Talk:Eucharist denial to Catholic politicians over abortion

New article

This article is a content fork from Catholic Church and abortion (see WP:SPINOFF). Its content at the old article has been replaced by a short summary. In the course of organizing information for this article, I considered these issues:

• Should it be organized by politician, or by bishop? (I chose by politician, because most stories covering these incidents frame them as "Kerry threatened with refusal of communion" rather than "Burke threatens to refuse communion," ie. the politician is the focus. I put information about which bishops interpret canon law this way in the intro paragraph to the US section.)
• Should we discuss cases where no refusal of communion was threatened (eg. Sebelius advised not to seek communion, Pelosi stating that she would do so)? I didn't think so.
• The title is very unwieldy, but I didn't want to reduce the weight of the excommunication/suggested excommunication incidents (Cuomo, Mexico) by not including them in the title. Are there other suggestions?

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What reason for reverting?

Roscelese, be so good as to indicate more clearly why you completely reverted another editor's work. In your inimitable style, you say in your edit summary: "no, you will not use fringe sources to write about living people, and you will not use other people's words and claim they are your own. and let's use organization that makes sense, instead of organization that makes no sense". So please:

1. Indicate which statements about living people that you reverted are based merely on fringe sources. We can then raise on the noticeboard the question whether they are or are not reliable sources for the statements for which they are cited. I will of course accept the community's verdict.
2. What words by other people did I claim were my own. I will willingly attribute them, whatever they are, to the people whose words they are.
3. In what way does the organization of the text that you reverted lack sense. It gave the politicians in chronological order, along with the attitudes taken in their regard by individual bishops. It next gave the discussion among the bishops as a whole on the divergence of views among them; placing that after the exposition of views of the individuals seems at least as logical as putting the collective discussion first. It spoke about the reasons for the difference in pastoral practice between the United States and the rest of the Catholic world after indicating that there is a difference; and this seems to make decidedly better sense than to discuss the reasons for the difference before explaining that such a difference exists. So what is this "organization that makes no sense" of which you complain?

You will see that I have been much more precise in my indications of what I find needing correction in your text. Esoglou (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

1. LifeSiteNews, the American Life League, etc. These are not reliable sources and cannot be used to make claims about living people. Please don't waste everyone's time by repeatedly adding sources that you know are not BLP-compliant.
2. If you're going to lift Sandro Magister's comments about rigorous principles, flexible pastoral customs etc., you will put it in quotes and attribute them to him rather then pretending they are your own writing.
3. My version began with a general statement of the principles and motives involved before discussing the politicians in chronological order, while yours shunted the discussion of the general principle which motivated these events to a subsection, not even in chronological order, for no apparent reason. In proper writing world, the general comes before the specific. You also moved discussion of the United States to a section about outside the United States, and left Mexico in limbo between USA and not-USA. That's an interesting political theory, but not one we can reflect. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

1. I don't think you have indicated which of the statements you reverted (plural) are, according to you, based only on "fringe sources". The only one for which LifeSiteNews was cited as a source was also supported by New York Times.
2. I have easily and willingly fixed this to fit with your wish.
3. Before you talk about reasons given for a difference between two things, you should surely first introduce the two things. Before talking about why the Catholic Church in the United States is different in this matter from the Catholic Church elsewhere, you should surely state that there is a difference. That problem in your text I have now fixed. What you say here about having begun with a general statement about motives involved is one of the problems that remains to be fixed: you are attributing motives on the basis of your own personal interpretation.
4. Since I know that for other editors too you have bandied about the accusation of bad faith, I was neither surprised nor resentful at the baseless accusation you directed at me in your edit summary: "making good-faith attempt to deal with bad-faith tags". But please do not make such accusations against other Wikipedia editors. Esoglou (talk) 11:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

1. It doesn't matter what statements it was cited for. An unreliable source is an unreliable source, and if you can't find the statement in a reliable source, you shouldn't be including it. If it's also in the NYT, just cite the NYT.
2. Super, looks fine.
3. Yes, we state that there is a difference by discussing generalities, not by listing a bunch of specifics and then mentioning at the bottom the principles that govern the entire debate.
4. You're not going to convince anyone that you're not tag-bombing when you request a citation for the statement that most of the cases discussed have to do with bishops stating that they would refuse a politician communion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Even if the site you mention were not a reliable source for that particular statement, you would still not be justified in removing a statement supported also by other sources, nor in blanket-deleting other sourced material.
2. Thank you.
3. Now that the disorder of speaking of the reasons for the uniqueness of the United States situation before mentioning that it is unique has been remedied, I let this question rest.
4. According to the article, the "bishops stating that they would refuse a politician communion" were only two: Burke and Martino. Are you seriously suggesting that it is utterly obvious that these were more numerous than the controversies (involving even an appeal to the Pope because of the inaction of two bishops) concerning bishops who chose not to refuse communion to pro-abortion legislators? or that it is utterly obvious that there were not even two cases of bishops who only told such people that they ought to refrain? Esoglou (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Alternately, you, as the person adding the material, could make the minimal amount of effort yourself to make sure all your sources are reliable, instead of acting offended when your fellow editors remove information about living people cited to fringe sources.
2. [resolved]
3. [resolved]
4. You're acting as though this is organized by bishop (and as though the fact that such bishops are in a minority means that we should pretend the cases didn't make the news) when in fact it is organized by politician. Four of the five cases in the United States involved refusal of communion (and no, we don't substitute our own judgment for that of reliable sources which say Kennedy was barred or banned). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to my resolving problems 2 and 3. Problem 1, don't forget, was your reverting of statements that in no case depended solely on the source that you, not I, reckon not to be a reliable source for the statement it supports: there was no information about living people cited to that source alone. Problem 4, about "most such controversies" can perhaps be resolved by my latest edit. Tobin barred Kennedy from communion by telling him he ought not go to communion; the cited source doesn't support any claim that he stated "he would refuse communion" to Kennedy (your words above) or that he "threatened to deny him communion" (your words in the article). Esoglou (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Questions for Esoglou

And some questions of my own:

1. What's up with the disruptive insertion of cn tags in the middle of sentences which are cited at the end or that are summarizing the content of the article? Don't you have anything better to do with your life than to tag-bomb articles?
2. It's obviously not true that the RCC outside the USA has never suggested any penalties for pro-choice politicians - our longest paragraph is about an instance outside the United States - so why do you keep inserting this false claim?
3. You can't say that something didn't happen or hasn't been said unless a source says so. For instance, you can't say that Tobin disagrees with refusing communion or that he hasn't cited canon 915, because the source doesn't say that. That's original research.

I don't suggest this lightly, but you really need to step away from articles on Catholicism and abortion. Throughout the entire time I've edited with you, you've demonstrated a total incapability to adhere to WP:NOR, WP:BLP, WP:RS, and the other fundamental, basic policies that govern how we work here. Abortion articles are very heavily sanctioned. Let people who actually care edit them without your disruption. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The tags are placed at the points that seem problematic. For instance, where better than at the words "as a means of" could the tag be placed questioning the claim, not that certain bishops support application of a certain ecclesiastic penalty (which is what the source states), but that they see the purpose of such application as "promoting the church's position on abortion" (which the source cited at the end of the sentence does not say)?

What is stated and documented is that refusing Holy Communion to legislators promoting legalization of abortion has not been suggested outside the United States. The statement that "the RCC outside the USA has never suggested any penalties" has not in fact been made.

You can only say what the source says, namely, that the bishop respectfully asked someone to refrain from receiving the Eucharist. You can't say that he gave instructions that, if that person went to communion, he was to be turned away, which would be an application of canon 915. I have certainly not said that Tobin disagrees with refusing communion to certain people. As far as I know, he has not said anything about either agreeing or disagreeing with it. All I can and do say is that, when stating that a certain person should not receive communion, he did not add that, if that person did come to communion, he should be turned back.

That you are a person who does care, and ardently cares, about abortion is obvious from the edits with which you press a particular point of view. Esoglou (talk) 11:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a different way you would choose to paraphrase, say, Burke's comments on why he believes such a refusal is beneficial for the church? (I'm working off the interview reprinted in Magister; it may have happened that a ref tag got lost somewhere.)

The previous wording was inclusive; now that you've changed it to be more specifically about communion, we can say US only, since the issue in Mexico was excommunication.

We can say what the sources say and no more. You claim to have understood the idea of not commenting on things that haven't happened without any sources, but you clearly don't understand it because you just added more material of the same nature. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Burke said the purpose of the Church's rule was in the first place for the good of the person himself, lest he commit the sin of sacrilege, and secondly for the good of others, lest they too receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin or think promoting abortion is not a serious sin. Saying that Burke saw ecclesiastical penalties as a means of promoting the church's position on abortion seemed quite inadequate as a paraphrase.

Tobin's quoted statement does show him saying that the legislator in question ought to refrain from receiving communion, rather than saying that he should be rejected if he did present himself. You yourself have said the same above with regard to statements concerning Sebelius. Esoglou (talk) 11:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to go ahead and suggest a paraphrase, then?

We don't substitute our own opinion for the opinion of reliable sources. Reliable sources state that Kennedy was barred or banned from receiving communion. If they said the same of Sebelius, we could also put it in the article. We can (and do) say that Tobin claimed he only made a request, but our WP:RS and WP:NOR policies prevent us from preferring his press office to reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be enough to say that Burke argued for his minority opinion on grounds mentioned in his interview. In any case, it isn't I who think it important to put into the article an exposition of the reasons he adduced. If you do insist on saying something about those reasons, it should not be a distorted one that ignores what Burke declared to be the primary motivation.

As I said above, it is obvious that Tobin barred Kennedy from communion by telling him he ought not receive it. But it would be an own-opinion interpretation to claim that Tobin threatened to withhold it from Kennedy if he did come to communion. Yes, Sebelius too should be included: the article is about "Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication", and Sebelius was a Catholic politician officially told not to go to communion because of her action concerning abortion. I will now remedy that lacuna. Esoglou (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead

Contrary to Esoglou's claim, we cannot in fact say that "the reason is about interpretations of Catholic teaching and canon law." The sources recognize that these controversies have to do with the RCC's position on abortion. The controversies don't come about because of conflicts over the interpretation of canon law; most sources don't even mention that there's a disagreement. If there's another way that you'd prefer of including the information about the RCC's opposition to abortion rights, which is mentioned in every source as the disagreement leading to the event, feel free to suggest it, but don't tag-bomb the lead on the wholly spurious grounds that you personally interpret the debate to be about something different. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not claim that "the reason is about interpretations of Catholic teaching and canon law". I said that your claim was no better sourced that that one. Esoglou (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

What The Tablet and Espresso said

Roscelese, why have you again inserted in the article the claim, regarding some time between 2004 and 2008, that "conservative bishops and archbishops including Raymond Burke of St. Louis, Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix, and Charles J. Chaput of Denver see ecclesiastical penalties as a means of promoting the church's position on abortion (giving Espresso as source) and some declared that they would act on their own initiative (giving The Tablet as source)"?

Espresso clearly does not say that Olmsted and Chaput "see ecclesiastical penalties as a means of promoting the church's position on abortion", and does not clearly say that even Burke does. It does not even mention Olmsted. And no source says of these two what you say not only of them but also, just as sourcelessly, of unspecified others, suggesting that the view you present is that of even more American bishops than the three you name.

The Tablet states that "two" - it expressly says "two", not "some", and specifies them as Olmsted and Chaput - American bishops said they would act on their own initiative. The Tablet is also the source of the information on Wuerl, which you seem to attribute to Espresso.

Isn't the text you keep reverting more accurate? Esoglou (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

BLP

I would appreciate it if Roscelese would be so kind as to indicate what is the source that she calls an "anti-Sebelius press release" and that in her view violates WP:BLP. This is my second request for that kindness. Instead of answering my first request, which I accompanied with an offer to remove it without question (an offer that because of her attitude I see as no longer binding), she has now accused me of having "added *more* non-BLP-compliant sources". The two that I added were chosen because of being unrelated to the Catholic Church. One is The Atlantic magazine. The other is the Kansas Liberty publication, which I understand is a conservative newspaper, but does that mean that it cannot be trusted to report accurately what Archbishop Naumann wrote? Would Roscelese say why she thinks that both of these are "non-BLP-compliant sources"? And would she say which of the other three sources cited is the "anti-Sebelius press release" she speaks of and quote the WP:BLP-violating use I am supposed to have made of it. The three sources are National Catholic Reporter, Catholic News Service, and Catholic News Agency. I think each and every one of them is a reliable source for the statement "Kansas City Archbishop Joseph Naumann asked that Kathleen Sebelius no longer receive Holy Communion because of her position on abortion", which is what they were meant to support. Unfortunately, because of the insertion of the two secular sources, they might at present be thought to support the statement of the Kansas Liberty publication, but I will willingly move them to a more appropriate place in the section on Kathleen Sebelius that Roscelese keeps deleting on the pretext that some one or more (but not all?) of the sources are in some unspecified way non-WP:BLP-compliant. Esoglou (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

If you haven't looked at the sources yourself, you shouldn't be inserting them. Don't expect other people to do your work for you. The Operation Rescue press release was the one I was referring to, but really none of these anti-abortion and anti-Sebelius agenda sources are any good. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

What press release of Operation Rescue did I quote? The sources that you for some reason think are no good are instead reliable sources for what they are cited for, every one of them, as far as I can see. Esoglou (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

If you haven't looked at the sources yourself, you shouldn't be inserting them. Don't expect other people to do your work for you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The section has no mention whatever of any press release of Operation Rescue to provide you with a pretext for deleting it. Esoglou (talk) 21:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

If you haven't looked at the sources yourself, you shouldn't be inserting them. Don't expect other people to do your work for you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, even with the help of your replies, I have not succeeded in identifying anything defamatory or ill-sourced in the section that you keep deleting. I am therefore restoring it, correcting the order of the citations, and asking help from outside to clarify the question. See here. Esoglou (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Opening phrase

The opening phrase claims that what gave rise to the controversies considered in this article is the Church's teaching against abortion, as if the politicians' opposition to the Church's teaching were not also a factor. Ample time has been given for presentation of a reliable source to support this claim, but I will wait a little longer before removing it. Esoglou (talk) 19:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Rather than "removing it" - and I'm not sure exactly what you would remove - why don't you propose here replacement text? That way, editors can review the proposed change. While we're here, why does the lead say "bishops" (twice)? I haven't read the entire article, but is it only bishops? What about archbishops and other higher-ups? Does bishops subsume archbishops?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I already proposed "Demands are sometimes made within the Catholic Church, which considers abortion a serious sin, that Eucharistic communion be denied to Catholic legislators by whose action abortion becomes or remains legal." I was hoping that observations from Roscelese might hone that to something better, but she simply deleted it. I would now change that proposal to encompass more than denial of communion. The article's title indicates that its range is broader: not just denial of communion (an action taken by only two bishops in the whole world, both of them Americans, while demands for it by various associations of Catholics have been rejected by other American bishops), but also declarations, unaccompanied by threats of denial, that certain legislators should themselves refrain from receiving communion, and also the few occasions when the question of actually excommunicating them was considered (but not effected). Perhaps therefore: "Demands are sometimes made within the Catholic Church, which considers abortion a serious sin, that Catholic legislators by whose action abortion becomes or remains legal should refrain from Eucharistic communion or that it be denied to them, or even that they be excommunicated." That is, of course, only a proposal that may well require improving.

I must not omit to thank you for your helpful intervention. Esoglou (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, I find your proposed language a bit convoluted. Isn't there something simpler? In fact, closer to the current wording, which doesn't bother me all that much, honestly. I'll ponder it, too, so it's not entirely on your shoulders. By the way, what about my bishop question? Somehow, I think you are more knowledgeable about this area than I am. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

"Bishops" does include archbishops, who are only a higher rank within the order of bishops, like primates, who are also archbishops. The head of an archdiocese always has the rank of archbishop. The head a of diocese (in the narrow sense - the word is also used in a broader sense to cover any episcopal see) normally has the rank of "bishop", but some of them is given the personal rank of archbishop. "Archbishops and bishops" is Roscelese's expression.

Perhaps I could be "humoured" by removing in some way the suggestion that controversies have arisen only because the Church opposes (why "officially"? - the Church in no way "unofficially" approves of abortion!) abortion. What of the controversies within the Church itself ("raging" controversies, as even Roscelese has been forced to admit) about this matter, with both sides agreeing that abortion is wrong and sinful, but differing strongly on the best way to react to the politicians in question? Besides, material on unsuccessful demands not only to the American bishops but even to Pope by various associations within the Catholic Church that they take action against certain politicians has been deleted by Roscelese, and, since it is well sourced, it will in due time be restored.

How about the following text (at least as a base with possible tweaking):

The Roman Catholic Church, which opposes abortion, has criticized Catholic politicians who support abortion rights. In most cases, Church officials questioned whether communion should be given to the politicians. In a few cases, excommunication was suggested; however, in more cases, officials stated that the politicians should refrain from receiving communion.

--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

My first objection to Esoglou's proposed lead is that it's poorly written, which will suffice for now. Yours is better in that it uses an active voice and isn't convoluted. However, the major issue with yours is that "questioned whether communion should be given to the politicians" is a totally inadequate summary of the cases that line is ostensibly describing - the bishops threatened to refuse communion. I don't see that, according to the current article, requests to refrain from communion (1 instance - Sebelius) are more common than suggestions of excommunication (2 - Cuomo, Mexico). This may change if appropriate sources on other incidents are produced. I also think that yours goes a little too far in treating the controversies as purely religious when sources (even some religiously affiliated sources) treat them as primarily political, but that could just be a feeling I'm getting from reading your lead. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's accept Bbb23's proposal. OK? Esoglou (talk) 09:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No, of course not. Didn't you read anything I just said? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Just by the way:

Denials of communion 2: Burke said Kerry was not to be given communion in Burke's diocese (he also said he would deny communion to Giuliani, but he then had no diocese in his charge, where he could forbid him to be given communion); Martino forbade Biden to be given communion in Scranton.

Consideration given to the question of perhaps excommunicating: 2: New York, Mexico

Statements that certain individuals should refrain from communion: Naumann-Sebelius; Saltarelli-Biden; Chaput-Salazar; Tobin-Kennedy; Chaput-Pelosi; Vatican-Pelosi (according to Los Angeles Times); Spanish Bishops Conference-group of legislators in 2010 Esoglou (talk) 09:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

For god's sake, stop citing sources that don't support what they're cited for. The MSNBC source says nothing about Saltarelli and nothing about a request not to take communion. The LA Times source says nothing about Pelosi being asked not to take communion - in fact, it talks about how people like her are supposed to be denied communion. You're not a n00b and you should know better than this. This sort of behavior is exactly why you're at arbitration enforcement. (And if it doesn't appear in reliable sources, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Try finding reliable sources for your claims about Salazar.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes - re numbers. You're right that I forgot to mention Spain. However, you persist in claiming that Tobin only requested Kennedy not to take communion, in spite of what reliable sources say. You're free to believe anything the bishop says on your own time, but Wikipedia and its other editors are not required to hold Tobin in any veneration. So we're still at 2, and 2 is not more than 2. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting a little lost in this discussion, so I started actually reading the article (after all, the lead is supposed to summarize the body), and one thing that stuck out for me immediately is that much of it is poorly worded, and I had trouble following it. So, rather than continuing this discussion about the lead, I'm going to try to work on the wording of the article and making sure it's also source-compliant.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is best to drop the "by the way" discussion. The concrete objections that Roscelese voiced were against my proposed lead. Since Bbb23's proposed lead has the support of two editors, I think it best to insert it provisionally, while awaiting Bbb23's improvement of it. Tomorrow, I will see the result. Esoglou (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Although I don't think it's a big deal, I think the lead could have awaited further discussion before putting in my proposed version. I'll leave it, but if Roscelese wants to revert the changed lead, that's okay with me. I don't see any urgency for the change.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time today to focus on this article, but I just reverted major removals by Roscelese that were unwarranted. You need to obtain some consensus for your assertions about sources and material. Many of them, at least in my view, are ill-founded and frankly POV. A lot of the Catholic news sources are perfectly reliable for what they are supporting, even if they might not be reliable for other kinds of assertions. Your opinion about the Washington Times is your opinion but it's not a basis for removal. I'm not going to list all the other problems with your edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No, please do. I'd really like to hear your explanation of why our writing on an encyclopedia should conform to the words a right-wing religious leader would want us to use, and why we should write as though the fact that the controversy "was described as" being peculiar to the United States is somehow more important than the fact that it was happening, and why we should blithely make up material and then pretend it comes from the New York Times. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, re BLP: You seem to be suggesting that it doesn't matter if a source is reliable if the material is true. But that's not how we work here. If a claim cannot be reliably sourced, particularly when it's about a living person, we don't put it in the encyclopedia. Anti-abortion organizations and agenda-driven sources with documented histories of fabricating and/or running other groups' false claims about people they don't like are not appropriate sources for claims about living people unaffiliated with them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Saying that the Washington Times and the like fabricate and run false claims about people does seem to be going much too far. Using terms that Cardinal Burke would reject to indicate what his personal view is does seem to be a violation not only of NPOV rules but also of Wikipedia rules about biographies of living persons. Deleting the material about Nancy Pelosi at 19:40 and again at at 19:45 does seem to be an unwitting violation of the 1RR rule, and it would perhaps be good, if you would autorevert that. The same may hold for the removal of information about Chaput's statement that Biden should not receive communion at 19:29 and again at 19:49. Just my opinion. Esoglou (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not. Removal of BLP violations is an exception to RR rules precisely because we cannot host libelous content. You will not source content about living people to press releases from organizations that campaign against them. You will not source content about living people to newspapers that were founded with the goal of pursuing an agenda and that have a history of making stuff up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Correct, if your (sole) opinion about the information being libellous (and the account you give of Burke's view, and the opinion you have here expressed about a certain newspaper, not being libellous). Esoglou (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't a sentence, but I'll try to respond to it anyway: no, it's not libelous to use neutral language when writing about a non-neutral view, and removing libelous content does not constitute libel. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Seriously?

There are obviously a lot more issues than these, but I can't fathom why you, Bbb23, would write this; and even more, having seen it corrected, why you would restore it.

Your text:

Two months before the 2008 presidential election, the issue of how the Church and local dioceses viewed pro-choice American politicians was used by different political factions seeking Catholic votes.

My text:

These statements of intent from church authorities have sometimes led American Catholic voters to vote for candidates who wish to ban abortion, rather than pro-choice candidates who support other Catholic Church positions, such as war, health care, immigration, or lowering the abortion rate.

The source, paraphrased:

Voter unsure of whom to vote for, aware that Dem positions on war, immigration, health care, reducing abortion closer to Catholic teaching; hears about bishops' punishment of Democrats, decides to vote Republican. Both sides campaigning for Catholic votes (no longer a bloc) in swing districts. Some pro-Obama because he's pro-labor or because the sum total of Catholicism isn't opposing abortion rights, some pro-McCain because he's anti-abortion-rights or because Obama is black. Voter guides.

This does not at all say that either campaign is using the communion issue in their quest for Catholic votes. We could discuss both sides' campaign for Catholic votes if this were just about Catholics and elections, or even pro-choice Catholic politicians and elections, but it's not within the scope of the article as currently defined. What the source says is that communion (the article topic) is leading voters to change their minds.

Another place.

Your text:

In 2004, the issue of whether communion should be refused to American Catholic politicians who voted for legalizing abortion was described as being peculiar to the United States.

I know Esoglou is really intent on overemphasizing that it's just in the United States, but isn't the fact that it's happening more important? Why would you start with "the issue was described as" (also: weaselly) without first saying that there was an issue? It's just bad writing.

And again.

Your text:

In 2008, Raymond Burke, former archbishop of St. Louis and subsequently assigned to the Vatican, said that communion should not be given to such politicians because it would be a sacrilege and would lead other Catholics to to think that public support for abortion is not a mortal sin.

We can't write with the assumption that the audience is made up of anti-abortion Catholics. Why would communion be a sacrilege? Why would Catholics be led to think that being pro-choice is not a mortal sin? Is being pro-choice generally considered a mortal sin?

My text:

In 2008, Raymond Burke, former archbishop of St. Louis and subsequently assigned to the Vatican, said that communion should not be given to such politicians because he considers support for abortion rights to be a mortal sin that makes a person unfit for communion, and to prevent other Catholics from thinking, because they see that pro-choice politicians can receive communion, that being pro-choice is an acceptable political position.

My text explains, for the majority of readers who are not Catholic, that one isn't supposed to receive communion in a state of sin, and that it is Burke's view that being pro-choice is a mortal sin. It also uses the more accurate "pro-choice" instead of the phrase "support for abortion" generally used by opponents of abortion rights, which suggests opposition to not having abortions. ("Support for abortion rights" also conveys the necessary distinction.)

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to have a reasoned discussion with someone who is so pushed by agenda and her own politics. I also repeat I don't have time for this, so I'm not touching the article for the moment, and I deeply regret the time I've spent thus far on it. I'll just quickly respond to your top point in your little list. This is a paragraph from the NYT you omitted ([1]):

A struggle within the church over how Catholic voters should think about abortion is once again flaring up just as political partisans prepare an all-out battle for the votes of Mass-going Catholics in swing-state towns like Scranton.

My summary sentence was based on that paragraph, which seemed to sum up the NYT article for the purpose of the assertion in our article. I don't usually say this, but here I will also say that my non-response to your other points is not because I concede them, just that I don't have the time - and to some extent the inclination to spend the time - to respond.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Whine, whine, agenda, Roscelese is horrible. I already acknowledged the line you quote in my paraphrase of the source; it's just that it's not about communion or excommunication, which, again, is how the scope of the article is currently defined. If you want to expand the scope of the article to include anything having to do with Catholics voting, please begin a discussion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL, I thought you were going to say, "I already acknowledged that I was horrible ..." You're a real pistol.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure I've acknowledged that somewhere too. Now can we agree on the article scope? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese, I appeal to you to consider the isolated character of your interpretations. You want to exclude for instance the fact that the abortion issue was a target of the 2008 pro-Obama campaigners too, who set up what they called "nun banks" to argue their side. The newspaper report was broader than the part you, for reasons that seem good to you, want to pick out as the only thing to include in the article. It is the same attitude that you are showing in your insistence on excluding from the Catholic Church and abortion article any mention of the Catholic Church's expressed reaction to King Baudoin's decision to abdicate temporarily rather than be responsible for signing into law an act of parliament legalizing abortion, while you want to include the Church's expressed reaction to decisions of no greater significance by politicians who voted to legalize abortion (see my comment). I'm sorry I have no time to say more tonight. Esoglou (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that there's stuff to say about how either side leveraged Catholicism! It's just not within the scope of the article as currently defined! God, how many times do I have to say it. If you think the article should be about Catholicism and abortion politics in general, you should start a discussion and try to bring people around to your view. I'm not in favor because there's enough content on the narrower topic to sustain an article - if any article on Catholic abortion politics is created, it should be a new one, not a slow mutating of an article with a narrowly defined scope - but if you want to change the scope, start a discussion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Kmiec? Consider for inclusion

Here is a story about Douglas Kmiec, who is anti-abortion but supported Barack Obama, being denied communion. May or may not be useful as Kmiec is not a politician himself. [2] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable sources?

Roscelese, please indicate the rationale behind your calling CNS News, Reuters and PRNewswire unreliable sources and mere press releases, as you did here and also the rationale behind your claim here that these sources are inappropriate for a biography of a living person. Esoglou (talk) 08:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

When a source is indeed a press release, the rationale behind calling it one is obvious. BLP requires higher-quality-sources, not lower-quality. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Your qualification of Reuters and the other news agencies as mere press release servers is quite unjustified. To quote a recent contributor to the RSN, "until the story is picked up by a news agency such as the AP or AFP, or Reuters, to name a few, it is not yet published" (emphasis added). Secondly, what do you consider defamatory in the statements about the demands made in her regard, which some people - maybe you yourself - would see as to her credit, and which in any case were factual events? Esoglou (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how I can be much clearer than "A = A." A press release is a press release. It's not a reliable source for information on other people. It doesn't matter if I think the content is "defamatory"; WP:RS has to do with the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy of the source, not whether a user personally agrees with the facts presented. Again, if "you can't prove they were wrong" were the only criterion for reliability, any user-generated blog or comment would be a reliable source, but it's not because that's not the standard we use. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that we are talking about at least three different sources and the reliability of them varies depending upon the fact that is being asserted. PRNewswire is just a press release mill and the reliability of facts in a press release has to be considered in the context of the source. CNSNews claims to have credentialed journalists on staff and is arguably more reliable although it is clearly biased and so its POV has to be taken into account. That doesn't mean it is unreliable but caution is advised depending on what is being asserted. Reuters is generally more reliable but, in this case, what came over the Reuters wire was a press release so, once again, caution is advised.

In this case, however, we are not relying on the press release for a fact that is potentially challengeable. If, for example, the press release claimed that 99% of practicing Catholics were pro-life, we would have to ask the basis for such a claim. However, if the American Life League issues a press release in which the A.L.L. calls for Archbishop Wuerl to excommunicate Nancy Pelosi, the fact in question is the call for excommunication and that call is documented by the press release so no further source reliability is required. What is more important is to ask who the A.L.L. is and whether it is a notable organization. I can trivially create a California Life League and issue a similar call for excommunication by just paying for a PRNewswire press release. We would want to know who A.L.L. is and whether it is a substantive organization or just a handful of pro-life rabble rousers.

NB: The above comment acknowledges that Roscelese may have a point in invoking WP:UNDUE on the Talk Page of a different article. If only one organization called for Pelosi's excommunication, we should consider whether the call for excommunication was a significant event worth reporting here.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Awkward title...

This is clearly a notable topic, but the title is a bit of a vague mess. I wonder if there's a simpler way of phrasing it. What about Refusal of communion to Catholic politicians? That drops 'excommunication' from the title, but almost all of these cases are about refusal of communion rather than excommunication, so it doesn't really need to be there. More problematically, it also drops 'abortion', which perhaps should remain there; but there isn't any easy way of mentioning it. It could be Refusal of communion to pro-choice politicians, but 'pro-choice'/'pro-life' are politicised terms and shouldn't appear in article titles. Refusal of communion to politicians who support abortion rights is even more awkward than the current title, and arguably still POV. Anyone else have any suggestions? Robofish (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it could just be Catholic politicians and abortion, but that drops 'communion' from the title, which is what this article is really about, and suggests a rather broader topic. Hmm... Robofish (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing "excommunication" since the possibility was raised in only two of the cases, but we should make sure to create a redirect that will make it easier for people searching for excommunication cases to find this page. (Which reminds me that this page should be linked from others, in general, like the biographies of the individuals if the incident is discussed in them...building the web and all that.) "Catholic" is probably ultimately redundant if we're really looking to shorten the title, but we probably will never get anything short and snappy, so it should stay for clarity. (Also because people like to claim they're not Catholic if they're pro-choice, which is why there is continual vandalism on Sebelius's article and probably others, so we shouldn't appear to give in to that.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Views of Pope Francis

Should we include the view of Pope Francis on this topic? He was part of a group of Latin American bishops that released a statement six years ago to the effect that pro-choice politicians cannot receive communion (mentioned here), but claims that he has reiterated the position come only from inadmissible anti-abortion sources. (They appear to originate from a letter of the Pope's which recommends that the Argentinian bishops follow the 2007 document, but the document contained a lot of other things and the 2013 letter doesn't single out abortion.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we wait until he says something about the issue from his position as Pope? His prior position may have changed. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"Most"

I questioned the claim that, "in most cases Church officials have threatened to refuse communion to these politicians", i.e. to politicians who promote legislation allowing freedom to abort. My questioning tag was removed

Catholic bishops have stated that all such politicians should refrain from presenting themselves for Communion. Am I wrong in thinking that the article mentions a total of two cases in which this threat was uttered against such politicians and one in which it was applied? I must surely be wrong. Even if I am, what evidence is there that those cases were more numerous than those in which (all) such politicians were told they should refrain from presenting themselves, with no threat to reject them if they did not refrain, a measure that "should be reserved for extraordinary cases of public scandal"?

The blanket reversal unjustifiably undid other edits also, but experience shows that it is by far the best to raise only one point at a time. Esoglou (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're wrong. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe in that minor point, but what reliable evidence can you produce in support of your claim that more politicians were threatened with refusal of Communion than were told to refrain from presenting themselves? That's the question that has been raised. Esoglou (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Uh, the sources in the article. I don't buy this "well, they released a vague statement on their website about how no one should take communion" superseding actual reliable sources about instances of denial of communion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing vague about declaring that the Church expects such people "to have the integrity to respect both the Eucharist and the faithful, and to refrain from receiving Communion"! Nor is having a pastoral letter read at every Mass on a Sunday and published also in print a mere releasing "on their website"! But that is by the way. The essential point is that Roscelese advanced no reliable evidence in support of her claim that "in most cases Church officials have threatened to refuse communion to these politicians". The burden of proof lies upon the editor who wishes to insert such a claim into the article. Esoglou (talk) 06:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The idea that the lede is a summary of the article is not new. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for not insisting on your claims, which would have required at least an attempt to show that they were based on what is in the body. Esoglou (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Catholic rationale regarding communion

Why was the section heading for “Catholic rationale regarding communion” deleted? It was a lot clearer to have this as a separate section. Also, later, text explaining the Catholic rationale regarding communion was deleted. The rewording that remains does not explain Catholic rationale clearly. Additionally, the Catholic rationale regarding communion doesn’t belong in the United States section, because this rationale applies to the Catholic Church in general and not just the US. Also, why were the "weasel words" and "citation needed" tags deleted without first resolving issue on talk page? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

It is disruptive to request citations for cited material or for summary material simply because one doesn't like the implications. Esoglou has a longstanding problem with the idea that the Catholic Church might ever do anything controversial, but we don't let it disrupt our normal editing. With regard to your question about the rationale for denying communion, I think it might be possible to split it out into a separate section - the neatest way of handling it in the moment seemed to be to put it in the USA section because all of the quoted sources were Americans and we already had comparable material in the American section (=Americans talking about why they wanted to deny communion to Americans). But I think we're going to need better sources before we even have that conversation - this isn't a press release site for the American bishops, it's Wikipedia, we're not just going to reprint whatever they say for free and pretend it has encyclopedic value. If real sources can be found, though, we might be able to have that kind of section. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Which sources do you object to? It seemed reliably sourced. Could you list which specific sources you consider unreliable? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The various primary sources just added. It's not that they're unreliable in the sense that the bishops might not have actually said these things, but in order to ensure due weight, we have to use reliable secondary sources, not whatever someone threw up on their website one day. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Better one thing at a time. I leave for later discussion, if necessary at a more general level, Roscelese's idea that Church documents cannot be cited for Church rulings and teachings. For now, I will only remark that it is ridiculous to present the Catechism of the Catholic Church and pastoral letters as "whatever someone threw up on their website one day"! Esoglou (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, I asked which specific sources you objected to. I’m still not clear which source(s) are the problem. I noticed the Catholic rationale regarding communion was originally added, not by Esoglou, but by an IP user, but was reverted and you said in the edit summary it was reverted because it was “original research from primary sources”. But the IP user’s content was sourced by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Your response here makes me wonder if you are familiar with what the Catechism of the Catholic Church is. It's not something some bishop happened to say one day and it’s certainly not some statement someone decides to plop up on a website. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a very significant and authoritative Church document. A very appropriate source for the Catholic Church’s position on something. Perhaps even the best source for this. Along with the Code of Canon Law, a source you also removed, which doesn't make sense. Refusing to use sources like this would be like refusing to use the Book of Mormom, for the Mormon position on something. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The Catechism is significant but it's also very very primary. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's sourcing policies and come back; this is not a good article to do new-user training on. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

If we cannot agree here on whether the Catechism of the Catholic Church (which is rather a secondary source based on primary decrees of the Catholic Church, decrees that it constantly cites both in the body and in footnotes) may be cited in Wikipedia as a reliable source for the teachings of the Catholic Church, perhaps the only way out is to raise the question on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Shall we do that? Perhaps I'll raise it there tomorrow. Esoglou (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Bringing it to the noticeboard seems a good idea to resolve the dispute. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it best to wait for Roscelese to respond, assuming her good faith. It may then not be necessary to take that step. Esoglou (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, seems reasonable considering the Catechism of the Catholic Church is already accepted source on wiki pages: Catholic Church, Catholicism, Annulment (Catholic Church), Catholic Church and abortion. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I seriously doubt you're going to get the Wikipedia community to agree that the Catechism or the Code of Canon Law is a secondary source. Again, this is an encyclopedia for everyone, not just Catholics; a document being important doesn't make it a reliable source for every given thing. However, that's not really relevant here as regardless of whether it is primary or secondary, the IP was reading stuff into it that isn't present on its face, and that violates WP:NOR. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Disagreement over lead

Regarding current disagreement over whether to characterize threats to refuse communion as “most cases” or "a few cases", I propose the following alternate wording:

The Roman Catholic Church opposes abortion. There have been cases where Church officials have threatened to refuse communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion rights. In some cases, officials have stated that the politicians should refrain from receiving communion; in others, excommunication has been suggested.

To me, this seems a reasonable compromise, until or unless someone can come up with a source that shows the total number of Catholic politicians who support abortion rights in relation to total number who have been singled out with threats of refused communion.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

While this could be retouched for greater accuracy, I let it pass, if others do. Esoglou (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Since nobody has so far objected, you can perhaps soon put your proposal into action.

Your proposed edit would be more accurate, if it did not leave the reader with the impression that there was a significant number of threats to refuse communion. There were only three or four, and only in the United States, a small phenomenon when viewed from elsewhere: Maher-Sebelius (not just a threat but a banning); Burke-Kerry; Martino-Biden; to which could perhaps be added Burke-Giuliani, but this was a merely hypothetical remark, since Burke was not then in charge of any diocese in which he could bann someone and so Giuliani was not under any real threat anywhere. The number of specific reminders to individuals of their obligation to refrain (without a threat to refuse them if they did present themselves) was also small: Weigand-Davis; Tobin-Kennedy; Naumann-Sebelius. Of course, there were also the reminders to all pro-choice Catholic legislators, not just to three individuals. However, I will not stand in your way, if you want to apply your proposed wording as it stands. Esoglou (talk) 19:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we should try to work out your accuracy concerns first. The only part of the lead I worked on above was the first sentence that was debated. I think the second sentence, as written is confusing because it seems to say the suggestions to refrain from communion and the excommunication threats are subsets of the threats to refuse communion, and that does not appear to be the case. If I understand the content correctly, it seems there have been general statements made by the Church regarding all politicians who support abortion rights refraining from communion, and then there have been incidents in which specific politicians have been singled out by name with various suggestions and/or threats. Does that seem accurate to others? I'm not sure if it's important to specify the number of specific incidents in the lead, because it seems like all the specific incidents are being discussed in the article, and readers could count for themselves. Currently, this article is confusing as written, and seems like it would benefit from better organization. As I mentioned earlier, I think the Catholic rationale would be better separate from the incidents.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The thing that reliable sources have covered has been the refusals or threats to refuse, so the article's centered around that. I don't have content-based objections to your rewrite of the sentence, but your note that it's written as though the latter groups are subsets of the first group, rather than related but separate points, makes sense. How can we address that concern without artificially inflating the importance of the "suggestion to refrain from Communion"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources have covered:

a) USCCB discussion about whether Communion should be refused to Catholic politicians in that position;

b) declarations of banning or threats to refuse directed at specific individuals, but no case of anyone actually refused on presenting themselves;

c) statements (not suggestions) that Catholic politicians in that position have an obligation to refrain;

d) actual intimations to specific individuals that they have an obligation to refrain.

Worse than artificially inflating the importance of the very few cases of matters b) and d) within a single country is artificially inflating matter b) alone to the point of ignoring the other three well-sourced matters. Esoglou (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to adhere to WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. If you can't source something to reliable sources, it doesn't deserve that kind of weight. You're letting your personal investment in promoting the church get in the way of editing properly again, and consequently parts of your comment above are objectively false. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:22, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Quotefarm and bad sources

Esoglou, multiple times now you've tried to add this poorly sourced material and at no point have you attempted to make a case for, or gain consensus for, its inclusion. In fact, you've claimed that it was deleted "unjustifiably" when clear and policy-based reasons were provided for its removal, but have made no attempt to provide policy-based reasons for your repeated reverts. I must remind you again that Wikipedia is not a promotional arm of the Catholic Church and that we follow policies on reliable sourcing and due weight, rather than reprinting for free the sort of thing that one pays a PR agent for. Now, make your case and gain consensus for this change. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Which sources do you object to? The disputed material appears to sourced mostly by sources already used in the article for other undisputed content. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

No, that's completely untrue. As we both know, these sources were just added. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not completely untrue. This is an incomplete list, cause I'm pressed for time right now, but the deleted content had these sources used which were already in the article:

1. "The Word from Rome", John L. Allen, Jr. in National Catholic Reporter, 28 May 2004]

2. Sandro Magister, "Obama's Pick for Vice President Is Catholic. But the Bishops Deny Him Communion"

3. Major, Richard (August 27, 2005), "Communion for pro-choice politicians splits Church", The Tablet

4. John Allen, "Antiabortion imperative more complex than acknowledged: John Allen: bishops' views on abortion"

5. Michael Sean Winters, "Chaput Cites Disunity Among Bishops on Canon 915" in National Catholic Reporter, 12 April 2011

6. Henneberger, Melinda (11 May 2009). "Wuerl: Why I Won't Deny Pelosi Communion". Politics Daily.

7. George Washington University, "Reactions to Sen. Obama's Selection of Sen. Biden as His Running Mate"

Roscelese, could you please review the disputed material and say which specific sources are objected to?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Roscelese, for discussing, rather than simply deleting, this edit. Please indicate what grounds you think you can adduce for calling unreliable the sources cited for the information that US bishops have declared that Catholic politicians who advance increased legal freedom to abort do what is gravely wrong and should refrain from receiving Communion and that it is objectively dishonest to express communion with the Catholic Church through reception of that sacrament while publicly dissenting from the Church's teaching. You are of course free, under Wikipedia rules, to cite reliable sources, if you can find any, that say the opposite. Esoglou (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Come on now, you've been around for too long to pretend that press releases and web postings fulfill WP:RS for purposes of weight. Don't bother with the strawman of "do you think they're inaccurately reporting what the bishops said"; I already addressed it above, and even left the sources in the article with a summary of their content, which is really more than their lack of reliability merits. You need to justify this quotefarm and grossly undue weight before anything else. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Name-calling is no argument. The text contains only one quotation, not much of a farm. Do you actually either deny the statement that the bishops made those declarations or deny that the sources cited for the statement are reliable for it? Esoglou (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

For the second time, Roscelese, you have deleted well-sourced information, exercising an assumed absolute power to veto without any need to discuss either BoboMeowCat's comments or mine! You have not endeavoured even to reaffirm the nonsensical claim that a single quotation - and in your latest reverting there was not even one quotation - is a "quote farm". Nor have you endeavoured to reaffirm the equally nonsensical claim that the sources cited are "bad". Instead you have used the strong-arm tactic of reverting. Esoglou (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Since you refuse to discuss, I have brought the matter for discussion to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Esoglou (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Undue emphasis or undue de-emphasis

Apart from Roscelese's claims of "quote farm" and "bad sources" Binksternet has raised a different objection:

It's undue emphasis. The same ideas should not be repeated over and over. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

In what way is a declaration by several bishops that no Catholic politician whatever who promotes liberalization of abortion should present themselves for Communion less important than the three cases in which a bishop is reported to have said so to just one individual, as you seem to think? Esoglou (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The emphasis is undue because all of these statements are not backed up by much action. Instead, the politicians who support abortion routinely receive sacraments. Hardly anybody is excommunicated—the cases are few. Binksternet (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

That argument would be just as valid against mentioning in Wikipedia the Catholic Church's condemnation of almost any sin. "Much action" is not a requirement for mentioning the Catholic Church's condemnation. You don't imagine, do you, that, because Catholics "routinely" commit sexual sins, there should be no mention in Wikipedia of the Catholic Church's condemnation of those sins? What is the "much action" by which the Church backs up its condemnation of those sins? What is the "much action" by which the Catholic Church follows up its teaching that it is a sinful act to receive Communion when in a state of serious sin because of participating in acts of violence, thievery or the like? Wikipedia mentions that the Catholic Church excludes non-Catholics from receiving Holy Communion in the Catholic Church: what is the "much action" by which it follows that up?

You seem to misunderstand the meaning of excommunication, a quite different matter that you drag in for the sake of defending your renewed reverting. You say: "Hardly anybody is excommunicated—the cases are few." Name even one of those few cases. You do realize, surely, that the article we are talking about only says that "excommunication has been suggested". Since the suggestion of excommunication has not been followed up with "much action", should its mention be removed from the article? Esoglou (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The reader need not be beaten over the head with priestly warnings when such warnings do not have much sticking power. Your version puts too much emphasis on the warnings; my version still has the kernel of the warnings, but not so many quotes and repetitions. Binksternet (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, Binksternet, it is your version that "puts too much emphasis on the (three individual) warnings". It gives the reader the impression that the "priestly warning" makes an appearance only when beating some individual over the head. A strange "kernel of the warnings" to say that Weigand told one politician he should stop receiving (for no stated reason), that Tobin asked another not to take communion because of his position on abortion, and that Naumann told another she should stop receiving because of her support for abortion rights, and to censor out mention of the documented fact that it is the teaching of the Catholic Church, not just something dreamed up as a means of beating someone over the head, that legislators committed to the grave sin of depriving unborn children of the right to live should not go to Communion (source, source, source, source, source). Is it because this fact is so well sourced that you speak of "so many quotes and repetitions"? What sort of presentation of "Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication" would it be if it made no mention of this well-documented fact? Do you really have to cut it out of the article? Esoglou (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not synthesis if the analysis comes from reliable sources, not users

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: as I mentioned in my edit summary and in response to your post on my talk page, the no-synthesis policy prevents editors from drawing together disparate sources to reach an original conclusion. It absolutely does not prevent the inclusion of analysis from reliable sources. Please refresh your memory of WP:NOR; I suggest you also revert your edit once you've read up on why your reasoning was invalid. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I did not say anything about OR. I referenced SYNTHESIS, which is the problem with your text, which comprises the personal opinions of certain sources electing to draw conclusions about why Kerry lost the election for POTUS, i.e. putting the blame on the Catholic church rather than acknowledging that the American people decidedly rejected Kerry. Also, you're not adhering to BRD and have made no changes to the contentious text to indicate any reflection on your part regarding the issues that have been raised. Quis separabit? 15:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

SYNTHESIS is a subset of NOR and prevents synthesis by users. It doesn't bar Wikipedia from containing any academic analysis! What kind of site would we be if that were true? Again, please review SYN and, while you're at it, review BRD - "I removed two thousand characters of text from a stable article and I'm going to keep doing so until you give up" is literally the opposite of that! You're trying to make a bold change by removing this text - you've been reverted, and now you must gain consensus through discussion. I ask again that you revert your edit, since it stems from a misunderstanding of several policies and guidelines. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

It would appear from other conversations/threads that your conduct on this article has been contentious. As far as my edits, no other editors have had a problem and @Chasewc91 appears (although I cannot speak for @Chasewc91) to support my editing. Why don't we let some other editors weigh in? Quis separabit? 15:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I've brought the issue to the original research noticeboard. We could also ping previous contributors, although as the main culprit was topic-banned from abortion for his behavior here and subsequently site-banned, I'm not sure you'd get the support you wanted out of it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: Thus far, no other users have chimed in to support your bold edit. Are there other, less bold, changes you might suggest? If you can propose changes that have a chance of gaining consensus, compromise might be possible. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I am always open to compromise. "It's not synthesis if the analysis comes from reliable sources, not users" is not accurate. Just to clarify my point: synthesis is not only the province or the ignorant or unreliable or bigoted sources. It can come, intentionally or otherwise, from well-meaning and well-educated professionals. I know because I have done it once or twice myself. Hence, live and learn. Not do as I say not as I do, just live and learn. I know you are an honorable person, @Roscelese, but in this matter I believe you are off-base. The text is punditry to rationalize John Kerry's loss in 2004, IMHO. As far as "changes that have a chance of gaining consensus" I am all for it, but I can't think of any right now. (It's after midnight in NYC, so ... off to slumber.) Regards to all. Quis separabit? 03:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Rms, if you really think that's what the synthesis policy should cover, this little talk page isn't going to be the place for that discussion. You could try a policy talk page or the Village Pump - but here, we really need to be talking about what the policy is. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources....If no reliable source has combined the material in this way, it is original research." There's nothing here that says reliable sources can't do their own analysis of the facts - that's what reliable sources are for! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese is right on target: WP:SYN clearly and unequivocally applies only to Wikipedia editors. We expect and require scholars, researchers, authors, and others who create reliable sources to conduct synthesis. If that is your only objection to material then that is entirely insufficient reason to exclude it from an article. You need to advance other arguments e.g., it's poorly done synthesis contradicted by the vast majority of reliable sources, it's such a minority position that it doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia article, it's not really a reliable source. ElKevbo (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120117044327/http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/08/24/4433783-abortion-politics-biden-never-refused-communion to http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/08/24/4433783-abortion-politics-biden-never-refused-communion

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

"Editorializing" claim.

What utter horse puckey. The only reason the Eucharist would be denied or excommunication imposed would be in accordance with the teaching of the magisterium and the relevant canon law. There's no other reason to do it. And my edit made no claim about whether it was ultimately "justified" or not. I only dealt with the basis on which the decision would be made. "Since the Church is opposed to abortion" is a hand-wavy way of saying the exact same thing. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Your comment encapsulates why this was editorializing. I couldn't have explained it better myself than your "well, of course it must have been correct if the bishops did it." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Um, no. Those are the norms the decision would be based on. The question of whether it was "justified" or "correct" or not is really the question of whether those norms apply to the situation of a given politician. I never said that the bishops' doing it made it correct. I simply pointed to the norms they're supposed to refer to when making their decisions. There's nothing editorializing about that at all. Honest question: how familiar are you with the inner workings of the Catholic Church? It seems like you're not that familiar, because this is a rookie mistake. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Are the USCCB, the Archbishop of Pittsburgh, Pope Benedict XVI, Pope John Paul II, and the Archbishop of Dublin (among others) also "rookies"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Obviously not. What are you getting at? Speak plainly. Your glib and cryptic responses are difficult to respond to. And what does pointing out the norms that govern these decisions have to do with any specific incident of their implementation? Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It is obvious. Since there is significant disagreement about whether or not denying communion to, or excommunicating, a person on the basis of their views on abortion is in compliance with canon law, to state in the lede that it is in compliance with canon law is taking a position on an issue that the article clearly indicates is debated. The Popes', bishops', etc. position may be a "rookie mistake" to you, but it's not up to you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

When I said "this is a rookie mistake", I was referring to your apparent conflation of the popes', bishops', et al.'s actions with the norms those actions are based on (i.e. the magisterium and the CIC). I was not referring to anything any of them did. Anyway, those certain "some Catholic bishops" who do this are doing it on the basis of the magisterium and the CIC. Answer me this: if not on those bases, then on the basis of WHAT are they doing it? So I'm really not sure what your problem here is. Would switching "in accordance with" to "on the basis of" be a suitable compromise to you? Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't solve the editorializing problem. Even if you framed it in neutral language (eg. leading with something like "bishops who do this cite...as a basis...") it's not even really accurate since we cannot verify that most or even many of them have done so. Frankly, even the mention in the body may be overstating the case a little. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Excommunication of Catholic politicians who support abortion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120604122739/http://www.rcan.org/archbish/jjm_letters/rightsunborn6-90.htm to http://www.rcan.org/archbish/jjm_letters/rightsunborn6-90.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140219003811/http://www.vatican.va:80/archive/ENG1104/_P39.HTM to http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P39.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110126020556/http://www.signonsandiego.com:80/uniontrib/20040609/news_1n9catholic.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040609/news_1n9catholic.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Excommunication of Catholic politicians who support abortion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040609/news_1n9catholic.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121001084047/http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-22/politics/kennedy.abortion_1_catholic-bishops-bishops-support-rep-patrick-kennedy?_s=PM%3APOLITICS to http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-22/politics/kennedy.abortion_1_catholic-bishops-bishops-support-rep-patrick-kennedy?_s=PM%3APOLITICS
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120128081050/http://ncronline.org/node/1110 to http://ncronline.org/node/1110

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121022055708/http://www.elpais.com.uy/121018/ultmo-670522/ultimomomento/iglesia-catolica-excomulgo-a-quienes-incentivaron-la-despenalizacion-del-aborto/ to http://www.elpais.com.uy/121018/ultmo-670522/ultimomomento/iglesia-catolica-excomulgo-a-quienes-incentivaron-la-despenalizacion-del-aborto/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

terminology

Uh, CMA here, but I reverted the insertion of "pro-abortion" because it seemed to be vandalism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

And again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems...

...like we do have, and have had, incidents of actual refusal of communion, not just higher-ups saying they would or that their underlings should? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I thought the lede is worded strangely. Elizium23 (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

New incident, bunch of politicians

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/catholic-priest-says-pedophilia-doesnt-kill-anyone-but-abortion-does/

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Dog bites man

@Elizium23: I'm not sure it's necessary for this article to cover Catholics successfully receiving communion, even if fringe activists write blog posts opposing the idea? Surely this is more relevant than Biden's weekly reception of communion, in that the specter of communion denial is being raised again and causing actual conflict? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:20, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Roscelese, surely it is useful for the sake of the topic that we indicate that Biden does actually receive Holy Communion? Sure, bishops can say he will not be denied, but actions speak louder than words. Elizium23 (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the issue is in the framing then. We can note (with a reliable source tying it to this issue) that in spite of these statements he is still given communion, but it's not An Event. Does that make sense? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Relevance of pro-choice politicians successfully receiving communion

I think we might want to do a little more with the article's material on pro-choice politicians successfully receiving communion. As I said earlier, that's such a "dog bites man" situation (ie. not newsworthy), in an article about the unusual and newsworthy thing of bishops using communion denial to make a splashy political gesture, that it seems to me like "So-and-so went to church and got communion" doesn't contribute much to the article on its own. We should look back at the sources and see how they frame it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

New news

I don't have time to add this now, but putting it here for later. I only skimmed the articles, but relevant parts seem to be the (possible?) end of denial of communion as a recurring thing, the idea that it was an especially American foible that caused conflict with the Vatican, and the reiterated idea that pro-choice and pro-gay-rights doctors and politicians should not receive communion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2021/11/17/catholic-bishops-communion-vote-biden/ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/17/us/catholic-bishops-biden-communion.html

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

OR

@Luigi Albert Maria: I've removed your note again because it violates our policy on original research by failing to include a reliable source relating the content to the article topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Ok, understood. Maybe I could rephrase the citation, simply pointing to the cited documents to clarify the position of the Church in matters of access to Communion for non Catholics. Luigi Albert Maria (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Luigi Albert Maria: Are you saying that these documents are being referred to in another reliable source that is about the "communion denial over abortion" issue, so you just want to link so that users can read the whole thing? The important thing is to make sure that we as editors are not directing users to this information of our own accord, without a reliable source making the connection. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)