Talk:Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS/Archive 2

Engvar
Anyone have an opinion on whether we should be using American or British English for this article. Before I make any changes to American English I want to confirm that will not upset any consensus.AlmostFrancis (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No opinion. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

"Condoms alone have limited impact in generalised epidemics"
I agree with the removal of this. Its only connection to the article topic is drawn by an unreliable source, nor in fact does it have any bearing on the church's claim that condom use/provision is immoral and/or ineffective. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

1
Here is my recommendation for the compacted lede section, it covers roughly all aspects of the article ( yes, condoms as well ) !vote please below.

"The Catholic Church has been involved in the care of HIV/AIDS patients since the pandemic's earliest days. Much of the Church's work is focused on the developing countries, though programs exist throughout the World. Catholic Church received significant criticism for it's continuous opposition to the usage of condoms, despite their effectiveness in preventing the spread of HIV. The Vatican periodically hosts conferences on HIV/AIDS care for experts and pharmaceutical executives."


 * Support (as proposer) - GizzyCatBella  🍁  05:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yeah, that does not follow the body or the sources in the article.  It doesn't follow any of the advice for leads in either its size or composition.  Also it is almost completely the Catholic POV.AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral comment. My only thought is that this is, as Francis says, indeed rather one-sided. It is not wrong per se (assuming the sources bear out), but I feel this should be balanced by the 'other POV' per, well, NPOV. Frankly, I don't know much about it but my first thought here is that the Church is responsible for spreading of HIV/AIDS due to their long-standing objection to the use of condoms... PS. This article needs a better lead summary. It currently opens with "The Church opposes the use of condoms, although they are effective in preventing transmission of HIV." which is just as bad, just fromt he other POV. We should start neutral, and introduce both POVs in the second and further sequences. But I am not sure how to say what effectively seems to be that "The Church is responsible both for spreading AIDS due to their opposition to condoms, and for helping the sick through their charity works". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion, thank you Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus - GizzyCatBella  🍁  07:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * It's a start, but as written, no. I don't think the conferences are important enough to mention in the lede, obviously "it's" should be "its", and I'm not sure our article currently supports the unqualified statement "involved since the pandemic's earliest days," etc. (it is factually true but omits the fact that this happens to be because the church runs a lot of hospitals; non-Catholic hospitals were also "involved since the pandemic's earliest days"). I approve of the removal of the apologia cruft, and I think that the retention of these two parts of the medical-care factor (in the US where their opposition to AIDS prevention and homosexuality hit the ground running and set the stage for half a century of similar criticism, and in developing countries) is fair. Piotrus and AlmostFrancis, I'm not sure what "other POV" you think needs to be added to balance it out; a statement that the church is responsible for the spread of AIDS due to its opposition to AIDS prevention seems like, uh, overkill, the reader can infer whatever they want to infer from the factual statements about the church's opposition to condoms, sex ed, whatever. Is the issue that this version doesn't specify that the criticism comes from public health officials and AIDS activists? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree about the catholic church not being involved in the spread of AIDS. Not sure where that came from, but there is a world of difference ethically from hindering efforts to stop the spread and actually spreading a disease.  My issue was the devaluing of the issue of condoms and sex education.  The first two sentences are mostly meaningless.  Everyone who owned a hospital was involved from the beginning and what "work" are we even talking about and in which time frame.  Also it is too short.  :)AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hm, what do you feel is devaluing about the proposed "Catholic Church received significant criticism for it's continuous opposition to the usage of condoms, despite their effectiveness in preventing the spread of HIV."? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Its placement below the content about care and work. Also I really do think that where the criticism is coming from is important.AlmostFrancis (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see the need to be specific about public health officials' specific criticism of the CC in this regard, beyond just stating that condoms are known to effectively reduce the spread of HIV. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose baloney. The Church killed millions with its rejection of science. All real medical writing on this is unanimous, and fluffing this up misleads Wikipedia readers with Church miracles and magical psedudo-science. --Horace Snow (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

2

 * Modified proposal. This is not the first time this issue has been raised, as you can see above, and I've previously expressed the same concerns as . I'd like to propose the following lede:

The Catholic Church has been involved in the HIV/AIDS pandemic since its earliest days. As one of the largest providers of care on the planet, it treats those who are sick, helps to stop the transmission, offers pastoral care to those who are infected, and cares for orphans whose parents have died of the disease. Due in part to its focus on social justice, much of the church's work is focused on the developing world, though programs exist in the Global North as well.

Catholic theology of sexuality prohibits the use of artificial contraception, including condoms, which can be effective in helping to prevent transition of the HIV virus on an individual level. Instead, the Church argues for abstinence before marriage and being faithful to one's spouse as the preferred methods for halting the pandemic. This position has been criticized by some. The Vatican periodically hosts conferences on the issue for experts and pharmaceutical executives that have resulted in additional antiretroviral and diagnostic treatments getting to children in poverty. The church's role in the pandemic has been complicated by its sometimes difficult relationship with the LGBT community.

I think this better encapsulates the entire article, which the current lede does not adequately do. If you oppose it, I would appreciate a substantive comment on how to improve it, particularly the Lead sentence, and not just a "no." --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - Perhaps replace all commas and periods with the word condom, then this will work for sure? You know, like "The Catholic Church has been involved in the HIV/AIDS pandemic since its earliest days condom As one of the largest providers of care on the planet condom it treats those who are sick condom helps to stop the transmission condom.. " and so on? But now seriously, yes, I think your version is even better. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  15:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per NPOV. We don't need a glowing review of how the church treats sick people. The RS on the matter are focused on how the church's oppression of contraceptives and sex education contributed and continue to contribute to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. We go by RS, not by what editors that seem to have a pro church POV have to say on the matter. Also, Slugger, you cannot dictate how people "should" respond to your proposals. The closer that take whatever responses they want into consideration when closing an RFC. Valeince (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How on earth is this a glowing review of Church? Come on! Then please propose something that, in your opinion, is not as such, but please don't make it look like this: "The condoms and condoms including condoms plus the Catholic Church and condoms have been involved in the HIV/AIDS pandemic condoms since its earliest days of condoms....." For f.sakes, this article is about Church and HIV, not condoms. Maybe just change the title of this article folks, this is ridiculous, seriously. :) or include a looooooooooong sentence in the lede about the mistake Church makes not allowing to use condoms but don't start with the first sentence to be about condoms and don't turn this article to be about Church and condoms if the title is going to remain as it is now. : ). Sorry Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk I'm out of here.-  GizzyCatBella  🍁  18:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please; if you're not going to make coherent arguments and just lay out an unfiltered stream of consciousness about why you don't personally like the article then why are you even here? You've put so much more effort into building Wiki then I have and I can't believe that this is how you contribute to a consensus building exercise. The pro church POV I am referring to is the complete opening paragraph about the paragons of the church helping the sick. Example "Largest providers of care on the planet" and "Due in part to its focus on social justice, much of the church's work is focused on th.." blah blah blah. Don't you know we write articles based on what RS say about the subject and not what you want them to say? Valeince (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Look Valeince, the article always started like this until on May 7, 2020 AlmostFransic made the change and moved the usage of condoms into the lede's opening sentence. So my point is ( and only point ) If the fact of a mistake Church is making is stressed out throughout the article, including the opening sentence, then this article effectively becomes about something else and is only connected to Church and HIV. I'm saying this repeatedly , and all I hear from you are accusations of my pro-Church POV. No, I think the Church makes a terrible mistake with its Ortodhox stance on the usage of condoms, but what is this article about? Condoms or Church and HIV? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  21:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose modified proposal This is a ridiculously one sided lede. The ideas that the catholic churches "social justice", assuming you don't count the homophobia and sexism, is more important than their views on condoms is absurd.  I will give a more detailed breakdown of its deficiencies ifit looks like it is catching on but for now I don't think it is worth the effort.AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Proposing the addition of more spam to the lede at a time when multiple users are trying to remove spam from the article is simply disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No wondering Vice regent declined to participate in this argument any further. Look Roscelese, first; you accused me of what I understood vandalism, or as you nicely worded it "a series of destructed edits", ( you never clarified what you meant by this or apologized for ) now you're accusing Slugger of posting spam into this article and disruption as well. I don't aspire to be Slugger's advocate here, but don't you think you're going waaaay too far with your repeated accusations Roscelese? I see that all additions Slugger proposed are backed by the RS, right in the body of the article. I'm not sure if you realize this Roscelese, but your comments are not only hurtful but also drive other editors away. I was about to quit my involvement just for that very reason. I'm not sure Slugger O&#39;Toole if you are okay with this kind of accusation, but I wouldn't be . Also Roscelese, it is not us who wish to implement the new changes. It was AlmostFrancis, who introduced these changes on May 7, 2020 and AlmostFrancis is now backed by you. So, it is you guys who should try to establish consensus for these changes, not the other way around, as you claimed here. I could continue presenting more wrongdoings, but I will rest here, awaiting your response. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  03:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As I have explained before it was Slugger who changed the long standing order of the article, doing so without an edit summary so that it could not be easily seen. When the change was caught it was changed back.  If you purposely don't use an edit summary while making large changes to the article you can not be surprised that editors miss the changes for a while.AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay AlmostFrancis, I didn't know that. I'm shifting my judgment about this part of the argument then. Thank you. Let me review the complete history of this article; I'll get back with my conclusions. Perhaps the article name adjustment is the best solution here. GizzyCatBella  🍁  05:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment Hey guys, this is an excellent guide I was just given. It says there, "The title indicates what the article is about..." and "..the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject".... What is the subject of this article as of today? Mind the opening line. GizzyCatBella 🍁  22:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are just looking for a more generalized and inclusive first sentence to add to the beginning of the lead I am sure an reasonable one can be created. "Due to the prohibition of condoms, involvement in the health care industries of both developed and developing countries, and its religious influence in many countries, the churches conduct has had a (insert agreed upon word) influence on the treatment and spread of the AIDS pandemic". Or something along those lines. At which point it would go on to the condoms section.AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support 2 but with the following modification: change the first sentence by adding "but this involvement has been controversial. One one hand...". And start the second paragraph with the "On the other hand...". This article is obviously torn between two POVs, likely rightly so, and the lead should reflect this. Otherwise we can have people argue which POV to cover first, and frankly, there is no good answer here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose baloney. The Church killed millions with its rejection of science. All real medical writing on this is unanimous, and fluffing this up misleads Wikipedia readers with Church miracles and magical psedudo-science. --Horace Snow (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC) <--I guess this single purpose brand new account can be ignored, folks  GizzyCatBella  🍁  07:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

3
Okay, dear fellow editors, I believe I have found the solution following Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus advice. I'll focus on the first sentence ONLY. If this will not satisfy everyone, then I'm going to bite my 60-year-old desk and stay like that until morning. Here it is:

''The Catholic Church has been involved in the care of HIV/AIDS patients since the pandemic's earliest days, but its involvement encountered a significant amount of controversy. On the one hand, Church treats those who are sick, offers pastoral care to those who are infected, and cares for orphans whose parents have died, but at the same time, Church continues opposing the usage of condoms, despite their effectiveness in preventing the spread of HIV.'' ---> here add additional lede material deemed necessary (yes about condoms too if needed)


 * No glowing review of the Church in the lede - check (skeptics/anti Church POV happy)
 * Criticism is the opening sentence - check (skeptics/anti Church POV happy)
 * Our condoms right in the second sentence, following criticisms - check (skeptics/anti Church POV happy)
 * Some praise for what Church does in the lead - check (supporters/pro-Church POV happy)
 * Our condoms moved from the opening sentence a little bit down the road, so the article doesn't resemble to be about condoms only - check (supporters/pro-Church POV happy)

Now, please don't make me break my dentures on my desk. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  06:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Reads good to me, certainly better than the current lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I disagree, this is pretty glowing and not indicative of the relative importance of various topics, pasoral care, orphans and what not.  I think the issue is beliveing that  opposition to the Churches stance on condoms is anti-catholic when it reality it just the mainstream assessment.  Also I have no idea what sekeptical has to do with anything.  The skeptics in this case would be the church which questions the usefulness of condoms.  Would it also be possible for people wanting to change the lede to get together and come up with one proposal, having to repeatedly give the same argument can get tedious. AlmostFrancis (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't think it's necessary or desirable to set this up as an "on one hand...on the other hand". Firstly, it suggests that this article is about a debate, which isn't the case, and secondly, the issues of care provision and opposition to AIDS prevention are inextricably intertwined - see eg. or the issue of homophobia and lack of safe sex information in US hospitals in the 80s (I know we've covered this). I mentioned as well my issues with the "earliest days" language in response to one of the other proposals. Maybe I'll pitch one in a bit? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @AlmostFrancis You owe me money for new dentures! But seriously, I appreciate you telling us that you oppose even this hard worked version, but wouldn't it be wiser if you didn't revert Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus? You moving presently moved against two people at the time of your revert with your preferred "condom" variant. Don't you think? -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  17:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC) - (modified after new !vote casted) -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  17:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

4
"The Catholic Church is a major provider of medical care to HIV/AIDS patients. Much of its work takes place in developing countries, although it has also had a presence in the global north. Its opposition to condoms, despite their effectiveness in preventing the spread of HIV, has invited criticism from public health officials and anti-AIDS activists" I know it's not perfect! I'm not wild about some of my own phrasing. But this version omits some of the apologetic nonsense of other versions, while also omitting proposals that the lede directly blame the church for the spread of HIV. It mentions medical care and opposition to AIDS prevention, while also omitting eg. the lede mention of conferences, which seem to be of minor interest. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not bad Roscelese, I’ll support this version. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  04:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Anyone else? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Second alternative proposal
Change the title of the article from Catholic Church and HIV/AIDS to Condoms, HIV and the Catholic Church.


 * Support (as proposer) - GizzyCatBella  🍁  18:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * then the opening line as it is now: "The Church opposes the use of condoms, although they are effective in preventing transmission of HIV" is very okay. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  18:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:POINTy,and not to be taken seriously. I responded to this at your Talk page. Mathglot (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Mathglot but I’m serious about renaming the article; it was not a joke or "an action to make a point”. Seriously, I believe the article should be renamed. I mentioned that several times before. (see my previous comments) Maybe the title choice sounds comical, but I didn't do it on purpose. If the proposed new title sounds terrible, then please feel free to make alterations. GizzyCatBella  🍁  20:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Closed, I might take a different path later per this advice -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  22:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

General
Much of this article requires grammatical revision. It is verbose and very difficult to understand due to poor communication of ideas and too much unnecessary information. I have made some changes but I can't realistically revise the whole article. EcheveriaJ (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

"Opposition to condoms" not a representative statement?
This seems odd to me since Wiki is often so good with complex subjects. But both Benedict and Francis have made it clear that they see condoms as a bandaid on a wound that they think needs exponentially greater treatment. You can see that in all the language they have always used on it, (mirrored here) as opposed to words like "forbidden" that their interviewers use. Both here and in the HIV/AIDS article, it is painted as a full binary. Rephrased as "not support condom use as the a long term effective solution" or "as a complete solution" or "opposition to condoms as a primary response" or "as the ultimate solution" would all give the article this more accurate weight to their words. Even "claims condoms perpetuate deeper issues" would be helpful here, but the current wording feels inaccurate. Posting to "Talk" first since I want to know if I'm alone in this interpretation or if this change looks mutually beneficial. --BlinksTale (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)