Talk:Sister Roma

don't delete

I don't see why this page should be deleted... I think Roma is a very worthy and appropriate article to be included here. M.brandonclark 18:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to not see this page deleted. It'd be nice if it could be improved upon a bit. I don't know enough about Roma to be able to help myself. --68.96.52.228 05:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the article is fine for now, if you can add anything please do so. Benjiboi 05:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Article has recently come under attack and been rewritten. There is a phrase on wikipedia, what is verifiable not just true. In essence we need to prove anything that is written about Roma so the article will slowly piece together unlike many other articles that are simply written and anything that has to be sourced then reffed. Benjiboi 23:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

New York Times article

Mentions Roma only so doubt it's worth including. Benjiboi 20:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

COI - leading editor closely linked to subject

The coi of the leading editor (in terms of number of edits) of this gushing bio is closely linked to the subject. The bio needs to be cleaned up. I also removed the picture of Jesus which seems to be intentionally offensive. Smallbones (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

How exactly does the bio need to be cleaned up? General statements are worthless. AniMate^draw 23:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I could see how this article shows a WP:POV but without some evidence that there's another side, that can't be proven. Unless some evidence of WP:NPOV editing exists, the COI template needs to be removed. Also, the {{refimprove}} template doesn't seem warranted. The content in question needs to be marked ({{fact}}, {{who}}, etc.) or discussed here on the talk page. Lastly, you (Smallbones) haven't named an editor who has a COI or proven a close connection. That needs to be done immediately. Benjiboi and Bali ultimate are the major contributing editors but I'm not going to go digging around for a connection when the accuser has presented zero evidence. Benjiboi is a banned editor and known socker while Bali ultimate's conduct is being reviewed by arbcomm. In short, give us a little help here. Vague accusations never really turn out well for anyone. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Benji was a fellow member of the activist group this person belongs to, and started this article and edited it with multiple socks. This is all proven beyond a reasonable doubt (Benji wrote two autobiographies about himself on wikipedia that were later deleted but were discussed extensively at AN/I and at AFD laying bare is connection). He was also an editor paid to promote pornography. No, I'm not being looked at by arbcomm. You are mistaken. Happy researching.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. I'll play along. I was referring to whatever you would like to describe these as: [1][2].

As far as what's actually important to this article, unless Smallbones can point out areas of contention by the end of the day, I'll be removing the COI template and refimprove template. OlYeller21^Talktome 12:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

What would I describe those as? A random person trying to poison the well and distract people, a common tactic. I contest almost the whole existence of this article as a puff piece by the people involved.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Do please note the dates of my comment here and the following comments - 3 years difference explains a lot. I have noticed people putting in gushy pr pieces as references again. "Nark" is not a reliable source. "Sister Roma, pictured here nonchalantly worshipped by hot San Franciscans," is the lede of one reference. Whoever put that in as a reference ought to be ashamed of themselves. I'll also remove the photo, since it seems to have been put in by pr people and intentionally insults some people's religious beliefs. Smallbones (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It's clear that a group of users here just don't like Sister Roma and what she stands for. The sources added were two news articles about her and two interviews with her all tied to her being elected as a Grand Marshal for the Pride parade. The Nark interview was not used to back up any big claim and even if you don't like Nark, it was still an interview with Sister Roma. So I think this is just a case of these users not agreeing with her politics. Their cause should be taken up with the thousands of people that voted for her and the news media that reported on her. User:Panther Pink —Preceding undated comment added 08:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This dispute amounts to nothing more than the routine application of WP:BLP policy over the objections of an SPA more interested in smearing the numerous editors disagreeing with them than in writing an accurate and neutral bio, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's standards. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I still think Narc was fine for what it was covering but I've removed that interview. I hope that satisfies all the concerns. Panther Pink (talk) 09:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing an unreliable reference while leaving the content it supported in the article just makes the BLP problems worse, of course. This is clearly not constructive editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)`

I think the article is a lot better the way User:Pink Panther has it than the way User:Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has it. I see no consensus here in support of User:Hullabaloo Wolfowitz' position—what I see is drive-by vandalism. If this is not vandalism, then you should be able to argue for why you've removed the text you've removed. You should be able to say "this text here, this is wrong, and is not supported by the citation." I don't see any arguments like this here. I don't know Sister Roma from a hole in the wall (I got here via WP:COIN), but I know about the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, and they are a Castro institution—they're mentioned in Armistead Maupin's books, and the picture is consistent with what Maupin wrote about them. So claiming that the picture is a deliberate attempt to offend tells me either that you've never heard of the Sisters, or that it offended you. If the latter, that's unfortunate, but not a reason to remove the picture. Wikipedia isn't about censorship. Your opinion about what is offensive is not WP:RS. Abhayakara (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

No. This is disputed BLP content. Three editors have removed it. Two want it included. The many comments in related discussion (COI board, etc) show a strong consensus that the content concerns are valid. Rather than addressing those concerns and trying to change consensus, you're just posting personally directed innuendo rather than meeting the burden of proof that's required in these circumstances. That's disruption, not good faith editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)`

What I see are a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions of COI and zero discussion of the content of the article. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. The article prior to your revert looks fine. If you think it's not fine, please explain why, pointing out specific text that you think doesn't belong, not offering another general criticism of the article. E.g., refer to WP:UNDUE, WP:RS or some other wikipedia policy. Abhayakara (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I've reviewed the article again, and there is one instance of puffy language that I think ought to be reworded so that it gets the point across without all the subjective terms:

She joined the group several months later, and is now considered "one of the most continuously active, outspoken and highly visible members."

There are two problems with this text. The first is the puffery, and the second is that it's news—it's the sort of thing that changes over time, yet it's presented as if it could be permanently true. So I'd encourage the editors of this article to improve this text. But this is not the sort of text in a BLP that qualifies for speedy removal—it's the sort that qualifies for discussion on the talk page. Abhayakara (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You're not in charge here. Three editors have objected to the content being added. Two, including you, support it. The consensus in discussions of the dispute has been that the objections are substantive, policy-based, and made in good faith. Under BLP policy, and general editing principles, the burden of proof that the content is appropriate rests with those who wish to add it, and you clearly haven't achieved consensus support. Your readiness to deliberately make false accusations of vandalism and make personally directed, unfounded insinuations of censorship weighs heavily against affording you the standard assumption of good faith in this matter. If you're going to edit war to add back disputed BLP content rather than participating in the rather routine process for resolving such disputes you will run the risk of having your editing privileges suspended. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would be better if someone else reverted your vandalism this time. Please indicate some text you want to change, and explain why the citation supporting it is not valid. Or, explain why it is being given undue emphasis. You are right that I am not in charge here, but neither are you. If you can't explain your position here specifically and in terms of wikipedia policy, then your position isn't supported by wikipedia policy. There is no wikipedia policy that says that an article has to be brief—that's what "not a paper encyclopedia" means. If the information in the article is factual, supported by citations, and relevant to the topic of the article, then it belongs in the article. Abhayakara (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, just to point out a POV problem with your reversion, which is part of why it seems to be vandalism to me, you restored text that refers to Roma's performance as "barely adequate" but left out the report on Roma's performance from the other article, which describes it as "moving." Both of these articles are sourced from the San Francisco Chronicle, which AFAIK is a reliable source. This gives the appearance of a classic POV edit: preferring one WP:RS over another for no reason.

I don't know if you intended this, but if you are wondering why your edits seem to me to be POV, this is one reason. But in general, your refusal to engage in actual discussion, and your insistence on attacking other editors, rather than constructively discussing the article, is what leads me to feel that there is something funny going on here. If your goal really is to make sure BLP policies are followed, you could save yourself a lot of effort in the long run by engaging in discussion, rather than making accusations. Abhayakara (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll just suggest that you get some distance here, it seems your getting personally involved. This type of argument never seems to work, it seems more like perstering than anything else. Perhaps you could check with a trusted admin and explain to him/her what you think the problem is, and then ask him/her to explain it to us. As an aside I'm wondering how you know about the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence without knowing about Sister Roma? Isn't he/she one of the grand poobahs? Smallbones (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said before, I know about the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence because they're mentioned in Armistead Maupin's Tales of the City books, which apparently predate Sister Roma's involvement. To a typical San Franciscan, the Sisters are more of a phenomenon than a group of individuals, although I'm sure if you are more involved in the Castro community, you start to get to know individuals. I am not personally involved here—I showed up because I saw evidence of bullying on WP:COIN and came to see what was up. I will also note that you are free to actually respond to my arguments instead of saying "this type of arguing never works." But you didn't do that, even though I made several very specific observations that you could have easily and quickly addressed. So if you mean "this type of argument never works on wikipedia bullies," you are probably right, but if you do not seek to include yourself in that group, I suggest that you stop arguing about my arguments and about other editors' COI, and instead argue about the article. Abhayakara (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the Sisters' website Sister Roma is not listed as an officer or board member. I also changed the wording on the quote to be specific of the context. Panther Pink (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Editorial suggestions

Okay, this is better. However, the language I was referring to earlier is still there. The problem with language like this is that it isn't factual, and is very arbitrary. It's also passive voice—we don't know who considers Sister Roma to be "one of the most..." And compared to whom? It's better to just leave this out—I don't think it adds to the story. If you want to get the point across, it would be better to express it directly instead of comparatively—she joined, and then became very outspoken, giving examples. Like that. When you use comparative terms, it invites the question, compared to whom?

The other thing is that the lead-in to that paragraph is weak—you don't know what you're getting in to. It's a good story, but it might be nice if the first sentence set the context, rather than immediately launching into the story. Something along the lines of "Sister Roma first came into contact with the SPI when ..." I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I won't rewrite it, but I think something along those lines would improve it. Abhayakara (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to make the reasonable suggestions you mention. She is being compared to all the other members of the Sisters' group. To be fair I don't know how many there are but it comes off as being how many have been active for at least 25 years and logic gives us a number equal or less than however many were in the group when she joined. Panther Pink (talk) 09:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Claims of consensus are bogus

I just reviewed the edit history for this article, based on User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' assertion that his recent edits represent consensus. Seven people have expressed an opinion on the question in the past month; the same seven are the only seven who have edited the talk page at all in the past two years, with the exception of a couple of bot edits and a bot cleanup edit. One of these editors feels that the article should be deleted. Two seem to agree that the larger version of the article violates BLP for some unspecified reason. The remaining four, myself included, disagree. So there is no consensus for Wolf's edits, nor is there even a majority. If we were to take the opinion of the majority, it would be that Wolf's edits are not wanted. So the claim that there is consensus for the edits Wolf and Small have made is simply wrong, and it's surprising that an editor with Wolf's long track record on Wikipedia would make such a claim. Abhayakara (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

One of the seven I mentioned above last edited in 2009, so my statement about "in the last month" was not accurate with respect to this edit. However, the analysis still stands; if we take just the past month, then we have parity—no consensus for either position. Abhayakara (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

(EC) actually I only see 6 people editing the talk page in the last year. 3, including one new SPA, want to include some of the gushy promotional material, and 3 want to remove it. I'm sure an RfC would straighten things out, but let's try to settle this one more time.

It appears that a person at least closely related to the subject of this article had written three (yes, 3) autobiographies on Wikipedia (in character, out-of-character, and as part of a group) which frankly has to be the record. He/she is also a pr person for the pornography industry and was ultimately banned for running a sock factory to promote his/her POV and paid interests. I think it is at least reasonable to check out what is going on when a new SPA shows up and adds puffery to the article, start (improperly) quoting policy, not-so-indirectly accusing folks of bias, etc. etc. There's an insistence the he/she be mentioned as "Grand Marshall" of the parade, rather than "one of 9 Grand Marshalls" of the parade (yes, there is quite a difference). The Narc article which was added as a ref is totally out-of-bounds as a reliable source, starting from the first gushy sentence.

BLP concerns have been raised, and should be the final word at least until a consensus has been achieved.

Now, can anybody address these concerns, should there be an RfC, or is there another manner of resolving this difference of opinion on content that you'd like to use? Smallbones (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's keep edits to the talk page in order. By putting your correction after my correction, there is the suggestion that I corrected myself after you corrected me. A quick review of the edit history would show that not to be the case, but why would anyone look?

Leaving that aside, thanks for finally engaging in dialog—hopefully that will help us to reach resolution and we won't have to get outside help. I'm not finding the "NARC" reference you mention—can you help me out here? I agree that the article has to say "one of the grand marshals" rather than "grand marshal," because the current wording implies that it's a singular position, which is not sustained by the cited source.

As for the autobiographies, can you explain how that relates? Abhayakara (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

We've seen the multiple autobiographies of the subject edited by multiple socks. It is reasonable to be careful at this point and ask for good sources and eliminate puffery. Smallbones (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want another voice on the talk page regarding the consensus, you can add mine. I'm with, well, everyone else. What this article doesn't need is to be full of puffery, with iffy sourcing. You've come to this page, accused Hullaballoo of vandalism (a note: edits that you disagree with are not vandalism, and referring to them as such is offensive and flies right in the face of WP:AGF), decided that consensus is "bogus" (which I don't agree with) and reverted yet again, joining the side of a basically disruptive SPA. Not the best entrance, I must say. You might want to think carefully before insulting any more of the editors involved in this article and before reverting with the claim that consensus is "bogus". Consensus is not voting - counting heads doesn't gauge it. What's most important is policy, and I don't believe the version you just reverted to is particularly in line with the BLP policy. OohBunnies! (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, if you join the consensus, then we have eight editors and a tie, or seven recent editors and a small majority in favor of reverting the article. This is not a consensus. Strictly speaking, "consensus" means "everyone agrees." IETF Rough consensus means most everyone agrees. So your vote here doesn't represent consensus.

As for the other editors of the article and what sort of guilt by association you might propose on the basis that I am supporting them, let me be clear about two things. First, I do not think the article doesn't need editing. But second, what it definitely doesn't need is people coming in and edit-warring away legitimate additions that have citations. This is what you are supporting.

It's possible that I was unjust in calling Wolf's edits "vandalism," but that's really what they look like to me—they take a decent article with a few problems, and turn it into a stub. They add text that's clearly POV. And yet Wolf makes these edits over and over again, and refuses to participate in discussion. If it's so important to get this article right, why is discussion not an option? Abhayakara (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

So, after what I told you, you're still counting the people that have weighed in. Also, "So your vote here doesn't represent consensus." - what did I say about votes? It's not a vote. Read WP:CONSENSUS, please. The people arguing for the removal of the content are giving a better argument than you, and quoting policy while they're at it. That's why I agree with them, and that's pretty much what consensus is according to that page. OohBunnies! (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying that you voted. You said that we don't vote, and then you voted. Consensus is when everybody agrees. WP:CON has some interesting things to say about consensus that don't agree with the dictionary definition, but they also don't agree with you. The people arguing to change the text haven't made arguments that support changing the text. They've asserted various things about the current text, but none of their assertions connect any actual text to any actual policy. This is really not a hard problem—if there is text that violates some policy, you just say "here is the text," and then "here is the policy it violates." The first time anybody did that was after I reverted Wolf three times; then Smallbones mentioned some text, and I happen to agree that that text should be changed. So why not change that text, instead of continuing to revert the entire article to a version that's got some POV problems I've already documented? The way you build consensus is by doing what Smallbones did, not what Wolf did, and not what you are advocating doing. I know this is more work, and I know you mean well—I've read some of your other edits, and they are good. But part of being an effective wikipedia editor is engaging in dialog, not noticing things are broken and unilaterally changing them. Abhayakara (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Grand marshal

I'd originally changed "Grand Marshall" of the parade in the lede, to "one of thirteen Grand Marshalls" of the parade - there is quite a difference - the first is grossly misleading. Upon consideration, however, the second is "damning with faint praise." If that accomplishment is important enough in this person's life to be placed in the lede (or even in the last paragraph), then there is a problem.

Says you. Sounds like WP:OR to me. Someone added the Grand Marshal reference, and a cite for it, and the cite is good. If you don't think this is a big enough accolade to cite here, that's a perfectly legitimate opinion, with which I might even agree, but it's not a reason to remove the text from the article, since there's a cite for it. Abhayakara (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

If you really want to add "one of thirteen Grand Marshalls", please go ahead. There's nothing OR about the number 13, just check the reference. On the other hand, when the number is added, which makes the sentence accord with the meaning of the ref, it just looks like a put down to me. Including something simply because there is a reference for it, is not part of Wikipedia rules. If enough people want to include an accurate sentence with the ref - it is just fine with me, but I can't understand why anybody would want this put in. Smallbones (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Roma was the ONLY voted for Individual grand marshall. The rest were chosen by SF Pride. Panther Pink (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

One of thirteen is only technically true and is the least way of acknowledging this; she was the ONLY individual grand marshal to be elected by the public. This would be evident if you had not also deleted the sourcing that confirmed this. Panther Pink (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Panther Pink, you need to calm down with the promotional content. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 09:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Christ image

I've also removed the PR foto of Christ carrying the cross and waving to passers-by. Why? It looks like hate speech to me, provided as a photo-op by a PR firm. There is no rule that compels Wikipedia to include such material in an article. The sisters readily acknowledge that they do agitprop against the Roman Catholic Church, and this is a perfect example. Don't know the term "agitprop"? It comes from "agitation-propaganda" and in Soviet terms means the same as PR. Mocking people's religion - especially the crucial point in their God/leader's life - is being intentionally offensive. Perhaps we may include such material according to Wikipedia's rules, but there is no rule that says we have to include it. It's a matter of consensus, as far as I can tell, and I'd like to see a clear consensus before anybody tries to include it again. Smallbones (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a picture of a guy in very subtle drag carrying a cross. How is that hate speech? I'm sure it offends people, but offending people isn't hate speech. The picture is a picture of Roma and three others doing what the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence do at various events. It's really difficult to come up with any NPOV explanation for this edit. Wikipedia doesn't censor, and in no sense is this hate speech, any more than any other speech that Catholics might find offensive is hate speech. I'm sure you have the best of intentions, but from my perspective as an admitted non-Catholic, this looks like a clearly POV edit. I'm not going to revert it, but I think you should, User:Smallbones. Abhayakara (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

From Wp:Images "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article."

So there are reasons not to include an intentionally offensive images put forth by what's in effect a PR firm. There doesn't seem to be any reason to add this image - what does it ad to the article? If you don't think that mocking Jesus as depicted during the prelude to his crucification is not offensive, then you need to be able to step outside yourself and consider what others might think. The stations of the cross are included in almost every Roman Catholic church. I've never seen one where it says "Gay Jesus smiles and waves to the crowd." BTW I am not Roman Catholic, but I am offended that somebody would go so far out of their way to offend another human being. Smallbones (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

How is an image of three fully-clothed people vulgar or obscene? Is one of them flipping the bird? What? I can agree that some people would be offended by the image, but that's not the same thing. The image isn't patently offensive, or even particularly disrespectful, unless you believe that homosexuality is immoral. Some people do believe this, but the degree to which they are entitled to be protected as a consequence is very limited, and this image is, as far as I can see with my aged eyesight, nowhere near that threshold. It would not, for example, attract the interest of the FCC if it were shown on TV. It may be that you are seeing something I'm not, but if so, can you explain what I am missing? Abhayakara (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I took a closer look at the image, and it's actually _less_ offensive than I thought. It's a guy wearing a modest thong carrying a cross, not in drag as I thought based on a quick glance earlier. The guy is no different than someone you might see enacting the Stations of the Cross in a passion play in a Christian setting—the only difference that I can see is that there are some people dressed in flamboyant outfits standing next to him, one of whom I assume is Sister Roma. So what is it about this image that you are objecting to? Abhayakara (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of the "should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." part of policy that Smallbones quoted, and well...the image could be construed as offensive. If it were an image of just Sister Roma, then it would be a different matter. Then I checked out the image - it's fairly high quality, and looking at the full size of it, couldn't we perhaps crop it just to show Sister Roma and use it as the main image of the article? It's generally good to have an picture of the subject of the article, for the infobox, say. What do you think? OohBunnies! (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

We could do that, yes, but I don't understand why we would. The picture is not at all offensive. It shows the subject of the article doing one of the things that she is notable for doing. If you crop the picture, it doesn't show that anymore. So to crop the picture as you propose would appear to me to be a POV edit, unless there's some clear reason why it ought to be cropped, which no-one has stated so far. Abhayakara (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I gave a reason for cropping. It would perhaps make a good image for the infobox, and show the subject of the article, Sister Roma, more clearly (considering the waving Jesus is obviously the main focus of the image as it is). Yeah, you don't think it's offensive, you've said that enough times now that we all get the hint. But people disagree. That happens sometimes. What I'm offering is a compromise. If you're going to be this closed to compromise all the time then achieving consensus is going to be nigh on impossible. OohBunnies! (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand me—I am not re-asserting the obvious, that I don't find it offensive. I am asking you to say what about it is offensive. Abhayakara (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I personally do not find such images offensive, considering I sort of fall under the LGBT umbrella myself. But I could see why others might. Hunky Jesus used as part of a LGBT campaign? Yeah, most Christians probably wouldn't go for that. If this article were on the group rather than just Sister Roma, I would argue to keep the image as is, to show what they do (and it IS used in the article for the group). It's not, though; the article is about Sister Roma and as a compromise I think that cropping the image to show just her would work. It wouldn't be perfect, but I have no idea if there are any other free images of her available. Having an image of just her would be more relevant than an image of Jesus with her in the sidelines, no? (Note: arguing to death about whether or not it is offensive isn't going to get anywhere. Sometimes you have to agree to disagree.) OohBunnies! (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If it's okay for the image to appear in the article for the group, it's really hard to see why it's a problem here. Why is this supposedly anti-gay Christian (which, BTW, is _not_ a majority of Christians) going to even be looking at this article? If they do come here looking, why would they have any expectation of being protected from this supposedly offensive image? Your argument about Christians being offended by this is actually offensive, by the way. Abhayakara (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ugh. Are you done being the spokesperson for all of Christianity? My well of patience is vast, but apparently not infinite. Cropping was a suggestion to work towards compromise between you and Smallbones, who are disagreeing, but I give up. I'm sorry, but trying to work things out with you is not working. Bicker away. OohBunnies! (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Why do you need to be patient here? This is really not a very important issue—the world will not end if you leave this image, and it will not end if you crop it. Is the mere fact that you have failed to convince me that your POV edit is justified really so important? I can't stop you from editing the article. I'm just asking you to recognize the pretty obvious POV in the argument you are making. Abhayakara (talk) 03:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

a) Talking about my POV is redundant: everyone in the whole world has a POV, for crying out loud. It's meaningless, nonsensical, to keep talking about my POV. I'm not a robot. b) I actually don't personally care what happens with the image, I just wanted to suggest a compromise so that you and Smallbones didn't have to keep on debating about whether or not it was offensive, and because I thought it might look good in the infobox. Shame on me, right? c) I need to be patient because you are trying my patience. But it's okay, you win! You've successfully made me give up, and you and Smallbones can continue to argue about the offensiveness, or you can go ahead and reinsert the image and enjoy your victory. OohBunnies! (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Please go ahead and edit the picture. Head shot only, or head and body (of Roma), makes no difference to me. One last try on explaining why mocking the Passion of Christ would be considered offensive by almost all Christians. The Passion of Christ is where Christ was beaten and tortured as he carried his own cross to his own execution site. The guy who said "Blessed are the meek" was tortured to death for saying this. It is the central event of his life, along with the following resurrection. Mocking this is pissing on the central tenets of Christianity. If anybody doesn't understand why this is offensive, please go talk to somebody who understands something about religion. Smallbones (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. So you think this mocks the Passion. What about it mocks the Passion? Abhayakara (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, just to be clear here, despite being a Buddhist I find the story of Christ's Passion extremely compelling and moving, and my Buddhist Lama has taught about it at length because he was raised Episcopalian and his upbringing as a Christian is still central to his Buddhist practice. So I am not just some anti-religious person who doesn't care about this stuff—I care deeply about this stuff. I just don't see what's offensive about this image. If you can't articulate what it is that's offensive about it, that means you have an unconscious bias. It's worth digging deep and figuring out what it is that is driving this bias—maybe you have a legitimate point that needs expressing, and maybe when you examine the question more closely, you will realize that you are mistaken. I find it hard to see how anything that brings someone's mind to contemplate the Passion can be bad or offensive, even if the context isn't what you would ordinarily expect. Abhayakara (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

See my comments above about pestering. If you don't want to see why this is offensive, then don't. But do not re-insert it without a consensus. There's no point in inserting it that can't be handled in some inoffensive way. Smallbones (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You haven't explained why it's offensive. You've just told me that it offends you. That's not the same thing. I am not able to find your comments about pestering—could you be more specific? Abhayakara (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Re-added the image from this well-known event. I also found [3] a whole section why Wikipedia doesn't censor. Panther Pink (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct. According to the policy you are referring to, the debate about the appropriateness of the image should be restricted to the question of whether it is relevant, not whether it might offend someone. Abhayakara (talk) 15:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Not censored doesn't mean what you think it means. A photo of the subject would be fine here. An article on "activist satirical depictions of religion" might have a picture like that. An article on "christ" would not (it would rightly be "censored" from that article). This article is about Sister Roma/Williams. A full body picture or headshot or something in which the subject is clearly identifiable is what's needed. The picture is deliberately and needlessly provocative in this context.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps if "not censored" doesn't mean what it plainly says in the policy statement, you could help us out here by saying what it actually means, rather than simply rendering your decision on the matter based on the policy you have not explained. Abhayakara (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In a nutshell, it means: "Content is not removed from relevant locations solely because it might cause offense." There are many other issues at play here.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

With respect to the one specific statement you made, can you say why this image is not relevant, given that it includes the subject of the article, at an event where she is doing what she is notable for? If there is some reason other than "that it might cause offense" for removing the image, could you give the reason?

If there are any additional issues, can you unpack them from the nutshell and enumerate them? Can you please refer to actual Wikipedia policies by providing links to those policies, and explaining why those policies are relevant here? I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm being overly wiki-ish here, but you seem to be operating on a very internalized idea of how wiki articles ought to look, and it conflicts with the actual wikipedia policies I've read, so that's why I'm asking you to say what policies specifically this image violates, and how. Abhayakara (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It is simultaneously offensive, not really a picture of the subject of the article, and not otherwise relevant to understanding the topic of the article. If you can't understand that, then you're really beyond my help.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking for your help: I'm asking you to justify what looks like a POV edit to me. Supposedly the subject of the article is one of the three people pictured; if that is not true, can you tell us how you know that it isn't true? Your assertion that it is not relevant is incredible—it's supposedly a picture of the subject of the article doing a Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence event, and the subject of the article is supposedly notable for being a member of the SPI. If she's not notable, propose the article for deletion. If she is not actually a member of the SPI, then the picture is not relevant. Otherwise, the picture is clearly relevant, and you need a different reason to justify removing it. Or, you can just keep removing it without justifying your edit, as can any wikipedia editor. Abhayakara (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That was my concern, that Sister Roma is not even the focus of the picture. That's why I suggested cropping it (but of course it was really my evil POV intentions). OohBunnies! (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The only reason to change this image is to change it's meaning from Sister Roma emceeing a Sister event that is known around the world to one of just her which would end up being a poor shot. Censorship remains censorship no mater how you crop this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panther Pink (talk • contribs) 09:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Is an image of Sister Roma with Hunky Jesus appropriate or not?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There's been a big debate on this talk page about this version of the Sister Roma article. Many points have been raised—I'm requesting comment on one point, and then I'll raise the next one when and if we have some clarity on the first point. The subject of the article is a member of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, which is a group of activists who dress up in drag as nuns as a form of street theater in opposition to the Catholic hierarchy's anti-gay stance. The picture shows Roma at a SPI event with another sister and a man dressed to look like Jesus and carrying a cross. I contend that this image is appropriate and relevant, because it shows Roma doing what she is notable for doing. Others contend that because some Catholics would be offended, perhaps deeply offended, at this image, it ought not to be included in the article, regardless of its relevance. I would like to hear opinions from the wider community about this. Abhayakara (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If the image stays, I suggest its caption be rewritten. Its meaning is unclear, and I don't understand the inclusion of an exclamation mark. The caption could have a more encyclopedic tone and could acknowledge that it is an image of a controversial scene. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 14:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• It doesn't make any sense to me to address a series of minor points, when the main point is quite clear. This article has a long history of being used as a WP:Soapbox. There is no reason for us to let Wikipedia include PR material that is intentionally obnoxious.

The article appears to have been originally written as a promotional piece for an editor who wrote 3 autobiographies: in character, out-of-character, and as part of a group. The editor also wrote promotional pieces for the pornography industry in Wikipedia and was ultimately indefinitely banned for creating a sock factory which was used to keep his promotional pieces from being deleted. Recent edits have also been overtly promotional, such as including "reliable sources" that start out (approx.) "Sister Roma is seen here being worshipped by several of San Francisco's gay hunks," and the inclusion of sentences like "Sister Roma was selected Grand Marshal of the parade," rather than the more accurate "Sister Roma was selected as one of this year's 13 Grand Marshals of the parade."

This photo is an obvious part of the Sisters political/PR campaign against the Catholic Church. Other parts of the campaign, which the Sisters call "street theater" and "agitprop" have included disrupting church services. This photo-op picture that some folks want to include is clearly meant to be offensive to Catholics. By carrying a cross, the Sisters are making a direct reference to the Passion of Christ, the most important event in the life of Jesus (along with the following resurection), where Jesus was tortured, ultimately to death. Mocking the death of any torture victim, by having him waving to the boys and girls, and characterizing him as a "hunk" is clearly offensive. Mocking Jesus on the holiest day of the year, Easter, for a political-PR campaign is clearly being intentionally obnoxious. Surrounding Jesus by "holy sisters" dressed up in white face, boas, etc. to look like hookers only adds to the offense.

But it is not the photo itself which is most offensive. It is not even the idea that somebody would go to so much effort to insult another person's religious beliefs. It is the idea promoted above, that Wikipedia MUST be allowed to be used as a soapbox to promote a particular POV that is incorporated in a PR campaign. The photo has very little to do with the article and the article is already gushing with promotion as it is. The person who requested this RfC needs to read WP:Soapbox and likely WP:Don't be intentionally obnoxious as well. Smallbones (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It's censorship to remove or change this image, it shows Sister Roma doing exactly what she is known for in a worldwide known event produced by the group she is known for being a part of plain and simple. Panther Pink (talk) 09:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Even starting from a Wikipedia is not censored point of view, the image is clearly not appropriate for this article because it isn't clear in any way how it relates specifically to Roma/Williams. The suggestion made in the previous section by OohBunnies that it be cropped and used in the infobox seems to make more sense as this removes any ambiguity and, I would have thought, is a reasonable compromise between complete removal and it remaining with the risk of offense.

As for the other things, this version of the page seems much more neutral than the current version and is more in keeping with our Policy on biographies of living people partly because the current version is very sloppy with the use of gendered pronouns. The current version also has major neutrality issues because the "Career" section is mostly a list of achievements and the "Life" section relies heavily on random trivia and quotes from the article subject. It also is very sloppy with the use of gendered pronouns as there is no indication that Williams considers themselves to be female and therefore care must be taken to use "she", "her" etc. only when talking about Roma). -- Mrmatiko (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I am largely in agreement with with Mrmatiko.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• I would argue against using the Hunky Jesus image, for reasons already articulated above. On the subject of images, I did search through Flickr and the interwebs in general for free images for the infobox (cropping the Hunky Jesus one wasn't working out so well, things like Handsome Smiling Man in the background getting in the way etc) and all I found was one already uploaded to Commons by Benjiboi himself. Seeing as it was there, I popped it in the infobox. As Benjiboi was banned for being a sockpuppet and nothing related to images, I think it's okay to use it. Not sure. Anyway, it's there, feel free to get rid of it. OohBunnies! (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• While I'm a fairly firm supporter of NOTCENSORED, I think Mrmatiko makes a point I agree with in part. The image we're discussing here does actually communicate the use of satire in Sister Roma's and SPIs work, and that's on the face of it fair, but that's also a relatively small part of the topic. I suspect that there would be better editorial choices. I prefer direct face shots for an initial image, and the image OohBunny loaded is just fine, and continues to tell some of the story of religious satire, as well as giving us a better portrait of the Sister. That the HJ image might cause offense is not part of my rationale, I think it belongs at the SPI article, I just don't think it fits as well here. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

An RfC response

The picture added by OohBunnies as seen here helps the article. The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence article includes the "Jesus" with the cross picture and a description of the controversy. The picture is not needed here, IMO. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

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.