is activism (as they state themselves, calling themselves "activists"), it is factually incorrect to describe their focus as "advocacy". If you wish, we can compromise with "advocacy and activism". Saying just "advocacy" is factually wrong. It would be like calling Che Guevara a "social justice advocate", when he described himself as a guerrilla fighter. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hidden text in article

There is a vigorous discussion here on the article talk page, so I see no reason why the article must contain hidden text of any sort. That kind of text is used for the case when an editor is warning future editors about an issue which may not be obvious. With the current situation involving active discussion, no hidden text is necessary. We are all aware of the issues. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, if only for the reason that the edit page is difficult enough to navigate without hidden text clutter. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thirded. I think the "Mission" section should stay commented out because it's inevitable that some of that material will make it into whatever version of the section is eventually deemed suitable for inclusion, and it's tedious to recover it from an earlier revision - but we don't need to be having these in-article conversations when the talk page exists for this purpose. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. The comment is useful so that any would be deleter will explicitly see the reason the text is there. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

But we are discussing the text here on the talk page. There is no need for hidden comments. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of new york times references

Why are New York Times references being deleted? The comments that accompanied the text explained the relevance for those texts for the text being referenced. For example, when the New York Times says "As a secondary source, when the New York Times says "The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued statements challenging the right of Catholics for a Free Choice to call itself Catholic." it confirms the notability of the statement "The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) states that CFC is not a Catholic organization", whose primary source is the USCCB site

Also: As a secondary source, when The New York Times says "Critics dismiss Ms. Kissling’s organization as a mouthpiece for bigger, secular abortion rights groups and a front for anti-Catholic bigotry." it confirms the notability of the anti-cacholic accusation.

So please put the text back. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You may not cite a source if it does not support the text for which it is cited. If you put a quote in the article and cite a source that does not contain that quote, you are misrepresenting that source. The NYT did not reprint verbatim the bishops' press release, so we should not pretend that they did. They did not say that the bishops decided it was not Catholic, so we should not pretend that they did. If you wish to rephrase what you wrote in order to use the NYT source, feel free. Do not add these citations again without doing so. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That defies common sense. If the USCCB says "they are not Cacholic" and the New York Times says "the USCCB has challenged their rights to call themselves Catholics", you say the New York Times reference is irrelevant because it does not include the USCCB text verbatim? Are you basing that judgment on what? Jorge Peixoto (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, I never said the the New York Times contains the quotes verbatim, but only that it confirms the notability of the criticism. Don't accuse me of "pretending" anything. Stop assuming bad faith. It is not only anti-social, but against Wikipedia rules. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Large scale deletion of referenced text without agreement

Repeatedly, one of the editors here deletes large amounts of text he doesn't agree with. The justification if often something like "this sources are far-right" or "this sources are anti-CFC" or "this sources don't contain the referenced text" (I disagree with all three justifications). When there is text under dispute, it is uncivil to delete it without agreement. The decent thing to do is to discuss it in the talk page and wait agreement. You can put tags in the article if you want. Deleting the text will, among other harms, decrease the chance that other editors will see the alleged problems (such as lack of a good source) and improve the article. So, please stop. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 09:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The burden is on you to justify its inclusion. If you want to put it in the article, make the effort yourself and try to prove that the NYT does contain that text and the other sources aren't worthless. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong; one of the reasons it is wrong is that the text was already there before. Text should not be deleted so gratuitously. And the very material you linked to says "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. You are being harmful here. Please restore the text; maybe add tags if you want. But don't delete it so gratuitously. If it is there, and with tags, there is a greater change of other editors finding additional sources (which aren't needed, but would satisfy you). It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself."

What's more, the text you linked to talks about material without sources. It says not about "you can delete material if it is supported by far-right sources". Your attempts to politically polemicize Wikipedia are hurtful. Really. Do you think "this is far-right" would even begin to justify removing sources from Wikipedia? Jorge Peixoto (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, what is the rationale for deleting text from the Catholic News Agency? If you claim they have a "pro-life agenda", then we would have simmetrical reasons to delete references to the New York Times, whose executive director describes pro-life people as "zealots", and where one of their editors has said "Anybody who reads The New York Times who doesn’t think the New York Times is pro-choice, they are out of their minds" http://www.getreligion.org/2011/07/the-times-grinds-its-ax/ http://www.usasurvival.org/ck01.20.2010.html http://www.mediaresearch.org/specialreports/1998/sr19980722.asp http://www.lifenews.com/2006/09/27/nat-2602/

In fact, we would even have to remove Rosemary Radford Ruether's attack, since it was clearly a part of CFC's promotional agenda. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I plan to call for help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That would constitute canvassing and is forbidden by Wikipedia's guidelines on user conduct. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be a proper place to ask, since it is the Wikiproject of people interested in Catholicism. Not all of those people are Catholics. In fact, Wikipedia:CANVASS specifically sates that it is appropriate to put a message in "The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion." -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

People from that Wikiproject are more likely to have seen Catholic News Agency before, and would comment on its quality. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No, Roscelese, it would not automatically constitute CANVASSing -- it depends on the wording of the message. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it was reasonable to assume that (paraphrased) "I disagree with you, so I'll get editors from this WikiProject to help me" is a statement of intent to canvass. Luckily, JP has clarified, and hopefully his message will be neutrally stated (although I still have doubts about this, since the issue isn't that I "haven't seen" CNA before - it's that I've had extensive exposure to it and it is not a reliable source on the activities of people or groups it disagrees with - the comment sounds, to me, like "People there are more likely to think CNA is a reliable source and support me"). RSN would be a better idea, however. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"considered as one of the most conservative"

This is POV. Some other journalists could easily say that this diocese is average. In fact, the article describes some signs of the diocese's orthodoxy, but gives no reason or source for the statement that it is one of the most orthodox in the USA. And this is also irrelevant. What is the point of it being here? -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is POV and SYN pure and simple. Very similar to a previous discussion about O'Rourke, it should be left for the Archdiocese page, no reason for it to be included here other then to add POV that shouldn't be here.Marauder40 (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska, is widely known as the most conservative of American dioceses. This fact is relevant because otherwise its actions could be considered typical. Its excommunication is not typical, in fact the 1996 declaration and excommunication is the only instance of that type. Binksternet (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It is just opinion and a POV. Some people consider conservative, some don't. As was said with the O'Rourke situation it is a detail best left for the Diocese page and not this page. The fact that the excommunication is not typical is pretty clear by it is the only one listed. Adding something about it being that way is WP:SYN pure and simple. But the fact it isn't typical doesn't matter a lot, what matters is the fact that the Vatican has upheld the excommunication so it isn't a random action or an unsupported reaction. Marauder40 (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

On page 223 of the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska, is described as having "an international reputation as a diocese with particularly conservative policies..." In the 2001 The Catholic World Report, volume 11 page 60, wrote that the Diocese of Lincoln "has always been considered on of the most conservative..." On page 497 of A Concise History of the Catholic Church, Thomas S. Bokenkotter calls the Lincoln diocese "possibly the most conservative in the country." In Religion and public life in the midwest: America's common denominator?, authors Philip Barlow and Mark Silk note that a study showed the Diocese of Lincoln to be a "striking example" of American Catholic conservativism. If we do not tell the reader that the example they are reading about comes from one of the extremes of American Catholicism then we are misrepresenting history. It must be stated that the diocese is particularly conservative. Binksternet (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

All information that is great for the Diocese page where it is already mentioned, not appropriate for this page. It is unnecessary POV.Marauder40 (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It is critical to the example given here in the article that it be interpreted as lying at one extreme of the liberal–conservative continuum of American Catholicism. The thing you are calling "POV" is so defined by scholarly texts about Catholicism: it is neutral and factual, and it is foundational to anything written about the Diocese of Lincoln. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It is WP:SYN. You are taking different topics and melding them together. The fact that it is a conservative diocese does not cause the Bishop to issue an excommunication. As the paragraph exists, it is just the facts. Adding the items you wish adds POV and SYN to the topic, whether it is a fact or not.Marauder40 (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to comment on its "conservativeness", than at least say "is considered a conservative and orthodox diocese", instead of saying "ONE OF THE MOST conservative and orthodox dioceses". The reasons is that the source given does not justify in any way the claim that this diocese is "one of the most conservative"; it gives signs of "conservativeness", but does not even begin to make a study comparing this diocese with other dioceses. Likely the journalist said "one of the most conservative dioceses" based on nothing but anecdote, and this does not serve for an encyclopedia. And we cannot reproduce anecdote, even if the anecdote came from secondary sources.

As an aside, don't apply political categories ("conservative-political spectrum") to the Church. The Church has a normative doctrine - that of the Holy See. Also, the diocese of Nebraska is not on the extreme - the extreme of "conservatism" (reluctantly using this concept) would be the SSPX. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Marauder makes an excellent point. Combining the source which speaks to the excommunication with the source about the conservativism of the diocese is SYNTH. We need a source that describes the act itself as conservative. – Lionel ^(talk) 21:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's synth, but find it amusing that the same editors who are complaining here are the ones trying to force synthy statements about Father O'Rourke's background into this article. It's almost as though your aim is to oppose CFC rather than to follow the rules that enable us to improve this encyclopedia. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No the irony is that I already pointed out the fact that the same people that want WP:SYN statements about the Diocese here complain about similar things with ex-Jesuit O'Rourke. You can't have it both ways. The lines about the reasons for him no longer being a Jesuit are not currently in the article and the SYN statements about the diocese being conservative shouldn't be in the article.Marauder40 (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The proposal regarding O'Rourke is to simply state "He as expelled from the Jesuits after performing the baptism of the baby of a pro-choice woman against express orders. This was preceded by a long trail of discontent often testing authority". These are two relevant sentences from the same source. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

CFC is nowhere mentioned in the source, just as it is not mentioned in the sources about Lincoln, Nebraska being conservative. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

So what? I honestly didn't understand the relevancy of CFC being mentioned in the source. Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps one of these newly-minted defenders of the NOR policy will explain it to you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese makes a good point about synthesis. Speaking from four years of WP experience, an uncontroversial article written by one person commonly includes tangential facts brought into the article to help frame the narrative. Good writing includes good transitions and linkages. If neutral, these extra bits are not a problem. However, if an article is controversial, with disagreements about content, the very most rigorous interpretations of WP guidelines tend to determine content. Tangential material falls away under the knife of debate, revealing all but the core of the topic as described in reliable sources. What is tangential is any source which does not specifically mention the topic, in this case Catholics for Choice. Binksternet (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

We should make sure we include a link to the article on the diocese (not just to the article on Lincoln, Nebraska), so readers can find out about the diocese's conservatism if they choose to read further. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Not contacted by the diocese

This is irrelevant. AFAIK, people who face automatic excommunication are often NOT contacted by the bishop. What is the point of it being here? This is simply clutter and, due to the amount of error in Wikipedia, I prefer to keep clutter out (short articles are easier to verify). -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it is an unnecessary detail. Automatic excommunication doesn't involve contacting every person individually. Every women that has had an abortion or every person that may have explicitly helped in an abortion hasn't been contacted but they are subject to an automatic excommunication.Marauder40 (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, congratulations to taking it out and so creating a broken sentence with horrible grammar: "Those who continued as members of the 12 groups—estimated at 'perhaps hundreds' of church-goers, Bruskewitz said that heeding the excommunication would "be left to the person's conscience." The fact that some hundreds of excommunicated diocesans were not contacted is true, and it was interesting enough to the Associated Press to include in their account: "Catholics in 12 Groups Excommunicated in Nebraska". Not all readers of this article will know that automatic excommunication is not usually communicated to the person. I'm with AP on this; I think we should say what the result was, that Bruskewitz did not contact those affected to tell them they were excommunicated. Binksternet (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"Congratulations" on a perfect example of incivility. The grammer of the original sentence stunk so it took time to come up with valid gramatical way to fix it. Just because the AP mentions it doesn't mean it has to be in this article. We don't mention all facts that AP mentions. The wonderful thing about this thing called WP is that all they have to do is just go to an article on automatic excommunication and find out what happens and the conditions. There is more to it then just the notification. Marauder40 (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"The grammer" I was referring to was the clumsy result of your editing. The "original sentence" I wrote was fine; whatever time you took in editing it did not yield a "valid gramatical" sentence. Because of 1RR restrictions, the horrible grammar remains in the article until tomorrow or until you fix it yourself. Binksternet (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

And the gramatical problem was fixed VERY soon after it was introduced. Several hours before you place this comment on this page. I am amazed by your lack of civility. A simple, "Would you mind fixing the gramatical error in the sentence." would have been a lot better.Marauder40 (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Mission

"CFFC argues that Catholic teaching on the primacy of individual conscience, and the role of the faithful in establishing church law, support a pro-choice stance on these issues." is attributed to a text which is pretty big. You should at least tell us which sentences in the reference you used to make this summary. I think that non-trivial summaries of big texts are original research. Anyway, do we really need this sentence? The preceding paragraph is enough to state their mission. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Holy See and Lincoln excommunication

The source offered in support of a bit about the Holy See does not confirm that CFC members were excommunicated in 1996.

• "Vatican affirms excommunication of Call to Action members in Lincoln" 2006, Catholic News Source

Instead, it confirms that Call to Action members of the Diocese of Lincoln were indeed excommunicated 10 years earlier per the Holy See. It discusses a letter from the Holy See, and it says the letter did not mention CFC. Binksternet (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup - as I said in my edit summary, the article states explicitly that only Call to Action was mentioned in the letter, making the restored statement flat-out wrong. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The local ordinary, i.e. Bishop Bruskewitz, does not need Vatican approval to excommunicate members of his own diocese. By confirming that Call to Action members were excommunicated by Bishop Bruskewitz, the Vatican was confirming that all the organizations on the list were excommunicated; no need to list them all. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

We can't just decide that we know that because we are smart. Anything we state must appear in a reliable source; this source explicitly states that only Call to Action was named. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I realize there are editors who believe that saying "Water is wet" or "The sky is blue" constitutes OR, but they probably haven't read our policy on COMMON SENSE. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

COMMON SENSE says "The Vatican doesn't need to confirm the excommunication." COMMON SENSE does not say "The source explicitly says that the Vatican only confirmed Call to Action, but let's say it confirmed all of them anyway." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, some of that interdict was invalid, by canon law, so it's reasonable to assume that only groups specifically named in the letter were being affirmed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, maybe the Vatican was only asked specifically about Call to Action, so it responded specifically about Call to Action. But if CtA members were excommunicated, all of them were excommunicated. (and Heaven preserve us from Freemason canon lawyers). --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So, tell me, Kenatipo, where does it say in Canon Law that you can excommunicate 12-year-old boys and girls? Take your time, I'll wait.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Like a devout Freemason, you're probably talking about the Eastern Star, DeMolay and other embryo Masons. Are those organizations run by 12-year-olds? or are they guided by adults old enough to know better? I would expect that the excommunications applied to the adults in charge. (On the other hand: in the old days, we used to talk about something called "the age of reason" which was the time when a young person was able to know Right from Wrong. It normally occurred around the age of 6 or 7. If you can't tell Right from Wrong yet, there's no point in making your first Confession and receiving your First Holy Communion.) But, you're playing canon lawyer here, so, you tell me. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's impossible to be a "devout" Freemason, because Freemasonry isn't a religion. Comment on edits, not editors. And in any case, the letter from Cardinal Re specifically applied only to Call for Action. See it here. And see http://books.google.com/books?id=JKgZEjvB5cEC&pg=PA1534&lpg=PA1534&dq=Canon+1323(1) for why excommunicating all Rainbow Girls, Job's Daughters, and DeMolay is illegal.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for those links, Sarek. You do have a point. Only embryo Masons 16 and older were excommunicated in 1996, per canon 1323 (1). And, the letter from Cardinal Re does only affirm the excommunication of Call to Action; but that should not be interpreted to mean that the other groups were not also excommunicated. From what I've seen, CFC is much more anti-Catholic (meaning opposed to Church teaching) than CTA. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

But no one is arguing that CFC members were not excommunicated. We're saying that we cannot say that the Vatican confirmed the excommunication, because our source explicitly states that it did not. If it isn't necessary for the Vatican to confirm every excommunication, the absence of such a statement won't make readers question it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, Ros. We have no source saying the Vatican affirmed the excommunication of CFC in Nebraska, so we can't say that in our article. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, then I don't see what you're arguing over. The text about Bruskewitz excommunicating his parishioners was never in dispute; the problem was the source linked above, which was cited (by JP, Lionelt, Mamalujo, and the mysterious probable-sockpuppet IP) for the statement that the Vatican confirmed it, although this was not in the source. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

After reading Cardinal Re's letter, there's no argument. Res ipsa loquitur. --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I understand that there are exceptions that some editors have to material in the criticism section. Some of the exceptions have more merit than others. I'd suggest we come to a compromise. Simply deleting criticism wholesale when much of it is clearly valid is arguably disruptive editing. One way or another the general gist of the basic criticism is going to be included. Mamalujo (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever compromise is reached will likely be a vastly reduced article. It is much easier to question whether text and sources are appropriate than it is to agree on inclusion. Deletion is the compromise. Binksternet (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems with the paragraph you're insisting on adding. Firstly: some of the statements claim to be statements of fact rather than statements of opinion, and the sources are obviously completely unsuitable for this. Secondly: there is generally little reason to add self-published criticism since anyone can make a website and put their opinion on it, but since we have a) other self-published criticism, from the USCCB and b) criticism published by third-party sources, there really is no justification for including it. This is an encyclopedia article, not a coatrack for every right-winger's personal opinion on abortion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"vastly reduced article", hell! I think with a little effort we can make this article look to pro-choicers the way the CPC article now looks to pro-lifers; all we need is "consensus". --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone not currently restrained by 1RR should take a look at what I see as a serious misreading of the NYDN article about Mother Teresa's birthday and the Empire State Building. Basically, the Ape Tower doesn't light up for any religious purpose; its management didn't single her out. PhGustaf (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, the article quotes a CFC letter to Anthony Malkin about Bill Donahue saying that Donahue "tends to accuse all those who oppose him of being anti-Catholic." That is not the same as the NY Daily News reporting that the Catholic League specifically calls the CFC "anti-Catholic". Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Gustaf and Binkster are both correct: the NY Daily News article does not support the statement in the article. I would remove it as a reference, but I've used my 1R for the day. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

D-O-N-O-H-U-E. And that's the last time I'm going to tell any of you! --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I added the NYDN reference because someone wanted a ref showing third party coverage of Donohue's calling them anti-Catholic. The ref doesn't directly say that, but it shows the coverage of the dispute to back up the primary source. I don't object to removing it, I was just trying to back up keeping the statement. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't really objecting to your citing the NYDN. I was objecting to your selectively citing it to imply that the CFC hate Mother Teresa. PhGustaf (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

1RR

Binkster, you're over the line! --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider his revert of my self-rv to count toward the 1RR. That excluded, what takes him over the line? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

His gutting of Bruskewitz's quote at 22:17 is a revert. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that quote's been there forever, so considering it a revert is pretty iffy. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm keeping track of my edits on this article and I clearly labeled the one revert that I performed today. Its edit summary was, "Revert Kenatipo. The Catholic League's self-reported opinion is undue weight, not notable unless it was picked up by other agencies." My other edits today were the normal building and adjusting of the article text. Binksternet (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm argumentative but not litigious -- I never, even once, brought Salegi W BelloWello up on charges, (and these Sierra Nevada Torpedoes are making me mellow). So, relax. --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

And, while I'm at it, let me say that SarekofVulcan at least had the grace to admit that he may have gone over the limit; that's more than I can say for you. (of course, his arguments, in your behalf, that it's not a revert if it's a revert of something old, or if it's a revert of him it doesn't count, are bogus, but at least he was trying to help you out). --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Catholic League as an RS

"As it is an advocacy group, I think the Catholic League (U.S.) should only be considered a reliable source for their opinions...". So why isn't the Catholic League allowed to express its opinion about CFC in this article? Its mission is to call out anti-Catholicism where-ever. I couldn't help notice that in other articles we allow the "liberal" Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to label organizations "hate groups" or "anti-gay" or "anti-whatever". Is there a double standard here? --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? The Catholic League is very much not neutral. SPLC earned respect for their fight against the Klan and for their careful studies. Binksternet (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. SPLC did some good work in the old days. Now all they do is scare people into donating money by exaggerating the threat from all 200 members of the KKK. They used to deserve respect; now they don't. They are very much not neutral, so, why do we accept their labels? --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet, whether they have respect from anyone doesn't say anything about neutrality. Kenatipo is right that there's a double standard if we can use their opinions and not the Catholic League's. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a yawning chasm between a group which fosters tolerance while fighting intolerance, and a group based on fearful, reactionary, defensive intolerance. The SPLC teaches respect for differences; the Catholic League makes difference a heresy. The SPLC is led by a group consensus with inbuilt checks and balances along with a history for fact-checking, the Catholic League is led by a single demagogue who shoots from the hip. Binksternet (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

But this is just your POV, and WIkipedia is supposed to be free of that. The first sentence above can be summed up as "SPLC is good because it is modern, politically correct and multicultural. Catholic League is evil because it is conservative". -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

How did you turn "demagogue" into "conservative"? Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but this is irrelevant. The reason SPLC has cred and the Catholic League has none is because the SPLC is widely considered an authority on hate groups - they're named as a resource by the FBI, for example - while the CL is not considered an authority on anything. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the St. Bill Maher Society is well represented in the discussion. --Kenatipo ^speak! 13:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

And this discussion should be taking place on the WP:RSN, not here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! At RSN, there was no consensus to use the Catholic League for their own self-published statement. Binksternet (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not only was there no consensus to include it, NPOVN found unanimous consensus against including it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This pretty much misrepresents what happened at the different notice boards. The message placed by Roscelese on NPOVN was extremely biased in its presentation of the "facts". Nothing about the way it was presented would lead to a neutral definitive statement about anything. As for the comments on RSN, it is pretty clear from there that Catholic League can be used as long as it is stated as the opinion of the Catholic League and a reliable source can be found but it is clear that the source can be a second party source but it doesn't have to be an independent source. So throwing out sources because it may be a pro-life source, Catholic source, or some other source that people will claim isn't independent does not hold water.Marauder40 (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Dude, any one of the users trying to add the information could have and should have been the one to post at NPOVN, since the burden of justifying oneself and achieving consensus is always on the user adding information. But no one bothered, presumably thinking that they could just edit-war the content in and that tenaciousness was a substitute for consensus. Maybe this will inspire people to make the effort to build consensus in future.

Anyway, the answer at NPOVN seems crystal clear to me. I asked if it was undue to include self-published criticism from the Catholic League when we already have other self-published criticism and reliably sourced criticism, and the answer was a unanimous "yes." No one has yet found a reliable secondary source for this criticism. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No you asked "Is it undue to include self-published criticism of CFC by far-right groups like the Catholic League and Catholic News Agency, particularly when we already detail the (also self-published) criticism from the Roman Catholic Church and other criticism published in reliable sources?" which isn't phrasing anything in a NPOV manner. Everything about your post on NPOVN was biased towards a particular POV and really doesn't answer anything. Just calling Catholic News Agency a far-right group and trying to lump it in the exact same category as Catholic League shows the bias. Previously any sources that came from Catholic or Pro-Life organizations were immediately thrown out, it is clear from the interaction on RSN that all that is needed is a secondary source, it doesn't have to be a independent secondary source due to Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent So all that has to be found is a source that isn't just an AP-type of re-listing of the original press release. There are plenty of them on pro-life and Catholic listings.Marauder40 (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOVN is not one of the forums that requires a balanced stating of the dispute - it's not RfC. But, as I said, all your discontent could have been avoided if WP:BURDEN had been followed. Next time, perhaps people will try to build consensus instead of hoping that a slightly superior number of edit-warriors with no interest in policy will eventually win out.

CNA's primary goal is partisan, which is enough to disqualify it as a reliable source here. "Anti-abortion group reports that other anti-abortion group said a thing" is not the standard we hold ourselves to. We need real sources - like newspapers whose object is providing news, not promoting a POV. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Two glaring errors in your statement, "CNA's primary goal is partisan." Where is your proof of that? It's primary goal is to present news that affects Catholics. That in and of itself doesn't make them partisan. It is funny, when CNA talks about things like the budget, and other things that don't upset the PC crowd, they are a great source, but when they go against the PC crowd people complain about them. A quick search on WP shows that just the URL to CNA appears over 500 times on WP. Sounds both reliable and notable to me. As for YOUR requirement that it must be through newspapers, that is your requirement. That isn't a WP requirement.Marauder40 (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going from their "About Us" page, where they say that their aim in sharing this news is "to increase awareness of the activities of the universal Church and further create a Catholic culture in the life of each of the faithful," including the "creation of a culture of life." Can't get much better than their "About Us" page as a source for their aims. Since when is CNA the source we use when talking about the budget??

WP's requirement is that sources be reliable. I'm surprised you haven't encountered this policy before. For further reading, you could check out WP:QS, which states that questionable sources include "websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional..." CNA's goal of promoting the Roman Catholic Church certainly falls under this policy, which specifically names such sources as unsuitable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You have failed to show how they are not a reliable source. Don't be condescending. Every publication has goals. Since the Washington Post's primary goal is to produce news related to Washington DC, do they immediately get disqualified as a RS for Washington DC topics? Nobody except for you has called CNA an extremist or promotional source. It is also interesting how you leave out certain parts of their "About us". You say including the "creation of a culture of life" like that is their goal, yet the entire sentence says "Though its focus is spread throughout the world, CNA also keeps a close eye on the Roman Catholic Church in the United States and on news related to the creation of a culture of life." Which means they are forwarding and talking about information related to the the culture of life, not that they are in themselves creating a culture of life. That is entirely different from the sentence as you imply it. Pure and simple they are a news source that just happens to talk about items related to the Catholic faith. There are similar news organizations for Jewish, Islamic and numerous other religions. Nothing you have listed shows that they are an "extremist" organization. This is pretty evident in the other 500 locations throughout WP that have direct URL links to their site. Just like before it sounds like you want to throw out an organization just because it is Catholic.Marauder40 (talk) 13:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Er, no, I want to disqualify it as a source because it specifically states that its major goal is promoting the Roman Catholic Church and goes further to name an anti-abortion aim as part of this project. Such a source cannot be trusted to report accurately and fairly on a Catholic pro-choice group. Cut it out with the personal attacks and start finding actual arguments for using your source, since you haven't bothered to try any of that yet. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

First off you are seeing personal attacks where there are none. Are you going to report me for nothing again? You have yet to find anything to disqualify CNA as a reliable source. Again you are misstating its "About US" page. Nowhere does it say its major goal is "promoting the Roman Catholic Church". It just says that it is reporting on those items. Similar to the fact that the Washington Post primarily reports on the Washington area and the New York Times reports primarily on the New York area. So does that make them biased whenever they speak on that subject? I again appears that your only justification for throwing out CNA is that they are Catholic and report on Catholic topics, which doesn't hold up to RS policies.Marauder40 (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't waste my time repeating these idiotic claims. I've already directly quoted CNA's "About Us" page in which they wish to "create a Catholic culture in the life of each of the faithful," through providing news related to the "creation of a culture of life." This falls under QS as a promotional source, with an aim explicitly opposed to CFC's. I have already explained this. If you have nothing productive to say, there are probably Catholic forums at which you can complain about the eeeeeevil Jewish Wikipedia editor trying to censor you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Again you are seeing attacks (and now making them) where there are none. You again misquote the "quote" from the About Us page. You seem to be leaving out the important parts like those that I included in my quote. It specifically talks about reporting on those items, nowhere does it say it is a promotional source. That is YOUR reading into it. Just like a Jewish paper would report on items of interest to Jews, an Islamic would report on items specifically related to Muslum, etc. CNA is doing the exact same things. Just because they are a Catholic news source does not disqualify them. Pure and simple you have not provided anything to disqualify them. Otherwise you would have to disqualify the other 500 places where CNA is already on WP. Marauder40 (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Take it easy on the Personal Attacks and that ad hominem non-sense has no place here. The CL is more than adequate for a statement on what the CL believes. - Haymaker (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

However, Wikipedia is not a promotional arm of the Catholic League. We do not parrot them. Determining the notability of one of their frequent and vitriolic outbursts is hard—not everything they say is reported or even listened to. If secondary sources report something the CL said then it helps establish notability of that one opinion. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

CNA is a secondary source and despite what Roscelese claims it is a RS. Also a big reminder that Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent. She has yet to provide any proof other then a misquoted interpretation of their "About Us" page. I would like to add that there is no-consensus to REMOVE the statement about the Catholic league. If you go back to the "stable" version of 13 November 2010 you will see the Catholic League statement. Consensus must exist to remove it, not for it to be there. People are trying to turn the "argument" around. Marauder40 (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong again. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As usual an in improper reading of WP:BURDEN. "You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it." Based on the stable version there were sources, one of which was a primary source. It was stated as opinion. There was also a secondary source. This is not BLP so that doesn't apply. Burden was met. You cannot keep removing sourced information because YOU disagree with sources, consensus must be met. It has also been established that the Catholic League is a valid reliable source for its own statements, so adding it back also meets the "restore" clause. You can question the secondary sources but the primary source at least merits inclusion and the use of BURDEN to remove it is inappropriate. Marauder40 (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Joel Mowbray quote

I don't think Joel Mowbray is notable enough to give him the soapbox for a quote about CFC. He's not a major commentator or thought leader. Binksternet (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The notability's irrelevant. Insight on the News is downright notorious for making stuff up to further a political agenda, and the fact that the article doesn't even pretend to be serious reporting, rather than a rant about liberals, doesn't help. It isn't anything close to a reliable source for the claims about CFC's funding and offices that it's cited for. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's not put any more Insight on the News stuff into the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic

I think the criticism is notable because a group claiming to be Catholic has been described by a powerful group as anti-Catholic. The NYDN source is usable to back up the fact that the dispute between the Catholic League and CFC is notable. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The NYDN says (paraphrased) "CFC says the CL calls everyone they disagree with anti-Catholic," not "The CL has called CFC anti-Catholic." Not only does this not lend third-party notability to the criticism - if true, it devalues that criticism even further because it's leveled at anyone Bill Donohue dislikes, rather than at groups that actually display anti-Catholic tendencies. There really needs to be a reliable secondary source reporting on this claim. We've admitted plenty of SPS/QS criticism already because it's actually from the RCC - we don't need every lay group with an opinion getting a foot in as well, in violation of WP:UNDUE. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that the people in CfC like being Catholic, but disagree with the Church's teaching on a particular point. The Church also argues against birth control and divorce, but most current Catholics find ways to wriggle around the prosciptions. PhGustaf (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

One of the primary differences is that those that argue against the views on birth control don't actively campaign against the Church, trying to get their status in the UN downgraded. Trying to get tax-exempt statuses removed etc. As far as them liking being Catholic only they can say for sure but the former president Kissling talked about being a Catholic but never attending Mass or the sacraments, etc.Marauder40 (talk) 12:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring and page protection

I have protected this page after a report at WP:AN3. This would be a good time to remind editors that the 1RR restriction on this page is not an invitation for everyone to revert their "opponents" edits at a monotonous regularity of 24-48 hours. Editors who attempt to game the editing restrictions face, at the least, a topic ban; or more likely a block. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"advertisement signed by over one hundred prominent Catholics"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The main point is settled: there were 97 signers including nuns, priests, lay brothers, and prominent theologians. See A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion.

---

The source for that statement does not says who these "Catholics" were. Therefore, saying that they are "prominent" is merely the POV of one author. Reproducing that POV with the voice of wikipedia is absurd; if we are to include "prominent", we need to say "considered as prominent by". If the author had said "good Catholics", we wouldn't include the "good" in wikipedia voice, would we? -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

We go with what reliable sources say. Your personal opinion does not override this rule. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't necessarily report the subjective opinion of our sources in Wikipedia voice. If a source classified Obama as a failed president, would we put it in the article using Wikipedia voice? Or would we said "considered as failed by..." ? -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a pretty stupid hypothetical, because then you'd run up against all the other sources that reject that designation or that say he's been successful. Should I presume that you're hiding some source of equal or greater quality up your sleeve that said the signers were actually not very important, or is this just an irrelevant thought experiment? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

This is disingenuous; we don't need a second source to contradict the first in order to challenge POV. In the Obama analogy, we shouldn't classify him as "failed" even if 100% of sources agreed. We could, at most, say "considered a failure by scholars so and so". -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The citation given for that statement actually says "Kissling put together an advertisement in the New York Times with over 70 signatories, including several Catholic theologians, supporting Ferraro." "The 'New York Times' Ad: A Case Study in Religious Feminism" by Kissling and Mary E. Hunt states that there were 97 signers -- 30 canonical and 67 lay. Good Catholic Girls by Benevoglia also says 97, clarifying that the theologians were included in the lay signers.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Catholic identity: balancing reason, faith, and power, from Cambridge University Press, which is cited later in the para, gives "almost one hundred" - someone must have slipped and put "over." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonably uncontroversial change, so I'll go ahead and make it. Still need to discuss "prominent", though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Are there any sources which would seem to undermine Dillon's description? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources say nothing about prominence; "prominent" should be removed. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That's just incorrect; see Dillon, who's cited. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Which source is that? NYyankees51 (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Catholic Identity. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

What if we change "in October 1984 Kissling responded to O'Connor by placing an advertisement signed by almost one hundred prominent Catholics, including nuns, in the New York Times." to "...signed by almost one hundred Catholics, including priests, brothers, nuns, and theologians, in the New York Times"?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

How about just "with 97 signatories"? NYyankees51 (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Because 97 signers off the street aren't noteworthy -- we need to explain why it was important that these people signed the ad. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, "...signed by 97 laity and clergy"? NYyankees51 (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't work, because according to clergy, nuns and monks are excluded. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

They are laity; anyone who isn't ordained is a lay person. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Granted, but 2% clergy is misleading, where 33% religious isn't.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think that adding more detail about who signed would certainly be appropriate, but along the lines of "almost 100 prominent Catholics, both lay and religious" or whatever wording you want to use for the latter. We can't remove "prominent" unless we replace it with details about who the signers were and why they were prominent - it's not an empty word, it actually tells us something about the signers and that they weren't just 100 Catholics off the street. If we could name some of the important signers - theologians? influential Catholic politicians? etc.? - then we might be able to remove it, but until then, a reliable, secondary, independent source has seen fit to describe the signers as "prominent," and we can't remove it just because users who disagree with CFC want to pretend that no one important agrees with them. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the problem is that the term "prominent" is one person's opinion on the list. It is opinion and opinion only. One person's view on who is "prominent" is totally different from another. "Theologians" can mean someone who had one year of Theology, a Doctorate in Theology, or a published author. Without knowing who they are there is no way of knowing how "prominent" they are. Same thing goes for every group of people listed, Was the "clergy" a priest from a no-name parish, a published priest, a person from the woman "priest" movement or an actual Bishop? If there is any comments on who signed it, it can only say the "classes" of people without getting listed. Marauder40 (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

AGF, Roscelese. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is generally a good idea in the absence of evidence of bad faith. But that's not the case here. These users weren't putting up these bizarro-world arguments ("there are no facts, only opinions! Infobase Publishing totally thinks that someone who took a class in theology once counts as a theologian! we're not allowed to use the word 'clergy' for a Catholic priest if he supports women's rights!") when they were inserting far more questionable information cited to far worse sources. It's a double-standard, that's all, but it's fairly plain evidence that the users in question are willing to use poor sources and ignore rules when they want to put in information they think reflects badly on CFC, and equally willing to throw out excellent sources and invent new rules when they want to suppress information that they think might reflect well on CFC. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"Bizarro"? Let me remeber that you were the one trying to remove the statement from the USCCB, claiming (with presumably a straight face) that the USCCB is a "pressure group" with no authority to wheter an organization is Catholic or not! Yet, we didn't show towards you the same level of incivility you showed towards us, with words like "stupid", "n00b", etc. So please, be more civil. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You're either misremembering or deliberately lying when you claim that I wished to remove the USCCB statement. I hope it's the former. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, you "only" claimed (presumably with a straight face) that "and in any case a pressure group that opposes CfC is not really a good source on them" when you wanted to keep the category "Roman Catholic organizations". My bad. My point still stands though. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Given the topic area we usually edit in, I bet people would say the same about you at another article. Let's just try to find a solution. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If you think there's an article where I'm misusing sources or policy, by all means bring it up there. Until then, I'm still waiting for someone to produce a valid reason to ignore the reliable academic sources here, since "No true Catholic priest is pro-choice" is not a valid reason. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A long look at six sources discussing this NYT advert convinces me the word prominent used by one of them is validated. A second source uses leading. Three very thorough sources agree there were 97 signers. I intend to expand the paragraph with context, and cite the number 97. Binksternet (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Please provide those sources, you need to convince consensus, not just you. The only source that I saw that says "leading" was written by Kissling herself in this article link and repeated verbatim in a few other articles. Kissling would definitively not be a secondary source. As I said before, without knowing who the signatures are from, "leading" and "prominent" are just opinions. Also if we start expanding this section should we also note the fact that the two priests and two brothers that signed it have since made pro forma statements of retraction, other lay signers have done the same thing, etc. link How much of a can of worms do you want to open?Marauder40 (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That is notable, relevant and well-sourced. Please add it. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Certainly we could say that the church hierarchy pressured its followers into pro forma retractions (do you know what "pro forma" means?) by threatening them with the loss of their vocation, though I doubt that would have the pro-church-hierarchy effect you might wish for. In any case, Bink is drafting an article on the statement, so maybe we should start discussing which parts should be summarized here and which parts should just be in the main article. As for this continued bizarre insistence that everything is an opinion, how many "opinions" saying the same thing would satisfy you? Give us a number. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not appreciate the condescending attitude. Of course I know what pro forma means. I question the notability of an entire article on an advertisement in the NYT. Personally sounds like creating a mountain out of a mole-hill. As for your "bizarre insistence" on things like how many opinions, saying the same thing, right now I have only seen one author say "prominent" and a extremely biased author say "leading". It is amazing you can't see the hypocrisy in addressing this in sources and the attacks you have on other sources.Marauder40 (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I challenged you to give me a number. You haven't given me a number. How about four then? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Words like "challenged" reflect a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Boy do I wish I was the type of person that writes people up for civility violations. Unlike some people I let attacks roll off my back. Instead of just providing links as requested, some people HAVE to create battlegrounds, play victim cards or whatever method of attack they want to use.Marauder40 (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That's very nice, but it doesn't reflect anything having to do with bettering the article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

More often than not I'm getting written up, Marauder. Roscelese, your "challenges" do not better the article either. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary: when someone says that one source is not enough, asking them how many sources they want is a pretty concrete way to reach a state of consensus towards editing the article. Now, would you like to stop talking about me and start talking about how we can summarize the new article here, as I asked several comments up? I'm flattered, really, but article talk pages are for discussing the articles, not for airing your grudges with a particular user. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not a matter of numbers. If I found 9000 sources saying that Buddha is the best religious leader, I still wouldn't put the word "best" (which is POV) in Wikipedia voice. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not harboring a grudge, you're impeding any progress. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to post your suggestions for summarizing the new article, since I've asked you to stop talking about me and start talking about the article numerous times, or am I impeding you from posting those? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"Boy do I wish I was the type of person that writes people up"--well I am that kind of person and we're not quite there yet. I need some help. Ros, if you could call Maurauder a papist or a fish eater or similar I would appreciate it. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Are "stupid" and "n00b" enough? -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be against my moral values. While you're here, how would you suggest summarizing Bink's new article where it is mentioned in this article? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 11 August 2011 (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.

Deletion of sourced text

I ask you all to not summarily delete sourced text without prior conversation. If you think a source is lousy, then add a tag and take it to the talk page. Deleting sourced text (I'm thinking here of that piece of text backed by the EWTN) without discussing first will lead to edit wars. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no. If there's no reliable secondary source for an addition, we are not obliged to tag it and let it lie. If you want to include it, find a real news story that covers it, not a page from a fringe website gloating about the vote and whining about how "anti-Catholic" this Catholic organization is. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

First, EWTN is not fringe. Second: please, Roscelese. I don't know the Wikipedia policies by heart (I'm no lawyer), but giving some breathing time to disputed text (assuming it is not a blatant lie or a violation of BLP) is an act of civility and common sense. I didn't mean "let it lie". I meant give it some time. The procedure I propose is this:

* You found some text you think is lousily sourced. But you think that the user who added the text will stand by it.

1) Tag it

2) Take it to the talk page

3) Wait a couple of weeks. In this breathing time, a consensus can arrive, or some other editors can see the tag and bring better sources.

Doesn't that just make sense? Please! Much edit warring would be avoided if we did this. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong again. If you can't find reliable secondary sources, you shouldn't be adding the text. It is your responsibility to find real sources for content you want to add, and if you don't feel like making that effort, you should open a discussion on the talkpage and hope that someone else will find sources, not go ahead and add it anyway. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I quote here the very policy that you cited. From Wikipedia:BURDEN#Burden_of_evidence:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people; see here for how the BLP policy applies to groups.

(My emphasis) -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

With the resignation of Mother Angelica around 1999 EWTN installed a lay board and is independent of the church. Just because EWTN focuses on Catholic topics doesn't make it unreliable. It is in fact very reliable. By that logic we should also exclude The Advocate.– Lionel ^(talk) 01:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh please, don't waste any more time with this strawman about how some nebulous person thinks it's unreliable because it covers Catholic topics. It's unreliable because of its obvious bias against the subject of this article and falls under WP:QS. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Can the same charge not be readily leveled against the Advocate? - Haymaker (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the Advocate being cited in another article, bring it up at that article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Mission section

I have deleted the following text from the Mission section:

CFC argues that Catholic teaching on the primacy of individual conscience, and the role of the faithful in establishing church law, support a pro-choice stance on these issues.<ref>{{cite journal |archiveurl= http://web.archive.org/web/20050903031650/http://www.cath4choice.org/new/opeds/100101IndividualConscience.htm |archivedate= 2005-09-03 |url= http://www.cath4choice.org/new/opeds/100101IndividualConscience.htm |accessdate= 2011-07-20 |last= Kissling |first= Frances |title= The place for individual conscience |journal= Journal of Medical Ethics |date= Oct. 2001 |volume= v.27, Supp. }}</ref>

I did this because this text is a summary of a huge text and in Wikipedia we are not supposed to do this; we are supposed to rely in secondary sources to do non-trivial summaries for us. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I was the one who originally added that, and I realize that part of the problem is that the source it was originally cited to somehow got moved along the way so that it didn't appear to be a citation for that part. I'll replace it with a quote from the current page. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Bruskewitz in Lincoln, NE

Recent editing at the excommunication section seems to miss the possibility of having two quotes from Bruskewitz. Here's what the paragraph could look like:

• 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 was concerned that membership in any of these 12 groups was "always perilous to the Catholic Faith and most often is totally incompatible". 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. Bruskewitz said that heeding the excommunication would "be left to the person's conscience."

This removes an unneeded pipe link to interdict, it removes the unnecessary italics from the first quote, and it removes the unimportant name of the local organ he used to tell the flock. Both quotes are in: the one about banned membership being "perilous" and about excommunicated members heeding their conscience. Binksternet (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted to your version, but I still think the original is better. I could live with the above, but it's kind of redundant -- after all, any excommunication is left to your own conscience, unless you're famous enough that every priest in the country would recognize your face when you walked in. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Like some readers I'm not Catholic and I'm not familiar with the details of excommunication. I see no harm in telling the reader that Bruskewitz was not taking a more aggressive strategy such as compiling names, informing priests, and contacting targeted diocesans. Binksternet (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Catholics in a diocese are expected to listen to their bishop, just like students in a classroom are expected to listen to their teacher (and, to do what he tells you!) --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

...So let's make that plain to non-Catholic readers and tell them that Bruskewitz chose not to pursue a more aggressive path. Binksternet (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The current version is weird. If you with to include the redundant sentence

Bruskewitz said that heeding the excommunication would "be left to the person's conscience."

then at the very least replace "said that" with "remembered that". The current version suggests that excommunications are forcefully enforced, and that this one is an exception. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a slight language barrier here. I speak (among other languages) Italian and the same verb that, when used reflexively, means "remember," used non-reflexively means "remind." JP, did you mean "remind"? (It takes an object, so you'd need to write "Bruskewitz reminded [whoever] that the excommunication would be left up to the person's conscience.") Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hum, maybe "remember" is an innapropriate translation of the Portuguese verb "lembrar", which has more than one meaning. Anyway, I now came up with a better word: "noted". How about? I want a word that conveys the meaning "He said something that was no surprise". Does "he noted that" cut it? Do you agree? -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have any objections to "noted," but I think it may come over as weird if a reader isn't actually aware that this is generally the case with excommunications. We should strive to write something comprehensible to the lay (in the general sense) reader. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

"Noted" is more exact than "said", because it implicitly conveys the meaning that what the bishop wrote was no surprise. I still think it is better.

We could add "as usually happens in the case of excommunication" but I don't have a reliable written source to back that. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 19:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, yeah, that would be synthy. I took a look at the cited source, which uses "said." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Category

The previous consensus, reached at WP:WikiProject Catholicism, was that only official organizations of the RCC got that category, rather than organizations composed of Catholics. It has nothing to do with whether or not the USCCB believes they're not Catholic; the USCCB is not a reliable source for that. Since the Catholic League, which is also not official in any way, was in that category, I assumed there had been some change. If there hasn't, the Catholic League (and probably a lot of the other ones that are in there) shouldn't be in there; if there has been a change, CFC belongs there just like any other organization composed of Catholics. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

While there is no consensus here, the majority opinion is against this category. So please don't keep adding it, the result will be a pointless edit war. Achieve consensus first please. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

"The majority opinion is against this category"? Read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, please - "there's no policy-based consensus but my buddies and I think it should go" is a really poor argument. The written consensus in March was to remove non-official organizations, but consensus has obviously evolved since then, unwritten though it may be, because the category is full of non-official organizations. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it has shifted to include non-official organizations that are inline with Rome? Also, try not to put things in quotes that are not quotes in the future. - Haymaker (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not our place to decide who's "orthodox enough" to be in the category. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember doing so, cute straw many though. - Haymaker (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You didn't exactly name any of the secondary sources you (presumably, then) planned to use to determine who was "inline (sic) with Rome," either. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Any organization whose membership warrants excommunication would be a nice start. - Haymaker (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article is on CFC, not on "CFC in the Diocese of Lincoln only." Please include sources in your next comment if you have any desire to affect what's in the article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Solid 7th grade burn. Remember that you're the one trying to impact consensus in this instance so the onus is on you. - Haymaker (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you removed the category in spite of the overwhelming evidence and the large number of citations supporting it, since in your editing of this article you've never demonstrated any interest in reliable sourcing or neutrality. Are you going to bother trying to justify your edit, or just hope that you and your buddies will be able continue reverting indefinitely in the service of your agenda? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you re-added the category in spite of the overwhelming evidence and the large consensus opposing it, since in your editing of this article you've never demonstrated any interest in reliable sourcing or neutrality. Are you going to bother trying to justify your edit, or just hope that you will be able continue reverting indefinitely in the service of your agenda? See, I can play that game to, consensus is solid against the category you want. - Haymaker (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Cute, except that if one is going to talk about overwhelming evidence and justifying the edit, it's kind of important to be telling the truth rather than wildly fabricating statements that have no basis in reality just for the sake of rhetorical parallelism. I found sources (ie. evidence), and I also justified my edit in talk comments. You haven't even pretended to do either. (I seem to remember there's a commandment about that, but I guess that's not as important as the commandment to disparage pro-choice Catholics which presumably just slipped God's mind.) Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOTDEMOCRACY: a bunch of users reverting with minimal or zero effort to discuss, with no sources, and with, in no case, any appeal to policy rather than to personal opinion about the article subject does not constitute consensus. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

A wise man once told me not to comment on things I did not fully understand. I would advise you to do the same. - Haymaker (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You didn't provide any sourcing or justification for your edit in that comment, either. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism...

...is not acceptable. The depths to which y'all will sink in your attempt to cram this article full of undue criticism are really astonishing. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

What are you objecting to? If it is this

Anglican Bishop John Baycroft said "The Vatican has as much right to be [in the UN] as any of the other countries". While he says he doesn't agree with all the Pope's policies, Bishop Baycroft says the Vatican deserves its sovereign status as the territorial remainder of the Papal States. "There's a long, long history to it," he said. Also, the UN is well-served to count the Vatican within its membership, Bishop Baycroft says, because its world-wide network of community-level contacts gives it a sense of what ordinary people are thinking that few other governments can match. "It truly is a universal church," he says.

I think five sentences are covered under fair use. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Stealing text from someone else and pretending it is your own work is not covered under any definition of fair use. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll inform myself about American copyright law and then possibly make changes. Please wait one day. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Even better, inform yourself about WP:Copyright policy -- it's stricter than US law. See also Wikipedia:Plagiarism.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've read some Wikipedia policy, but I'm horrible at lawyering. Anyway, I have added an in-text authorship attribution to avoid accusations of plagiarism, and I have paraphrased the text to avoid accusations of copyright infringement. Do you think it is now OK? -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

@JP You just go ahead and keep "craming this article full of undue criticism," the rest of us will sort out the lawyering, LOL!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 02:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There are still more parts that need paraphrasing (the part in "Criticism" for example) but the attribution and quotation marks have solved most of the problem. Now there's just WP:UNDUE to confront with the long quote. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I propose to add back this

He also considers the Vatican's presence to be beneficial to the UN, because its world-wide network of community-level contacts gives it an exclusive sense of what ordinary people are thinking. "It truly is a universal church," he writes.

It is not undue; Bishop John Baycroft is not only a Bishop but an ambassador; his opinion is important. It is included twice in the seechange.org website - in their copy of the Ottawa citizen article, and in their "Quote Unquote" page. And I doubt that this would be considered copyright violation; we would just be including two short quotes and paraphrasing two sentences. The result would be this:

The Ottawa Citizen reports that Anglican Bishop John Baycroft said "The Vatican has as much right to be [in the UN] as any of the other countries". Bishop Baycroft disagrees with some of the Pope's policies, but still thinks the Vatican deserves its sovereign status as the territorial remainder of the Papal States. He also considers the Vatican's presence to be beneficial to the UN, because its world-wide network of community-level contacts gives it an exclusive sense of what ordinary people are thinking. "It truly is a universal church," he writes.

Please comment. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Baycroft's opinion that the Catholic Church "truly is a universal church" is not appropriate to this article. His opinion that the presence of the Holy See helps the U.N. is warped; he thinks the Holy See transmits the opinions of ordinary people to the U.N. Binksternet (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You have to argue with Wikipedia policy, not with what you think about Baycroft's opinion. It is well-sourced and not undue, that's what counts -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Undue is exactly what it is. Binksternet (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I am reading Wikipedia policy so I can reply with better arguments. In the meantime, I have added "He also considers the Vatican's presence to be beneficial to the UN". This small part should be non-controversial. It is covered on reliable secondary sources, it was spoken by an Anglican bishop and ambassador, it is short, it is directly relevant to the article, and it helps explaining the man's views. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Bink, whether or not Baycroft's opinion makes sense or is nonsensical isn't particularly relevant. The problem is that the previous version devoted a great deal of space to his opinion, considering that, with respect to this debate, he's basically some random guy. If we're going to include criticism, it is preferable to include that sourced to reliable publications, as this is, so we're a step ahead of where we used to be with the self-published criticism. It's just that we included too much from this one commentator, making it undue (and also that it was a copyright violation to include the text from the newspaper without indicating that it was a quote). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The campaign was supported by European Parliament politicians from three Dutch parties.

The source given does not say that the Dutch policians were aware of the See Change campaign. The source only says that the Dutch politicians wanted the EU to sever diplomatic ties with the Vatican. That is different from supporting (or even being aware of) the See Change campaign, which asks for the Vatican to be expelled from the UN. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on the cited article, I'd say you were right (I was looking at "European deputies of three Dutch parties launched a campaign...The campaign has been initiated by the See Change movement" but missed that there was another "Pannella said on private Radio Radical he was backing a campaign..." in between) but I looked further into it and found a piece by the politicians in question (here, hosted on the See Change website) in which it's clear that they do know about it and that it is not a separate campaign. We could cite this article to confirm. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't verify the article you cited because I don't understand its language. But if it supports the article text, and is reliable, why don't you add it as a reference? -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't read Dutch either, but through a combination of Google Translate and knowledge of German, I managed to suss it out. ;) I'll get round to that later. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Big C -- small c

When CFC invokes the word Catholic, shouldn't it be spelled with a small "c"? "Catholic" refers to the Roman Catholic Church. "catholic" refers to wannabes.– Lionel ^(talk) 02:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Well, the group considers itself Roman Catholic, and Wikipedia generally acknowledges self-identification. They are Roman Catholics who disagree with certain teachings of the Church, and are trying, in their minds, to reform them. It doesn't matter whether you or I agree or disagree with them.

I might add that your argument isn't helped by your smug hostility. PhGustaf (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It was a bullshit comment from Lionelt, loaded with its own hostility. No need to honor it with an answer. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticism -> reception

I'm pleased to see that we have grown, as editors, to the point that most of the criticism in this article is not self-published! Go us. However, it does nevertheless seem that users are beginning to cherry-pick, and to quote extensively, sources that comment negatively on the article subject when this negative commentary doesn't reflect the balance of the sources' opinion on the subject, so that we face a problem of undue weight. I suggested at Catholic League (U.S.) that we could change the "Criticism" section into a "Reception" section and include more positive reception as well as negative, and I'll make the same proposal here. Where shall we begin? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds okay to me; we could also do a reception section with positive and negative subsections. We should begin with finding the positive reception first, do you have something? NYyankees51 (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

U.S. House resolution

Currently we have...

"In July 2000, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a motion against the "See Change" campaign, on a vote of 416 to 1."

This is not correct. The House did not pass a motion against "See Change". It passed a non-binding resolution...

"Expressing the sense of the Congress strongly objecting to any effort to expel the Holy See from the United Nations as a state participant by removing its status as a Permanent Observer." link

Anything specific to "See Change" should be attributed to Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and not the U.S. House of Representatives as a whole.
Thought I'd better ask here before adding possible bloat to that section. Comments? Ideas? Dirty looks? Harsh language? So this baby seal walks into a club... - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. I've revised the sentence to reflect that it was a non-binding resolution, not a motion.Cloonmore (talk) 12:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The bigger problem is that this was only picked up by a source with a history of disparaging and spreading misinformation about CFC and a stated desire to take CFC down, leading to obvious WP:WEIGHT issues. Still waiting for resolution at NPOVN. (Unless, Artifex, you've found better sources?) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless something has changed since the last time EWTN was up at the RS noticeboard I don't see why they would be an issue. - Haymaker (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The RSN discussion determined that it was a weight issue rather than an RS issue, hence taking it to NPOVN. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Best of luck with that. - Haymaker (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Non-binding resolutions are rarely news outside of the targeted audience. The Congressional Record, V. 146, Pt. 10, July 11, 2000 is the best I've found so far (worth a read). This morning I shot an elephant in my underpants. How he got in there I'll never know. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That's another primary source. Let us know if you find any good secondary sources? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The CR is definitely primary, the elephant won't get passed WP:RS and Google searches (nine ways from Sunday) are all chaff. So I got nothin'. Sorry. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Simple question

Why do we care about the Canadian bishops' and the Mexican archbishop's opinion? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

CFC is American-based, but as the article thrice mentions (including in the lead), it works internationally. The direct statements of the bishops of North America as to CFC's Catholicity are obviously relevant. That's why we care. Cloonmore (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No CFC members fall under these bishops' jurisdiction. There is no evidence that Canada and Mexico are within the scope of CFC's international activities (unsurprising, since Canada and Mexico have their own separate organizations). It's quite obvious that you're just trying to cram the article full of criticism instead of improving it, but if you're going to do that, couldn't you at least find reliably sourced criticism, rather than press releases from irrelevant entities and other poorly sourced whining? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's take all this misinformation in small bites:

• "No CFC members fall under these bishops' jurisdiction." -- Completely nonsensical. You have absolutely no way of knowing.
• "There is no evidence that Canada and Mexico are within the scope of CFC's international activities" -- Sure there is, if you bothered even to look at CFC's own website.
• "(unsurprising, since Canada and Mexico have their own separate organizations)" -- Wrong again. Canadian news articles posted on CFC's website characterize Canadian CFC as its "Canadian branch".

Bad enough that your comments about me betray a complete failure to assume good faith. Worse still that you'd spout your opinions like facts. You've been an editor far too long not to know better. Cloonmore (talk) 02:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Very well, I was incorrect in some of my comments above. The fact remains, however, that regardless, this article would need a complete rewrite in order to cover every country's organization; moreover, it's by no means clear that the Canadian organization is just a subgroup, since other sources describe it as an "affiliate," while the Mexican group appears to be unambiguously and completely separate. If you wish to write an article on CDD Mexico, by all means do so - I'm sure no one would object to a brief mention of the archbishop's position there. But these are poor excuses to add more and more poorly sourced criticism to what is meant to be an encyclopedia article based on reliable sources, a policy you perhaps have not yet encountered. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll ignore your snideness and merely offer the observation that your problem appears not to be with the sourcing but the criticism. CFC already has its own self-extolling website; this is an encyclopedia. Cloonmore (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - an encyclopedia which already contains plenty of reliably-sourced criticism of CFC as well as poorly-sourced criticism that we've decided to allow because it's relevant. The bishops have more than enough resources of their own for getting their message out without Wikipedia editors acting as free PR agents publishing their press releases here. That's what they have websites and official newspapers for. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to see that you've again chosen the path of edit warring. This edit is plainly disruptive. I've demonstrated above that you are wrong on virtually all of your factual assertions about CFC's international work, as you have conceded, yet you nonetheless removed the Canadian and Mexican bishops' statements, and your edit summary calls it "irrelevant self-published whining from entities with no jurisdiction over an American organization". You have no basis for stating that they have "no jurisdiction" over CFC. Aside from the opacity of your term, "jurisdiction," it is undisputed that CFC involves itself in matters within those bishops' geographic domains. Thus, it is obviously relevant. That leaves only your pejorative term "whining" as the basis for your edit. Your edit is simply aimed at removing criticism of the subject from the article and violates WP:NPOV. Cloonmore (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The lead paragraph

The lead paragraph is stuffed full of references to "Catholic" and "Catholics" as if this organization has a right to call itself that. It does not. Under canon law, "no initiative can lay claim to the title “Catholic” without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority". This means the bishop has to approve. secondary source primary source. Elizium23 (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. There is nothing wrong with the lede saying that the organization describes itself as... However, whether it is a Catholic organization is a fact in dispute. Hence edits such as this by Sarek are arguably disruptive editing, especially in light of the 1RR rule. I think we should get a consensus on what is a fair way to state the lede sentence. To say that it "is a Catholic ... organization" is patently misleading. Mamalujo (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually under U.S. law, via the First Amendment, the organization as an absolute right to call itself Catholic. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The organization does not need canon law's approval to call itself Catholic. Likewise, it cannot force the USCCB to recognize it as Catholic.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

@Artifex, Whether or not the first amendment would give them the "absolute right" to use the name (which may or may not be the case) is not the issue. The issue is whether this encyclopedia should describe them as such when there is a dispute as to whether in fact it is a Catholic organization. @Sarek, whether or not they can call themselves Catholic is a separate issue from whether Wikipedia should say that they are a Catholic organization. One way to resolve this is to simply say that they describe themselves as such - the edit which you reverted. For example in the Catholic League rather than saying that the group fights the defamation of and discrimination against Catholics, an assertion that some might dispute, the article reads: "The Catholic League states that it 'defends the right of Catholics – lay and clergy alike – to participate in American public life without defamation or discrimination.'" We ought to resolve this dispute the same way. Something along the lines of "CFC states that it was founded 'to serve as a voice for Catholics who believe that the Catholic tradition supports a woman’s moral and legal right to follow her conscience in matters of sexuality and reproductive health'". Stating that the group is a Catholic...organization, when this is a bona fide matter of factual dispute, is misleading and improper. I think you have to admit that if this matter were to go to a dispute resolution, the sentence as it now exists would not stand. We as editors ought to get a consensus on an alternative rather than waste more admin time on this article. Mamalujo (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

In this case we follow reliable sources. Michele Dillon, Ph.D. Professor of Sociology University of New Hampshire and the former chair of the American Sociological Association section on the Sociology of Religion, wrote the book Catholic identity: balancing reason, faith, and power. On page 83, under the heading "Pro-Change Groups in the Church", she discusses post-Vatican II Catholicism, including "the founding of several Catholic-based activist organizations during the late 1960s and 1970s." In the next sentence, she refers to the Catholic-based groups as "Catholic groups"; the terms are used for the same concept. In the next few paragraphs, she discusses some of the pro-change groups, including Catholics for a Free Choice, and the Catholic League. To Dillon, both CFFC and CL are essentially the same: activist Catholic groups working for change. These groups are all part of the "Catholic community" (page 85}. What we must do in this article is follow the practices of topic scholars such as Dillon, and Dillon sees CFC as a Catholic group. Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

As did the, what was it, eleven other sources previously cited. But even had they not been cited - Wikipedia isn't in the business of policing anyone's religious self-identification. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The difference here, of course, is that the legitimacy of CFC's use of the word "Catholic" in its name has been the source of great controversy, notoriety and dispute since the inception of the group. It's not about policing self-identification. It's about the facts, which are that CFC's disputed "Catholicity" is central to any reasonable discussion of it, its history, its positions and its goals. Cloonmore (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You are quick to cite so-called "reliable" sources, and yet there is a rebellion in the Church. A rebellion against the news media that attempts to cover religion and falls short. Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia says, "We make a very serious mistake if we rely on media like The New York Times, Newsweek, CNN or MSNBC for reliable news about religion. These news media simply don’t provide trustworthy information about religious faith – and sometimes they can’t provide it, either because of limited resources or because of their own editorial prejudices." Elizium23 (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

LOL! No, the archbishop's personal belief that the media omg totally hates religion does not override Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

So put some reliably sourced discussion of the disputed term into the article body, and summarize the added text in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

We continue to see this same problem repeated. Mamalujo wrote "describes itself as Catholic" but without a supporting cite. After being reverted, Mamalujo, IP editor 166.216.226.192 from Kansas northeast of Wichita, Mamalujo again, and Aliajacta have all inserted the words "self-proclaimed" in front of Catholic, citing this pronouncement by Brazilian priests. The Brazilians do not trump scholarly theologist Michele Dillon. Binksternet (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

More to the point, Wikipedia does not, as a rule, recognize third parties as reliable sources on the religious beliefs of people who are still around to talk about their beliefs. (I phrase it this way because historians are good sources on dead people.) This POV-pushing nonsense has got to stop. People are the religion they say they are. It does not actually matter what opinion an antagonistic group has about their beliefs. (As a side note, the cited source is not about the subject of the article, it's about a Brazilian group of the same name founded in '93!) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The "Brazilian group of the same name" is an affiliate. Also, the USCCB has made a similar statement about the American CFC. Also, Wikipedia respects the religious self-identification of living people, not necessarily of organizations.

What, then, if we exchange "Catholic organization" to "organization of Catholics"? Even more precise, how about "organization of dissenting Catholics" ?-- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You have not countered Michele Dillon, Ph.D., saying that both the Catholic League and Catholics for Choice are Catholic organizations, formed in a period when a number of Catholic activist groups were founded. The simple word "Catholic" is quite suitable, and needs no change. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Dillon also refers to CFC's "claim to Catholic identity." That doesn't sound so emphatic as Binkersnet is trying to make out. Cloonmore (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Bink's got a point here, JP: the decision we hammered out for categories won't work in article text (part of the reason, but not the whole reason, is that we can use tools like HotCat for the category changes, but all changes to in-text descriptions must be done manually, and you're very trusting in the goodness of human nature if you think that it won't be just CFC that gets stuck with a different label). Re: affiliate - I think I'm going to start a new section on that, because the article as it's currently written isn't set up to deal with that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't get your point about fairness. If you want fairness (that is, CFC to be treated like other organizations of Catholics), then we two can personally change the Catholic League to "organization of Catholics" and the SSPX to "organization of dissenting Catholics". I can help you enforce that. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not something that would be tenable in article text. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

"Obstructing consensus"

With reference to See Change, the article states, "The campaign was begun after Vatican representatives at UN conferences in Rio de Janeiro, Cairo, and Beijing had obstructed consensus-building on health and education issues." Neither of the sources support this statement. One source states that the Vatican "blocked a consensus resolution" at the "current [March 2000] session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW)", not at any of the UN conferences cited. The other source attributes the allegation about the Vatican having "blocked consensus" to the director of the "Latin American and Caribbean Women's Health Network," not CFC. Leaving aside for the moment the fact that both of these articles are reprints appearing on CFC's own website, neither support the assertion that CFC started See Change due to the Holy See supposedly obstructing or blocking consensus. Cloonmore (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You might want to ask JorgePeixoto about this (here or on his talkpage). That was originally cited to half a dozen sources or so, and that version is in the page history somewhere, but he spread the citations around the paragraph so they were closer to other statements that they supported - he may remember which ones were there to begin with. (Or check the old version.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't dispute that the sources cited don't support the statement. You don't provide a single source that does support the statement. And yet, following my removal of the statement,you immediately restored it with the same bad sources, claiming that it is "exhaustively sourced...(see talk page)". False edit summaries and disruptive editing get editors blocked. Cloonmore (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You were willing to make the effort to post on this talkpage complaining about the edits of users you disagree with. How much more effort does it take to look in the page history and/or ask another editor who agrees with you politically about their edits to this article? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

And you, what effort are you obliged to undertake? Just to make sure that poorly sourced CFC-favorable material stays in the article? And what do you know about my political views? Did you ever read WP:AGF? Cloonmore (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

This is ludicrous. It it fails verification it fails verification. Why not put a "Note 1" directing the reader to the article history so they can find legitimate sourcing. Sarcasm aside, Cloonmore is right on point. And Ros, your hypothesis about Cloon's political inclination has nothing to do with unsupported content in an article. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Both of these sources support the Holy See blocking consensus at the UN: "NGOs Call For Review of U.N. Status of Holy See" and the "Campaign to challenge Vatican's status at UN". Binksternet (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• Sigh...if you want something done right, you do it yourself.

Sandrasagra, Mithre J. (March 14, 2000). "NGOs Call For Review of U.N. Status of Holy See". Inter Press Service.: "The high-profile opposition of the Vatican to family planning, abortion and condoms for AIDS prevention seems to have served to alert supporters of the campaign -- formally called the "See Change" Campaign -- to the question of the legal statehood of the Holy See and its implications for the privileged role it plays at the United Nations."; "In many African countries where women are increasingly vulnerable to HIV/AIDS, the Holy See has consistently attempted to block or undermine safe sex programs."; "At the current session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), the Vatican opposed the use of the word "services," putting it in brackets to signify opposition. By bracketing "services," the Vatican effectively blocked a consensus resolution that women do require health and reproductive services." (among other things)

Eckstrom, Kevin (June 2000). "Pro-Choice Catholic Group Challenges Vatican at U.N.". Religion News Service.: "Ever since the United Nations' 1995 Beijing conference on women, the Vatican has used its U.N. presence to speak out against family planning and abortion around the world."; also cites opposition to emergency contraception AIDS prevention programs

"US-based Catholic group, feminists oppose Vatican position at UN". Agence France-Presse. March 15, 2000.: "Ever since the United Nations' 1995 Beijing conference on women, the Vatican has used its U.N. presence to speak out against family planning and abortion around the world."; "Earlier this year, the Vatican opposed the use of the "morning-after pill" emergency contraception for rape victims in Kosovo refugee camps. The church has also opposed the distribution of condoms in Africa to help stem the spread of AIDS, saying there is no proof condoms would help prevent the disease."

Cornwell, Rupert (August 29, 1999). "Catholics bid to strip Vatican of statehood". The Independent on Sunday.: "So it was at the UN conference on global population in Cairo, and last year at the UN conference on women in Peking."; "the Vatican uses [religious beliefs] as a battering ram, to try to shape the [international public policy] - above all on birth-control issues. The latest focus of liberal Catholic anger is its effort to prevent emergency abortions for women raped during the Kosovo conflict."

I mean, we could go into more detail on Vatican obstructionism and opposition to basic health measures in countries ravaged by war and disease! But the article originally cited referred specifically to consensus-blocking at these specific conferences, and it seems like a good idea, when talking about why a campaign was begun, to, y'know, refer to the reasons given for its beginning. (FWIW, Rio is the only one that isn't mentioned at least twice, but plenty of other sources that aren't about See Change confirm that the Vatican had family planning taken off the agenda for Rio. We couldn't cite them, but just in case you thought this was an elaborate fiction...) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"consensus-building on health and education issues" is to broad. All your sources say the Vatican opposes things related to "safe-sex" education, "morning after pills", abortion, birth control issues etc. which are typical things the Catholic church has problems with. The phrase as stands makes it sound like the church is against ALL forms of health and education issues, when in fact they promote education and health care as long as it doesn't conflict with Church morals. Maybe saying "consensus-building on topics related to "safe-sex" education, abortion, and birth-controll." will be more acceptable. Marauder40 (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

We would have to include condoms in the statement since people usually think "contraception" when they hear "birth control," and the opposition to condoms in AIDS prevention programs was enough of a big deal that it shouldn't be elided for technical semantic reasons. We could also generalize the conferences named to "a number of UN conferences" or "various UN conferences" to include the ones previously named as well as the others named in the sources, eg. the March 2000 follow-up to Beijing named in "NGOs call for review..." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, instead of the loaded expression "obstructed consensus-building" we should use "blocked consensus", which is more technical and neutral. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I've implemented the wording changes Marauder40 and JorgePeixoto recommended, as well as making a few other changes of my own including the ones I mentioned above. Do you think it's too wordy? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

New sentence; same problem. None of the sources support the claim that CFC initiated See Change "after Vatican representatives at various UN conferences blocked consensus." No sources support the "blocked consensus" claim, which in any event is POV. (One could just as persuasively contend that the Holy See worked to build a different consensus. That's diplomacy.) The most that the sources demonstrate is that Kissling disagreed with positions the Holy See took on various issues at UN conferences, which is no surprise, but it takes a synthetic leap to assert that even that personal disagreement was the reason for CFC's See Change initiative. Cloonmore (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the sources is unique. They say the Vatican blocked consensus—they do not say the Vatican was building a different consensus. I am not at all persuaded by your argument versus what is in the sources. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Back up your talk. One source (Inter) uses that phrasing; it is attributed to a person not associated with CFC; and it refers to a current CSW session, not a UN conference. Cloonmore (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I am in favor of calling a spade a spade. "Obstructed consensus" is deliberately vague. - Haymaker (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Commission on the Status of Women is a UN initiative. The Irish Times story mentions several instances of Vatican blocking of consensus at international UN conferences. Binksternet (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Binks, you're going in circles; your point was refuted in the first post in this section. See Change started in early 1999. The Inter story refers to the "current" (Mar. 2000) CSW session. Obviously, it can't support the assertion that the campaign was launched "after" CSW. The comment about "blocking consensus" in the Irish Times story isn't attributed to CFC but to someone in the "Latin American and Caribbean Women's Health Network." This article's about CFC. Cloonmore (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

LACWHN was one of the original groups that began the campaign; its spokesperson is a perfectly adequate source on why the campaign was begun. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Fail. The article's about CFC. The sources make clear that CFC initiated the campaign and solicited a few hundred joiners. The views of one person associated with one of the joiners can't be imputed to CFC. You need something more, like maybe a source. Cloonmore (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

How convenient - a source is already cited! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Then by all means identify it. So far, all you and Binks have been doing is citing and re-citing the same old sources, which have been shown ad nauseum not to support that statement in the article. It's not too late to offer a productive comment, though. Cloonmore (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

O'Rourke redux

This constant one-upmanship has led the article's coverage of Joseph O'Rourke to have a size way, way out of proportion to his actual importance. He has his own article. Anything more than his name should go there, not here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

From Harriman's letter to the editor in January 1975 Commonweal, the baptism was her idea, and Harriman and O'Rourke went to Marlboro together to kick up some publicity with the rite, making the adventure an official one for CFFC rather than a maverick act by O'Rourke. I think it is another example of early CFFC promotion, and should stay. Binksternet (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yet another primary source. And even if it was Harriman's idea, on what basis is that an "offical" act by CFFC? Cloonmore (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Since when do you have any objection to primary sources, Cloonmore? You just added back some that violate SPS, while this one at least fits the SPS exemption of actually being by and about the subject. If it can be confirmed to be an official project of CFFC, then I can see that it would belong, though it should be refocused a bit more so it sounds less as though it's "Someone who was once associated with this group did a thing" (and Morreale wasn't, even - we give too much detail) and more "This was a project of the group." What needs to be in this article are those details which explain CFFC's role in the event, not people three removes away from CFFC. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

When they violate WP:Primary. When, as here, they constitute "accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event." The statements by bishops' conferences aren't those. Surely you can comprehend the distinction. Cloonmore (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hee! You've painted yourself into a corner there - if Harriman's statement that she was involved can't be trusted because primary sources are no good, how do we know that she was involved and thus that the source is untrustworthy? (Please consult WP:SPS, "does not involve claims about third parties," for the bishops, and in contrast, "about themselves" for Harriman.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

?????? Neither the bishops' statements nor Harriman's letter to Commonweal is a self-published source. Cloonmore (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

A press release on the bishops' website is, in fact, a self-published source, and Catholic News Agency isn't much better. Would you care to address my criticism of your comment about using Harriman as a source? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Your argument that one can't invoke WP:Primary without also conceding that the source is 'trustworthy'? I didn't address it because it's so patently absurd that I assumed it to be a joke. You also don't seem to comprehend what an SPS is. Read the policy. Cloonmore (talk)

I don't think you understand: it's your argument that is so bizarre as to be a joke. You're saying that we can't use the Harriman source because it is primary. But the only evidence that we have that it is primary is the source itself. If the source is too unreliable to be cited at all (which appears to be what you're saying - it's not as though we're relying largely upon it or citing it for anything contentious) - if it cannot be cited for the statement that Harriman was involved, which is what it's being cited for - in short, if you don't think we have a reliable source supporting Harriman's involvement, how can you simultaneously claim that the source is primary and thus not to be used? (And if this isn't what you're arguing, then what is your problem? As I said, it's being cited for one non-contentious statement about the author herself, which is more than admissible. I'm charitably assuming that you have read the policy you're citing, so there must be something more at work here - why are you so desperate to remove it?) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that to label a source as primary is to concede its trustworthiness, and, therefore, its reliability. So, if you're right, it would always be self-defeating to invoke WP:PRIMARY. That's, um, nuts. Anyway, we agree on one thing. The O'Rourke paragraph is way out of proportion to the subject of this article. Cloonmore (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The primary-source Joan Harriman letter to the editor can be used because it is not supporting any extraordinary claims. Nobody contests whether she suggested performing the baptism to O'Rourke who was conveniently available as a Jesuit priest in good standing at that time on the board of directors of CFFC. Nobody contests whether she was in Marlboro talking to Morreale and the press at the same time. Binksternet (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't access the letter to the commonweal. It gives me a "HTTP Error 503. The service is unavailable." -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 01:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Now it doesn't give me the error anymore, but I see it is a pay-per-view article... -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is behind a pay wall. Binksternet (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you work on that paragraph, with what you get from that letter, so that it's more about CFFC and less about other people? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I added a quote parameter with some of Harriman's words so that others can gauge what is important. Certainly she confirms that the baptism was an official CFFC endeavor. Later in her letter she describes how she and O'Rourke met with local Marlboro priests and asked them to lift their ban--they would not, of course. I don't know who "Father Keane" is, the guy she says was unacceptable. Binksternet (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It's still taking up what seems like a disproportionate amount of the article. You did the research - do you think it's notable enough for its own article (satisfies WP:EVENT)? If so, then we would be able to briefly summarize, as we did when you wrote the other article. (It may be best to do this with See Change as well.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I will consider writing two more articles. The coverage is very high for both, satisfying GNG. Binksternet (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Primary-source UN material

Let's put aside for a moment the fact that you haven't provided secondary sources. Where does this source mention See Change? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't. Didn't you read it?Cloonmore (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. If it doesn't refer in any way to the article subject, it doesn't belong in this article. Even if you personally believe it's relevant. Have you considered adding it to Activities of the Holy See within the United Nations system? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not a personal belief; it's obviously relevant. I don't see your basis for contending otherwise. CFC tries to get Holy See's status downgraded; UN expands Holy See's status. What's not relevant? Cloonmore (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It falls foul of WP:NOR/WP:SYN. What you're describing is pretty much a textbook case: "Sources say CFC is trying to make the Vatican an NGO" + "source says the UN made a statement about the Vatican" = "that statement is about CFC and belongs in the CFC article." Wikipedia's core policies require that material added be directly related to the subject and that they not imply conclusions not explicitly stated in the sources. Want to test your theory? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Your equation doesn't match the article or my words, so you might try communicating your thoughts again in a more effective way. Let me try to say it as simply as possible for you --

The section is about unsuccessful attempts by CFC to downgrade the Holy See's status at the UN starting in 1999. It is plainly relevant to that effort that the UN in fact upgraded the Holy See's status in 2004. That's not synthesis or original research. It's plain unvarnished relevant fact with no editorializing. You seem to be grasping at something that isn't there. Cloonmore (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Like I said - are you willing to test that theory? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Pure original research to try and set the raising of status as a result of CFC's attempt to lower the status. Not allowed per WP:NOR. Binksternet (talk) 03:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Again. There's no implication that the General Assembly's 2004 Resolution was "a result of CFC's attempt to lower the status." That's your inference, but it's nowhere in the article.Cloonmore (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Cloonmore offered no personal analysis or interpretation of the primary source. As there is no research, this falls shy of NOR. - Haymaker (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Roscalese, you've got a lot of nerve removing the UN material as "synth". You completely failed to make your case here, ran over to WP:NORN (without giving anyone here the courtesy of a heads-up), got shot down by an admin, and you still remove the UN material. Play nice and stop the disruptive editing or a block is in your future. Cloonmore (talk) 01:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You just keep on threatening - I'm sure anyone you might be thinking of reporting me to would be fascinated to hear about how you keep trying to add in this poorly sourced material without consensus. (And how hard is it to spell my name? It's right there!) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Predictable Ros. Nothing to bring to the table on the merits, no substantive response, just more "boomerang" warnings. Tired tactics. Cloonmore (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Donohue quoted

I deleted a bit where Donohue was quoted about Marjorie Maguire, reveling in her post-divorce turnabout. Donohue is not any kind of reliable source regarding CFC. Binksternet (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

William Donohue is no less a "neutral" observer of CFC than is Frances Kissling, Rosemary Radford Ruether, Katha Pollitt or Tom Davis (former "chaplain" of Planned Parenthood), all of whom are cited as sources throughout this article. His supposed lack of "neutrality", therefore, is no basis for removing his observations, unless one is prepared to gut the article of the other openly left-wing sources. This is especially so since Donohue is explicitly identified in the article as the source of the statement, allowing the reader to evaluate the statement for his or herself. (Not true - at the moment - of the views of Davis, et al.) Cloonmore (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll just repeat what Binksternet said, since you went off on a tangent: Donohue is not any kind of reliable source regarding CFC. WP:RS is the guideline by which Wikipedia's three core content policies are upheld. It's worth a read. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that this article is about the activities of Kissling, Ruether, Pollitt, etc. It is not about Donohue who shoots from the hip and does not speak for the Church. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, Pollitt is being cited for a number, not for an opinion. There's no reason to believe that the number is incorrect, but the opinion of someone who thinks anything CFC does damages its reputation is not particularly relevant for an encyclopedia article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Scope of article

This article isn't currently set up to deal with affiliates of CFC in various countries - affiliates which have their own administration and their own projects. The "history" section is the history of the American organization. The leadership we name are the American leaders. The "mission" section is the mission of the American organization. The article would need a massive overhaul if it's to be about every organization in every country, and poorly sourced criticism is not the place to begin. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

What's your point? Cloonmore (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That you ought to stop adding material that's irrelevant to the article subject in the service of your agenda, or actually make a tiny bit of effort to make the article about that subject instead of about something different. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm totally focused on improving it. Thanks for your always constructive criticism! Cloonmore (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That's very nice, but also very irrelevant. Are you or are you not planning to rewrite the article to focus on all organizations called CFC, rather than on one particular American organization? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If something notable and relevant happens with Ford Brasil I think we should include it in the Ford article. By the same logic, if something notable and relevant happens with "Católicas pelo Direito de Decidir" then we should included it in the "Catholics for Choice" article. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Marjorie Rieley Maguire

Dear Binkster, what's your source for (a) calling MRM a director of CFC, (b) linking her '91 divorce to her letter to NCR 4 yrs later, and (c) stating that MRM "worked against abortion"? Cloonmore (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I put the reference in there, directly following the statement. In the 1991 journal, Fidelity, the article begins, "The divorce of Dan and Marjorie Maguire marks the end, not only of their life together, but of a pro-abortion legacy." The article continues by talking about the reversal of Marjorie Maguire's aims, where she turns around and works against abortion and CFC.

In Media Law Reporter volume 28 from the year 2000, the Maguire divorce and a subsequent lawsuit is discussed for many pages. On page 1651 it says, "By her own account, Marjorie Maguire engaged in a crusade to discredit Daniel Maguire by exposing what she deemed his hypocrisy. She did so publicly. She connected their divorce dispute to public issues on which she and Daniel were prominent public spokespersons."

The only major public issue they wrote about together was abortion, as noted by Fidelity. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Why is WP:NOR applicable only to other editors, but not to you, Binks? The NCR letter's about CFC, not Dan Maguire. The Fidelity piece pre-dates the letter, so that's of no use. And your assumptions about the Media Law Reporter passage, the Maguires' public work, and the 1995 letter require a huge, baseless leap. Indeed, if you were correct, one would expect the Media Law Reporter to have been more specific about MRM's "crusade" vis a vis the NCR letter, but it isn't. So here we are, left with Binkster's own personal conclusions, not RS. (BTW, I'm a little disappointed in you -- attributing a vengeful motive to MRM (a woman scorned!) with no evidence. Rather sexist of you, Bink.) Cloonmore (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to side with Marjorie you have Dan's reported adultery to point to. He was, according to court documents, finding in his prominent position as a leading theologian that power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. Of course I disapprove. Marjorie is not without fault, though; she stalked Dan and insulted him during his speaking engagements, and blackmailed him to cancel one as he was standing in the wings about to go on stage. All in all, it was quite the ugly divorce. "Acrimonious" is the very kindest word I could think of to describe it. Binksternet (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, binks, the private lives of "liberal" Catholics can be distressing. Anyhow, I see you've only responded to part (b) of my question, but, even so, a child could see that you're knee-deep in original research. Sorry, fella, but it's got to go. Cloonmore (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Fidelity (great name) and Media Law Reporter sources support exactly what they are saying they support. The Maguires divorced in a bitter split (Fidelity and Media Law Reporter), and Marjorie then worked against CFC and abortion (Media Law Reporter). What more is there to say? Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Only an editor divorced from reality could ask, "what more is there to say?" Or an editor who hasn't read or responded to any of the charges above of violating WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. Looks like we're well into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Not much more to say. Cloonmore (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that "Following her divorce Marjorie Maguire worked for pro-life causes and against CFC." - Haymaker (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It might be... I found a bit online where Marjorie was quoted in the 2000s saying the fetus should be given full protection as a person, which is 180 degrees from her position prior to 1991. However, sources saying she actually worked for pro-life causes should be found before making the change. Binksternet (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Marjorie Rieley Maguire's position on abortion in the 2000s might be of interest in an article about her. It's not relevant to this article. None of the sources cited connect her 1995 letter to the NatCathRep criticizing CFC to her 1991 divorce from Dan Maguire. The attempt to do so in this article runs afoul of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Cloonmore (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I find it disturbing that Binksternet hasn't tried to refute claims of Original Research and Synthesis. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

revert

My fingers moved before I'd entered an edit summary for this revert. The explanation is that it restored sourced material regarding Austin Ruse's response to Kissling, the Congressional resolution and the 2004 UN Gen Assembly resolution, all of which was disruptively removed from the page by Roscelese. Lots of Talk re same above. Cloonmore (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Kissling/Ruse

The article includes a tendentious quote from Kissling: "Why should an entity that is in essence 100 square acres of office space and tourist attractions in the middle of Rome with a citizenry that excludes women and children have a place at the table where governments set policies affecting the very survival of women and children?" I previously removed it as a "contentious soundbite," inappropropriate for an encyclopedia, but another editor restored it. If the Kissling quote remains, then the article should include a response, and one was give by Austin Ruse, director of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, who stated,

The Vatican has been trading diplomats since the fourth century and now has diplomatic relations with 176 member states of the U.N. The Vatican has territory and represents people all over the world. The Catholic Church and the Holy See speak for Catholicism and nobody else does.

The quote is contained in a Legal Times story posted on CFC's own website, which story also includes the Kissling quote above. No valid basis has been given for removing the Ruse quote from this article. Cloonmore (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary. I gave a basis; if you don't personally agree, that's your problem. I said that Ruse's personal opinion is unnecessary in an article on someone else; there's far too much undue criticism as is, not every uninvolved far-right organization wanting to put their two cents in is entitled to their say. Please gain consensus for your addition, rather than adding it over and over while simultaneously complaining that people who disagree with you are edit-warring. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia policy would support including Kissling words but not their response, when they come from the same source. Ruse's words are relevant and objectively explain the situation. If this went to a noticeboard, they would probably find for inclusion. I'm just afraid of flooding Wikipedia noticeboards. But common sense tell for Ruse's words to stay. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

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)