Talk:Stop the Church/Archive 1

Wafer versus eucharist
The bulk - if not all of the sources - say that a wafer was crumbled. Yet the article talks about "desecrating the eucharist". I would like the article to align as strongly as possible with the sources please. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * When we had this discussion before, you yourself noted that a majority of editors preferred Eucharist. I haven't seen that consensus change. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I was wrong in that instance. The majority of editors did not argue for eucharist. Only you did. So the onus is on you to clarify why despite the fact all the sources say something other than eucharist, we are obliged to use the word "eucharist"?Contaldo80 (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , That is incorrect. There was a consensus for Eucharist. If you wish to change the text, you must first change the consensus. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

There was no consensus for Eucharist slugger. Can you stop pretending something that is not true. You want Eucharist, I don’t want Eucharist. No one else apart from you has said they want Eucharist. This is not “consensus” - this is you being uncooperative. The sources do not say Eucharist - they say wafer. Take it to an administrators board if you believe there is genuine consensus and argue your case there. 23:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Slugger you took out my words which spoke about women’s rights (women’s “autonomy”) and replaced with your own words and the term “prolife” - which is a non neutral term to reflect those that oppose abortion rights. Either restore my source or find a more neutral way to describe the issue. Catholic’s aren’t “pro” life, they just block secular authorities form allowing birth control and family planning. 23:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Contaldo, as another editor pointed out to you just 48 hours ago, you have been editing long enough to know the rules. You can't just ignore them because you don't like the outcome. There is a consensus for Eucharist. It's not even a WP:SILENT consensus either, although after months of stability using the word "Eucharist" that certainly applies. In this case, you yourself agreed to use the word. If you have now changed your mind, as you apparently have, then you are welcome to try and change the consensus. Until you do, however, the text remains the same. I also explained my edit about using the word "rights." The source makes clear that the protesters were upset about abortion, not suffrage or the right to drive an automobile or some other right. Using an abortion related term clarifies the motivation for the protest. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me which sentence in the Brown source supports that statement " WHAM! opposed the public positions of the Church which they felt were hurtful to people with AIDS, such as O'Connor's statement that "Good morality is good medicine"and its prolife stance?" Are you actually telling me that the women of WHAM believed the catholic church was in favour (Pro) life and that they were against life? You know full well that "pro-life" is a weighted term - fine if those against abortion rights want to use it about themselves but please show some respect to other people - if these women were in favour of abortion rights then they were in favour of abortion rights - and they were not angry that someone else was "pro-life". I'm going to keep rejecting this change until we find a form of wording that aligns with the source. You moving anti-abortion to another part of the paragraph is bizarre. Secondly how dare you go following me around to other discussions that I might be having (and in which you have not been engaged) to try to embarass me? Finally there is no consensus for eucharist - only you want to use a religious term that is not used in the sources. Tell us why you think eucharist is correct - stop trying to hide behind "consensus". This just obfuscates. Be transparent. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am not "hiding" behind anything. Please review WP:CONSENSUS, one of the WP:Five pillars. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please state why you think the word Eucharist should be used? It's a simple question. Apart from "it should be used because it's consensus" even though you're the only editor in the history of wikipedia to argue for the inclusion of this specific word. Thank you in advance for your response. In any case to try and move this forward I have requested a third opinion from other editors and invite them to look at the source and help us work out the correct terminology so we don't risk violating NPOV rules.Contaldo80 (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , My position has not changed since the last time we had this discussion. I will repeat it here for you again:


 * "I explained my rational in the edit summary you cited. By saying 'communion wafer,' it is unclear if you are referring to the wafer before or after consecration. If it was before consecration, no one would take offense.  The reason Catholics consider the action to be a sacrilege is because it took place after consecration. Saying Eucharist over communion wafer eliminates the ambiguity.  All of that said, it was you who first added this material to the article, and you used the word Eucharist.  There was consensus for it, and the terminology stayed Eucharist for some time.  It is now you who is making a contested edit by trying to change it without first changing the consensus, and without taking it to talk.'"


 * I hope this clears things up for you. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

3O Response: As has said repeatedly that there is a consensus for use of "eucharist", it would be helpful to point out the discussion where such a consensus was established. If what is meant is just the principle of consensus through silence, that type of consensus ends as soon as the silence does&mdash;once someone objects, as here someone has, there no longer exists a consensus by that means. Without knowing where or how the consensus on the matter was established, it is essentially impossible to give an informed opinion as to its relevance. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Desecrating the eucharist" is POV. What they did was to spit out a communion wafer. How that was interpreted by catholics is a different matter. We should not confuse the two. Guy (help!) 08:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This article was spun of from Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality. We had the exact same discussion there. In that discussion, Contaldo stated  that "As a compromise I will leave in Eucharist too as long as I hope other editors note that this is a compromise and the view of a majority of editors." You are also correct that a silent consensus ends when someone complains, but the status quo remains until a new consensus forms. As I've said repeatedly, if one does form, I will abide by it. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , so a bad tempered argument between a couple of people, not consensus, as such. Thanks. Eucharist is a POV term of art. It will be less well understood by the general reader. I say that as one who was attending my god-daughter's first communion in a Catholic church when habemus papam was declared for Pope Francis.
 * Reading it again, I see the problem I think. As far as you are concerned, desecration is sacrilege, a mortal sin and probably far worse than merely protesting in the church. To a non-catholic, the response is "huh, so what". Most denominations do not subscribe to the doctrine of transubstantiation. It's just a symbol. The act was clearly designed to be provocative, yet your description of it requires knowledge of the arcana to understand why. I have tweaked the sentence to explain it, and avoided the POV term "eucharist" which, in non-Catholic churches means the entire service of communion or (more usually) is not used at all, so is inherently confusing in context - I have merely linked to host desecration. Guy (help!) 19:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Bravo! Exactly. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I disagree. You have one person explicitly stating a preference for it, a second who says it is an acceptable use, and a third who says he is willing to compromise and use the term. No one dissented. That looks like a consensus to me.


 * I also disagree that the word "Eucharist" is POV. This is not, for example, using the word to try to force a Catholic understanding of communion into another denomination's article. It is not, for example, using the word "ordinance" instead of "sacrament." This article is written in the Catholic context, and so using a Catholic term is perfectly appropriate.


 * Additionally, since I have not disclosed my religious affiliations on here, I'm not sure how you can be so sure what my mindset is. However, as a person of tolerance for others' religious views, I do find your comment about "magic bread" to be offensive. Even as a lover of cheeseburgers, I would say the same if you spoke of "magic cows" in a Hindu context.


 * Finally, while your tweak perhaps gets us a little closer, I don't think it is there yet. I think referring to it as a "host" is far more arcane and esoteric and saying Eucharist. I'm going to attempt another tweak to bring the verbiage WP:ONEDOWN. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , the article is host desecration, linking to that is clearly neutral as it does not overlay any personal preference or interpretation. As usual your "compromise" is virtually identical to your starting point. I remind you again: while you as a catholic may well be utterly outraged by host desecration, the average reader is unlikely to even understand why, let alone subscribe to that view. Your obsessive use of the term eucharist in a way that is specific only to the catholic church has no place on a neutral encycloipaedia. Guy (help!) 10:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I object to your reversion for a couple of reasons. First, I made a good faith effort here. I would appreciate a little good faith in return. Second, the compromise used your sentence structure, not mine. It was far closer to your preferred version than mine. I was obviously OK with the way it was before, but in the spirit of collaboration simply tweaked what you had. Third, and along those lines, WP:BRD says that since your bold edit was partially reverted, you should take the issue to talk. You should not just edit war your version back in.


 * Fourth, you threw the baby out with the bathwater. By simply reverting back to your preferred version, you reintroduced a sentence where the tenses don't match up. Fifth, you still refer to me as a Catholic, even after I told you I have not and will not identify as such on here. However, in my version I linked to Eucharist in the Catholic Church, which will explain non-Catholics why they found the action objectionable. I think that does more to explain to the average reader than your version.


 * Sixth, you did not address the issue of the lede. I cited the Manual of Style in explaining why I thought that sentence should be kept in there. I don't think "nope" is an adequate response. Seventh, I have explained why I don't think using the word Eucharist in this context is POV. You have not offered any explaination for why it is in an article about a Catholic mass. Finally, while I am not going to engage in an edit war over the word Eucharist, I will ask you to self revert until we can come to a new consensus. I am, however, going to fix the tenses as I imagine that should be uncontroversial. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , your good faith is not in doubt. The problem is that you're not listening to voices from outside your bubble. I already explained the ambiguity over eucharist, for example. Our article bears the common meaning, which is different from yours and will be understood by many as synonymous with the mass itself. Or, in many other cases, not understood at all. You're overlaying an in-universe meaning of a word, I'm leaving all words in their commonly understood meanings as per the article titles. If you can't see why that's a problem, I probably can't help you. And in my view argument from the manual of style is the worst possible argument: it comes a long way below WP:NPOV and use of plain language. All your edits do is add ambiguity in service of promoting catholic jargon. Guy (help!) 15:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

, When using words with multiple meanings, there is always the risk of confusion. That is why I pipelinked to Eucharist in the Catholic Church. Likewise, by just saying "communion wafer," you risk confusing people about whether or not it has been consecrated. As explained above, one is no problem while the other is. By saying Eucharist, you remove the ambiguity there. You are trading one ambiguity for another. Also, you also haven't explained why, after being reverted, you simply reinserted your preferred text instead of taking the issue to talk to build a consensus. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , but the pipe was completely unnecessary, because by simply sticking with the article titles we remove the ambiguity. There is simply no need for the catholic term of art. Neutrality and precision are not sacrificed by using the common terms as per the article titles. The only thing that's affected is your personal stylistic preference. Guy (help!) 18:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I respectfully disagree. As pointed out multiple times, communion wafer could mean before of after consecration. Will you consider self-reverting until we have a consensus per WP:BRD? --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course you disagree. But you are the one seeking to make a contested change so no we will leave it as-is unless anything changes. Guy (help!) 22:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Come on, Guy. You know that isn't true. You introduced new text. I partially reverted. You edit warred your preferred version back in without coming to talk first. It is you who is making a contested change, not me. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur that properly listing it as the Eucharist makes the most contextual sense, as if it wasn't a consecrated host then there would be no offense taken. The man intentionally Attempted to offend via religious means, thus the context and terminology should be properly referred to. For Catholics, it's not just a wafer, JzG is being obtuse by trying to ignore the significance of the action through a poor vocabulary choice. It's not a "term of art," it's a religious practice. Eucharist is the correct term here. Drassow (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , As you point out, if a change is contested then things stay the way they were before and, in this case, it is you who have made a contested change. I have asked several times for you to self-revert, most recently two days ago. I see you've made over 50 edits since then, but haven't been active here. While I was OK with the language the way it was before, as a gesture of good faith I am going to revert to my tweaked version of your language in the main. I'm also pasting it below, so that if you still wish then we can workshop it here and come to a consensus.


 * One protester, Tom Keane, "in a gesture large enough for all to see," spat the Eucharist out of his mouth, crumbled it into pieces, and dropped them to the floor, an act he expected to be shocking to Catholics as desecration.      


 * I look forward to working collaboratively with you on this. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I understand that you sinccerely believe that eucharist is the only acceptable term, but we already have language that is more widely understood and less confusing. When you pipe link to a term that is different from our existing article of the same name, it's usually an indication that you're doing it wrong. This is one of those times. Guy (help!) 14:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How is the term "eucharist" either confusing or poorly understood? It's exactly, as has been stated above, what's at issue. Abusing a "wafer" would generate no backlash. The terms are not exact synonyms and shouldn't be presented as such. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And actually when you read that article it's describing two separate things: eucharist in the commonly understood meaning, and the Blessed Sacrament, whihc is the bit that Slugger sees as synonymous with euicharist but I see as more synonymous with sacramental bread. The term "eucharist" is clearly ambiguous, in a way that the specific terms around sacramental bread are not. Guy (help!) 15:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Eucharist is used interchangeably here, it appears that you have a personal grudge at using the term that the Church uses, which when used properly gives a better idea of why the act was considered so offensive. This is because Catholics believe it's the Body and Blood of Christ, not just communion wafers. Just saying communion wafers in itself is more ambiguous because it does not elaborate on whether it had been consecrated, and if so, would no longer be considered to be a plain wafer, theologically speaking. You're being petty and obtuse. Drassow (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

, - summarised below. Guy (help!) 16:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I've seen the discussion at AN/I. No it should not say "eucharist", that means the whole service, yes it should say "communion wafer." Put "consecrated " before "communion wafer"if appropriate. Smeat75 (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

O'Connor role
Is there any other source that can back up the claim that "After the protest, in an effort to better understand the needs and concerns of the gay community, O'Connor began ministering to those dying of AIDS. He also supported others who did so." I note the source used is a publication of the Roman Catholic Church and may not meet tests around independent verification. If we can find an additional source then I would be happy to retain it but I am somewhat suspect that this is the reality of what happened. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I found solid evidence (in the NYT) that this predates the protest. I think all that happened was that the church made it public, in an attempt to try to neutralise criticism of hisa obvious animosity towards the gay community. Guy (help!) 08:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated Guy. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Two elements in dispute
There are two elements in dispute, and Slugger O'Toole's reverts treat them as one. They need to be separated.

Lead
Per, there are two versions of the lead: and
 * The protest was widely discussed, including being condemned by media outlets and national figures such as President George H.W. Bush. The protest became the pervasive subject in the news throughout the week. It was also headline news in several European countries. The protest changed the way Americans viewed the Catholic Church.
 * The protest was widely discussed, including being condemned by media outlets and national figures such as President George H.W. Bush. The protest, and one protester's desecration of the Eucharist, became the pervasive subject in the news throughout the week. It was also headline news in several European countries. The protest changed the way Americans viewed the Catholic Church.

In fact neither version is fully supported by the source, but the change Slugger is making is not supported by it at all. The source mentions the act only in passing, "" Note also tyhe terminology used.

As far as I can tell, there is no justification for inclusion of the text and one protester's desecration of the Eucharist in the lead, however we render that term. Guy (help!) 16:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I did justify the inclusion of this in the lede with this edit summary: "Per WP:LEDE, it should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." This was a major controversy." Would you care to respond to it now? --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * : citation needed. As noted above, the source absolutely does not support your assertion. Not one of the sources gives the desecration anything like the prominence of the protest itself. That is the effect of your edit. Even ignoring the POV way you obsessively include the word eucharist, your edit makes the claim that this act of desecration was on a par with the disruption itself as a source of its lasting significance. That is, as far as the sources cited in the article go, simply not true. To support your claim you'd need contemporaneous sources that treat the desecration as the primary subject and the protest as secondary, or at the very least give them equal prominence. None of the cited sources do this. All discuss the protest and some identify this as one of the things that happened during it. Guy (help!) 18:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , You are mistaken. There is a cited sentence in the body that explicitly makes this claim: "It was Keane's "act of sacrilege" which became the biggest news story in the days to come." If you look at the ACT UP capsule history source you will find "The news media choose to focus on, and distort, a single Catholic demonstrator's personal protest involving a communion wafer." Also, if you read Keane's interview. he mentions that a photo of the incident made the cover of Newsday and made the news as far away as Turkey. That is three existing sources, both primary and secondary, that say it was at least as big of a news story. I tried finding the Newsday cover and couldn't, but did find other sources saying that it became a major storyline and controversy. I trust it won't be necessary to add a fourth, fifth, or sixth source  --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So that's one affiliated source. But you're asserting lead-level coverage, on a par with the protest itself, so that would have to be supported by several reliable independent sources as having the prominence you give it. Guy (help!) 19:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have added five more sources, plus the three existing. I trust this is sufficient. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

So, in detail: All these are minor sources. Catholic sources, gay magazines, Marxism Today. All activists. And most of them ';'still don't support what you're trying to say''. At best we could include "and desecration" (without your favourite piped link). It looks very much like you had to be an actual Catholic to find this particularly shocking. And maybe that was the point.
 * A Catholic podcast
 * A reference to the word "desecration" that is not in any way specific.
 * A statement that "for many Irish Americans the protest of ACT UP, was read as pollution of the most sacred rite of communion"
 * One decent source that actually makes it clear that the stories of spitting the host out are inaccurate
 * An ex-Catholic: "New Yorkers and the mediawere shocked,  and  the  dis-ruption and desecration domi-nated  the  city's  conscious-ness   for   a   week. "

Again, I get that you are outraged by this part of it, but it's pretty clear that the actual story is the priests who cared more about a piece of bread than about the AIDS crisis. Guy (help!) 20:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , First, it's obvious you didn't read all of the sources. I have made it clear that all of them talk about how the incident dominated news coverage, to wit:
 * The news coverage in that night and in following days was dominated by the desecration of the host.
 * Although 111 people were arrested, the news media focused on and distorted a single Catholic demonstrator's personal protest invilving a communion wafer.
 * The single incident, considered an act of sacrilege by many, has since consumed reams of newsprint..
 * Secondly, I have sources from both "sides," both a Catholic publication with a circulation of 50,000 and a gay magazine that was "was widely considered the leading voice of AIDS activism." And, for good measure, there is a publication that is neither gay nor Catholic. In addition, there is an academic book and journal publisher.  All say the same thing: this was a major story. Whether or not you or I or the pope found it shocking is not the point. The point is that it was a major controversy.
 * Finally, I do find any act of sacrilege against any religious group to be outrageous. I also find your comment about "magic bread" and "priests who cared more about a piece of bread than about the AIDS crisis" to be incongruous with your statement that you "do not tolerate racism, or any kind of bigotry." -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If you arte not outraged by the sacrilege then your relentless determination to include it in the lead with specifically catholic terms of art is simply WP:OWNership. In terms of the lasting impact of that specific part of the protecst, it is, objectively, negligible. This is about an event that had historical impact, and it was the protest itself that had the historical impact, as all the sources make abundantly clear. Your idea of compromise is to get your owin way. We saw that at, where you were topic banned as a result. Guy (help!) 07:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , In WP:LEDE we read that it " should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." This was a prominent controversy, as demonstrated by multiple sources. Whether or not that specific part of the protest had longstanding impact is beside the point. It was a major part of the event. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , as indeed it now does: it was not a one-week controversy, it had a lasting impact. I made that clear with my edit. Of course you then reverted to your single preferred version. I completely understand that as far as you are concerned, the desecration seems to be the most significant and outrageous part of this. The problem you have is that the lens of history does not show it that way. Guy (help!) 16:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Again, however I may feel about it is irrelevant. Look again at what the sources say about it:
 * "...consumed reams of newsprint..."
 * "...the news media focused on..."
 * "The news coverage in that night and in following days was dominated by..."
 * "The coverage most prominently featured..."
 * "...came to represent the entire demonstration in the eyes of the media and the public."
 * This is clearly a prominent controversy, which should be enough to include it in the lede. Even to apply your standard of a lasting impact, the fact that it is being discussed as late as 2015, 2017, and 2019 shows that it has. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy - you have to realise that Slugger will always revert to their own single preferred version - and that will always be the one that is most sympathetic to the Roman Catholic Church. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Except,, even four days after JzG went silent in this conversation, I have not reverted back, even though it was the last stable version. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "...came to represent the entire demonstration in the eyes of the media and the public."
 * This is clearly a prominent controversy, which should be enough to include it in the lede. Even to apply your standard of a lasting impact, the fact that it is being discussed as late as 2015, 2017, and 2019 shows that it has. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Guy - you have to realise that Slugger will always revert to their own single preferred version - and that will always be the one that is most sympathetic to the Roman Catholic Church. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Except,, even four days after JzG went silent in this conversation, I have not reverted back, even though it was the last stable version. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Except,, even four days after JzG went silent in this conversation, I have not reverted back, even though it was the last stable version. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Host desecration / Eucharist
There are several terms discussed above: I have just change the (unlinked) "communion wafer" to (linked) sacramental bread. The sources all describe the act of spitting or crumbling the wafer. Eucharist in the Catholic Church describes both Eucharist as normally understood and Blessed Sacrament, a distinction that Slugger's edits do not make but which the linked article does. The article Slugger links has a hatnote: "For the Eucharistic Celebration or Mass in the Roman Rite of the Church, see Mass (Catholic Church)." Eucharistic celebration is exactly how most, including many Catholics, will interpret the term Eucharist, and the linked article actually only makes it more confusing by distinguishing the Eucharistic celebration from the Blessed Sacrament in the lead. Again, "sacramental bread" is completely unambiguous, and the sources specifically mention bread, whereas the Sacrament and Slugger's usage of Eucharist are both bread and wine.
 * Host desecration
 * communion wafer → sacramental bread
 * Eucharist
 * Eucharist in the Catholic Church

It seems to me that sacramental bread is (a) accurate, (b) unambiguous, (c) supported by the sources and (d) requires no piped links, so is consistent with the "principle of least astonishment". I added text, which Slugger does not appear to dispute, to explain that this would be seen by Catholics as host desecration. I am happy to further expand this by clarifying it as "host desecration, a form of sacrilege", or similar. But changing it to "desecration of the Eucharist" is inherently confusing IMO because most non-Catholic and some Catholics would require additional explanation to understand the distinction between disrupting communion and desecration of the Eucharist, whereas disrupting communion and host desecration are obviously distinct without further thought. Is Eucharist in the Catholic Church a separately interesting concept? Yes it is. I added it in "see also".

Slugger demands the satus quo ante and does not appear willing to compromise on his preferred wording. I've made several incremental improvements which he accepts, but this acceptance is apparently conditional on overlaying his preferred terminology, which I find jarring and ambiguous and am confident many other readers will as well (indeed, this is implicit in the need for the piped links). Guy (help!) 16:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, Guy. I do accept some of your incremental changes, although they necessitated the inclusion of a pipelink to which you now object. However, and as you alluded to above, when there is WP:NOCONSENSUS, we do stay with the status quo until there is a new consensus. You yourself alluded to it above, and yet seem to ignore the issue every time that I bring up the fact that it is you making a contested edit, not me. I don't want to edit war over this, but I left a comment here on talk for two days with no response from you. Then, when I made a partial reversion, you immediately swooped back in and changed to your preferred text. That does not seem to me to be particularly collaborative editing. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't particularly object to the pipelink, it merely seemed gratuitous to have multiple links to the same target. The status quo ante argiument does not apply after credible policy-based rationales for removal of disputed content have been given, and in fact you're not reverting to the status quo ante anyway, you're leaving the bits you like. Guy (help!) 18:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Could you please cite for me the policy that says "status quo ante argiument does not apply after credible policy-based rationales for removal of disputed content have been given?" I don't find anything like that in WP:NOCON. Also, I would be perfectly happy to go back to the original text but left most of your formulation as a gesture of good faith towards you. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:ONUS. Guy (help!) 20:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yes, there I read that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." It is you who is seeking to include disputed content. There was a consensus to include the word Eucharist. I have not seen a consensus form to the contrary. In that case we "[retain] the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Would you like to go back to the version before you started editing until we can come up with a new consensus? -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a novel interpretation of your continual re-addition of your preferred text. Guy (help!) 07:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Then please show me, with difs, where the longstanding text was that did not include Eucharist. Please show me where the consensus was not to use it. And please show me where I attempted to insert the word but was reverted. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, please show me where in ONUS it says that "status quo ante argiument does not apply after credible policy-based rationales for removal of disputed content have been given." -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , see WP:CPUSH. And stop doing that. Guy (help!) 16:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose use of the term "eucharist" in favor of "communion wafer" which is much less ambiguous and much easier for people unfamiliar with Roman Catholic practices to understand. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose mostly use of the term "eucharist". I actually think there is probably a version that first uses wafer but explains that Catholics consider is a eucharist and that is why the reporting was the way it was.  Also it is very difficult to verify content when there are so many refs for one sentence.  A quick look did not verify that the protester intentionally offered any offence.AlmostFrancis (talk) 03:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , he may not have premeditated the act, but your edit removed any reference to the host desecration article. As I don't think that was your intent, would you like to come up with new language that restores the link? -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Include "consecrated" and either "host" or "communion wafer". "Sacramental bread" is a more general term for both wafers (unleavened) and prosphora (leavened bread). Cheers, gnu 57 04:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC) Edit: I have no objection to also including the term "Eucharist". gnu 57  16:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point - consecrated is of particular significance in the Catholic trradition. I added this. Guy (help!) 07:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It's "desecration of the Eucharist". That's what happened. That's what's described. Claims that the terms "desecration" and "Eucharist" are somehow inappropriate in terms of being... I don't even know what. "Too pro-Catholic?" The claims make no sense to me at all. The terms are well known and mean what they mean. There's no reason to dance around with euphemisms. It's also rather maddening to see casual references in the talk page made against the church that was protested and in support of the protesters. I'm not accusing anybody here of deliberately putting bias into the article. However, this isn't a forum to debate whether or not the protest was justified and such casual references are disappointing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , odd, then, that the cited sources call it host desecration. Guy (help!) 23:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Not true. There is a variety of formulations. You removed a source that used "desecrated the Eucharist." The Carroll source, which remains, also uses those words. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia weighs sources by objective indicia of reliability, not by whether they contain the texty we want to include. The source I rmeoved was this: https://aleteia.org/about-us/ - a religious news blog hosted on Wordpress. Guy (help!) 11:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You're still misrepresenting sources, which don't all use the exact same terminology and don't all match a particular aversion to certain words. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think you misunderstand. The fact that some catholic sources use "desecration of the Eucharist" is not in dispute, the question is whether that is a better term to use on Wikipedia, given that Eucharist is understood significantly differently by Catholics (especially traditionalist ones) to the rest of the Christian community. There is at least one source that uses the exact words "host desecration", and that's what our article is titled. That term is not ambiguous at all, it will be understood by pretty much any Christian even if they might prefer a different term (e.g. desecration of the sacrament). Guy (help!) 18:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support usage of Eucharist. That is the contextual crux as to why the action was considered controversial, and is referring to a Catholic practice in a Catholic church. In such an environment, the theological vocabulary is the most clear terminology given the location of the event. Drassow (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Using language like "desecration of the Eucharist", unnecessarily dramatizes and could mean anything.  Better formulations can be used, like mentioning the actual act (a defiant statement that may have been considered insulting to some, the quote seems to be included here).  The text there also uses host, it seems.  Desecration is still problematic, as like sacrilege or blasphemy, it would only be considered as such by some.  This reminds me of a friend who told me she wanted to attend communion at a different church and that the priest was infuriated because she said "thank you", instead of the expected formula...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 21:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think that host desecration is acceptable in context (I just added the link as "Keane's act of host desecration) because it explains why that specific act was especially controversial. It is definitely tied into the way Catholics view the consecration, which is not the same as other denominations. I think that passes NPOV without issues. But I am not going to die ont hat particular hill. Guy (help!) 23:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It at least seems less pointy... — Paleo  Neonate  – 10:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Where on earth are you getting the notion that the terminology "could mean anything"? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know about "anything" necessarily but there are plenty of way's to "profane" the eucharist. Some would argue that he desecrated the Eucharist just by going up to the priest as per catholic teaching he was in a state of "mortal" sin for any number of reasonsAlmostFrancis (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC).
 * Yes, I didn't think it would be necessary to mention even more vulgar or objectionable ways to offend. — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Other Christian faiths that celebrate the "Eucharist" are Anglican, Lutheran, and occasionally the Methodists. It is also practiced in the Eastern Orthodox Church (which has a baptized membership of 260 million see first paragraph). Also the Eucharist is the principle sacrament of the Eastern Orthodox Church ([ 2nd paragraph). The Roman Catholic faith has about 1.3 billion baptized members. So this is a practice that seems to be common, even in Protestant faiths. ---[[User:Steve Quinn|Steve Quinn]] (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, but in the Anglican communion, and every other non-Roman church I know, the Eucharist is the service of communion, whereas Slugger's meaning is the consecrated host. That's the point. Say "desecration of the Eucharist" to an Anglican and they will not really know what you mean, but will assume it's something to do with disrupting the service of communion (see our article on Eucharist). The idea of desecration of a consecrated sacramental host is readily understood I think, and we have an article on host desecration that fits. Slugger's claim is that Eucharist here can be synonymous with Eucharist in the Catholic Church (note the difference to the main Eucharist article), but even that has two inconsistent meanings of the term, but the service and the consecrated offerings. And Anglicans and others don't subscribe to the doctrine of transubstantiation and that makes a huge difference in this instance. Wikipedia is written for a general audience and we should not throw in unnecessary head-scratchers or jargon when the article titles we have - eucharist, host desecration - are already neutral and represent common plain-language meanings. (caveat: I have not checked with my Orthodox friends, but am familiar with Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, Reformed and Lutheran as a reasonably regular visitor to all of them) Guy (help!) 18:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. I didn't notice there was a difference in the usage of the word. I think using "Eucharist" is too limiting and POV at this point. Wikipedia is for general audiences. I think "host desecration" is the most accurate. Also, in this above posted source the protest is the main subject, crumbling the wafer is mentioned in one sentence, and "Eucharist" is not used at all. Did this really cause a memorable outrage? I see too many sources attached to this one incident. I think I will be reviewing the sources and off-hand I don't see the need for that many references for that one incident during the protest. I won't be able to do it now, however. Regards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , heh. Yes, it's easy to miss in all the verbioage above. Guy (help!) 07:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support usage of Eucharist - This is a simple English word, dating in our language for a millenium, and included in standard dictionaries. Here is what my Macintosh's free included dictionary that comes with the OS has to say: "Eucharist | ˈyo͞ok(ə)rəst | noun | the Christian ceremony commemorating the Last Supper, in  which bread and wine are consecrated and consumed. | • the consecrated elements, especially the bread. | The bread and wine are referred to as the body and blood of Christ, though much theological controversy has focused on how substantially or symbolically this is to be interpreted. The service of worship is also called Holy Communion or (chiefly in the Protestant tradition) the Lord's Supper or (chiefly in the Catholic tradition) the Mass or (chiefly in the Eastern Orthodox tradition) the Divine Liturgy. See also consubstantiation, transubstantiation."  This free dictionary included on every Apple iPhone, iPad and Mac is the New Oxford American Dictionary.  Quite the mainstream consumer product, I dare say.  Per the same dictionary, the word comes from Middle English.  It was imported to England from France by William the Conqueror.  So, a one-thousand year-old word among the English-speaking people.  May I suggest those uncomfortable with the word Eucharist are perhaps, not very conversant with this quite standard word, but that if they made themselves acquainted with it perhaps they might not object to it very much? XavierItzm (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , see above. We're not saying the word can't be used, we're saying that the term of art "desecration of the Eucharist" is less well understood than host desecration", because most people understand Eucharist in the meaning of the linked article, i.e. the entire service, whereas Slugger intends it to mean one (only) of the two overlapping meanings in Eucharist in the Catholic Church, where it is defined as meaning either the service or the consecrated sacramental offerings. And that's way too specific, whereas host desecration is unambiguous. Guy (help!) 19:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The important thing is - what do the sources say? Wikipedia only reports what the sources say. And it seems the murkiness of the Eucharist's definition is supported by theological controversy surrounding the substantial or symbolic interpretation - as stated above. Also, the Eucharist including drinking the symbolic blood (wine) means that is saying more than what happened. All that happened was the wafer was crumbled. There was nothing about drink. So perhaps Eucharist is overstating the matter. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , The sources (as added by Slugger) say:
 * Miller, Andrew; Wockner, Rex (December 24, 1989). "AIDS/ Abortion Rights Demo Halts High Mass at St. Pat's" (PDF). Out Week (2). p. 2. "The single incident, considered an act of sacrilege by many, has since consumed reams of newsprint..." Also describes the Eucharist as "the central ritual" (i.e. uses the plain meaning not the esoteric one)
 * Munt, Sally R. (September 29, 2017). Queer Attachments: The Cultural Politics of Shame. Taylor & Francis. p. 95. ISBN 978-1-351-90715-6. Retrieved April 21, 2020. "Although 111 people were arrested, the news media focused on and distorted a single Catholic demonstrator's personal protest involving a communion wafer."
 * "Going to Extremes". Out. Here Publishing. June 2001. pp. 122–123. ISSN 10627928 Parameter error in : Invalid ISSN.. Retrieved April 21, 2020. "The news coverage in that night and in following days was dominated by the desecration of the host." Does not contain the word eucharist, according to searches.
 * Wockner, Rex. "Cardinal Sins" (PDF). Marxism Today. No. March 1990. p. 49. Retrieved April 21, 2020. Refers only to "liturgy of the Eucharist", so again the plain meaning not the esoteric one.
 * Shaw, Randy (1996). The Activist's Handbook: A Primer for the 1990s and Beyond. University of California Press. pp. 222–223. ISBN 978-0-520-20317-4. Retrieved April 21, 2020. "The coverage most prominently featured the person who threw the wafer;" also refers to desecration of the host, no mention of the word eucharist that I can see.
 * Cohen, Peter F. (January 14, 2014). Love and Anger: Essays on AIDS, Activism, and Politics. Routledge. p. 27. ISBN 978-1-317-71225-1. Retrieved April 21, 2020. "...the crumbling of a communion wafer by just one member came to represent the entire deomnstration in the eyes of the media and the public." Again, no mention of eucharist that I can find.
 * "Desecration of the host" is clearly valid as a source for host desecration. The rest say "wafer". None of them, as far as I can see, support any mention of the esoteric meaning of Eucharist. At all. Doubtless you could find it by assiduous quote-mining, but we're not supposed to decide what we want to say and then go looking for sources for it, we're supposed to read the sources and then summarise them. Guy (help!) 08:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , We can only write what the sources say, but that does not mean we blindly follow their style. There are several New York Times references int he article. If we were to follow them then we would call him "Mr. Keane." On Wikipedia we omit the "Mr." Also, as previously noted, there are sources that say Eucharist. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , enough sealioning. Guy (help!) 20:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again, that terminology is too limited and probably POV - especially based on the sources.---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Compromise I propose a compromise. Place the words ("or Eucharist") in between the phrase "act of host desecration." So the sentence will look like this:
 * "It was Keane's act of host (or Eucharist) desecration which became the biggest news story in the days to come." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If it is acceptable we can write Eucharist with a small "e" if that is prefered. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Or change the wording a bit and say ...the act of desecrating the host (or Eucharist) which.... Steve Quinn (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The arguments offered for using only the name Eucharist are unconvincing to me. The arguments for using "host" (or some other name more likely to be identifiable by a broad group of readers) seem clear, and that would be fine with me.  The proposed compromise (including both) seems eminently reasonable, as well.  --JBL (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Support usage of Eucharist per XavierItzm. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Compromise > wafer > Eucharist > host: for what it's worth, as someone who is not Catholic, not Christian, and who has never been Christian, I understand "desecration of the Eucharist" more readily than "host desecration" because "host" in that phrase is also a jargon term, and one that also has a common English meaning which is totally unrelated to its jargon meaning here. The way I would phrase the act at issue here is "desecration of a consecrated communion wafer" but I understand "desecration of the Eucharist" just fine, which is not true of "host desecration" (which I have to take a second to think about every time). In this particular case, I feel like the phrasing "desecration of a consecrated communion wafer (or Eucharist)" is the best compromise, but would support either the "consecrated communion wafer" phrasing or the "Eucharist" phrasing. (Also: "sacramental bread" is not a phrase I have heard before, and while in context it's clear what it means, trying to parse it gives me the same pause as "host", which means I put it down at the bottom with "host".) Loki (talk) 03:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * > This: "host" in that phrase is also a jargon term, and one that also has a common English meaning which is totally unrelated to its jargon meaning here. So right.  I like your proposed compromise of "desecration of a consecrated communion wafer (or Eucharist)". XavierItzm (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , the "(or Eucharist)" is completely superfluous. What's there is already a comprmoise version: it's been adjusted half a dozen times to try to meet one editor halfway. Guy (help!) 07:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You have chosen to ignore 's valuable insight. Not a good look.XavierItzm (talk) 07:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , you have chosen to ignore the fact that our article is host desecration, our article on Eucharist does not support the esoteric Catholic meaning, our cited sources don't use the term in this way (see analysis above), and I already included a link to the esopteric meaning as a see-also, Eucharist in the Catholic Church. Not a good look. Guy (help!) 08:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose use of the word Eucharist. There is no evidence to suggest that the protester believed it was the actual Body of Christ they were crumbling. I don't believe as a reader that it was the actual Body of Christ. Only Catholics would believe it to be the Eucharist - non-Catholics would not recognise it as the Eucharist (the physical body of Christ). Contaldo80 (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Informal survey
The purpose here is to conduct an informal survey on a "compromise" previously mentioned in the above discussion. The goal is to develop consensus and place the supported phrasing in the article. Hence, I noticed there is a small agreement for a compromise version that includes the contentious word "Eucharist".

The compromise, proposed by Loki seems to be: "desecration of a consecrated communion wafer (or Eucharist)" . I also had a compromise version but have decided to support this one instead. It appears that also supports this version. So that is three editors who support this version. seemed to support my original compromise and hopefully he will support this one. If so, that would be four editors. But I am not going to count my chickens before they hatch. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Now I will endeavor to ping everyone else who has participated in the above section. Thanks to everybody in advance. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, , , and.
 * ,, , , and.

Survey
For this survey please either "support" or "oppose" the above proposed compromise. (I will begin)
 * Support - as nominator. This seems to be a well crafted compromise that seems to account for both of sides of this issue. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, with links: I will support this compromise with some small tweaks. First, remove the parenthetical "or." Second, pipelink Eucharist to Blessed Sacrament to avoid confusion about whether or not we are talking about a physical object or the entire service. Finally, pipelink "act of desecration" to Host desecration. It would thus read "It was Keane's act of desecration of a consecrated communion wafer (Eucharist)..." Thank you, Steve, for moving this conversation along. I feared we had become stuck in the muck. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, with links the version recommended by but willing to have it without.  After all, while piping Eucharist is the most commonsensical thing to do, it is not quite necessary.  Like I said before, the word Eucharist has been used by the English-speaking people for a millennium already and while encyclopaedias should strive to provide links, people with a command of the language shouldn't need it. XavierItzm (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I proposed it originally, so obviously support. I slightly prefer my phrasing with or without the links to Slugger's but would support either. Loki (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, an amendment: I think it would make more sense to link Eucharist to Eucharist or sacramental bread than to Blessed Sacrament. I don't think Blessed Sacrament unambiguously refers to the bread either, so we should either link things to their names if we don't care about that, or link specifically to the article about the bread if we do. Loki (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well said and fully agree. XavierItzm (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , If the sentence is going to specifically mention the wafer, then I think that should be enough context to make the pipelink clear. I read sacramental bread and I don't think it conveys as well why this would be an issue of such importance to Catholics. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, with links, seconding Slugger O&#39;Toole's request on formatting and adding proper contextual article links. Drassow (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What Slugger stated - I can understand and support wording things as "It was Keane's act of desecration of a consecrated communion wafer (Eucharist)", as stated above, though I'd also support the last link going to simply 'Eucharist' as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary and coinfusing but whatever. Since Slugger is clearly never going to accept any outcome other than to describe the host as a eucharist, and we actually had to topic ban him last time he went on one of these crusades, I am going to give up in disgust. Guy (help!) 22:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , This is not my first, second, or probably even tenth choice in how to phrase it, nor am I the person who proposed it either formally or informally. I'm also not the only person who favors using Eucharist, and couldn't hold up a consensus on my own anyway, but thanks for the collaboration. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , a large number of editors have been debating things back and forth for a while now in the context of a diversity of opinions. It's unhelpful in the extreme to, first, pretend as if it's a matter of one person engaged in an individual struggle with another and, second, to view this as a sort of solitary duel in the sense of a war or something where one person achieves 'victory' and the other 'defeat'. That approach couldn't possibly seem more wrong in terms of the above discussion in this particular section, which reflects normal, civil talking between different users. For what it's worth, I do think that your perspective has been an important one in the overall debates. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , no more pings, thanks. Guy (help!) 09:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Guy. Slugger will always go for the form of words that is most likely to align with the teaching and practice of the Roman Catholic church. Let's not pretend otherwise. Would the compromise form or words above be acceptable to Propaganda Fide? Oh yes it would. The effect of the sentence is to portray gay activists as callous perpetrators, and Catholics as innocent victims. In the 1980s this sort of approach went well in the media; I would have thought we could do better on wikpedia today. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Neutral My proposal (as above) would be to describe what happened in more detail rather than present it as a sacrilege or blasphemy (like desecration). — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, with links, per Drassow. BTW, I wasn't pinged either.Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It has been several days and Steve's proposal seems to have garnered wide support. There also seems to be support for my modifications. Of those Steve pinged, Bill the Cat and Contaldo have not responded but only appear to be sporadically active. I don't think it is feasible to wait for them. Joel, Thaddeus, Cullen, Francis, and GNU have all been active but for whatever reason have chosen not to participate in this poll. I am going to move this to the main. Thanks to all those who participated, particularly Steve for getting us to this point. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hang on - I wasn't pinged. I am also "sporadically active" because I really don't like editing alongside you. I don't feel you exhibit neutral behaviours and I think you know that. Steve had "(or Eucharist)". Why do you think you can remove the "or" unilaterally? I still don't feel that "Keane's act of desecration..." is neutral. I would argue that a genuinely neutral approach would have "It was Keane's crumbling of a consecrated communion wafer (Eucharist)... This is what happened. He crumbled it. He didn't believe that he desecrated it and I don't believe that he desecrated. Because science tells us it was a piece of ordinary bread which some people (contrary to rational scientific evidence) believe was sacred. Your rush to lock things down Slugger betrays your sympathies. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , it was far from unilateral. XavierItzm, Loki, Drassow, and CoffeeWithMarkets all agreed with me. Also, if you feel so strongly about this, you should be reverting back to the last stable language, which is where it stood a month ago. What Keane or you or the pope or anyone else thinks is irrelevant. We follow the sources. That said, if you can gain consensus for your preferred version, I will gladly abide by it. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "We follow the sources". But almost every one of the sources Slugger omits the word "Eucharist" and uses terms such as "host" instead. I'm all for following the sources - that's my original point. You are the one wanting keenly to use a word that most of the sources simply do not use. And I am puzzled as to why this word matters so much to you? Contaldo80 (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , As has been demonstrated, the sources use a variety of formulations, including Eucharist. Also, as has been explained to you ad nauseum, it is to eliminate ambiguity about why it caused offense. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was getting ready to go through this and parse what the consensus is. But since wasn't pinged (which is my mistake) I think we should wait a few more days to see if other editors are going to add something. This is Wikipedia - it's still going to be here a month from now. Then please let me decide what the consensus is first as that was my original intention. There seem to be some differences. The last language we had before I jumped in and started a new "survey" was as it is now - there was consensus for that at 7 to 5 if I remember correctly. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem Steve. To be honest I appreciate your engagement. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think 7 to 5 shows a lack of consensus, but I won't edit this again until you do. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This "interruption" allowed me to review JBL's last remark regarding the compromise . It seems he has agreed with "both" words in the sentence. So, I am counting that as support for the surveyed version above. If anyone disagrees let me know. I will go ahead and ping him again. Or someone else can. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Consensus
I was about to do the "consensus" thing. Then I noticed that said they weren't pinged either. So, I am going to ping the others, just to do it right. Sorry it took this long to notice Bill the Cat's most recent entry. I have been feeling ill these last few days. (Nothing to worry about and not covid-19 related. I'm feeling better today). So I guess, please, just bear with me. Hopefully, that's everybody. If anyone notices a discrepancy, please say so or simply ping the the person. But, I think that is everyone. Maybe I should leave a note on their talk page. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, , and.
 * This discussion is almost completely unfollowable at this point. However, if you're asking about the wording "It was Keane's act of host (or Eucharist) desecration which became the biggest news story in the days to come." or similar, that is fine with me: I object to using exclusively the word "Eucharist" to describe the communion wafer (because the potential audience for this article is very broad, not limited to people raised in the particular jargon of the Catholic church). --JBL (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have already made my opinion clear and it has not changed. I oppose capitalized "Eucharist" in this context when something like "communion wafer" is both clearer and more neutral. This is not an article in a Roman Catholic publication. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  17:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for responding. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Slugger O'Toole, I don't have a problem with your most recent edits.---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel I do need to challenge Slugger O'Toole yet again I'm afraid. Above he insists that the use of "Eucharist" is following the sources. But the vast majority of sources do not use the word Eucharist - it is very misleading to push this point. We may decide ourselves for whatever reason that the term "Eucharist" should be used; but we should not be doing it on the basis that it's something that the sources themselves commonly use. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, the consensus at this point seems to support placing the word "Eucharist" in the article by agreement, not by sources. So, I'm not going to pretend otherwise. The idea behind this informal survey is there are strong feelings about having the word "Eucharist" in the article. If you strongly disagree, I can only recommend that you open a formal RFC linked to a centralized discussion. For my part, I was hoping to avoid a formal RFC, which is why I opened an informal survey. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Let us know if you are intending to open an RFC, otherwise I am going to proceed with this. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It may be necessary to conduct a RFC. It's just not apparent to me about why the word "eucharist" should be used if it's not really in the sources? No arguments have been set out as to why it's critical to use this particular word - what is the objective? I can see that it is the personal preference of some editors to use the word but we risk inserting non-neutral language unless we can be sure about why we it's needed at all. You might also want to see my comments below that throw doubt about the extent to which Keane was actually involved - it's not clear that he did "desecrate" anything if he simply let it drop to the floor. I think we need to try and resolve these issues before we move too quickly. Slugger has also begun inserting "eucharist" in more than one place in the article so we have to treat all those instances within the scope of discussion. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

What the article currently says
This is the paragraph under discussion:
 * One protester, Tom Keane, took the consecrated communion wafer from the priest, crumbled it into pieces, and dropped the pieces to the floor.       He then laid on the floor of the church in an attempt to prevent others from receiving Communion and was later arrested. It was Keane's act of host desecration which became the biggest news story in the days to come.      Years later, Keane said he decided to act in the moment and, while in hindsight he might not have repeated the act, he felt no regret.

Leaving aside the refbombing, which can be pruned, what is actually wrong with this, other than the fact that one editor insists that we must say Desecration of the Eucharist instead of host desecration ? I checked the sources and didn't find any use of the exact term of art Slugger mandates - in fact I think the text above closely matches what the sources say. Aside: I don't think we should capitalise Communion. That seems a bit precious. If we absolutely must include the word eucharist, that would seem to be the place to put it. Guy (help!) 09:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Again, there are sources that refer to it as "desecration of the Eucharist," including Carroll (number 5 above). Also, there is more than one editor in favor of Eucharist. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, there are editors in favour of including the word, but I don't see anyone supporting your specific piped link as the One True Term for it, and the consensus is overwhelmingly against inclusion of that phrase. So the remianing question is, if we do include the word eucharist, in addition toit he existing "see also", where should it go. I would argue that it might be reasonable to replace communion in the existing text with eucharist . That seems fine. But the bulk of the sources absolutely do not use your preferred term for host desecration, and, again, consensus above is pretty clearly that we should not either.
 * So, replace communion, as above? I'd consider that a suitable resolution. Guy (help!) 13:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't see an overwhelming consensus one way or the other. I see five users who have come out in favor of Eucharist (Slugger O'Toole, Drassow, CoffeeWithMarkets, XavierItzm, and Bill the Cat 7). I see six editors who oppose it (Contaldo, JzG, Cullen328, AlmostFrancis, gnu57, and PaleoNeonate). I see two users who have argued to use both Eucharist and another word in various formulations (Steve Quinn and Loki). Again, as was pointed out by, Loki, and Steve on ANI, I think the solution here is to follow WP:NOCON and revert to the last stable language until we can come to a new consensus. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , As a more substantive reply to your proposal, I am a bit confused. Why would Eucharist be acceptable in place of communion, but not in place of host? Certainly more people will understand what is meant by "communion" (which also has other meanings) in this context than will understand "host." -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I already explained this about 20 times. But if you don't think the change is worth making then I won't. Not a problem for me. Guy (help!) 18:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, said the overwhelming  number of sources  do not support using the word Eucharist - in other words, they don't use it. JzG wasn't referring to editor consensus. My preference is to not use the word Eucharist because it is limited and UNDUE or POV. But I offered a compromise to see if there would be agreement. So, I am not for it.


 * And I don't see any support for piping that word to the Catholic definition. In fact, that will not work because there are other Christian denomination that also use that word for their sacrament, and which is slightly different. So piping like that seems to me, to be POV pushing.
 * JzG, the sources seem to be fine, as far as I can tell. There may be too many of them though, as you and I both noted..---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * JzG, now I remember. I'm not sure if that one incident where the protester crumbled the host shaped the coverage of the entire protest. I mean, it is only one incident within a highly volatile event. So, what we have in the article might be WP:OR in saying - "Keane's act of host desecration which became the biggest news story in the days to come." Also, I'm noticing that sentence is vague using weasel words "the biggest news story". Who determined that this was the biggest news story? I'm not sure the sources support that view. That sounds more like POV pushing to me. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I can tell you who determined that: ., a sockpuppet of.
 * I think the "removed sources" are in this edit? . Of these, I would exclude Crux (I'd only use them for uncontroversial facts about the Catholic church). No real view on the NPR source.Guy (help!) 21:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , JzG spoke of editors, not sources, but there is no consensus for a formulation among either. Also, the last stable version of the text did not include a pipelink to Eucharist in the Catholic Church. I added that to JzG's formulation in an effort to move the ball forward. I see piping to it as explanatory, not POV pushing. Could you explain why you feel that way?
 * Finally, plenty of sources talk about it being a major story, as noted above, and I believe the podcast called it the biggest. How would you word it instead? -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * However, there is a consensus for keeping the article in its present state by at least 7 against "Eucharist" and about 5 support, all with their own rationale. There are two who seem to have only expressed support for a compromise. At least this was my last count. That is counting me of preferring not using the word Eucharist. However, I am willing to compromise in the end.
 * How I would word that sentence - is simply remove that sentence. It seems unnecessary and it is difficult to quantify. It is nebulous wording, it seems to be puffery - see wp:peacock. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that it appears that a large group of editors want there to be some sort of compromise, wouldn't simply removing the section (thereby preventing the compromise when it's still being hashed out from coming to its conclusion) be illogical? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It can't be puffery when it is not at all the type of word wp:peacock discusses. Therefore wp:peacock does not and cannot apply.  Furthermore, a common, 1000-year old English word simply can't be puffy nor used for puffery.  It's a plain noun that's been around for 10 centuries among the English-speaking people.  It's like saying "vase" or "portal" can be puffy. XavierItzm (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , There seems to be some confusion. What I was referring to as puffery was the second part of this sentence: "It was Keane's act of host desecration which became the biggest news story in the days to come." So, I am actually talking about: " ...the biggest news story in the days to come" that I think is puffery. I'm not talking about the Eucharist. Sorry about the confusion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am saying looks like it is an overblown sentiment per wp:puffery and POV . I need to go through the refs and verify if it was really that important. This was one act amidst a protest where a lot of things were going on and which garnered news coverage on its own. Anyway, sorry about the confusion - I may have misspoke. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. I can understand that certainly different wording would be better. Something anodyne such as "Keane's actions were reported by multiple news outlets" might be superior, but I'm not sure as the sourcing that we have does appear to mention that his actions got a major focus. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. I can understand that certainly different wording would be better. Something anodyne such as "Keane's actions were reported by multiple news outlets" might be superior, but I'm not sure as the sourcing that we have does appear to mention that his actions got a major focus. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Steve Quinn, I see what you mean! Sorry about the confusion. WRT "the biggest news story in the days to come", unqualified, might not be ideal, I agree with you. It could sound like "biggest in the universe." Which it probably wasn't. I mean, for sure, there was a famine or a war or pestilence going on somewhere on Earth at the time. However, "reported by multiple news outlets" is extremely weak, and probably worse. After all, you can find news that an alligator ate someone's pet in Florida last week (something that happens every day, btw) in *multiple* news outlets. Better phrasing is probably "the biggest news story about the incident in the days to come" or something along similar lines that does not break peacocks. XavierItzm (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Good point. How about something along the lines of "...became the dominant story in the press about the event."? -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Either one sounds great to me. XavierItzm (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why does the press of the time matter? If it's mostly homophobic media then how much use is this? Surely more neutral independent analysis years after the event is more helpful. Contaldo80 (talk) 02:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Homophobic media like Out magazine? -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but what is your point? The Out magazine referenced in the article didn't report on the story at the time, but it's a retrospective story. So why are you trying to twist my words? Contaldo80 (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am not trying to twist anyone's words. You made the claim that only "homophobic media" was saying that it was the biggest story. My point was that Out magazine, which could hardly be called homophobic, made the same point, as did many secular sources. All the sources say it was a big deal, not just those that don't align with your worldview. The fact that it was a retrospective story only bolsters my argument. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I know what I said - I referred to homophobic media of the time. Out magazine wasn't writing at the time so I wasn't suggesting (as you wrongly claim) that Out magazine was homophobic. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Quoting the Jesuits a lot
Is there a particular reason we are treating the Jesuits as a secondary source. Even is they call their magazine America they are still priests and beholden to follow the teaching of the catholic church. I mean if your primary picture is you shacking hands with the pope, I think we can question your objectivity.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As per WP:RS, "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." I'd advise returning those sources, as they're still valid sources of information. Drassow (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , true, but in this case they very definitely have a dog in the fight - this is beyond an ideological preference in the manner of a newspaper's editorial line, the SJ are closely aligned with one of the parties in the dispute. Guy (help!) 07:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me repeat it, because I think your eyes glazed over it last time. "Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." Drassow (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , they are required to be secondary, and being effectively a party makes them primary. As well as biased. Guy (help!) 20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting from policy that sources are required to not be biased? And how is that even possible, somehow uninviting human nature? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's sourcing 101. The reliability of a source in context depends on its overall reliability, profile, bias, and the degree to which that bias is specifically implicated in the event. In this case in-universe Catholic sources are not really secondary because they are arguing one side of the dispute, they are mainly opinion pieces and so on. It's rather obvious that if we can find another source we should, and if this sourtce conflicts with any high quality source we should follow the other source instread, not as a both-sides. Guy (help!) 07:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think its acceptance as a reliable source should count on editorial integrity. It seems this publication has an editing staff and a chief editor - that satisfies the criteria for being a wp:reliable source - read what the opening paragraph or two says in wp:rs. Also, it is in wp:npov - Bias in sources where it says "'Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view.'" However, I think "America" should not be viewed as a biased source. I think that is oversimplifying the issue. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Could we not make clearer in the text that it is approaching the issue from a particular perspective eg "The Jesuit magazine, America, argues that Cardinal O'Connor visited patients etc..." Or would that be over-kill? To be honest I think the Jesuits tend to be more accepting of homosexuality than other bits of the Catholic church, and tend generally to be smarter as individuals - but that's not to say that they resist the temptation to "sugar-coat" from time to time. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , well now. Consider the incident in question: a gay rights group disrupting Mass to protest the Catholic position on condoms, whihc is actually killing people. Is a Catholic journal a trustworthy source for the relative merits of the Act Up and church positions? I would say not. It's not just biased, but its bias goes tot he core of the deeply held beliefs of its writers.
 * It has a vested interest in putting one side of the story, and especially in promting the reputation of O'Connor in the face of valid criticism. Guy (help!) 07:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am not going to argue that America is unbiased--which is not the same as saying they are not a RS--but you should know the host of the podcast is a gay man. So at best his biases could be described as being on both sides of this particular incident. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, I know. But still an in-universe opinion piece. better source needed applies. Guy (help!) 13:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Perhaps, but I don't see you or anyone else making that argument about the "gay" sources, e.g. Faderman, Munt, etc. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * . If you don't mind, can you provide the sources that were removed per the top of this thread. I want to have a look at what we're talking about. I notice at least one of the refs removed per the other above discussion was not related to the topic. I guess that was just filler :>) This will all be straightened out eventually, I'm sure. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , removed? I think this is about sources still int he article. Guy (help!) 20:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * At the top of the thread Drassow is objecting to some sources having been removed. I thought that is what we were talking about. Oh well. When I get the chance I will look through the article. I am certainly capable of doing that. I responded above. I will have to exit Wikipedia for awhile, right now. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , see the foot of the section above. Sorry, too many threads. Guy (help!) 22:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * JzG, I found it thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate
This:
 * After the protest, in an effort to better understand the needs and concerns of the gay community, O'Connor began ministering to those dying of AIDS, changing their bedpans and washing their bedsores.    He set He also supported others who did so.

is inaccurate. He was already doing this. The church did publicise it afterwards, but it was something he had been doing for some time. Guy (help!) 22:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , That is incorrect. You obviously did not listen to the podcast. The host sets up a clip of O'Connor speaking by saying "Following the protest..." He then plays a clip of O'Connor saying "I decided that I should come to understand firsthand what [HIV/AIDS] really is. So I set myself a goal of visiting, washing the bedsores of, emptying the bedpans of, talking with, a minimum of 1,000 persons with AIDS, their families, or others. I got to 1,100. I learned a great deal. I tried my very best to help. Many of those were homosexual." As you have found sources saying he was doing this before as well, perhaps we should say "before and after the protest," but this is not just "editorialising not in sources." -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Slugger, once again you have over referenced a single sentence. One ref is just and interview about another ref. If you have a point to make could you cut out the unnecessary refs so we don't have to read 5 sources. AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Assuming you are correct Slugger then that sentence should be taken out of Wikipedia's voice. If it is just a claim by O'Conner then it would be undue.  His obit just mentions him going to a single AIDS hospice while explaining it was done to disarm his critics.AlmostFrancis (talk) 06:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , It is not just a claim by O'Connor. A few seconds later, we hear Sister Pascal Conforti, say "Cardinal O'Connor did what he said he was going to do. He came and visited patients at St Claire's." For what it's worth, apparently he was pretty popular with the patients. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So his subordinate, that took religious vows of obedience, back up that he visited patients. Conforti may be a lovely women but is not a reliable source for the conduct of a cardinal.AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , nobody's disputing that he visited AIDS patients, or that such visits happened after the protest, but other sources indicate that the visits began before the protest, so it is inaccurate to say that the visits were a result of the protest - though they were openly discussed afterwards, where they were private before. Guy (help!) 07:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , the catholic podcast makes a specific claim about when his visits to AIDS patients started, but if, as in this case, it is contradicted by more reliable sources (NYT), then yes, it is safe to say that the claim is inaccurate. Guy (help!) 10:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentence seemed a bit romanced to me so I read the three linked sources and they did not appear to really support it. I didn't listen to a podcast though. — Paleo  Neonate  – 11:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I had to laugh at the dubious claim above that he was "pretty popular with the patients" - yeah I bet the gay men dying from AIDS were so happy to have him around. As other editors have pointed out this sentence is inaccurate and should come out. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Koch being Jewish
Almost Francis removed a reference to Mayor Koch being Jewish with an edit summary that said "find a non relegious source if you want to bring Koch's relegion in." I didn't think that was necessary but, as a gesture of good faith, did. AlmostFrancis then came back and deleted it again saying "You planning on tagging all the Catholics as well?" That's just moving the goalposts. I do not plan to edit war over this, but am going to restore it one more time. Koch being Jewish is relevant because he gave up a Sunday morning to go and sit through a religious service that was not of his tradition. He did so specifically as a sign of support to O'Connor and the Catholics of New York. Had he been a Catholic, he might have just been going to his parish church for mass. His religion is relevant in this context. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obvious you have lost the plot here. I have removed you addition. He was there as the mayor of New York and does not need to be Jew tagged. AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Perhaps I could have kept it a little better if your initial edit summary had explained what your true objection was. Also, yes, I see that you have removed it again. I might suggest to you, however, that you should not have. You made a bold edit to remove stable text. You were reverted. The proper thing to do in that instance would have to brought it here to talk where it appears you would have some support. Instead, you chose to continue to revert to your preferred language. As I said above I am not going to continue to edit war over this, but suggest you may want to self-revert until a consensus is formed one way or the other. Also, I am unfamiliar with the concept (practice?) of "Jew tagging," however with your edit summaries I want to make clear that my intent here was in no way antisemitic. My long practice has been to take a word from the name or title of the source and use it as the reference title. Given that it was unlikely the word "Jews" would appear in another source, I chose it. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I wrongly expected you to find a reliable non-religious source that put Koch's faith in context of the subject of the article. Instead you found him in a list of jewish members of congress, helpfully labelled the source "jews", and jew tagged him for this article.  I never thought someone would do such a thing so did not add the obvious to my edit summary.  I won't be reverting.AlmostFrancis
 * Well, obviously it wasn't obvious. You can add not being a mind reader to my list of many faults. I found the source in his article. Might I ask why, in light of WP:BRD and WP:NOCON, you won't be reverting? --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus can only be evaluated with an honest accounting of the situation. The long standing consensus for this content was in the articles you copied from to create this article.  In both articles Koch was not jew tagged.  While claiming to be copying from the underlying article it seems you added the tag.  With all the other issues with the article is seems like it only has been looked at now.  Do to the nature of change I believe the true consensus to be the content with the tag removed.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How are you determining "the true consensus?" Both your removals were done before anyone else chimed in on the matter, and as the discussion has progressed below it seems to be evenly split down the middle. Also, I would appreciate it if you would stop referring it to it as "a Jew tag." As explained, it was absolutely not my intent to imply anything antisemetic but I believe your choice of language casts unwarranted aspersions. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel I already told you how I determined true consensus but here is the longer version. I found the long standing content, evaluated how the change was snuck in, noted that the user who added it never explained how it was added when given a chance, noted that the contents had not been evaluated since the change, and determined that the content before the change was the consensus version.  Here is a decent explainer on jew tagging (even if a little long winded).  I can't control your feelings about certain words but I will not stop using accurate nomenclature because you want to read more into it than is necessary.  AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, I don't find language like "snuck in" to be helpful or collaborative. Even if we were using an implicit consensus formed on the basis of the language of the two articles that were used as source material for this one, you are discounting the implicit consensus of including the clause in this article. Even if we should should accept your reasoning, the appropriate thing to do after being reverted would have been to bring the issue to talk instead of just re-deleting the text. Finally, now that others have chimed in, it appears there is no consensus. In that case, we should restore the text until a new consensus emerges. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We will have to agree to disagree on who is be uncollaborative. You have offered no evidence on consensus for your edit, either implicit or explicit.  Perhaps if it had been added with an accurate edit summary I could see your point, but since it was not I must disagree with you on which version is the consensus version.  Knowing you made a bold edit without an edit summary to add the information in the first I think after being reverted you should have at least mentioned you were the one who added it on the talk page instead of readding.  Also you should have found a sources in context of the article subject before readding.AlmostFrancis (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I created a whole new article when that clause was added. In addition to not being a telepath, add not being a soothsayer to my list of faults. I had no idea at that time these three words (out of 1,100) would cause so much consternation and thus could not possibly have known to add an edit summary explaining them. Mea culpa.
 * The text stood for several months without being challenged. That's an implicit consensus. You came along and removed it, but were reverted. That should have prompted you to come to talk. Too late for that now. However, we have three editors arguing for its inclusion, three saying omit, and one saying it's relevant but not worth including. That's WP:NOCONSENSUS, and so we retain " the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." As I said I'm not going to edit war over this, but think you should self revert until a consensus is formed. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No the change stood for months without being noticed after you made a bold edit to an actual consensus version that had stood for much longer with a less than accurate edit summary. I don't think you did anything wrong but if you make changes without an edit summary you can't then claim consensus just by the fact no one noticed. Besides consensus is not just a vote count and per my reading the remove have better arguments. AlmostFrancis (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course you do; they agree with you. That doesn't mean there is a consensus, however. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You two do realize that you don't have to keep going, right? Five other people have weighted in. --JBL (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * True Joel, but this is an example of Slugger's style. I've had to face this so many times. He sets up his view and preferred language as "consensus" and will try any means to resist a change. I'm with you AlmostFrancis at feeling frustrated by a genuine collaborative approach. I've been so put off this by this editor that I rarely edit on any articles these days. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * True Joel, but this is an example of Slugger's style. I've had to face this so many times. He sets up his view and preferred language as "consensus" and will try any means to resist a change. I'm with you AlmostFrancis at feeling frustrated by a genuine collaborative approach. I've been so put off this by this editor that I rarely edit on any articles these days. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep the contextual element--v/r - TP 17:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Any reason why? What source do you recommend?AlmostFrancis (talk) 05:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep it's relevant information regarding the religion of an individual offending another religion. Drassow (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Omit irrelevant jewtagging. Guy (help!) 20:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Omit it's irrelevant, the relevant information is the rest of the sentence. --JBL (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's relevant but not worth including - That Koch chose to give his support to a religious community outside of his own is indeed part of the history here, but it's not a major issue and, in my opinion, not really worth mentioning in this context. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Omit - irrelevant. Contaldo80 (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Omit -- because, really??? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Vital to mention Koch's attendance, not vital to include his religion. So the last bit is at the option of the involved editors. XavierItzm (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

What was this?
I got a notification that mentioned me in a comment on this page, and the edit history seems to indicate that he responded to a comment of mine at 07:07, May 3, 2020. However, he also deleted the comment within the same minute. As someone who is not and does not aspire to be an administrator, I cannot read what it says. I would very much like to, however. Could you please explain this for me, JzG? --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Also, the edit history at one point indicated that the edit had been deleted due to WP:RD3 (purely disruptive material), but this notation seems to have disappeared. I would very much appreciate an explanation, JzG. Thank you. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't aspire to be an administrator? Contaldo80 (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , That is correct. I apologize if I was not more clear. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Time-stamp
Slugger you have inserted the claim "Years later, Keane said he decided to act in the moment and, while in hindsight he might not have repeated the act, he felt no regret" - taking this from the Plague podcast. Can we have the timestamp please so that we can verify it. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually while we're at it can we also have the time-stamp for "It was Keane's act of host desecration which became the biggest news story in the days to come". Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not going to |play this game. If you want to find any more, you can listen to the podcast yourself. However, as a gesture of good faith, these can both be found beginning at 24:58. You might also note his use of the word "Eucharist."-- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Slugger, can I ask you to kindly change your tone please. Don't dismiss my requests as "playing games". You were advised by an administrator - User:Lourdes - that "verifiability requires that you provide the timestamps when challenged". You were also warned then about using tendentious language - when you accused me of throwing a tantrum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1035#Catholic_Church_and_HIV/_AIDS). You were blocked from all articles relating to the Knights of Columbus because you were using a narrow set of sources. This podcast is - once again - funded by the Roman Catholic Church and so I am right to require very careful verification of what is said. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Keane
Did Keane even "crumble" the communion wafer. The cited article from Out magazine which interviewed Keane suggests he let it drop to the floor. It goes on to say that another protestor (an ex-seminarian) "broke a wafer and threw it over the pews". The evident desire by some editors to tell a story of Catholic outrage may have led to us misinterpreting the actual events. And obscuring the motivation of the protestors who wanted to use the act of holy communion to deliver a political message - angry that the church's approach to homosexuality and condom use was actually killing people. But instead Slugger has gone down the route of recently adding this sentence about Cardinal O'Connor: "He also stated that he would never object to anyone peacefully protesting outside the cathedral, which had happened before, but did object to disrupting mass and especially to the acts of desecration." Is anyone else kind of fed up with these sorts of apologetics?! Contaldo80 (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)