Talk:Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The sentence deleted was:

According to legend, The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence were placed on the Papal List of Heretics by the Pope upon his visit to San Francisco as a result of their public exorcism of the Catholic Church's dogma, hypocrisy, guilt and shame.

I've been trying to think of a way to reword this to make it encyclopedic, but I don't think there is one. It isn't just that it's untrue (there is no "List of Papal Heretics"), it is phrased in a way that implies the Catholic Church is dogmatic and hypocritical, and spreads guilt and shame.

The SPI may believe this, but I don't think anyone would claim that it is more than an opinion. If the line had said, "The SPI believe that the Catholic Church is..", then that would have at least been worded neutrally, but the fact that (1) I don't know this for sure (not being a Sister) and (2) the main point of the sentence is factually false means I can't provide an NPOV translation.

I see from the history pages that members of the SPI contribute to this article & talk page. Please feel free to clarify or discuss what should go in here, but please don't replace the sentence I have deleted until it has been rephrased neutrally and verifiably.

~ Veledan | Talk | c. 17:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Reworded and corrected the innacuracy, there was another incident when the pope visited San Francisco but the heretic portion happened years earlier. Culed from extensive archival writings. Yes even the Sisters own website has the innacurate version which has been repeatedly quoted. Let's hope it gets updated.

FredrikM: What is this "Papal List of Heretics"? Is there such a list? Where can I read it? I've tried googled it but I found only references to The Sisters.

The miracle of the internet is that internal group items that aren't password protected can be seen by anyone. There used to be a heretic list which is still believe to be in use listing artists, politicians, businesses and others including activists like the Sisters. Once it was referenced publicly the link was disabled, the list removed and, of course, its existence denied.

'Papal heretic' is a term used by some protestant groups to denegrate popes - i.e. heretic and papal. I can't see any reference anywhere to it being used in this context. A citation should be provided to back this claim up. 82.153.96.176 10:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The original (copyvio) article stated that the Sisters are nuns. The Sisters website, however, makes it clear that the group began as three men dressed in habits. There is no mention at all in the history of any actual nuns joining the group. The "Sisters" refer to themselves as nuns, but they are not nuns. If the article is re-written to avoid copyvio, please keep this in mind. --SWAdair | Talk 04:52, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"The Sisters do not claim to be Catholic nuns. But of course there are many kinds of nuns. For example Tibetan Buddhist nuns. The Sisters loosely think of themselves as gay nuns. In one respect, they serve their community and find that a similar function performed by "traditional" nuns.

One of the things the Sisters offer comes from the Gay social revolution; that being that social roles claimed for millenia by straight white male institutions are no more credible or authoritative than those created by other members of the world community." --Anonymous

From the Sisters' website (The Sisters' FAQ):

Why do you mock nuns?

We are not mocking nuns, we are nuns. We are very dedicated to our calling and our vows reflect our commitment to our community. Look at the work traditional nuns do. Look at the work we do. They minister to their community. We minister to our community. They raise funds for the needy. We raise funds for the needy. They are educators. We are educators. See any significant differences? The list goes on and on...

The argument could be made that the Sisters are not ordained or recognised as nuns by an "official" authority (i.e. the Catholic Church). However, as the anonymous quote above points out, we don't consider the word of the Catholic Church to carry any more authority than our own. We serve in much the same capacity as traditional nuns, we consider ourselves to be nuns and our community accepts us as nuns. See also

the significant difference between these Sisters and nuns is that nuns - whether Catholic, Lutheran, or Buddhist - take vows of some form of poverty and chastity (and often obedience), whether temporary or perpetual. It is not simply a matter of dedication to a community or of good works. The usual word for that would be Sisterhood. There is no reason at all to extend the word nun, which even in Catholicism is not used for all women with vows but only a sub-classification, to include this group. 142.68.48.107 14:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As the article point out the Sisters queer not only traditional gender roles, social structures and ways of being, etc. but they also queer the rules as befits them as 21st century nuns. So they vow to public service, to expiate stigmatic guilt and promulgate universal joy and leave poverty and chastity to other orders to sort out. Benjiboi 14:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The OED definition of nun mentions only vows not "poverty chastity and obedience". Additional older definitions are included of pagan priestess and courtesan. The definition of enclosed women is linited to the Catholic church. --Simon Speed 15:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The OED I use - 2nd edition, 1989 - says 'A woman devoted to a religious life under certain vows - usually one who has vowed poverty, chastity, and obedience, and who lives in a convent under a certain rule, as in the Roman Catholic and Greek Churches.' So a) the vows ARE specified, although qualified by 'usually'; b) the word 'convent is included as part of the definition, and the Catholic Church is mentioned by way of example, not as a limiting part of the definition. The meaning 'courtesan' is qualified as 'transf.' which means transferred, which in literary terms is not a new definition, but a 'poetic' one, and c) it specifies women.

Nowhere is the word defined as 'people who do good works'. Admirers of the 'Sisters' can of course use whatever language they want to describe themselves; Wikipedia should use standard English, and clarify when a word is used in a non-standard way.140.184.192.117 13:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

quoting from another editor more learned than I in these matters - "The terms monk and nun - also monastery and convent, are anglisized terms used alternatly for men and women and their religious dwellings. In fact, traditionally and in ancient usage a more correct term would be monastic or ascetic or anchorite or hesychast, and their dwelling a monastery. These terms apply to men and women."

Benjiboi

17:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The word "convent" is indeed included in the definition, but only within the scope of "usually". All the non-Catholic sources (eg. Cross & Livingstone The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Chuch 3rd ed. 1997 ) state that this is only part of the definition for Roman Catholicism. There is still the older definition, present in the OED, that of Pagan Priestess: this shows the Catholic and other usages to be newfangled ones that have come into common parlance. The SPI are at lest as close to the original meaning of the word as Catholic nuns as well fulfilling the socially accepted functions of nuns for their community.--Simon Speed 18:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Simon, then maybe the word that should be used is "Pagan Priestess." The point is that "nun" as itis used in english, objectively, doesn't cover the SPI at all. They are satire on nuns and an ENCYCLOPEDIA should reflect that. But then again, you really just view this as a marketing site for SPI, so why bother? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.191.97 (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

GuyIncognito 08:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Me and another Wikipedian are having a discussion on Talk:Nun and possibly an edit war over whether the SPI page keeps its link on Nun. It might be of interest. I think that what's needed on the SPI page is a section neutrally describing the positions - and all the references cited. --Simon Speed 02:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"a section neutrally describing the positions" - how about a dictionary? Would a dictinary be neutral? Wikipedia gives itself another black eye on this one. Not the part about 'self-described', but the use of the word nun later in the article. Check a dictionary and look up the word 'nun'. while you're there look up irony, sarcasm, mockery, and any other host of things. Community activists who do good works are admirable, but they are not nuns! 140.184.192.117 13:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Would the Oxford English Dictionary be good enough? I used that to change the definition in

priestess. Unfortunatley I couldn't keep that bit in the page in spite of the gold-standard source. So much for Wikipedia is not censored see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The nun page currently promotes a Catholic Church view of nuns and anything different just doesn't fit. --Simon Speed

20:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmph. Both of those definitions fit here! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I remember meeting Sister Mary Power-Hungry Bitch at the Castro Street festival in SF in the early 90s. --AStanhope 15:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

She is actually Sister Vicious Power Hungry Bitch or Sister Vicious PHB and was given that name by her fellow Sisters, she is one of the four founders of the group and is still around.Benjiboi 06:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a former member of two different singing groups in San Francisco, the San Francisco Gay Men's Chorus and the Pacific Gay and Lesbian Singers, in which I sang with the original Reverend Mother of the SPI, Bill Graham. I've always found it more than a little amusing that his given name was the same as that of the prominent evangelist, and, as appropriately, the rock promoter. There are a lot of stories I could tell, but none of them are encyclopedic at all. :-( Glad to see the SPI included here, though.—Chidom ^talk  23:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just removed the Joke religions category. This category contains beliefs like the Flying Spaghetti Monster which are not intended to be believed in and organisations like the the Landover Baptist Church which are not intended to be taken seriously but only to be mocked.

The Sisters clearly use humour, but are quite serious about their stated aims. Even their opponents do not claim that the Sisters don't stand for what they say they do. Their opponents object to the Sisters message, and even more so, how they choose to promote it. So the SPI are a humorous organisation but not a joke one.

Also they are not a religion, but an order of nuns. From the Sisters website, they can be seen to include members with a variety of religious beliefs including Christian.--Simon Speed 18:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, new-ish to wikipeda but very familiar with the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence They are nuns to those in their communities they serve even though they are not tied down to one church or set of beliefs. There are quite a few FEMALE Sisters as well as it seems the gender issue has some completely bothered.

Perhaps this discussion could also enliven the concept that there are many who do consider the Sisters nuns but they simply aren't publishing encyclopedias? The Sisters are widely quoted in newspapers, books and magazines but as a much newer group (founded 1979) they are considered upstarts compared with traditional viewpoints of who and what a nun is - and i think that is the point. They challenged many concepts of gender and power and seem to have a few of those here absolutely obsessed with seeing them discredited and banished from even being thought about as nuns. Mission accomplished indeed.

My hunch is they absolutely should be a part of the article and maybe slightly discredited by calling them alternative nuns or simply drag nuns which is a term they use. But if denial is your bag then by all means.

ps There are Sisters who are Catholic and recovering Catholic as well! Benjiboi 16:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC) benji

Just wanted to let any interested parties know that I wikilinked a whole bunch of the article, then moved things into two sections. The first is all about the SPI, the second is about different actions and activities - in chronological order. Let me know if I messed anything up. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh! I forgot to mention that I took out the paragraph:

First, it's all one quoted paragraph and really should be paraphrased and cited in order to be kept. Second, no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't decipher it enough to paraphrase and cite it :) I guess my degree is pretty much useless. <sigh> Anyway, please put it back if you can decipher it. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Re-adding paragraph, I should have reference that the paragraph was a part of the summary of her paper, will try to reference both.Benjiboi 16:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph is actually a small section of the closing summary of her article but in trying to add the reference I kept formatting something wrong so am giving up for now.

The reference given to the paper is kewl. The issue I have is that it's a very scholarly paragraph. For some of us that haven't been in college for quite a little while, it's really hard to figure out what it means. Perhaps you could reword it in everyday English? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Will try although it would take away from the original so maybe adding an interpretation might work. I'll see what I can whip up!Benjiboi 18:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the category and made an attempt to organize it with mixed results, I think it should be by continent in alpha order then countries, states, cities, etc. which generally sorts out most of it with only the Mission order which itself covers several US States to be sorted. Benjiboi 01:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I did a bit of organizing, but I think they should still be alphabetized. Will try to work on this again tomorrow. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think for the general user relating to their country and city is most relevant just like most corporations list all their offices and maybe denote that San Francisco is where all the trouble started. Benjiboi 06:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

So sort by location, and maybe put that column first? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think by continent first; Africa (Sister Blanch de Root is in South Africa), Asia (there is a missionary in Thailand via the Aussie Sisters), Austrailia, Europe, North America, South America. Then by Country, State, City (and alpha if more than one in a given city like Portland, Oregon.) Thanks for working on that - the formatting stuff is still over my head a bit. Benjiboi 18:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that order, but I think we should limit it to established houses or orders. For instance, Sr Blanch de Root may be in South Africa, but there isn't an established, recognized presence of the Sisters there. I mean, I'm in New Hampshire for most of the year, but since I'm the only one, that shouldn't be listed.

Speaking of which, there missing founding dates. I'm going to see Sr Soami (née Missionary Position) at Beltaine - I'll ask her if there's a publicly available list of houses and their founding dates. One of the situations we're going to run into here is that we are running close to

original research, which is frowned upon. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs

) 20:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm considering removing "The Sanctuary of the Sisters of Perepetual Contumaciousness". The only reference I find to them on the web is on the "World Orders" page of the SPI site and the exact copy of it (in German) on the German Sister's site. Thoughts? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely country specific with the Sisters as to what is an established house or not. If they are listed on the reference pages of one or more of the US Sister's houses websites then I would say include it otherwise perhaps a new section of areas of interest might make sense. Not sure. Benjiboi 02:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And the Columbian Sister's site hasn't been updated in three years... -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Columbian Sisters (the "suicide order" lol!) is underground in New York City at times because of death threats, I believe, and regular internet connection is yet to materialize so they do seem active but not communicating their activities.

Umm... None of that is about the Sisters. Shouldn't it all be in his article, not here? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The entire controversy of his ambassadorship to Luxemburg was hinged on his association with the Sisters as flimsy as that argument was. I'll rework it more when I have a moment.Benjiboi 22:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. The whole thing can probably be shortened to about a paragraph, though, since the article should focus on SPI, not Hormel :) It'll need a reference, too. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The player's involved speak to the purpose and level of institutionalized homophobia reaching the highest levels (of shame and public office) so I would hate to lose that context. (sigh) I'll work on it a bit later. Benjiboi 02:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think these are in rough chronological order but not sure what importance I would put on them, just knowing that it would be good to reference them somewhere for future inclusion. I know the list is hardly complete but is more notable marks potentially for the article.

La Klubstituta Ala Oasis/Prop 215/Med Marijuana
The Condom Saviour Consecration and Vow
Three Mile Island Protest
Gay Bingo(s)
Dog Show in the Castro (with Shirley MaClaine (sp?))
Sistericus
STOP the Violence Campaign
Sister Sam and The Queer Army
Burning Man festival
Consisterly Conspiracy archive show

Benjiboi 05:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There are quite a few other milestones and I feel it makes sense to lay them all out and properly cite and then move to different articles as appropriate. There are already articles for-

Cockettes, Hibiscus (need to add Angles of Light and then build into pre-Sisters context
Harvey Milk
Nuns of The Above
Pink Saturday
Radical Faeries
Hippies

Need to add

Klubstitute
Diet Popstitute
other saints
awards?

Benjiboi 14:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mind if I do some copy-editing on the new stuff as I'm able? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, please avoid wholesale deletions - if there is any glaring plot flaws let me know as I had a bunch of things deleted by a spambot so I easily could have screwed something up.Benjiboi 00:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You'rre not really supposed to change previous discussions... Just FYI :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 12:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

apologies, I was trying to add some organization and felt the "go girl" - well, not sure but it didn't feel right. I was treating it as email and simply shouldn't have. I've read up on modifying discussions and will aim to do better from here on in.Benjiboi 13:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem! Perhaps I was a bit .. informal :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged this article with {{inappropriate tone}} because while the article is well-sourced and pretty well-written, unfortunately it has a rather light-hearted tone, and reads somewhat like a promotional piece in parts.

That seems fair, there is a lot of material to be worked in and then possibly sections to be turned into separate articles as appropriate. Is there any sections in particular that need addressing?Benjiboi 17:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little wary of this sort of tagging, as it can be used to justify a lot of messing about. And a light-hearted approach is one general human mechanism for coping with difficult situations. As an example of what I felt was a little off-target, consider the whole section about the Rainbow Flag. It's mostly material which fits better in a seperate article, with a brief summary here. And there's a couple of bits of that section which could be read as a promotional piece. Zhochaka 22:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I'll look at that section in a bit and see what is readily presented (and likely free from deletion) I'll also look to promotional tone although that's not always my strong suit to see what can be streamlined out.

Benjiboi

22:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link saying that it was the fastest growing order, as there was no evidence given that it was. The link it cited said nothing of the nature. Secondly, it linked to "Holy Orders", which is Catholic... but this organization is obviously not Catholic. Also, I would hesistate to call these individuals "nuns" and link them to the term, as nun again is a Catholic definition, and these people are not Catholic. See source here. Because of this, I edited the words to phrase "self-proclaimed nuns." —The preceding

The claim on which you base your argument, that nuns are Roman Catholic is plainly false: there have been nuns of various religions for thaousands of years. The OED definition mentions "woman" and "vows", but not the Catholic requirement for the woman to be locked up in a convent. The OED also contains 2 further old definitions:- a pagan priestess and a courtesan. As most Catholic orders of nuns are shrinking claiming the SPI, a new organisation, as a relatively rapidly growing order is not too surprising. I have reverted you changes, but removed the link to Holy Orders and added a fact tag to the claim. --Simon Speed 18:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

hello,

this is the foundress mother of the german order here.

i changed the information about the german houses somewhat, as there were minor errors in the names like "Ivenis" instead of "Iuvenis", then there was a wrong date: the berlin house was founded by sister sugarpie as mission of the then heidelberg motherhouse on may 15., 1993, not 1998.

zurich as part of the german-speaking peoples of europe was founded by the berlin sisters in 2005 and became a house in may 2006.

greetings from berlin, germany mother johanna indulgentia tara maria benedicta o.s.p.i. ^{the above comment was added by}User talk:78.48.161.115

Adding user link to comment.

Benjiboi

05:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

changed article on german houses, removed two houses which are not acknowledged by the berlin archmotherhouse due to the fact that their founders are excommunicated former members of the order of which one has never reached fpm-status and the other has bought our name in form of copyrights 12 years after the foundation of the order against the consensus of the berlin house fpm meeting.--Erzmutter 20:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Just because there are inter-country conflicts doesn't change that they are still considered SPI. Unless they are disavowed by the International SPI and forced to reorganize under a new name it should stay. If they have been expunged then a verifiable reference to WP standards needs to be supplied. And then, frankly, they would still be included as a footnote if nothing else.

Benjiboi

20:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

changed the entries again, following the wiki standards i suppose, putting in the years and reflecting the newest developments in the former berlin s.p.i. and o.p.i., which have, after fouer years of a schism, reunited in september 2007 as o.s.p.i. - order of the sisters of perpetual indulgence. reference and documents hereupon is given by request to the archmotherhouse.

--Erzmutter 08:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

my last entries were vandalized since i was here the last time. changed again into state of september the 19th. it would be rather nice if we could find a solution here to stop a certain person well-known to the berlin archmotherhouse of always vandalizing entries in the english and german sisters wiki-pages. greetings from germany!

--Erzmutter 18:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's both a benefit and detriment that anyone can edit here so the best we can do is simply writing good articles to begin with, provide references and then revert any vandalism.

Benjiboi

00:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

thank you, dear. at least it is good to know that there are people loke you who really care for the wiki and are willing to help and give support and speak good words which in some moments of frustration can help one to get calm again ... from berlin much love & light to you! :-) --Erzmutter 21:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Found link for when section is started or event referenced.[1]

These people are nothing but hypocrites. "Educating on various human rights issues and against hate crimes"? Give me a break! I suppose they don't call their invasion of the Most Holy Redeemer church in San Francisco a hate crime! I guess they're only concerned about what will affect them. The rest of the world be damned, as far as they're concerned.

If I were a member of the "alternative community," I would be ashamed to have these "sisters" representing me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocobear 555 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. What I've read is that they were, in fact, welcomed and embraced at Most Holy Redeemer and that the issue, like others at the church, were being blown out of perspective by folks with their own agendas. If and when the mainstream media reports on the issue perhaps we'll have somewhat neutral sources to cite.

Benjiboi

10:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it curious that, unlike the pages for more conservative groups, this one contains no section devoted to controversies caused by the group or that the group was involved in, vice ones that are written in such a way as to make those who opposed the group at the time come off as homophobes, bigots, etc. Nothing on the "Last Supper" poster controversy, or the more recent desecration of a Catholic rite, or anything else the group has done of that nature. I also find it interesting that people on this board are trying to somehow make the SPI somehow not "anti-Catholic" by noting that there are other types of nuns in the world besides those associated with the Catholic Church ... however, those other groups don't use iconic Christian/Catholic robes, imagery, etc.; they have their own distinct look. If the SPI were merely describing themselves as "nuns" but then distancing themselves from the Catholic nuns by developing their own unique look, icons, etc., I could more readily buy that argument. In the end, it's clear to me that the members of this group (and those who insist on defending them) are the real bigots. Nolefan32 04:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

All interesting points but frankly everything they do would seem to be controversial including their very existence so having one section would actually give undue weight to whatever was chosen for that section. The "Last Supper" poster controversy had little to do with this group as they didn't print or authorize the photo, see

Benjiboi

10:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

From the link you provided - "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own." And the SPI have demonstrated what is clearly an intolerance of the Catholic Church. And to call me a bigot for having called them on their intolerance, perhaps you are the one who needs the mirror. As for the festival wear, just because they dress up their Catholic nun habits with glitter, etc., they still START with clearly Catholic habits as the basis for their costuming. As I noted previously, Buddhist nuns, etc., don't borrow anything from Catholicism - they have their own unique style. But hey, look at the SPI's page here on Wiki, check out the photos - there's even a photo of the SPI mocking Christ himself. And yet for pointing that out, I'm the bigot. Clearly you are the type of person who feels that anyone who picks on your beliefs is a bigot, but when you pick on others for their beliefs, you're being, what, open-minded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolefan32 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I can't speak for them but I can say I never ever have seen a traditional Catholic nun look anything like the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence although in their early days (from the back) one might be able to be confused. But wouldn't the beards and the fact they hang around with porn stars in cocktail bars be a sign they aren't trying to emulate the Catholics even if they once did. And even if they were mocking Catholic iconography they are hardly the first ones and even Catholics do many of the same things. Regardless the Sisters stand up for

Benjiboi

02:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I never once challenged the group for trying to right wrongs done against LGBT people; the fact that you bring it up strikes me as trying to distract from the point-at-hand, that while Wikipedia states that they insist all articles be written from a neutral point-of-view, and while that stance is very much enforced on articles regarding conservative groups, commentators, etc. (i.e., the inclusion of sections regarding controversies and in some cases, separate pages dedicated to such), this group's page (as well as the pages for many other liberal groups) is completely deviod of such and drafted in such a way as to hold them in a very flattering light. Now personally, as long as all of the positive things you've said the group has done can be supported (and I don't doubt your word, only note that it's also a Wikipedia policy that all entries be backed up with references), I agree that those things should be included. But in the name of NPOV, any questionable behaviors and controversies linked to the group should also be highlighted just as much. And as far the Catholic habits (BTW, I'm not Catholic, either), it isn't about someone somehow confusing a member of the SPI with an actual Catholic nun (because I do agree with you, that's unlikely to happen), it is about mocking the Catholic church and the church universal. The gay community doesn't appreciate it when non-gays mock them (regardless of whether or not the person doing the mocking ever be taken for a true gay person or not); why should it be expected that the Christian community not be offended by the SPI doing it to them? So yes, regardless of how much good they may be doing for LGBT people around the world, their actions regarding the church reflects a very bigoted attitude toward the church, something this article really seems to try to avoid admitting to. Nolefan32 17:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Indent reset. Well stated and I basically agree. Sources have been provided and certainly exist for everything in the article as of yet but your point (stated a bit more cleanly than previous efforts) is certainly valid. I should point out that they do seem to get a lot of glowing media coverage probably because they take part in some much charity work (like civic groups are known to do) as well as donating money to so many other charities. The criticism that I've seen tends to run a bit extreme and mostly is on "right-wing" and Catholic blogs. I used this latest dust-up to clean the talk pages and put outstanding items to a to do list which has two glaring examples that could be a foundation for a "controversy" section (title should be qualified as many of the activities by nature are controversial)

• 1.Papal List of Heretics - part of SPI lore but I think it's actually true just not provable so should be stated as lore or some such. This would certainly show them to be at least seen as anti-Catholic even if balancing info states they aren't
• 2. The Condom Saviour Consecration and Vow is certainly notable and has been mentioned in the Catholic-sphere but should have at least passing mention in more mainstream media. The two latest issues (allowing for recentism) was
• 3.last month's Folsom Street Fair poster controversy where Sisters Rome was the virgin Mary and
• 4.two Sisters attended mass and had communion the following weekend (Oct 6, 2007) at SF's Most Holy Redeemer church; they were warmly welcomed but video was used to pressure official condemnation.

I also know there was some action taken when Pope Paul? visited SF in 1987. And there certainly was criticism from the Easter street closure as that was top media story for a few days. Combined these certainly could be reffed to build a controversy section. Any suggestion for proper title?

The whole article seems to think very positively of the Sisters, even throwing the word "so-called" in front of church invasions. Which if they're not invasions, then what are they? We need a good criticism section. If we're going to talk about the "good" things they've done, lets have a section talking about all the filthy, offensive, disgusting things they've done such as mock the religion of others, which to me doesn't make sense. They're obviously against others making fun of them for being gay, so why do they mock those who have a certain religious belief? I suppose it's because the Left is all into tolerance and free speech for them and none of that for the Right.

Brad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.81.47 (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to explain as I don't see "invasion" or "so-called" anywhere in the article. And the fact that you characterize all the filthy, offensive, disgusting things they've done suggests a strong

Benjiboi

02:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is written in a strong POV, which you criticize Brad of. Yet, it seems to be working for wikipedia since the article remains. JorgeK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.141 (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

His comment didn't state that and I didn't read that meaning into it although perhaps I should have, I was focusing of his assertion "even throwing the word "so-called" in front of church invasions" which isn't in the article. Regardless I believe this parallels the same sentiment as the above conversation which I responded that I tend to agree and even offered some examples that could be used.

Benjiboi

18:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, somebody removed the section about them going into the Catholic Church. It was definitely there, obviously, because I read where they called it a so-called invasion. And I don't see anything in here about them going into the Church. WHICH brings me to my next point... basically the only criticism in this whole article has been removed which proves that this article is way too pro-sisters. And also I did label the things they've done as filthy and disgusting, but if I were to write an informative article on them, I wouldn't label them as that. Basically, just because I have a certain opinion of them, doesn't mean that I'm not able to identify and remove bias, no matter what side of the aisle it comes from. - Brad —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgj08 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

(Actually, a factual event happened that the Sisters videotaped and they were the cause of the happening. I stated that Catholics had started to claim they were victims of the very hate crimes that the sisters claim to stop. Yet, it is okay for the very first sentence in this article to have an obscene word that would cause anyone to be fired from their job, likely for sexual harassment, and students to be almost 100% sure to be evicted from their school. Moreover, Catholics have to question an article that discusses the EXORCISM of its POPE, that's okay, but to report that a specific Catholic Mass was invaded and disrupted with the Sisters vulgarity, THAT IS SO NOT OKAY!? **** SIGNED: an American-Sicilian that is both Catholic and an avid reader of Ayn Rand, which was an athiest, but was polite to Christians to accept and use the expression, GOD BLESS YOU. **** Benjiboi, IF YOU ERASE THIS, then you are not an editor that desires dialog, but a guardian of your pet group and/or article that, from the history on this web-area, shows you have been at this for months. Take a break and watch some TV where you can oberve the video where the SO-CALLED SISTERS harm a Mass in a way that would be a full Federal investigation, if it were a black church or Jewish Synagogue, if my very tired eyes spelled that last sentence with complete correct grammar; RIGHTLY SO, IF ANYONE INVADES A CHURCH, MOSQUE OR SCIENTOLOGY CENTER should they be inspected with the same eye that the KKK was put back into their basements and caves with. YES, I HAVE GAVE MY OPINION HERE, but I would never let it appear in an article for formal review, BUT AN ARTICLE SHOULD LIST AN EVENT AS PROFOUND AS THE SISTERS INVADING CHURCH SERVICES.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.65.176 (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article is a bit POV-ish and unencyclopedic in tone, particularly in the lead. But the truth is they are a solid, respected institution in San Francisco. Though they dress provocatively and act out in silly but harmless ways, they are thoroughly integrated into the fabric of political and social life. They have audiences with the Mayor and they're a bit of a political force themselves. To assume otherwise and complain that they are taken seriously, without sourcing your objections, is a lot more POV-ish.Wikidemo 04:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this statement is this isn't "Wikipedia San Francisco" nor are they limited to that one locale. They have been noted in the wider world and in the wider world they are not necessarily as respected. This might be a tad obscured by the way this is written. Do I think that will change? No. Do I think I will be blasted for even saying this? Yup.--T. Anthony 04:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree. I think their reception in San Francisco is mirrored in some cities but unlikely in all; and frankly each group does there own thing, I've seen little evidence of coordinated campaigns. One way to deal with that is to write a section for each city they are in or even better write a good criticism section which I've started to collect material for but got sidetracked by ... ta da ... some anon IP vandalizing the

Benjiboi

07:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd probably not be informed enough to do a good job on it. I've never actually met or seen one of them, or seen anyone who's seen them, and only know of them because of occasional mention in the media.--T. Anthony 08:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll support your efforts regardless and there's a lot to be done on this article.

Benjiboi

08:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As for the leded sentence genderfuck is directly quoted from a book speaking about the Sisters. I know the communion incident to which you refer and you may wish to get a full (and possibly more accurate) version of the story before rushing to judgment against me or the subject of this article. Two Catholic Sisters attended Mass at their church in full festive habit. They were welcomed by the congregation (so hardly were invading anything and were never asked to leave so also never disrupted) and indeed had communion from the high holy officiant (apologies for not knowing his name/title). Some visitors from out of town uploaded a video (so no, the Sisters didn't take a video of themselves) of the drag nuns taking communion. Once the video was uploaded and complaints filed an "official condemnation" was set forth. I'm quite confident that this will all come out in more mainstream news but as of yet that's pretty much the story. Part of the missing background was that this was the same church that got into trouble for "allowing" The Sisters naughty bingo fundraiser. As well in that incident the church members themselves weren't at issue it was church officials from elsewhere putting pressure that caused it to become an issue. So, if and when we can present a balanced and referenced version of the event then by all means add it. If it's any indication of past events it will simply make the Sisters more cult-hero-like for all the free publicity the Catholic church gives them. Hopefully this addresses the majority of your concerns but we can revisit the rest if needed.

Benjiboi

07:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved