Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:04, 9 April 2020

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Catholicism Mid‑importance History of the Catholic Church and homosexuality is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Catholicism task list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : see Draft articles Assess : see Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles; Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles Cleanup : Blessed Virgin Mary (see the talk page) Collaborate : Invitation template needed, see Category:WikiProject invitation templates Copyedit : Cuthbert Tunstall Expand : Angelus; Roman Catholicism in Kosovo; Bishop Adolph John Paschang; Cum sæpe accidere; Altar Society; American Board of Catholic Missions; Bernard Häring NPOV : Americanism (heresy); Ensoulment Photo : see Category:Misplaced Pages requested photographs of Catholicism Stubs : see Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles; Category:Catholic Church stubs Update : Peer review; John Aloysius Maguire Verify : Archdiocese of Glasgow; Archbishop of Westminster; Bishop; Saint Mungo; Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Christian history. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Social and political philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Recent additions

No we're not having lots of sub-headings for Pope Francis. Otherwise 2000 years of history get over-shadowed by one individual over the past 5 years. And tell me exactly why I need to give you a full citation for the Cruz story? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

There are over 1,000 words in this section. MOS:BODY states that "Headings introduce sections and subsections, clarify articles by breaking up text, organize content, and populate the table of contents. Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." This section is most certainly long enough to justify section headings. And, as I have pointed out on your talk page, providing full citations and not just bare URLs helps prevent WP:LINKROT. You are not giving me a full citation, you are providing a service to a future reader. --BrianCUA (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid these sub-headings seriously unbalance the article. There is a big section in the main Francis article which covers pretty much the same material and I suggest we leave that as the main source and trim this article back so it's in line with the other modern day popes. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

There are probably more sources talking about Pope Francis' teachings and comments on homosexuality than any other pope, so I don't know that it would be undue for his section to be bigger than the rest. However, you do raise some good questions about WP:UNDUE weight. This section probably could be trimmed. Before you started cutting, did you make sure that all of the content lived in at least one place? Also, this is now the smallest section. I'm going to add some more of the material back in to give it its proper weight. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually there is more material around John Paul II if you actually research the subject - he had a much bigger obsession with the issue of homosexuality (supported by Ratzinger as his right hand man). What would be UNDUE, however, would be providing lots and lots of material on a contemporary figure such as Francis in an article that is dealing with "history". For the moment I can live broadly with the additions you've made but I'm in two minds as to whether material relating to Francis should be included at all in this article. I'd be keen on a third opinion. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

References for Movements section

Thanks, Contaldo, for the new section on the movements within the Church. A lot of the list defined references you included are not defined, however. I think you took much of it from other articles and copied it in here. Could you please go find those sources and copy them into the references section so that everything here is properly referenced? Thanks. --BrianCUA (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes it's on my list of things to do. And as you've understood the issue well then it would be great if you could lend a hand to ensure the article is all up to date. Much appreciated. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

It has been several days now. You have found the time to delete unsourced material on other articles. Would you please fix your reference errors here so that this information does not get deleted? --BrianCUA (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Rainbow sash

I've removed the reference to Arinze. I am concerned that this is highly tendentious editing and risks pushing a particular POV. We have an article setting out the history of homosexuality in relation to Catholicism. It lists events over the centuries which are notable. For the 1970s we reference the start of the rainbow sash movement - setting out the facts of what happened. What I don't understand is why we then need to reinforce that material with a quote from a Nigerian archbishop 25 years later justifying why it's good to forbid these people communion? It is completely unnecessary - there is a whole article on the rainbow sash where we can go provide space for Catholic apologetics. I do not see the merit of including such material here under this section. Can we have a conversation please before we decide how to address this issue? ThanksContaldo80 (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I am glad you wish to discuss this issue. However, please check out the WP:BRD cycle. You were bold and deleted the text, claiming it was ]. That's great. You were then reverted, and it was pointed out to you that there was no synthesis. The next step is to "Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting." It does not say to revert again, and then to ask other editors to discuss. Now, to the substance of your comment: the material from Arinze explains why someone might be denied communion. It is not apologetics, it is explanatory. You don't think a reader would want to know why someone would be denied? That said, if you think the verbiage is not NPOV, then let's work together to fix it. --BrianCUA (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

BrianCUA I think there is some confusion. It was I that actually added the material about Arinze (Revision as of 23:10, 23 September 2018). You're right I was bold. And I've decided that I was too bold and that the material is inappropriate in this context. I am therefore removing my own material. If you want to introduce material yourself concerning Arinze then we ask that you discuss this first on the talk-page in order to build consensus for this new material. I'm sure if you do then we'll find a great way to work together to fix it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Contaldo80 (talk • contribs) 19:19, September 27, 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that it is not relevant. The consensus was in favor of this material. You have now changed your mind. If you can convince others to change their minds as well, and change the consensus, I would be happy to see it go. --BrianCUA (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Which consensus? Who do I have to convince to change their minds? Contaldo80 (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You should check out Misplaced Pages:Consensus. That should answer your question. There you will also see that "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Right now there are only two editors participating in the discussion with differing viewpoints. As there is no consensus on removing the material, it should stay. If others join in the discussion and a consensus forms that it should go, then it goes. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I wonder whether I might ask other editors to please advise on this issue. The situation is that I recently added material to the article concerning Cardinal Arinze and his opposition the Rainbow Sash movement. I then decided it wasn't appropriate to include it as it duplicated material elsewhere and was somewhat tangential to this article. I therefore removed my own material. However, BrianCUA has restored my material by arguing that as my edits were not challenged then they effectively achieved "consensus", and that to remove my own material I would first have to achieve "consensus" as this would be making changes to the article (even though no other editor apart from BrianCUA has actually expressed a view on retaining this material). I have been told by BrianCUA that if I continue to press this point then they will make sure that I am banned from editing (User talk:Contaldo80#Disputed edits and behavior). Aside from finding this slightly intimidating, I am concerned BrianCUA's approach is not in line with guidance on this matter; and certainly not within the spirit of Misplaced Pages. I have avoided removing the disputed material as I don't want to edit-war and if other editors agree that I have misunderstood the issues then I'm very happy to go with that. Thanks everyone. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

BRD

This may be a good time to remind people about the Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. People should be bold and make edits. This is absolutely welcomed. If they get reverted, though, the correct response is not to simply make the same disputed edit over again. It should be brought to the talk page to gain consensus. Edit warring is never the answer. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Slugger. Good and helpful reminder! Also worth reminding other editors of this really important language: "Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes. 'Nobody owns articles'. If you see a problem that you can fix, do so." and additionally "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary." That way we avoid a situation where some editors feel they have total control over certain articles and use the mechanism to block reasonable edits by others. Which - I think you'd agree - is disruptive and at risk of edit warring. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hildegard of Bingen

Contaldo has asked we need to explain that Hildegard of Bingen had visions of God instead of just "visions." The reason is clarity. Without explaining what the visions were of, how would readers ever know? Did she have visions of the Virgin Mary? Of Jesus? Of the 1919 Black Sox? There is also a difference between something you just declare to be true, and something you claim to be a divine revelation. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

In fact she had no visions at all because any rational mind knows that God doesn't exist. So what she had visions of is somewhat irrelevant. Unless you are saying that during those visions she was told that gays are bad? Is it the visions that are important or is it the book she wrote where she refers to homosexuality that is relevant? If you think the visions are clearly liked to her views on homosexuality then I welcome inclusion in the article - along with a source - otherwise I'd rather that we leave out superfluous detail. Can I also ask that you provide a source to say that visions are actually of "God" - I've seen nothing to suggest they are. You are quite keen to insist on that without a proper citation and I do fear that you're promoting WP:OR. Can I remind you that continued promotion of original research can create issues in terms of censure. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

This text was included in the main article and brought here when this article was spun off. It has been included since August 1, 2015, a time (even down to the day) when you were active on the article, but I was not. The original text made explicit that Hildegard was quoting God in condemning homosexual intercourse. Over the past fours years the prose has been edited slightly, so I will make it explicit again. Also, whether or not God exists, an argument which I don't believe can be resolved by reason alone, is entirely irrelevant. Our standard is WP:Verifiability, not truth. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you please provide a clear citation that shows Hildegard was quoting God in condemning homosexual intercourse. Because the source I have seen doesn't say that. If you have a different source to support your argument then please present it. Otherwise this is original research. Please do not continue to revert until you have provided proper evidence to back up claims. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I have provided the link to the original text. It is you who wants to change the text, so the burden is on you to provide a source. Could you please provide a source where she quotes someone other than God as the source of her visions? Also, remember, your edit has been reverted. You must change the consensus before you can change the text. Please do not edit war.--Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

The relevant passage in terms of homosexuality that has been cited in Scivias comes from Book Two, Vision Six. This section introduces the following parts of the vision an Hildegard indicates this by saying "And again I heard the voice from the supernal heavens, saying to me". The section then dealing with homosexuality is passage 78 which says: "Let those who approach My altar appear in My sight in chastity, as also should those who desire to receive the sacrament of the body and blood of My Son, lest they should fall into ruin. For many are found among both spiritual and secular people who not only pollute themselves in fornication with women but also assume a heavy burden of condemnation by contaminating themselves in perverted forms. How? A man who sins with another man as if with a woman sins bitterly against God and against the union with I which God united male and female. Hence both in God's sight are polluted, black and wanton, horrible and harmful to God and humanity, and guilty of death; for they go against their Creator and His creature, which is in them. How?" It doesn't say that she had a vision of God who said x. That is why the language around a celestial voice is closer to the facts. I am troubled otherwise that you are pushing for your own interpretation. I'd rather we avoid this. The language in passage 78 doesn't sound like it's God in the first person but rather refers to God in the third person. You say you have provided a source to support your claim but you haven't - can you cite the exact words from the source that support your argument please? As an aside I don't think it's helpful for you to constantly raise the argument of "edit warring" everytime you don't get your own way. It is disrespectful to other editors and I'd ask you to assume WP:GOODFAITH. A call to "consensus" should also not be used as a screen to block edits a particular editor does not like as that's not being fair either. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Who was the "the voice from the supernal heavens?" I've never read the book, but from reading the article on the Scriva she believed the visions were of God. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure - I suspect she did. Although different characters seem to appear to her during her visions (not unlike Dante). But the celestial vision in this instance does seem to be God. I suppose my original instinct was to try and cut out extra detail to save a few words - but lets leave it as God as I think the sentiment is right. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Rainbow Sash

Slugger you are very determined to maintain your preferred version of the text dealing with the Rainbow Sash. I think we need to shorten this as we make articles very long by including lots of detailed superfluous and duplicate material. The point of this article is to give an overview of homosexuality within the Catholic church - and not an apologia for why Cardinal Arinze and others are justified in turning away people from communion. I always worry that we stray too much into polemic with some of these articles. In any case I have a number of points that need to be addressed to my satisfaction. Firstly the text says that those refused communion go back to the pews and stand rather than kneel as is the "traditional way". I'm not aware it is a requirement to kneel or indeed that this is "traditional". Can you please provide the wording that supports this claim? Also I'm still not convinced that the statement "The Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is a sign of unity" is not SYNTHESIS but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. But I still think the end section is over-labored, tortuous, repetitive and can be shorted. To paraphrase it says "Arinze denied communion because openly opposing church teaching is divisive and disqualifies you. Church teaching is that the eucharist is about unity and not division. Church rules are that communion can be denied where people are being divisive". We spend all this time justifying exclusion by clerics and spend little time actually covering the gay part. This seems odd to be and could be interpreted as bias towards the position of the Catholic Church if we're not careful. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

You are the one who added all this material to the article, including the things that you now complain about. It certainly can be more concise, but I don't think any important details should be removed. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anything in it is necessarily wrong. I was just worried that it was a bit repetitive and circular, and again had in mind the aim of pruning back words here and there to make the article sharper. But let's leave it unless anyone can think of anything better. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

John Chrysostum

Slugger you've again removed the text "He went on to describe homosexuality as the worst of sins (greater than murder). Punishment will be found in hell for such transgressors. He noted that women could also be guilty of the sin as much" arguing "still not citations". Can you be a bit clearer as to what you are looking for and what your concerns are? I'm prepared to be constructive but I often find some of your interventions vague. I can't work out if you're a stickler for referencing or are doubting some aspect of the argument made? In future where there is doubt can you please try and be clearer so we can find a suggested way forward. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

There are no citations for those statements. I would like them to each have a footnote citing a reliable source, please. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Hang on is the source not "John Chrysostom: Homilies on Romans: Homily IV"? Have I missed something? Would you like me to read it out for you? Contaldo80 (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what the source is. Do you? If you do, you don't have to read it out to me. You just have to add a citation for it. There are four different sources in that paragraph alone. Are you sure those two sentences can be cited with this source, and not one of the others? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

John Chrysostom's Fourth Homily on sodomy. Have you read the article passage in full? The citation was there but I've directed you towards the wording - as I know you always like to be properly consulted on the materials within this articles before you let anything pass. Maybe it's time to take a step back from the gate-keeping and fire-fighting Slugger as this sort of reactive editing isn't really conducive to creating good Misplaced Pages articles. Thanks.Contaldo80 (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I have not read the sources, which is why I did not add any citations. It is not the responsibility of other editors to track down the citations for information you wish to add. Also, for the record, I never need to be consulted before anything is added. It does, however, have to meet WP's policies. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The citations were all there - I've just emphasized them because you threw doubt on them. Nothing had to be tracked down and everything met WP policies. Just what are you doing Slugger - you're a really really hard editor to work with. You've asked another citation - what exactly are you wanting cited? I've quoted you the bit of the sermon that backs up the claim in the article. You've put a notice about verifiability? Why? What is the concern? Can you try and be a bit more constructive and open. And stop trying to use the "rules" to block bits of text you simply don't like - that not what these articles are about.Contaldo80 (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not throwing doubt on anything. I am asking for clarification. You added a citation that said that three lines of text ran across 8 pages of a book. I thought that could have been a mistake. Apparently it was, since you were able to find the single page on which the text appears. For the other bit of text I have added the CN tag to, I would like to know what document supports that statement. There are 18 different citations in that section alone. Presumably it comes from one of them, but how am I or any other reader supposed to know? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The sermon ran across 8 pages of the book. For some reason you seem to have been particularly interested in a specific point made in that sermon. Maybe you doubted it was in there. I think it's perfectly sufficient to reference the whole sermon rather than break the thing line by line as I really can't see the point in that other than to be a nuisance. I also don't think you sometimes articulate your concerns clearly enough to be honest - if you were a bit sharper then we could find a solution much more quickly. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

HIV/ AIDS

A podcast for an american journal owned by the Jesuits makes the statement: "Catholic hospitals were among the first to treat HIV/AIDS patients". Can we treat this is a reliable statement from a reliable source? In my opinion the whole section on HIV/ AIDS is misleading - just a bit of WP:PEACOCK pro-Catholic PR. The catholic church stops the use of condoms, marginalises gay men, millions around the world die as a result of this abuse of authority and political coercion (gay and straight), catholic dioceses own and run hospitals who then take in AIDS patients, and this article then presents the catholic church as some sort of kindly and generous organisation. Can we take these rose-tinted lenses off please. Either we're deluding ourselves or we're out to delude others. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, What aspect of WP:RS does it fail? Also, in case you are interested, the host of the podcast is a gay man. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh wow a gay man! It must be true. It's a religious journal owned by the Catholic church that suggests the Catholic church was the first to treat AIDS patients anywhere in the world. A big claim. There is a risk of bias and so I ask for a second - non-Catholic source - to verify the claim. WP:RS says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." They should not be closely associated with the subject - this is a publication owned by the Catholic church. Also do you always have to make edits to change my words. What I wrote was perfectly consistent with the source but your approach is always to change it a form of words that you personally like. This is not collaborative editing - this is showing possessiveness over articles. I'd ask you only to make changes to edits that are factually incorrect, and not just because you'd rather things said another way. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo80, you do realize that saying you don't want anyone to edit your words is also not collaborative, right? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

If they are factually incorrect then please go ahead. If the words are simply not as you would like them then can you try to hold off from not immediately putting them in your own words so that you get the final say as this just makes editors like myself feel like we are being micro-managed. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

So this article says that San Francisco General Hospital was the first to treat AIDS patients (a public and not catholic hospital) - https://nursing.jnj.com/ward-5b-how-nurses-defied-convention-to-care-for-hiv-aids-patients - making the statement in the article even more questionable. We need an independent third party source if we are to keep this material. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Another article about the first hospitals to treat AIDS patients and don't see many if any of these are Catholic: http://essentialhospitals.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Early.pdf ::::

It says "among the first," not "the absolute first." Also, would you please provide full references to avoid WP:LINKROT? Thank you. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

If you want to make the claim that they were "among the first" then can you please provide a reliable independent source. It also looks to me that this claim is being made in relation to the United States - Catholic hospitals wouldn't have been the first to engage with AIDS patients in many European countries. Possibly African patients. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The other problem I have with this section is that probably half of the material is not relevant to this particular article. The second paragraph in particular talks about the wider engagement of church-sponsored hospitals with AIDS patients but it isn't the case that the majority of cases of AIDS in the developing world today are men who have sex with men. The first para is fine as it's focused on specific services to gay men (and we can probably add in more on this), but more general stuff is better just going into the other article. I also wouldn't refer to that other article as a "daughter article". There is a lot in the podcast about the tensions between the church hierarchy (O'Connor) and gay men and the section would better benefit from more of this. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

You will please note that I have already added another source, at your request. Also, having child or daughter articles is the terminology used in WP:SS. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

What additional source did you put in - I can't see anything? I also have to reiterate that the other article you cite is about the Catholic Church and its engagement with AIDS. This article is about how the Catholic Church has treated people with AIDS. They are not the same thing. It is this article that should contain most detail on this issue and not the other - unless you turn the other article into "The Catholic Church and its interaction with gay men that had HIV/ AIDS". The bulk of cases in that article are about heterosexual people in Africa - that is where the biggest numbers are. I remind you again that you have to work with other editors - you cannot just enforce your view of the world at every stage. AIDS was a terrible illness and a lot of gay people went through a lot of suffering and pain - instead you've stripped that out and have gushing paragraphs about how wonderful and generous the Catholic church is for opening so many hospitals and conducting healthcare in Africa. Not all AIDS sufferers in the world are gay - this really is a somewhat uninformed view. You also put back the PBS links and text which are still dead - what on earth is going on with that? Contaldo80 (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The addition ref is named Paterson2010. Also, you are mistaken. This article is not about "how the Catholic Church has treated people with AIDS." This article is about the Catholic Church and its relationship with homosexuality. HIV/AIDS is a subset of that. As pointed out to you previously, WP:SS provides a process by which subsets which deserve a fuller treatment get their own articles with summaries on the parent articles. Getting into the specifics of particular incidents at particular hospitals at particular times is not a summary, it is undue detail.

I am well aware of the need to edit collaboratively, but in this case believe it is you who needs a reminder. The onus is on you, as the editor trying to insert new material, to gain consensus for that material. Please review WP:BRD. Finally, I explained my reinsertion of the dead links in my edit summary. Please review WP:KDL. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

See also

Why in an article concerning homosexuality do we have to point readers to a broader discussion about the Catholic Church and health care. How is this actually relevant? Have that "see also" in the other article if you like but keep this article about LGBT people and their interaction with the church. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

According to the template's description, it is "used to create hatnotes to point to a small number of other related titles at the top of article sections." Links in a MOS:SEEALSO section "should be related to the topic of the article." The article on healthcare is related directly to the section on AIDS, not the topic of the article as a whole. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

"Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." I don't believe the additional healthcare is relevant - it's simply too far away from this particular issue. Unless you want me to add all the other LGBT and health type articles too? Which I will. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS

Slugger thank you for adding a new section into a stable article on HIV/AIDS. As per WP:BRD I have removed this new text as it is controversial and ask that you discuss and seek consensus before restoring. You will need to demonstrate that you have taken reasonable steps to reflect the comments and input of other editors. And that you are prepared to accept amendments and additions to the text where they are reasonable and well sourced. Can I remind you that failure to engage collaboratively and to carefully read Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles. I hope we can find a constructive way forward without involving administrators. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Catholicism articles
• Mid-importance Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Catholicism articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• Mid-importance Christianity articles
• B-Class Christian History articles
• Unknown-importance Christian History articles
• Christian History articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• B-Class history articles
• Unknown-importance history articles
• WikiProject History articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• Unknown-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class ethics articles
• Unknown-importance ethics articles
• Ethics task force articles
• B-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Unknown-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• Unknown-importance sociology articles
• B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Unknown-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• B-Class psychology articles
• Unknown-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles