Talk:Robert Sarah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Written from a comically biased point of view[edit]

This article is clearly written by a gay activist who is hostile to the Catholic Church (Contaldo80). For example, "he played a lead role in rejecting attempts to ensure more welcoming language toward people that are gay or divorced" is purely political commentary with biased language.

Objectively, opposing the redefinition of marriage, which has always necessarily included both sexes, does not constitute opposition to LGBT rights. Cr7777777 (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence that I am 1. a gay activist and 2. hostile to the Catholic church. If you fail to present evidence then you must retract and apologise for your comments immediately. Failure to take either course of action will result in a serious complaint made to administrators as you will have broken the "Assume Good Faith" rule. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Contaldo80, you are attempting to have a conversation with a problematic user whose page mostly consists of complaints about edit warring. See the page Wikipedia:Deny recognition. Dimadick (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dimadick - you are quite right of course. Time for me to stop. Thanks :) Contaldo80 (talk) 09:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the evidence you requested.

I assumed good faith and tried to work with Contaldo80 to restore Cardinal Sarah's Wikipedia page to a neutral point of view: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

Contaldo80 responded by edit-warring against three editors. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

The fact that all the biased language against Cardinal Sarah on the Wikipedia page was contributed by Contaldo80 is evidence of his hostility towards Catholic leaders. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]

Contaldo80, do you consider your following commentary to be neutral language?! "He played a lead role in rejecting attempts to ensure more welcoming language toward people that are gay or divorced."

It's amusing to see someone who doesn't understand the term "western homosexual ideology" do such a great job demonstrating it! Cr7777777 (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions to use more neutral language[edit]

How about we replace this one sided comment: he played a lead role in rejecting attempts to ensure more welcoming language toward people that are gay or divorced.

With this: he advocated the need to be "inclusive and welcoming to all that is human"[1] while rejecting efforts to stray from Christ's teaching on marriage and the family.[2] Cr7777777 (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-sarah-urges-bishops-to-reject-liberal-agenda-of-synod-organizers-i
  2. ^ http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-sarah-efforts-to-soften-christs-teaching-ignore-the-good-news-of-mercy-41570/


By all means add in the new sentence if you think it's helpful to have Sarah's spin on what he says. But we keep the existing sentence so readers can understand what it meant without the soft soaping. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine.

How about replacing this one sided comment: He is a critic of ... the growth of LGBT rights

With this: He is a critic of ... the redefinition of marriage

Marriage has always necessarily included opposite sexes.Cr7777777 (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polygamy is legal in about 25% of countries, including Singapore, Malaysia and Pakistan. Would that fall within the scope of marriage as defined by Cardinal Sarah? Or would he see that as a redefinition as well? Is there an absolute definition of marriage that we can all agree on in order to make the claim that it is being redefined? Is marriage between a man and woman, as well as a man and a woman and a woman and a woman? Is it just a woman and a woman that is not to be included? Do we include levirate marriage under Sarah's definition too? How do we handle the age people are allowed to get married- should we include the practice of child marriage? What about temporary marriages like fixed-term marriages in the Muslim community? Polyandry is common the Himalayas as I understand it - is that part of the definition? Plus Group Marriage which is practise in Polynesia. What about polygyny when there is a big age gap between man and wife? What about those that are divorced and remarry, does that count? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Marriage always necessarily required opposite sexes. Even all of the examples you cite include opposite sexes. This fact is not trivial given the complementarity of man and woman and their ability to meet a child's need for a mother and father. Regardless, gay "marriage" is undoubtedly a redefinition.Cr7777777 (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did't the Romans permit marriage between people of the same sex? I seem to recall the Emperor Nero married a man. So did the Catholic church redefine marriage after this point or had the Romans redefined marriage beforehand, and the Catholic church was simply returning to first principles? If a woman is in a polygamous marriage to a man, is she just married to the man, or is she married to the second wife that the man is married to as well? Contaldo80 (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't let Contaldo80 drag you into an off-topic discussion of editors' ideologies. Please stick to the topic of the article and the reliable secondary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. "Editor's ideologies". Love it. I think I just demonstrated that pleas made that marriage is being "redefined" is claptrap and shouldn't be presented in articles here as fact. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contaldo80, please stop removing the identity of your source as the fired Vatican official. This is relevant info. I warned you to stop this disruptive editing on your talk page. If you remove it a third time, I will notify the administrators. Cr7777777 (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Listen, it doesn't work by you "warning" me about anything. I have raised a legitimate concern about the use of the specific word "fired" - it is tangental to the point being made. Karasma's comments are of interest because he was a senior official in the Vatican who has been much in the public eye because of his homosexuality. He is well placed to comment on homosexuality and Catholicism. Anyone can read more about him from his biographical article to find out about his career. My concern is that the use of the word "fired" is intended to imply his irrelevance, bias, or unreliability. I have asked you quite nicely why you think "fired" as well as the objection to "percieved" are needed and if you don't intend to engage constructively then we will get nowhere. So far you have only said that "fired" shows he was "irresponsible". What has being irresponsible to do with him making comments concerning Sarah - the comments relate to Sarah and to his Karasma's own position? One might easily take the view that he wasn't "irresponsible" but was rather the victim of instituotinalised homophobia and that in any western country he would not have been allowed to lose his job because of protections against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. "Former" does the job quite well and achieves the objective of neutrality or are you arguing that he isn't a "former Vatican official"? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked further into this and there seems a lack of clarity as to whether he was dismissed from his post or if he resigned. Plus the fact that the supporting quote comes from the Daily Mail which is an unreliable source and a tabloid. As a compromise perhaps we don't refer to his Vatican role at all as his comments on Sarah were made after he left his job there. I've suggested "Polish theologian" as that is what he remains. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are several articles showing that Charamsa was fired. I'll add more sources. Please cite your sources showing that the reports of Charamsa's firing are incorrect before you continue your edit-warring. All major news reports show that Charamsa was known as a Vatican official. Cr7777777 (talk) 04:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits now are clearly aimed at being unhelpful. If you want to continue to pursue this then take it to an arbitration board. When did Karamsa make his comments? What date? What was his role then? He made the comments as a Polish theologian. He did not make the comments as a "fired Vatican official". You want to use this wording simply to discredit him. It's pathetic and lazy. In any case there is a strong suggestion that he resigned before he was fired - the sources back this up. So if you're not careful we will change the sentence to "the Polish theologian who resigned from his position as a senior official in the Church in disgust at the rampant institutionalised bigotry and homophobia". As I said - take it to arbitration and if you get the go-ahead then make your change on the back of that. And not before. I advise you that you have already been blocked once and if you continue to approach this from a highly partisan position without attempting a middle-way then you risk being referred by me and potentially being blocked again. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Contaldo80, that's your fourth revert deleting a simple fact. You are being unreasonable. Your edits are disruptive. I have to go to the administrators.Cr7777777 (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. And let me know once someone has given you some sensible advice about to handle the material in a mature way without trying to violate neutrality. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are "locals"?[edit]

What does it mean, "the seminarians gathered at the locals of the parish of Sainte Croix"?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Claim of slander[edit]

One editor has questioned some of the material on the grounds of "slander". In my understanding (other editors will correct me if I am wrong) this is not sufficient grounds to challenge a point. Rather we need to be specific about what particular wikipedia rule has been violated such as BLP perhaps. Best to engage here please rather than begin edit-warring. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks on abortion and homosexuality[edit]

We need to find a better way to handle some of the material in the lead. I reverted the line that said "He has been outspoken on the threat posed to Christianity by Islam, and has compared western homosexual and abortion ideologies and Islamic fanaticism to Nazism." The problem I have with this is that it violates NPOV. It is correct to say that Robert Sarah believes that there is such a thing as "western homosexual and abortion ideologies". But it is not correct to say that these are genuine things and as such Robert Sarah compares them with Nazism. What is the "western homosexual ideology"?! Contaldo80 (talk) 09:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I object to scare quotes around "ideologies". Elizium23 (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's what we're going to have to live with unless you can please clarify what is meant by a "western homosexual ideology". And demonstrate that it's a commonly used and understood term. Doing a quick google search for the term throws up some pretty hateful and worrying stuff. Is it used in official church documents for example? Contaldo80 (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the lead. No need to rephrase or use weasel words when direct quotes are available in the sources. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speech to the Synod Assembly[edit]

Ok, what we don't do is simply cut and paste someone's speech into an article. This is an encyclopaedia and not a press release. We use secondary sources to illuminate primary sources. We don't use primary sources in the raw. Let's get a bit smarter on this article please. Leaving Sarah's words "to speak for themselves" is not acceptable. Not least beacuse they are fairly gibberish without context. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contaldo80 repeatedly adds his contentious commentary and personal analysis into this article, violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

Contaldo80 admits repeatedly that he doesn't understand Cardinal Sarah's remarks, but then insists on summarizing those remarks. [31] [32] [33]

Contaldo80's rewording that Cardinal Sarah "is also a critic of ... the growth of LGBT rights" is a biased misrepresentation. Instead of misrepresenting the subject to readers, the cardinal's own words should be used to describe his position, without the peanut gallery's misrepresentation. If Contaldo80 insists on adding a nutshell summary of the cardinal's remarks, it should be that Cardinal Sarah is a critic of the threats to family and a promoter of chastity.

Contaldo80 will be the first user I ever refer to the administrators for edit warring. Cr7777777 (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and we could also start using more reliable sources than RNS and NYTimes, which have a proven track record of twisting quotes and misrepresenting Catholic doctrines and practices. Elizium23 (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a reputable secondary source that states that Sarah is a critic of the threats to family and a promoter of chastity. Then you can put it in. If you think the NYTimes is an unreliable source and you can find evidence to support that argument then you can take it to the administrators noticeboard to recommend purging wikipedia of all references using the NYTimes. If you think it's obvious what Sarah means by a "western homosexual ideology" then please state the detail of what is in this ideology so there is full clarity. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell, Cardinal Sarah is critical of the threats to family and chastity. One of the threats to family and chastity could be understood as the ideology in the West to willfully define oneself by one's hostility to chastity. One way this ideology may manifest itself for example may be through a gay activist who slanders religious leaders who promote chastity. I suggest visiting the Cathechism to get a much better understanding of Cardinal Sarah's address. [34]Cr7777777 (talk) 04:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Willfully define oneself by one's hostility to chastity" - I think you're making this stuff up and putting words into Sarah's mouth that even he wouldn't bother to say. In any case, find the sources to support your arguments and we can look at making changes to the text. But if this is all coming off the top of your head then I'm afraid you're not going to get very far. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Krzysztof Charamsa[edit]

Can someone explain why it is necessary to preface Krzysztof Charamsa with the word "fired"? Why is this so important? Do his words carry less weight because he is fired? Should we discredit him because he was fired? This is simply an attempt at WEASAL words - to imply that this man has an axe to grind against Sarah and is biased. "Former" is quite sufficient. If people want to include "fired" then they need to set out clear the advantages of doing so. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To this point I want to add why it is necessary to remove "perceived" threat to marriage and the family? I understand that Sarah believes there is a genuine threat but the way the sentence is structured suggests that everyone shares this belief in a threat - ie that it is based in fact. But it isn't based in fact. Unless you can demonstrate that the mainstream view is that there is a "threat". Therefore the threat is in Sarah's head and needs to be nuanced as such. It's not the job of this article to give him a platform to promote his views as if everyone agreed with him. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Robert Sarah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

There continues to be disruptive editing on this article - much of which violates NPOV. Sarah is not just against LGBT movements, he is an opponent of specific legal rights for people that are gay. Nor is it evident why there must be a reference to laicization in the context of Charamsa - seems decidedly off-topic and intended simply to discredit him as a source. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Contaldo80: And while you're editing, please don't change the date format. Can't tell why you wanted to. You didn't say. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Contaldo80: Complaining on the talk page doesn't allow you to reinstate your reverted edits. You still need WP:CON. This is turning into a slow-speed edit war. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to take a crack at improving a few refs and rewriting a bit. I see a tendency to document the sources in the text, which is unnecessary and distracting for the reader. For example: "In an interview in September 2015 with the Italian newspaper La Repubblica". We only care about the date and what was said. Sometimes to vary our prose it's nice to say "told an interviewer" instead of "said", but La Repubblica should be left in the citation. It would help, of course, to cite La Repubblica itself, which isn't hard. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contaldo80, I agree with you on principle, but I do not see why this information is relevant in this article. In other words, I agree with Jujutsuan's removal, though not with their arguments, and I think that Bmclaughlin9's not reinstating that content is a tacit endorsement of that removal. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: I have taken no position on the dispute about the sentence at issue. I'm happy to leave that dispute to others. Period. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bmclaughlin9, if you ever wish to take a position, that's fine. I don't know if it will come up again or not. Thanks for your work on the article, Drmies (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Contaldo80 is contributing to the disruptive editing and edit warring here in violation of WP:NPOV. It seems clear to me that if we can avoid biased language altogether, such as in the heading with a standard term as "Views" that is used in hundreds of other articles on Catholic bishops, we should choose the standard heading. If it is needed to be more specific in naming the section then we should likewise use unbiased terms that can accurately summarize the content. Elizium23 (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous. Sarah's views are clearly anti-LGBT and so there's no reason not to point this out. Black Kite (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This interesting RfC concerns how to describe an African priest's views on homosexuality. It is undisputed that Mr Sarah is opposed to same-sex marriage. The question is whether the neutral title "views" is better, or whether the less neutral, but more specific and considerably more informative, title "opposition to LGBT rights" should be preferred. It is noted that the vast majority of the sources about Mr Sarah's opinions focus strongly on his homophobia.

The discussion hinges on Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, so in closing it I took the time to read that policy carefully and consider what it says. The relevant subsection of the policy is contained in WP:OUTRAGE and it's appropriate quote that in full:-

What about views that are morally offensive to most readers... that some people actually hold? Surely we are not to be neutral about them?

We can maintain a healthy, consistent support for the neutral point of view by attributing emotionally charged views to prominent representatives or to a group of people. Those who harbor attitudes of racism etc., will not be convinced to change their views based on a biased article, which only puts them on the defensive; on the other hand, if we make a concerted effort to apply our non-bias policy consistently, those whom we consider to have morally repugnant beliefs opposite to our own may consider an insight that could change their views.

The fact that an idea or topic is morally outrageous is not a reason to leave it out of Wikipedia. If a morally outrageous idea or practice has received notable coverage from neutral, independent sources (not just its originator), we provide a valuable service by describing it as well as the criticisms and opposition it has received.

It follows that if Mr Sarah's views really are opposed to LGBT rights, then we should say so. I have reviewed the sources and I conclude that they are. I therefore give additional weight to that side of the argument and conclude that "opposition to LGBT rights" is the correct heading.

This edit has in fact already been made, so the practical effect of my RfC close is to endorse the current heading version, but only insofar as headings are concerned; the text may still be changed.

In a moment I will edit the article to remove this source, which is a perfectly reliable source but it doesn't mention Mr Sarah at all. This is not part of my RfC close, but a normal editorial action that others may revert at will per WP:BRD.

I hope this helps and all the best—S Marshall T/C 18:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC[edit]

The proposed headings for Sarah's views are as follows:

  • "Views"
  • "Opposition to LGBT rights"
Which one should be included? Elizium23 (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposition to LGBT rights Unaffiliated editor came via Africa alerts. My two cents is that the content in that section currently is best headed with the Opposition heading rather than the vaguer 'Views' heading. Both seem equally warranted under NPOV, so it really comes down to what helps the reader the best. And that is the more specific heading. I'd also add that even if content was expanded to include other issues or his theological positions, a subheading on 'opposition to lgbt rights' should probably be maintained. Hope that helps. AbstractIllusions (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't the latter section be included in the former one? Chicbyaccident (Please notify with {{SUBST:re}} (Talk) 16:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it should if there was content for the former. Currently the only content is 'Opposition to LGBT rights.' So.... AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Views".
  1. There is material in the article which can be moved out of the sections describing his career and into the section describing his views.
  2. The other proposed heading is too narrow. It does not apply to paragraph 2 of the section, and only tangentially applies to paragraph 4.
  3. The other proposed heading reflects the POV of one special-interest group. It is a United-States-centric liberal-biased description of some of Sarah's positions.
  4. The other proposed heading is reductionist. It presupposes that Sarah is a politician campaigning on political issues, or the lobbyist of an NGO crusading for the same. He is a bishop and a cardinal, and his milieu is not politics but the care of souls, and the teaching of Catholic doctrine. As Prefect of the CDWDS, his primary responsibility is liturgy and sacramental discipline, and his previous posts, in Cor Unum and Evangelization of Peoples, did not have such a narrow focus as the proposed heading suggests, and therefore it is nonsensical that the issue of homosexuality should so dominate his biography.
I am open to other descriptions of these positions in a way that will group them as a subheading under "Views", and I don't support bias in the other direction, as has been proposed by some editors, but I have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the alternate proposed heading is altogether unsuitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. "It is a United-States-centric liberal-biased description of some of Sarah's positions." I don't live in the US!! Contaldo80 (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious that "Opposition to LGBT Rights" is a biased title that implies all of the political views of a gay activist rather than being a reliable neutral observation. I stopped editing because I was blocked multiple times by the administrators for making modest edits. Cr7777777 (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're still using terms like "gay activist" then it sounds like the blocking was deserved. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the previous two comments to be antithetical to the spirit of an RFC. However, because I come to these to actually help, you could go with 'LGBT issues' in the spirit of the Phyllis Schlafly article subheading on 'Women's issues' rather than 'Opposition to women's rights'. The reader is served with a specific heading which I don't think you could make the reductionist or bias arguments against that heading (I don't think those arguments apply to the 'Opposition to LGBT rights' heading either, but trying for compromise here). Anyway, I'm done helping here. Best of luck ya'll. AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also support using the heading "LGBT issues" as a compromise. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AbstractIllusions - you've been very constructive and helpful I think in trying to find a compromise. And I'm grateful for that. I'm personally still of a mind to call a spade a spade - Sarah is quite vocal in opposing LGBT rights (above and beyond his role as Bishop), so I'd prefer for us to be as clear and specific as possible in this instance. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section also mentions opposition to abortion, divorce and Islamic fanaticism. I would suggest that marital issues, and reproductive issues be dealt with in separate paragraphs. It should be established whether Sarah's opposition to Ban Ki-Moon's statement is based on the principle that sex outside marriage is fornication.
Comments on Islamism should also be treated separately.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Well to do that you'd have to find some sources that show that Sarah has been vocal in calling for criminal penalties against men and women that have sex outside marriage. After all that's the biggest source of global "fornication". I've separated out Islamism. The rest on abortion and divorce is not significant enough yet to be drawn out into separate sections. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPOV dispute is still active and RFC has not closed. Editors are reminded not to remove tags before the dispute is settled. Elizium23 (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's closed now. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. Elizium23 (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Interesting coming in here late - the article seems to be owned by one editor (who identifies self as the writer of the article). I'm not sure this is good Wiki practice in general, and in particular for a biography of a living person, and suggest that Contaldo80 take a break from this article for quite a while. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors are more active than others. I'm always thankful to see Contaldo80 at work. Much of his work on this entry is defensive, like this. I certainly wouldn't want him to take a break. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk) - you are lovely! Thank you. (talk) - "who identifies self as the writer of the article". Goobledegook. This does not even make sense. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Elizium23: Thank you for your concern. Sorry for not having participated. I wasn't aware. After having investigated this biographical article and its talk page, I am inclined to consider the above discussion closed prematurely. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality section[edit]

Contaldo80, in your recent revert of my edit, you claimed that Sarah does not oppose "what people are doing in their bedroom." Yet, the Catholic Church regards homosexual acts as mortal sins. The appropriate passage in the Catechism is quoted in the NCR source for that section. Display name 99 (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contaldo80 may not have made the point as clearly as s/he might have, but clearly meant that the material presented in this section is not about Sarah's opinions on the morality of certain sexual behaviors, nor theology, nor the catechism. The section reports statements Sarah has made on questions of public policy, that is, the degree to which and whether certain classes of people should have access to civil marriage or not, whether or not sexual acts between consenting adults should be crimes, etc. The phrase "LGBT rights" is not advocacy. See, for example, the dozens of WP articles that begin with the phrase LGBT rights in. In some cases those articles describe an extensive body of legal protections. In others they describe the lack of such legal protections. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Bmclaughlin9 - you indeed made the point better than I did. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obsessive focus on homosexuality in article[edit]

Cardinal Sarah, like the Catholic Church in general and in fact most of the people in the entire world (Eastern Europe, Africa, India, China, the Islamic World, etc), outside of North-Western Europe and North America, is opposed to homosexuality in society. That is pretty much a given, he is in the majority on the topic. However, as it stands there is far too much focus on this subject in the article to the extent that it reads like political propaganda or somebody with a bee in their bonnet against Cardinal Sarah.

Sarah's opposition to homosexuality is completely uncontroversial in Africa where he is from and indeed, as the talk above shows, this focus has only been highlighted beyond reasonable bounds because of the editor Contaldo80, who, as a self-confessed single-issue editor, is mostly focused on giving undue weight to homosexual issues in articles, which both exaggerates the importance of the topic and attempts to take a bias in favour of it (as well as being English and Anglican; positions which are highly contrasted with the values of an African and a Catholic like Cardinal Sarah). I propose a radical purging of this section, whittling it down to maybe a paragraph or two. Mention it yes, obsess over it? No. Claíomh Solais (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of stuff is really off-topic. "Cardinal Sarah, like the Catholic Church in general and in fact most of the people in the entire world (Eastern Europe, Africa, India, China, the Islamic World, etc), outside of North-Western Europe and North America, is opposed to homosexuality in society." Got a source for that?! Or just your gut feel? You've also made a mistake (again) to attack me personally. Now you're stating that I'm "English and Anglican". WTF? How do you know this and what does it have to do with my editing? In fact I'm neither. I have no religion - and if you're interested in my personal views (which are not relevant here) it's that I, in fact find, religious belief a childish practice. Nor am I a "self-confessed single issue editor". And even if I am, who the hell cares?!! It's not against wikipedia guidance. And unless you can point to evidence that I'm on a mission to exaggerate or give bias or give undue weight then you better retract. Because I'm fed up of your constant slurs. Don't ask me to go into your evident biases - otherwise the list will be long. In any case the material is sourced. The references are mainstream and reputable. Sarah is particularly vocal in his opposition to LGBT rights, somewhat out of step with other senior Catholic clerics. He is senior and his views carry weight. I suggest you spend more time bulking up the rest of the article rather than reducing sections that you think cover the story a little too well. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly state on your profile that you are British and are a single-issue editor in regards to homosexuality. According to the Spartacus Gay Travel Index, the United Kingdom is #2 in the list of the world's most pro-homosexual countries. While Cardinal Sarah's employer, the Vatican City is #158 in the list and most of Africa is in the bottom half, so he and most of the rest of the world clearly have a different set of cultural values to you and for you to try and overstate the case against his views, like on this article, has a whiff of imperialist and racist bias about it.
It is a violation of basic NPOV to push a little pet issue like homosexuality as the central issue here. To claim that Sarah is "out of step" with other high ranking clerics is completely subjective POV. The position which Cardinal Sarah holds is the normative position of the Catholic Church. There are competing groups of clerics at the top level and just because you personally prefer the views of White North-Western European dissidents, like Godfried Danneels, doesn't mean we create propaganda against the rest, just to suit you. At the end of the day, the Catholic Church is noted for its opposition to homosexuality. As a comparison, Saudi Arabia executes homosexuals as part of its basic practice, but on the article for the King Salman of Saudi Arabia, we do not mention the topic at all, let alone making it the central focus of the article. Because homosexuality isn't that relevant in the grand scene of things.
PS - you also have a tendency to try and change "Catholic Church" to "Roman Catholic Church" in Wikipedia articles, this is a specifically Anglican talking point. Doesn't matter if god does or doesn't exist, the Catholic Church and the British Empire both absolutely exist and they exist on the international stage as competing power blocks and cultural worldviews. Claíomh Solais (talk) 10:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I won't even begin to waste my time responding to this list of paranoid rubbish. Much of it clearly directed at me in terms of abuse rather than concerned with improving the article. If you have an issue with specific references or constructive comments about how to improve this article then set them out clearly. Otherwise we're done here thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undue tag[edit]

An editor has tagged the section "Opposition to LGBT rights" as given undue weight. We certainly give it a lot of weight, but I think it's merited. I also think the best way to provide a fuller portrait of Robert Sarah would be to add material so that this section would become just one among several topics under the general heading "Views". I've looked into adding a section for his views on Islam or perhaps "radical Islam" but haven't come up with much material. We give a lot of weight to his views on liturgy -- they just happen to covered as part of his job. If we labeled them with the heading "Liturgy" (which I'm not advocating) the charge of undue weight would evaporate instantly.

Could the section use a rewrite? Sure. It's clear that too many hands were at work simultaneously and the citations are sloppy. But doing it right -- and cleaning up the summary at the top as well -- won't be easy. It's on my todo list, but I thought i'd tackle the easier liturgy issue first. That has similar problems. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bmclaughlin9 - sounds sensible. Agree that adding more material to other sections is a good solution. It seems no-one has had much of an interest in doing so, so far. Liturgy seems a good place to start. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I would advocate letting the tag rest there until such an update is done, since until, objections on undue weight can hardly be denied. Chicbyaccident (talk)
But aren't they "undue" only in so far as there is so little material on the rest of Sarah's life? Otherwise you'd get into a situation where you'd have to reduce many articles that have a lot of detail under one area (well sourced) but then little elsewhere. Seems somewhat inconsistent. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the purpose of the tag to let keep such content, while for neutrality reasons making a discreet tag that other encyclopedically relevant content would make the article a better overview? Ought we not to pay particular concern about such respect in the case of biographical articles? Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I've suggested moving the tag to the top of the article. I'd rather we make clear that the whole article could do with adding more material. Otherwise the tag where it was suggests that the inclusion of the section on opposing LGBT rights was inherently wrong - whereas we're saying we want more material overall (as well as tidying up the section on LGBT rights). Contaldo80 (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Wouldn't it be optimal though if that tag also explained what it is referrering to then? Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be obvious from examining this talk page. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please hold off on moving the tag. The right way to do what you seem to want is to set up new section names and then ask for expansions instead of saying undue. That way we invite editors to add/build rather than subtract. I'll get to this soon. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT ideology[edit]

Opposition to "LGBT ideology" sounds a loaded term to me. I still think "Opposition to LGBT rights" would be better. What do others think? Contaldo80 (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've been over this. This heading shouldn't be changed without consensus. I hope people can be patient while I work out some reorganization later today or tomorrow (but definitely after the eclipse!). Once material is reorganized, we can revisit the question of heading names. I hope that works for others. Debating how to rename a moving target -- and it will be moving around soon -- isn't a good use of our collective time. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For example, if we could document -- and I'm sure it's out there -- his attitude to (European) feminism, we would change the title from LGBT to something like "Critique of Western secular values". His presents an interesting mix of anti-LGBT and pro-African, anti-colonial values. (Though he is very much in line with Eastern Europeans as well.) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think "Opposition LGBT rights" and "Opposition to LGBT ideology" are both questionable from different ends and have an activisty feel to it. We wouldn't put on Chris Hansen's article "Opposition to paedophile rights", for example. Maybe "Stances on homosexuality" or "Views on homosexuality" would be the most neutral titles possible, since it avoids both poles of POVs which describe it as either an ideology or somehow deserving universal "rights". As far as I am aware, his statements mention homosexuals specifically, not mentioning bi-sexuals, lesbians or transsexuals by name (although he has criticised the latest American/Western European project, rolling out the whole "gender" thing in recent years, in separate but related statements on society). Maybe they deserve different subheadings? Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You think it right to compare homosexuality with paedophilia? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as can be shown, only the Anglo-Saxons and a few closely related groups in Western Europe have thought it novel to differentiate since the 1950s and I'm not sure why their views should predominate in an article that has nothing to do with them. The entire rest of the world almost all see the two things as illicit activities, codified in law as criminal offenses, including in Cardinal Sarah's homeland Guinea where homosexuality is categorised by law as "indecent" and punishable with up to three years in prison (see LGBT rights in Guinea). There is also no clamor to overturn this law on the part of the Guineans or Africans in general (despite the wounded yelps of Britain's Amnesty International). Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've mistaken this for some sort of media message board. Who on earth cares what your musings on the subject are. Why do you keep going on about anglo-saxons? Strange terminology you use. I've advised you before to stick to discussions about article editing rather than let your personal prejudices bore us all. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Paedophilia will probably be the next "right".--5.170.196.51 (talk) 09:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've just discredited yourself from making further edits to this article. Disgusting comment.Contaldo80 (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See comments below. His comments mention same-sex marriage twice and criminalization of homosexuality once and bathroom legislation once. So lesbians and trans are included. You seem to want the title to be about something other than what RS is doing here. And as explained before, one can be for or against lgbt rights. The use of the term does not imply a point of view. The use of the term reflects the fact that they are real things that exist at law in some jurisdictions and not others. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And then I thought: it's easy to be more specific: Opposition to LGBT rights legislation. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When presenting on Wikipedia what individuals say or opinion on different matters, I believe Wikipedia would do well to try to minimilse any coat wording or description for that, including in headings. Shouldn't we strive to let quotations stand for themselves as much as possible? So I believe the heading proposal with less wording, such as "Views on homosexuality" is more minimilised than the proposals with more, right? Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't we be transparent? He has been vocal in opposing LGBT rights. "Views on homosexuality" is opaque - no point trying to pretend he likes some of it and doesn't like the rest of it. He is actively opposed to reducing discrimination against people that are LGBT - his language is intemperate and provocative. "Opposition to LGBT rights legislation" is the most sensible. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've now rejected "LGBT ideology" so why is one editor insisting this be the language? Contaldo80 (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Trying to pretend" - making pretentions about things external to it, isn't that precisely what Wikipedia ought not to do? The discussion seems to circulate around what wordings to put and not after "homosexuality". So why not conclude "views on homosexuality" is the most minimal, while letting quotations express themselves? Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not about homosexuality - it's about LGBT in its broader sense. "Homosexuality" implies some sort of medical condition. And it isn't his view on homosexuality that the material covers (which is presumably in line with the Church catechism which says that homosexual feelings are fine) - rather it is his opposition to the manifestation and expression of homosexual behaviours in society that he has problems with. Specifically same-sex marriage, non discrimination protections etc. As well as any recognition of transgender rights. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Contaldo80: In any case, "Opposition" to is incostent heading with the other equivalent headings in the section, and ought thus to be removed. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's surely over-kill. There's nothing to say all the headings have to be aligned. In any case the title is simply descriptive of the content. The alternative is just to say "LGBT Rights". But really the issue here is his complete objection to such rights - it's not a mixed picture under a general heading. The only argument I can see for this sort of change would be to avoid it being evident that Sarah is an opponent of greater civil rights for LGBT citizens - but instead a benign upholder of Church teachings. In fact the terminology he has used is unusually provocative and unsympathetic for such a senior churchman, and thus notable for that. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reorg, new sections, and needs expansion tags[edit]

I've given it my best shot for now. Note that 2 of the 3 request for expansion tags say specifically what could be added. Re the "LGBT rights" question, what is discussed is (1) legislation outlawing homosexual practices, (2) same-sex marriage legislation, and then (3) a list of 3 issues of which two are LGBT legislative (same-sex marriage and bathroom bills) and one is health care. I think Rights remains the proper label.

I think the single really bad paragraph is the middle one on the Synod (his speech re apocalyptic beasts). It has too many snippets of quotes and some of it is irrelevant. Like he only mentioned the Supreme Court decision and terrorist attacks in Tunisia on the same day to note how these two threats compete for headlines. Just a way of putting them in parallel, a good rhetorical device.... but that sort of detail probably doesn't belong here. I'll come back to that graf.

We cannot also use the Notes section to hold a longer quote, even a few sentences, if that's important.

Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes working on the summary, but we need to do better than "he received praise and condemnation". That sort of thing only works in the body of an entry if you're about to give examples so we can see who was on each side and what they found to like or hate. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've generally done a good job. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charamsa again[edit]

Here's our text about Charamsa:

Sarah's comments were immediately criticized by Polish laicized priest and theologian Krzysztof Charamsa

Why revisit this? (Especially after rereading the discussion above.)

First, Charamsa has not been laicized. His bishop suspended him on 21 October 2015 and that remains his status. You can find sources that speak sloppily of his being "defrocked" or that call him an "ex-priest", and I've even found a Catholic site (patheos) that celebrated his laicization in October 2015, but you don't have to know a whole lot to know that laicization is a long process and requires action by the pope. When that happens it will be widely publicized. I've addressed this in rewriting the entry for Krzysztof Charamsa quite thoroughly. Second, it's unclear why we're citing him at all with respect to Sarah and the Synod. Why this Polish guy out of all the theologians in the world? The reason is that Charamsa raised a ruckus at the start of the Synod about gays in the Church and especially in the priesthood. And he wasn't shouting at the Synod from Warsaw – he was in the Curia, with a dozen years at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and a few at the Theological Commission. And had teaching assignments at two pontifical universities. Given those posts and residency in Rome for about 18 years, I don't think "Polish theologian" is an apt description, nor does it let he reader know why he is worth including here. Thirdly, Charamsa did not "immediately" criticise Sarah's comments, as we say. He waited until the end of the Synod and then provided his assessment. Then he singled out Sarah's remarks. So there's context to what he says about Sarah's language. Incidentally, I reversed the order of the critiques by Bonny and Charamsa, because Bonny's remarks are about Synod proscess and Charamsa's an overall assessment. I then reworked the Bonny lines to more closely reflect the source. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Gaddafi comment[edit]

It seems rather odd to me to maintain a section on the bishop's views on Islam which simply gives his reaction to the late Muammar Gadaffi's call for Islam to become the religion of Europe. Naturally, a Catholic prelate would not welcome such a suggestion. It really doesn't tell the reader much at all about Sarah's view on that religion. Motsebboh (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is nothing distinctive about the view expressed here, not is its specific expression noteworthy. It was a throwaway story the day it appeared in Christian Today and not suitable for this entry. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

One of our sources here describes how his last name is pronounced: "His name – pronounced Sar-AH and not like the English given name – reveals the French linguistic and cultural heritage..." Can someone with the right capabilities add the pronunciation to this entry? We may not have enough to satisfy a linguist, but just getting the accent on the second syllable would be helpful I think. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honorific[edit]

+++ When Robert Sarah was elevated to a Cardinal, his name changed permanently. The name on this page should be "Robert Cardinal Sarah". I suggest we change the name of the page to match. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NearlyMad (talk • contribs) 16:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:HONORIFIC, we generally don't use honorifics on Wikipedia except in rare circumstances. --ChiveFungi (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Robert Sarah is his name. Let's avoid the flummery. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality[edit]

I do not understand why we have to avoid properly describing Sarah's position with regards to the title. His views are not neutral in relation to homosexuality - he actively intervenes to prevent any recognition of LGBT rights. He may well believe he does this for the right reasons but his words and actions have an impact in the real world outside of the Catholic church. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contaldo80, regarding your recent revert, I fail to understand how the word "homosexuality" is anything but neutral. It does not suggest that the thing being discussed is in any way good or bad. On the contrary, "LGBT rights" is an obviously partisan term, because it implies the existence of certain rights that homosexual or transgender people have which others are obliged to recognize. This is something that Sarah would disagree with. Further, it appears that the majority of editors agree with me. Since we last had this discussion on the Sarah article in 2017, three people have attempted to remove the term "LGBT rights" from the title. All of them were reverted by you. I trust you know that Wikipedia is determined by consensus, so that when a group of people seems to want something in an article to change, it would be a major problem and contrary to Wikipedia guidelines if they were all stopped by a single editor.
As for an alternative title, "Opposition to LGBT movement" would be fine with me. It's the word "rights" that I think is really a problem. Display name 99 (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we do have a problem. Sarah is a religious figure. His beliefs are not grounded in the secular or the scientific. The position of his church is that gays can never have rights conferred on them. Therefore he would agree that he is not opposed to LGBT rights - as he does not recognize sexual orientation as a label nor that such rights exist. But many people do believe such people exist and that they are entitled to such rights. So we need to find a form of words that reflects that reality bearing in mind this is a secular encyclopaedia (and most readers will not be catholic or Christian). "Homosexuality" on its own is odd - is he homosexual? "Opposition to homosexuality" is incorrect - as Catholic teaching is neutral on homosexual sexual orientation, but hates the sexual act. Is he merely in line with the Catholic church? Again no. His pronouncements on this issue have been particularly hard-line and contrast with a number of his clerical colleagues who are inclined to be more inclusive of the LGBT community. I can't see why "Opposition to homosexuality and LGBT rights" won't do. Are you saying that he isn't opposed to LGBT rights? Or are you arguing that he doesn't agree such things exist? If the latter then I think we need to write the article from the point of view of a neutral observer and not from the perspective of Cardinal Sarah. Again I am not trying to block consensus but I do want to be reassured that editors have properly considered the different perspectives around the issue and not just the one argued by Sarah himself - as that would be unbalanced. Thanks.Contaldo80 (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am on Contaldo80's side here; Sarah is an extremist even amongst the African church. It isn't that he's opposed to LGBT rights - he equates the very existence of LGBT people and views with Nazism and the devil. Perhaps the title is actually too mild and should be something along the lines of "Extremist views on gender and sexuality"? Black Kite (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well you do at least have somebody else on your side in this discussion. Black Kite, the title that you suggested is ridiculously biased, far more than the current title, and would not do. I think that even Contaldo80 would agree that it is inappropriate. Contaldo80, it is true that many people believe that that sexual orientation labels can be applied to people and that they are deserving of certain rights. But it is also true that many people don't. People like Sarah don't believe that LGBT people should have certain rights in the first place, but the title of the section seems to imply that they do indeed have them. I'm not saying that the article should adopt the viewpoints of Sarah or those who are supporters of him. I understand that this is not what Wikipedia is for. But I also don't think that it should adopt the viewpoints of his opponents, and in my opinion, that is what this title seems to do. I understand your issues with other titles, which is why I think "Opposition to LGBT movement" would work better. This way, we do not adopt the viewpoints of Sarah's opponents who call these things "rights," we avoid the confusion and imprecision of things like "Homosexuality" and "Opposition to homosexuality," and we also do not imply that Sarah's views are in any way correct. Basically, I think that "LGBT rights" is a partisan term used by people friendly to certain types of behaviors, while "LGBT movement" is a perfectly neutral term. I think that you will concede that the current title is at the very least controversial. But "Opposition to LGBT movement" is a completely non-controversial title that will hopefully stop the slow pattern of reverts that have been going on at this article. And this isn't really relevant here, but I think that for a biography of a cardinal, the majority of readers probably would consider themselves Catholics or Christians in some way. However, this should not in any way affect how he work on the article. Display name 99 (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for engaging constructively on this issue (I contrast your approach with my dealings with a number of other editors over recent months!) Yes I can go with your suggestion as a compromise. I wonder if we should then try and "roll-out" this terminology across other related articles? Contaldo80 (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for engaging constructively as well. I've gone ahead and changed the article. As for doing this at other articles, I think that "LGBT movement" is certainly a step above "LGBT rights," which in my opinion ought to be eliminated from any of these titles in articles. I don't see a huge problem with "Opposition to homosexuality" in most cases, but if you prefer LGBT movement, I have no objection to you changing it. You did make a good point about homosexuality as a sexual orientation, which technically the Church does not oppose, vs. homosexual behavior, so I do think that it might be a little bit better. Feel free to change any articles you want from "Opposition to homosexuality" to "Opposition to LGBT movement." You will encounter no opposition from me. Display name 99 (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok cool. Contaldo80 (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

This could be added to the article:

In January 2024, Sarah called Fiducia Supplicans, a document from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith permitting the blessing of same-sex couples, "a heresy that seriously undermines the Church". Reference: Quiñones, Kate (8 January 2024). "Cardinal Sarah speaks out against clergy blessing same-sex unions". Catholic News Agency. Retrieved 10 January 2024.

The reference is properly formatted in source code. My issue is that I can't seem to think under which subsection it would fit in the article.

A broad issue in the article's organisation is that a lot of Sarah's views are discussed as part of his time in the Curia, which disqualifies coverage of views and statements made before or after it, but Sarah is still an influential voice whose views are widely-reported because of his previous appointment. Also, some of the discussions within the article's body are merely reporting his views rather than anything directly related to the Curia. In that sense, a new section dedicated solely to his views, rather than activities in the Curia, could be a welcome reorganisation of the article, allowing editors also to incorporate his notable views expressed outside his time in the Curia. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_Sarah&oldid=1209350170"