Talk:John F. Harvey

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

Spam

I've removed a lot of the fan-cruft from this article and will be removing more. Wikipedia is not a

place to promote your personal beliefs about homosexuality. This needs a ton of work, assuming the guy is notable at all, which is by no means clear based on the paucity of reliable sources cited. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Paucity of Information - Google search "fr. john f. harvey", 1180 results; "fr. john harvey", 4890, ""john francis harvey" 3920, "john f. harvey, osfs" 2930. Notability - The subject of 35 national conferences, founder of seminary, scholar fellowships and organizations, author of 12+ books, a few dozen peer reviewed journal articles. etc. etc. Personal Opinions and Beliefs - None in the article. All statements are referenced to external sources. None are mine. What seems to be the issue is Roscelese's personal aversion to the work of Courage and Fr. Harvey. Please compare her user profile and the content of the article on Fr. Harvey and draw your own conclusion as to why she is initiating this edit-warring behavior.Hoestermann 21:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't matter without
reliable and independent sourcing. I will gently suggest to you that "gay people are inherently unfit to edit this article" is not a productive line of inquiry. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Not Spam

Replying to Roscelese. Your actions, and the complaints in your user page, speak for themselves. No facade of neutrality will hide the fact of your biases on issues concerning abortion, sexuality, marriage and the Catholic Church.

As it stands, the article on John F. Harvey is no longer "written like an advertisement," "contains original research, or "relies too much on references to primary sources."

As for your claim of the so-called "paucity of reliable sources", one wonders at the audacity of it. More than 50 sources, critical and affirmative, are not sufficient enough for what was two- to three-page article? Really, they were not "reliable and independent sourcing"? Of course, I could have quoted articles in the New York Times or the Washington Post on Fr. Harvey. But why should I? The National Catholic Register is equally reliable and independent. Hoestermann 12:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

You originally dismissed Fr. Harvey's "notability." The entry on Courage International was created 17:54, May 31, 2006‎ — that's more than NINE years ago. If Courage International deserves a place in Wikipedia, logically it's founder should be, too; unless, of course, one were prone to certain prejudices and did not want the world to know about him. Hoestermann 12:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources, you should cite them, instead of citing the bad ones that are in this article. That way, you could attempt to demonstrate Harvey's notability. Either way, you must stop restoring personal commentary and inappropriate language. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited: it does not always follow that the founder of an organization is notable just because the organization is notable. —C.Fred (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Replying to Roscelese. OK. You claim to be an expert on "good" and "bad" sources. Tell me which ones you object to and why. For everyone else, please see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John F. Harvey answering Roscelese's baseless accusations of "adding poor sources, personal commentary and inappropriate language". BTW, I, or anyone else for that matter, do not need to prove Fr. Harvey's notability. Let's do the logic. Wikipedia already has an entry on Courage International. Fr. Harvey was a founder of Courage International. Ergo, Fr. Harvey is notable enough to merit an entry in Wikipedia. In my view, the only remaining issue is Roscelese's opinion that I have used bad (her term) sources. I am waiting for her to substantiate her allegation. Hoestermann 13:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Harvey is inextricably associated with Courage Int'l and does not have independent notability, that is an argument for redirecting his name to that article. I'd be fine with that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Roscelese. Still no response. I take it Roscelese cannot substantiate the allegations and accusations she has indiscriminately flung at my writing. And, NO REDIRECTING, Fr. Harvey is a moral theologian in his own right. His work on St. Augustine's Confessions, and other articles and books outside of the subject of same-sex attraction, are widely recognized as original contributions in Catholic moral theology since the 1950s. I intend to find secondary sources to make precisely that point in the near future and make additions to the John F. Harvey page. To eliminate the John F. Harvey page, and insert a redirect to Courage International is to erase the separate recognition he deserves. If that is done, I will construe it as an exercise of obliterating his memory. How convenient for those who have a prejudice against the teachings of the Catholic Church on sexuality that Fr. Harvey faithfully defended over the last 60 years! I hesitate to emphasize Roscelese's non-too-subtle subterfuge in promoting the idea of "redirecting." For those monitoring or willing to join the discussion, I refer to the discussion also taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John F. Harvey. Hoestermann 19:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Additional note on Roscelese's most recent changes. The Catholic Church does not use the word "gay" in any of her primary documents. The Church uses "same-sex attraction." To forcibly insert "gay" is to ignore a fundamental principle: The Church teaches that a person is not identified solely by his sexuality that the word "gay" connotes. Roscelese: Please DO NOT impose your personal opinions. See the section in

Homosexuality and the Catholic Church that quotes the Catechism of the Catholic Church, i.e. paragraphs 2357—2359. I also restored Wikipedia links and the list of relevant works of Fr. Harvey's which Roscelese deleted with neither merit nor satisfactory explanation. Roscelese: Please DO NOT act as judge, jury and executioner to suit your personal tastes. See also Talk:Courage International
comments recently posted by me. If an administrator is watching Roscelese's activities on articles related to same-sex attraction and Catholic teaching, please send a cease and desist warning. Hoestermann 20:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Replying to

Terence Cardinal Cooke are also credited with the impetus for Courage International. Both have separate articles in Wikipedia. Following your logic of which is the parent subject, the articles on both men would have to be subsumed under the Apostolate. I think not. Fr. Harvey deserves a separate article if only he founded Courage International. But he did more than that. What about his work in consolidating the seminaries and theological faculties in Washington D.C. in the 1950—1990s? What about his contribution to Catholic moral theology based on the teachings of St Francis de Sales and St. Augustine of Hippo? What about his work on expanding the Allentown College of St. Francis de Sales and the making of DeSales University
from 1980—2010? I rest my case. Hoestermann 20:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for consensus on open issues

1. Inclusion of categories of (i) journal articles, (ii) interviews and lectures and (iii) multimedia productions, all by Fr. Harvey, and all were deleted by Roscelese without any explanation. Fr. Harvey is the pre-eminent moral theologian on same sex attraction from the Catholic perspective. In my view, including the list of works in the foregoing categories, without imparting judgment on the merit of their content, adds information that readers would find useful, whichever side of the political divide they inhabit. Agree or disagree?

2. Inclusion of Wikipedia links:

For teachings of the Catholic Church:

For other points of view:

As it currently stands, linking only Homosexuals Anonymous and Restored Hope Network is an implicit POV, i.e., that the Catholic point of view is somewhat "suspect" or "wrong." The issue is more expansive, and readers would benefit from reading the links included "For teachings of the Catholic Church." Agree or disagree?

3. Terms of art. Propose using "same sex attraction" (in quotes). If needed with "gay" (in quotes and parentheses) immediately after SSA, but only in its first occurrence. As noted elsewhere, using "gay" is a POV to which the Catholic Church does not subscribe, and Fr. Harvey specifically denies. Agree or disagree?

4. Specific edits: The phrases are located in the following sections:

  • Intro: "He wrote about homosexuality and Roman Catholicism" is a mischaracterization of Fr. Harvey's legacy. First, Fr. Harvey's work is not limited to SSA. He is known first as a scholar of St. Augustine of Hippo. My proposal — "According to Eamonn Keane, he was one of the foremost experts in the world on the complex moral and pastoral questions associated with same-sex attraction, inclination and activity.[1] He founded Courage Apostolate, a Catholic organization that advises Catholics with same-sex attraction to lead chaste lives."[2] Agree or disagree?
  • Priestly ministry: "While teaching at DeSales, Harvey lived at Wills Hall, student residence." This is true, but says nothing about his priestly ministry there. Wills Hall had two priests as housing directors, Fr. Harvey and Fr. Leonard. Together they shepherded the students there, i.e., that was the work they did there. My proposal — "For twenty years while teaching at DeSales, Fr. Harvey lived at the Wills Hall student residence, with his fellow Oblate priest, Fr. Peter Leonard, O.S.F.S., where they ministered to the pastoral, spiritual and intellectual needs of the students there."[3] Agree or disagree?
  • Courage apostolate: "Harvey is best known for urging gay Catholics to be chaste. In November 1978". See point 1 above. Fr. Harvey had had a 30-year career in teaching and writing before he founded Courage. A glance at the list of the positions he held will verify this. It is important to emphasize the point. My proposal — "Harvey had already been teaching moral theology for 30 years, while also providing spiritual guidance to seminarians and priests struggling with same-sex attraction when, in November 1978" Agree or disagree?

Citations to be included in the texts proposed above

  1. ^ Eamonn Keane, "Difficult questions on homosexuality and gay 'marriage' answered by Fr John Harvey, OSFS," Renew America, June 20, 2010. [1] Retrieved 2015-06-30
  2. ^ About Courage http://couragerc.org/courage/about/. Retrieved 2015-06-29.
  3. ^ Jamie Rankis and Jenna Turner, "Retired from DeSales, Rev. Harvey was 'A Blessing for us All'," The Minstrel, Vol. 44, No. 6, 2010. [2]
  4. ISBN 978-1606084236
  5. ^ Christopher Damian, "Homosexuals anonymous", The Observer, December 6, 2012 [3], quoting Catechism of the Catholic Church, ¶2357. Retrieved 2015-06-29
  6. Homosexuality and the Catholic Church that quotes the Catechism of the Catholic Church
    , i.e. paragraphs 2357—2359, specifically "Chastity and Homosexuality," ¶2357, in Catechism of the Catholic Church, New York, NY: Doubleday, 1997, p. 625

Resolving improvement issues flagged by Roscelese

The article as advertisement

With or without the proposed edits presented above, the article is not "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind ... Opinion piece ... Scandal mongering ... Self-promotion" or "Advertising, marketing or public relations." Roscelese fails to point out how the article is "advertisement," despite repeated requests to do so. Agree or disagree?

The article as original research, relying on primary sources

With or without the proposed edits presented above, the article is not "original research" and does not rely on "primary sources." Opinions expressed were not mine. They were opinions of third parties. Furthermore, none of the opinions made any "analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim." They all came from published and "reliable secondary source." Roscelese fails to point out how the article is "original research, relying on primary sources," despite repeated requests to do so. Agree or disagree? Hoestermann 21:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese responses

Responses in brief:
  1. It's rare to include a complete list of articles and public appearances even for scholars whose work has clearly been significant, and certainly not as
    an external link farm
    .
  2. WP:SEEALSO notes that this section should not repeat links already linked in the article body. This knocks out most of your suggestions already. My suggestion to you would be that if you can't imagine a (reliably sourced) prose sentence in the article in which the see-also could be linked (eg. "Harvey said [thing] about marriage
    "), it might not belong.
  3. Disagree, obviously. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we're not going to eschew common English words because the RCC doesn't accept the people whom those words describe. Additionally, as I pointed out in my edit summary, using jargon creates confusion for the reader, since the RCC certainly doesn't encourage celibacy in bisexuals; they're encouraged to marry someone of the opposite sex.
  4. Intro - Eamonn Kane is an apparent nobody writing for a fringe source, so rather than headlining his opinion for the sole purpose of making the subject look better, we should neutrally summarize the topic or topics that Harvey wrote about. Ministry - I have no problem adding that he was housing director, but I see no need to mention Leonard, and you need to find a neutral way of describing his RA work. Courage - Find a neutral way of wording the text you want to restore. Publications - I'm fine with adding a topic sentence. It doesn't look like "more than a dozen books" is accurate, though? How about instead of numbers, you identify, citing reliable sources, one or two that were particularly significant? Damian's review was removed for the sole reason that the author is literally an undergrad, you need to find real sources if you want to claim that Harvey's work is important.
After we resolve these issues, let's check whether or not it's still ad-like and still includes original research. It certainly still needs better sourcing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While of some utility, the above is not a consensus building exercise. It is not even a dialog, but merely an exchange. For a consensus, there needs to be more editors. Specific comments to follow. H.Oestermann 03:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

My two cents

  1. Personally I'm trying to reduce the list aspects because that might be too non-standard.
  2. Not sure here.
  3. But the language he used is relevant to understanding him or his mission. It's not necessary to say his language is standard of the world, but I think there is likely a usefulness in using it for this topic. Certain Islamic or indigenous terminology might be non-standard, but still worth using to understand the topic. Trying to think like an average journalist, and talk about this guy using that language, might end up creating a misleading impression. I've added a sentence to explain SSA, which hopefully doesn't disrupt the flow too much.--T. Anthony (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Roscelese's responses

Eamonn Keane as "nobody"

I will address your other comments at a later date. Now about your characterization of Eamonn Keane as "an apparent nobody writing for a fringe source." (WARNING: POV editing). How do you come to this conclusion? Please corroborate your opinion. FACT: Keane graduated from National University of Ireland and studied Religious Education at the Catholic Teachers Training College in Sydney, Australia. FACT: He currently serves as the head of the Social Science department at Sydney's

Redfield College (NSW). FACT: "Eamonn has taught courses on marital morality and the Catholic social teaching at the Catholic Adult Education Centre in Sydney. He has also taught courses for catechists in the archdiocese of Sydney on The Legacy of St. John Paul II." FACT: he is "no undergraduate" as you claim he is. FACT: Keane has published widely. The short list of his peer-reviewed articles are found here [4] and here [5]. His latest book is found here [6]. FACT: A "nobody" would not have had Fabian Bruskewitz
, the then Bishop of Lincoln, NE, write a special preface to it. QUESTION: Are the journals and publishers at the "fringe" of social sciences? MY COMMENT: I hesitate to point out how you've allowed your apparent and deep-seated prejudices to make you spew out such nonsense as calling Keane "an apparent nobody writing for a fringe source." 'Nuff said. H.Oestermann 18:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

See Also Links

You claim that the links I suggested are "already linked in the article body." FACT: Of the 11, only 1 is in the body of the article, and that is because of YOUR edit. 1 in 11 is not "most". COMMENT: If you're suggesting that I weave in text to justify the "See Also" links, pray tell how you won't summarily delete them. POLICY: The relevant criterion in

common sense." COMMENT: A comprehensive article on Fr. John F. Harvey
would delve deeper into Catholic teaching on sexuality, which the 11 links that I suggested would provide, and common sense would ordain. As to "editorial judgment" I await other contributors to weigh in on the matter. H.Oestermann 18:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

On the use of the term "same-sex attraction"

Where do I begin? 1. Let's start with logic. If you insist on using "gay", that's discriminatory, as it excludes the female kind, and the B's and T's in "LGBT". COMMENT: So, is the solution to say, for instance "Courage Apostolate, a Catholic organization that advises lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Catholics to be chaste"? I think not. Why? Because Courage itself, and countless reports of its activities, say "homosexuals" and/or "those with same-sex attraction." Furthermore, not all who go to Courage events are baptized Catholics. Some even entered the Church because of Courage. On the appropriate use of language on this issue, see the jacket description of Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power here.[http://www.amazon.com/Abuse-Language-Power-Josef-Pieper/dp/089870362X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1437071552&sr=8-1&keywords=Abuse+of+Language%2C+Abuse+of+Power] 2. POV editing. Your objection to the term "same-sex attraction" is because the Catholic Church "doesn't encourage celibacy in bisexuals; they're encouraged to marry someone of the opposite sex." COMMENT: No, that is not true. Catholic teaching is that all men and women are called to be holy, pure and chaste, even in marriage. I know, that sounds a little contradictory. Step out, delve deeper and you might just understand, by reading, for example, the article here.[7]. To drive home the point: a bisexual, by definition has "same-sex attraction." So does a transgender, if the sex at birth is used, and not one after any surgical procedure. So why not use the generally applicable description "same-sex attraction"? CLARIFICATION: "The Church seeks to enable every person to live out the universal call to holiness. Persons with a homosexual inclination ought to receive every aid and encouragement to embrace this call personally and fully. This will unavoidably involve much struggle and self-mastery, for following Jesus always means following the way of the Cross." (USCCB, Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination [2006], p. 13).[8] H.Oestermann 19:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

On Fr. Harvey's work at Wills Hall

What is more neutral than "For twenty years while teaching at DeSales, Fr. Harvey lived at the Wills Hall student residence, with his fellow Oblate priest, Fr. Peter Leonard, O.S.F.S., where they ministered to the pastoral, spiritual and intellectual needs of the students there"? COMMENT: Is saying that a priest ministering to his flock now considered an opinion? Are you saying that "Vincent van Gogh painted The Starry Night" is an opinion? Is saying "Frank Lloyd Wright designed the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum" an opinion? Is the statement "St Augustine of Hippo wrote The Confessions" an opinion? It appears that there is an element of POV editing here. H.Oestermann 19:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

On dismissing Christopher Damian as an "undergraduate"

No, he is not. He writes and blogs for the journals Ethika Politika and The Irish Rover. Some of his articles are found here [9] and here [10]. I suspect that you would opine that Ethika Politika and The Irish Rover are "fringe". Still think that Damian is a mere "undergraduate"? No one would say that Mozart was an insignificant musician, just because he composed his KV. 1-5 works at the tender age of five. We'll see if we can get another more appropriate reviewer, although it's hard to find a more authoritative one than Damian. He is Catholic and he struggles with same-sex attraction. See his article here.[11] H.Oestermann 19:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese's further responses

Hoestermann, please calm down. You need to work in a collaborative fashion with other users and accept that text you write here is subject to Wikipedia policy and to change by other editors.
Briefer responses:
  • I'm not sure you understand what "peer reviewed" means, and I reiterate that someone whose highest qualification is department head at a primary school, with no notable publications, isn't qualified to be quoted in the lead as the determinant of someone else's fame.
  • Remember
    WP:NOR
    .
  • If you don't think "gay" encompasses women, "gay and lesbian" should cover it.
  • Propose neutral text, please.
  • He was an undergraduate at the time, publishing in a student paper. Most of the articles you linked are in student papers; being Catholic and gay is not a qualification or a substitute for being published by a reliable source.
–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will concur with the objection to "gay", "lesbian", and "LGBT", which are POV terms rejected by the Catholic Church, Courage, and Harvey. They have different connotations, as do "homosexual" and "same-sex attraction", and so proper terminology should be used in all cases. To constantly insist on the first three terms in all contexts in all articles across all of Wikipedia is a textbook case of
WP:SYSTEMIC and must be avoided at all costs. P.S. Hoestermann, PLEASE stop making multiple edits to pages and use preview instead. I just had yet another edit conflict with you in this section. Elizium23 (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
    • Elizium23: Thank you, and my apologies. Still haven't got the hang of the editing process. --H. Oestermann (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Appropriate terms must be used. In her dogmatic and apostolic documents, the Catholic Church never uses "gay", "lesbian", "bisexual" or "transgender" to denote a person's sexuality. Again, as I've noted copiously elsewhere, the Church uses the words "homosexual" and "
      Same-sex attraction" is philologically neutral. Finally, SSA is not a Catholic term. Google results indicate that it is used by many other denominations, as well as by many in the health professions and scholars in the social sciences.For example, here [12] Can we put this terminology issue to bed now? --H. Oestermann (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
      ]
Wikipedia is not a Catholic encyclopedia and it is not bound to eschew common English words because the RCC does not accept the people those terms describe. Instead, we describe their position in clear and neutral language, in order to conform to encyclopedia-wide policies and guidelines. Articles relating to the Catholic Church are not exempt from the policies and guidelines that govern everyone else. If you believe bisexuals are included, which does not seem to be the case, write "gay and bisexual." "People with same-sex attraction", à la "people with cancer", is not appropriate on Wikipedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Homosexual" is neutral. "Same-sex attraction" even more so. "Gay" is not - it is highlyhighly charged POV. It remains POV even when it is used by a whole lot of liberal mainstream media, so-called
WP:RS. Elizium23 (talk) 04:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
This talk page isn't the place to overhaul the community's entire RS policy. I think we've had this conversation before, and I think you're unlikely to get anywhere with "Oxford University Press/the New York Times/the Telegraph etc. write under the assumption that gay people exist, totally unreliable!" –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The language a person identifies I think or thought can be used in their articles at least in some cases. I don't think the word "gay" should necessarily be banned from the article, but considering his perspective same-sex attracted should be in there too. We don't need to avoid using Catholic cultural terminology outright, in all articles, I don't think. All that said I think some things in this article maybe need to be tweaked a bit for greater readability. (Also I looked for more critical reviews od his books, but it's possible they're not well-known outside conservative Catholic circles. In any event I haven't really found anything like that.)--T. Anthony (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better to use the term we'd use in normal encyclopedic prose and add a clarifying note explaining nonstandard terminology, rather than the reverse. (We're not avoiding it because it's "Catholic cultural terminology", we're avoiding it because it's non-neutral and ambiguous; as such, it's imperative that we frame it, preferably with a quotation, as his/his organization's particular view, not Wikipedia's. I'm slightly offended, on behalf of Catholic friends, that there's something inherently non-neutral about any Catholicism-related term, as opposed to certain deliberately political terms in vogue in the RCC.) I'm also not sure we need to repeat the explanation more than one time; I'd suggest accommodating your recommendation by writing "a Catholic organization that advises gay Catholics, which it describes as people 'dealing with same-sex attractions',<cite> to be chaste" in the lede and then using normal encyclopedic language in the other places in the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
People quite different than you might find "gay and lesbian" non-neutral. Wanting one terminology to be first rather than second does seem a bit petty and I'm trying for a middle-ground here. (I'd prefer someone neither Catholic nor LGBT jump in here, but that seems unlikely to happen I take it.) I am stating this is the terminology he used. Still if it's really that important to you I'd be fine with you reversing the order, I've just decided not to myself because I don't see why it's necessary as long as it's understandable.--T. Anthony (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, if someone finds "gay and lesbian" non-neutral, they have such a fundamental disagreement with Wikipedia's RS and NPOV policy that this is not the place for them. (Re first/second; it's not an ordering thing, it's a question of what we put in Wikipedia's voice and what we attribute. But "organization that advises what it describes as people 'dealing with same-sex attractions', meaning gay people" sounds way worse!) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find many Wikipedia policies to be a bit off, but Wikipedia is not a political ideology or religion. Sometimes we alter in what terminology can be allowed. (I remember the efforts to make "actress" practically verboten.) Sometimes Wikipedians have beliefs the average Wikipedian, who is generally male and irreligious thus not like either of us, do not. What I'm trying to do is acknowledge the different uses of language, even acknowledging yours is more standard, without having it take sides. And this usage "same-sex attracted" is pretty common in Catholic and Mormon blogs, magazines, etc. If Wikipedia says you can't try to find a balance on religion-related articles, that populist or secularist terms must be used exclusively, then yes Wikipedia is wrong. But I don't think Wikipedia is inevitably as persnickety and unbending as all that. Further I think Wikipedia does sometimes allow culturally-specific language if it's appropriate to the topic.
Crow trans woman. Their people referred to her as a badé (also spelled baté), which was a male whose sex assignment was as a woman."--T. Anthony (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Still in the interest of balance I have switched word-order once and added some statements from Timothy Kincaid. As the article on Illinois Family Institute cites him, and the Box Turtle Bulletin, I think that could make him a source. Interestingly he's not that negative, but he is what I found so far. I hope the Catholic Wikipedians won't be angry with me, but it is true you can't be one-sided on Wikipedia. My main concern is that I possibly put his quotes in the wrong place so may move it. (I have moved it to legacy.)--T. Anthony (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think your current text is fine. I am also not sure Kincaid is a great source, even if it's clear that it's an opinion, but perhaps he's comparable to the "support" sources. I'd point out, though, that the new NC Register source explaining why the RCC doesn't acknowledge "gay" isn't about Harvey so its inclusion, to say nothing of the specific implication of him in the reference to it, is synthetic; we don't need the explanation from a reader-help perspective, and if it illuminates something about Harvey/Courage, it'll be in a source about them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is Roscelese saying that the John F. Harvey article should be written only in language she wants? In other words: her way or the highway? Is she claiming some superseding editorial authority in some imagined Wikipedia hierarchy? I thought Wikipedia relies on consensus.--H. Oestermann (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


On Roscelese's casting further aspersions on Eamonn Keane, describing him as a "nobody"

Whether Eamonn Keane is a teacher at a primary school or not is not a criterion to pass judgment on his fitness as a scholar.

four groundbreaking papers in physics while he was a patent clerk! Go back again to the list here [13] and here [14]. There are listed a significant number of books by Keane that have been published. One must admit that few articles listed there are in peer-reviewed scholarly journals. I have contacted Keane asking him for a complete list of his works. However, for purposes of the John F. Harvey article, a neutral observer would be satisfied with his books dealing with issues in Catholic teaching as evidence of his scholarly bona fides. See his The Ordained Priesthood: The Real Issues (1996) and Humanae Vitae: Wisdom For All Ages (1998). You will note that Keane is also founder and current President of the Population and Environment Research Institute, Sydney, Australia. Still think he's small fry? PS. As for calming down, I'll wait until you show no more of your prejudicial tics in my contributions to Wikipedia and can pass sound editorial judgment based on verifiable facts, in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:ASSERT --H. Oestermann (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John F. Harvey. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_F._Harvey&oldid=1202605642"