Talk:Political activity of the Catholic Church on LGBT issues

Promotional crap
I note from earlier talkpage sections that you were edit-warring this section in as far back as 2018, when had to respond to your POV-motivated spam. You appear to be the only user who wants to add this and the article is not your personal property. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This article has only received a handful of edits since 2018. That sounds like a consensus to me. If the consensus changes, I would not contest the removal. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We can see if anyone else agrees with you. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course the church is going to say it's tolerant. Whether that's backed up in reliable, secondary sources is the question. Unless those can be found, it should go. Star   Mississippi  13:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Are you satisfied with the sources in place now for these two paragraphs? Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * (Referred here from Wikiproject LGBT). I think it's entirely appropriate to quote the Church's own statements on LGBT issues for an article like this. However, the first sentence of the disputed section: The Church holds that all people, including those who are LGBT, are made in the image and likeness of God, giving every human an inherent dignity. which cites this, seems like textbook WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. The cited text says nothing about LGBT people. Colin M (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Beyond the verifiability concern, this seems pretty clearly intended (Slugger, I believe you stated as much when trying to cram it into another article) to "balance" the copiously cited material about the church's opposition to antidiscrimination laws and marriage and their statements about why said opposition is necessary. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Slugger has had some challenges editing around articles related to the catholic church. I hope this doesn't result in an additional topic ban. Star   Mississippi  18:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Both Colin and Star make excellent points. I'll work to find secondary sources for this material and would appreciate assistance. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have tagged the places where, on first glance, I think we need to find better sources. There may be others as well. I'm glad to do the work myself, but I think the end product would be better if we worked collaboratively on it. There are a few new editors here. Anyone want to help? -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Slugger, you are letting your personal views interfere with your adherence to the rules again. Whatever your personal feelings, it is factually false that the church supports LGBT rights or opposes discrimination, and we cannot state that claim in Wikipedia's voice. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , As I said in the edit summary, the teaching is clear and is backed up by sources. I have never seen, to use the first example, any source that says the Church teaches LGBT people are not created in the image and likeness of God. It is not appropriate to cast WP:DOUBT on that by saying "The Church says that it holds that all people, including those who are LGBT, are made in the image and likeness of God..." If the institutional Church or one of its members has ever fallen short of that standard, I think we should say so in the article. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The actual experience of LGBTQ parishioners can vary widely across dioceses and parishes. Many Catholic communities reach out to LGBTQ members to offer as full of a welcome as possible within the limits of a Church policy that does not approve of same-sex relationships, even committed ones. Other parishes have denied membership to LGBTQ individuals and families. There have also been recent instances of LGBTQ employees in the United States being dismissed from Catholic schools and parishes following the celebration of a same-sex couple’s marriage. Source.  Star   Mississippi  13:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not concerned with whether or not the church is living up to its own supposed standards or whether or not its statements are consistent. I am concerned with Wikipedia policies like WP:V and WP:NPOV. We cannot say that the church supports LGBT rights and opposes discrimination because it is factually false. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 14:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with here, . It's not doubt, when the what the church claims is not backed up but reliable, independent sources. I am hoping we can avoid ANI with this issue.  Star   Mississippi  16:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I fully agree with you, Star. That's why I found some new sources and tagged the places where I think better, reliable, independent sources are needed. If one such source says that the Church opposes discrimination, and another reliable source says that they are in favor, then our role is to describe the conflict, not pick a side. What we are looking for is WP:VNT. I am glad to work on better sourcing for this article but, as I said above, I think it would be better if we worked on it collaboratively. Also, there are multiple editors in this conversation with restrictions on their editing. I think any discussion of ANI is premature, to say the least. What I see here is a reasonable discussion among reasonable editors about changing a four year old consensus. Let's see how that plays out. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Some say the earth is flat and some say it is round! Teach the controversy!" is not how Wikipedia operates. It is not acceptable to be spamming the article with promotional sources to support promotional ends; we do not "balance" verified statements with falsified ones in this way. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Let's try approaching this a different way. Can you please provide a source that says the Church does NOT teach that LGBT people are made in the image and likeness of God? That the Church teaches they don't have an inherent human dignity? That the Church teaches that they are not to be treated with dignity, respect, and fairness? Within the article, can you tell me which of these statements is not backed up by a reliable source?
 * Also, per WP:IMPARTIAL, "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes." And, per WP:BALANCE, "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, per WP:IMPARTIAL, "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes." And, per WP:BALANCE, "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Pinging the users who have weighed in on this content. As far as I can tell, there's a unanimous consensus against including this material with the exception of Slugger, in light of the verifiability, sourcing, and point-of-view concerns. Does that sound accurate to everyone's opinion? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , You seem to have missed Colin's statement above that "I think it's entirely appropriate to quote the Church's own statements on LGBT issues for an article like this." -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Slugger, in light of these facts: I am once again removing this spam from the article. Wikipedia is not a promotional organ for your favorite organizations and it is not appropriate to contravene Wikipedia's fundamental policies in order to promote things. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 12:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No one other than you, at any time, has supported including this section, while several users have opposed it.
 * It is, as far as I can tell, a duplicate of the spam you added to Catholic teaching on homosexuality before that POV fork was eliminated by a strong consensus to which you were, again, the only objector.
 * You have been unable or unwilling to base this section on reliable, independent sources, and in fact have doubled down on adding sources affiliated with the subject.
 * You have refused to allow other users such as myself to edit your additions in order to bring them into compliance with fundamental Wikipedia policies like verifiability, and have instead insisted on re-adding factually false claims to the article, such as claiming that the church supports LGBT rights and opposes discrimination.
 * You have openly stated that you intend this section to "balance" out the verified claims in other sections about the church's opposition to LGBT rights laws, and that you view this as a point-of-view disagreement rather than a question of verified facts. ("Some say the earth is flat and some say that it is round! Wikipedia describes disputes, it does not engage in them.")

Recent edits by Slugger
Slugger, I gave my reasons for the changes I made (the claim that the church opposes criminal penalties for homosexuality is verifiably false, regardless of whatever press release you add to the contrary; articles should clearly state facts that relate to the article subject, not mumble vaguely about how sometimes ANYONE'S rights can be limited and sometimes people just coincidentally and unrelatedly are gay, you guys!; other claims that aren't verified or that are falsified by the cited sources; other promotional crud). I'm going to revert this addition of unverified and/or falsified material. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it, . Slugger, I'm reiterating what I said above. You are perilously close to the same situation that led to topic bans in other areas. I've had enough with ANI this past week and would love to avoid if we can. Star   Mississippi  14:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)