Talk:James J. Martin (priest)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Celibacy

I just deleted the following paragraph:

Father Martin has said that he believes that clerical celibacy can and will become mandatory, in response to statements made by Cardinal Edward Egan.

However, that's not what he said according to that article.

Should priests be allowed to marry? ...

[Cardinal Egan] pointed out that some eastern Catholic churches allow married priests, and since 1980 Episcopal priests who became Catholic priests are allowed to stay married.

"I think it could happen and will happen," said Rev. James Martin Jr. of America Magazine.

Martin, an associate editor of America Magazine, said any such remark from Egan carries some weight.

So, what did you actually mean here, ADM?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"Could happen and will happen" is pretty much the same as "Can happen and will happen". In that case, it's really just a question of words and it means that we have to try and re-phrase it. ADM (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you mean to say that clerical _marriage_ can and will become mandatory? Because I don't think he said _that_ either, but clerical celibacy is _already_ mandatory.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

He didn't say that it wasn't mandatory now, he said it might eventually become mandatory, in the future, in a few years or decades from now. He was definitvely talking about something that does not exist right now. In any case, it's only his opinion, it's not like currently the Pope or something. ADM (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No, he said that in the future, priests might be allowed to marry. Saying that clerical celibacy would become mandatory is incorrect, because priests are already supposed to be celibate, and he says nothing in the ref above indicating that priests aren't currently celibate. Or are we talking at cross-purposes here?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe obligatory would be a better word for this, I think I am mixing up mandatory with non-mandatory. ADM (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Mandatory = obligatory, more or less. Are you thinking of "optional"?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Disambig

Since James A. Martin was also a Jesuit, perhaps something else should be used for disambiguation. I think "author" or "writer" would be suitable. James Martin isn't notable for being a Jesuit per se, but for his books and other writings. --90.236.115.252 (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so there are other writers named James Martin (of course). Then probably "Jesuit writer", as was used in the article up to 2009 [1] actually would be best. --90.236.115.252 (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Martin (priest). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070403125259/http://www.americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?articleTypeID=1&textID=606&issueID=281 to http://www.americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?articleTypeID=1&textID=606&issueID=281

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Criticism/controversy regarding Father Martin in the Catholic Church:

The below sentence in the previous version of the article is not supported by the sources given:

"Some of Martin's theological views, especially on homosexuality, are controversial among Catholics."

The first two articles do not mention any "theological views" nor do they mention any "controversy" regarding Father Martin among Catholics. The third source states, "Fr Martin’s more liberal views are controversial within the Church, and a lay Catholic group had called for him to be removed from the speaker line-up for the World Meeting of Families event. The Irish branch of Tradition, Family, Property (TFP) had sent a letter to Dublin Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, asking him to remove the cleric from the list of speakers." First, this does not mention any "theological views." Second, the characterization of Father Martin's views as "liberal" is the statement of a single news writer for an Irish newspaper, who never explains what exactly is "liberal" about Father Martin. The only evidence he gives of controversy regarding Father Martin is a letter of protest written by Tradition, Family and Property, an extreme right-wing group whose mission seems to be to engage in controversy. There is no need to mention the views of this and other extremist groups, and per WP:BLPBALANCE, the views of these extremist groups should not be mentioned at all. --PluniaZ (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Protected Edit Request

User:Bradv, can you please restore the article to this version, which was the state of the article before a recent edit war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Martin_(priest,_born_1960)&oldid=907603446

WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE states: "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis."

The current version of the article includes disputed material which had been deleted on good-faith BLP objections. Therefore, this material should not be included unless consensus has been obtained to do so. Nor has the disputed material been repaired to address the concerns that have been raised. Therefore, the article should be restored to the version I linked above, which does not include any of the disputed material. --PluniaZ (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

PluniaZ, what BLP issue do you see that's significant enough to warrant deleting the entire section? – bradv🍁 20:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Bradv, I explained in detail in the two sections above on this Talk Page how the material is inaccurate and does not reflect what the underlying sources actually say. The only criticism against Father Martin is coming from extremist anti-LGBT organizations that have been waging a campaign of harassment against Father Martin (proof here: https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/09/18/bishop-mcelroy-attacks-father-james-martin-expose-cancer-within-us-catholic-church). The article as currently written describes an extremist harassment campaign as "controversy", which is giving these extremists a level of legitimacy they don't deserve. Per WP:BLPBALANCE, "the views of small minorities should not be included at all." But that is exactly what these paragraphs consist of (once you parse through the misrepresentation of the underlying sources). --PluniaZ (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Protected Edit Request

User:Bradv, can you at least delete the portion of this sentence that I have struck out below:

"In it, Martin called for a closer dialogue with the LGBT community and argued in favor of changing the Catholic teaching on homosexuality."

The statement is unsourced and factually inaccurate. Father Martin does not call for changing the Catholic teaching on homosexuality. --PluniaZ (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. The latter part of that sentence is not supported by the source, so I've removed it per BLP policy. – bradv🍁 22:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The "Controversial views" section blatantly misrepresents the underlying sources

The section on "Controversial views" misrepresents the underlying sources. The underlying sources describe a campaign by anti-LGBT extremists to attack Father Martin, but the article quote mines them for out of context statements that make it seem like there is mainstream, reputable criticism of Father Martin.

The first source is a NYT article that is about "the vitriol to which he has been subjected is breathtaking, a reminder not just of how much homophobia is still out there but also of how presumptuous, overwrought, cruel and destructive discourse in this digital age can be." But the Wikipedia page instead quote mines this source for where it mentions Father Martin's non-rejection of Church teaching in passing, as if the source were a critical review of Father Martin's book rather than a description of the extremist campaign against him.

Likewise, the second source is a Catholic News Agency article about Archbishop Chaput defending Father Martin from "The bitterness directed at the person of Fr. Martin is not just unwarranted and unjust; it’s a destructive counter-witness to the Gospel." Instead of saying this, the Wikipedia article quote mines the source for anything that can be perceived as criticism of Father Martin. The first quote ("perceived ambiguities") is not a criticism of Father Martin at all (it's a criticism of the perception of Father Martin), and the second quote ("lack of engagement") isn't attributed to any specific critics. The source, moreover, Catholic News Agency, is an extremely biased far-right news organization that caters to anti-LGBT elements in the Catholic Church.

The third source, Sandro Magister, is a far-right opinion columnist who misrepresents a column by Cardinal Sarah and lobs a passing criticism of Father Martin without providing any substantive justification for it. Is this how Wikipedia article are supposed to be written? Do we quote-mine articles for every passing criticism of a person and compile them into Wikipedia articles?

The fourth source, an op-ed by Cardinal Sarah, is again quote mined for one sentence fragment that can be portrayed as criticizing Father Martin, but if you read the actual piece by Cardinal Sarah, he never actually criticizes anything Father Martin has said or done. In fact, the only thing he has to say about Father Martin's writing is "Father Martin is correct." https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-catholics-can-welcome-lgbt-believers-1504221027

The fifth source, Cardinal Burke, contains a quote criticizing Father Martin but without any substantive explanation.

The remaining sources are all opinion columns from fringe far-right publications: Public Discourse, First Things and "Crisis Magazine."

What should be done? WP:BLPBALANCE states, "the views of small minorities should not be included at all." I have demonstrated above that the only actual criticism above comes from fringe anti-LGBT organizations, and therefore should not be included at all in this article. If extremist anti-LGBT organizations are waging a campaign against Father Martin, they don't deserve legitimacy by having the victim of their campaign be described by Wikipedia as "controversial". --PluniaZ (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The section which says "critics pointed out" must be rewritten; as per WP:CLAIM, "pointed out" is a phrase to avoid, as it can be viewed as implying that the statement is true. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, NorthBySouthBaranof. You are absolutely right. --PluniaZ (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite of "Controversial views"

The section Controversial views should be rewritten as follows (based on the problems with the current version identified above on this Talk page:

First, the title should be renamed, "Dialogue with LGBT Catholics".

Second, the body should read as follows:

Martin called for closer dialogue with LGBT Catholics in his 2017 book, Building a Bridge. In its review of the book, the Washington Post wrote, "“If Martin’s book, with its biblical reflections on God’s loving creation of us and Jesus’ unconditional welcome, can help LGBT people and our families experience and trust God’s tenderness, he will have laid the foundation stone for social change and spiritual renewal." Publishers Weekly described the book as "A brief, clear guide on how Catholics can heal some of the rifts surrounding issues of sexuality. . . . The surprising places he finds insight highlight the subtlety of his thought and the time he has devoted to considering these questions." The New York Times stated that the the book "Earned him the gratitude of parents of gay children or adults who feel unwelcome at church because of their sexual orientation."

--PluniaZ (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

References

PluniaZ, the references you include in your paragraph above all point to the same place, which is Martin's book at Harper Academic. I think you, instead, mean to include references pointing to the WP, Publisher's Weekly, and NYT sources, correct? – Archer1234 (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Harper Academic's page on Father Martin contains these reviews. I don't see any reviews calling the book "controversial among Catholics". --PluniaZ (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

A book's publisher has a conflict of interest because they have a financial stake in the success of the book. I think they are not likely to publish views critical of a book they publish. They have an incentive not to do so. If we are going to publish opinions (which is what book reviews are), I think we must, at least, attribute the opinions to the specific authors (or editorial boards) and not to the publications in which their reviews are published (see WP:NEWSORG). – Archer1234 (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not repeat the attacks of homophobic bigots

User:Thucyd is repeatedly attempting to add claims that Father Martin is "controversial" among Catholics due to his "views on homosexuality." The sources Thucyd provides describe the actions of extremist homophobic hate groups such as Church Militant (website) in campaigning against Father Martin's speaking engagements. The actions of extremist hate groups do not make Father Martin "controversial". They mean that those groups are extremist hate groups, and at most are worthy of inclusion on the Wikipedia articles about those hate groups. Those hate groups do not deserve recognition in the biography of the person they are harassing per WP:BLPBALANCE.

The only substantive criticism of Martin's publications that has been provided is an article by Archbishop Chaput that mentions "perceived ambiguities" in Father Martin's general views on sexuality. This is not a direct criticism of Father Martin, since it refers to "perceived" rather than actual ambiguities - the ambiguity is in how certain extremist hate groups perceive Father Martin. I do not think this at best vague and mild criticism is worthy of inclusion in the biography of a living person.

We then have a sentence fragment from Cardinal Sarah, with no context given, supposedly calling Father Martin "one of the most outspoken critics of the church's message with regards to sexuality." However, if we look at the original source, Cardinal Sarah says two sentences later, Cardinal Sarah says, "Father Martin is correct ...", and otherwise Cardinal Sarah does not criticize Father Martin at all. This hardly establishes that Father Martin's "views are controversial among Catholics." https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-catholics-can-welcome-lgbt-believers-1504221027

Then we have Cardinal Burke, who says, that Martin "is not coherent with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality." But this is all he says about Martin. He offers no explanation. Moreover, the source is a fringe far right publication called The Wanderer (Roman Catholic newspaper) whose views are inherently those of a fringe small minority and must be excluded per WP:BLPBALANCE.

We are finally left with an article from Crisis Magazine, another fringe far-right publication whose sole purpose is to create controversy wherever possible in order rouse up its far-right readership and keep them paying their subsriptions. This is again the view of a small minority and must be excluded per WP:BLPBALANCE. --PluniaZ (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

You might ask for help at WP:RSN. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• @PluniaZ: You placed a pointer to this discussion on the WikiProject Catholicism talk page, however: (1) because you quoted the exact title of the discussion, instead of just providing a link to it, your pointer was not neutral, as it is required to be by WP:Canvassing; and (2) You failed to put a pointer on the talk pages of the other WikiProjects listed above, which is also a violation of WP:Canvassing.{{parabr}I will correct #2 with 'neutral' pointers on the other talk pages, but this is a warning not to violate CANVASSing rules again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 August 2019. Error in TITLE on ref#36: " Fr. Martin Does Not Actually Say I Dan Hitchins" & ref #27

Please look at current ref #36. The TITLE= reads as " Fr. Martin Does Not Actually Say I Dan Hitchins". Looking at "view source", it appears that what appears as "I" on my ipad may have been supposed to be a pipe?? Not sure what has happened here, but can you fix this? Dan Hitchins is the author, so his name should not appear in the title. TITLE= "Fr. Martin Does Not Actually Say" is the correct source title. A similar problem occurs in ref #27 title. Perhaps it is just my ipad rendering? Thanks for your time. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 02:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done Think I got these. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

This article violates the prohibition on No Original Research

The section on "Controversial views" violates the prohibition on No Original Research. Original research is "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." This article claims that "Some of Martin's views, especially on homosexuality, are controversial among Catholics." But none of the sources provided actually say this. The sources describe a harassment campaign being waged against Father Martin by fringe anti-LGBT groups, but that is not a "controversy among Catholics" anymore than harassment campaigns by the KKK are a "controversy among Americans".

The article does provide scattered quotes from some bishops that are critical of Father Martin, but that in and of itself does not amount to a controversy. Everyone has something critical said about them at some point in their life. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a place where people compile random critical quotes about BLP subjects and synthesize them into a supposed "controversy". This is a blatant violation of WP:NOR, and I renew my call for the disputed material to be removed immediately in accordance with WP:BLPREMOVE. --PluniaZ (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It is not original research to attempt to summarize what the press has written about an article subject. If you don't like the phrase 'are controversial among Catholics' can you propose a replacement that also agrees with the sources? I tend to get the impression that Martin's views are controversial by looking at this 08/17 article in America Magazine or Robert George's article in Crisis magazine. The latter refers to "..the heterodoxy of James Martin, who has quite famously opposed Church teaching on homosexuality". Perhaps you can find something in the NY Times or another mainstream publication that characterizes Martin's thinking, and we could use what they say. EdJohnston (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It is original research (or downright lying) to claim the press is saying something it hasn't said - and none of the sources provided state that Father Martin's views are "controversial among Catholics". The America Magazine article you cite does not claim that Martin's views are controversial among Catholics. Crisis Magazine is a fringe, far-right publication that cannot be used to establish factual matters (e.g., the existence of a "controversy among Catholics"). At most, the Crisis article can be cited to state what its author claims, but even that would need to be excluded as the view of a small minority per WP:BLPBALANCE - "the views of small minorities should not be included at all."

Again, what the sources do establish is that a fringe group of anti-LGBT extremists are waging a campaign of harassment against Father Martin. That is what the sources say, and they have been misrepresented by this page into suggesting that there is a "controversy among Catholics" regarding Father Martin's views.

Here's a simple challenge: Find a reliable secondary source that (1) states that Father Martin's views are controversial among Catholics, (2) explains the nature of the controversy and (3) explains the arguments on both sides of the controversy. If such a reliable secondary source does not exist, then Wikipedia as a tertiary source should not be making this claim either. --PluniaZ (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not how WP works...at least not exactly. Our standards are WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV.

@PluniaZ:, I'm here because of your message on WP:AN. Let me assume for a moment that you take issue with the first sentence in the "Controversial views" section:

"The publication of Martin's book Building a Bridge in 2017 has led to controversy among Catholics."

From what I can see, the claim of "controversy" is well-sourced by 3 independent, reliable sources: CNA (which appears to be an official/quasi-official publication of the Catholic church), the Washington Post (a generally RS), and the New York Times (a generally RS). Given that the first source is an official publication, the Catholic Church itself considers his book to be "controversial". Without WP:OR, that pretty well covers "controversial among Catholics", doesn't it? Buffs (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Please read those sources. None of them say, "Father Martin's views on homosexuality are controversial among Catholics." What they describe is a campaign of harassment against Father Martin orchestrated by fringe anti-LGBT groups. A campaign of harassment is not the same thing as a controversy, and it's disingenuous to conflate the two. And Catholic News Agency is not an official publication of the Catholic Church. It is owned by a private company, EWTN, that has no affiliation with the Catholic Church. EWTN is also extremely biased and right-wing, a bias that taints all of its publications, so it cannot be relied on for statements of fact when its own partisan agenda is on the line. See here: https://www.ncronline.org/news/media/rise-ewtn-piety-partisanship --PluniaZ (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

That's why I used the term "quasi-official". Yes, it is independent of the Catholic church, but it is also tacitly endorsed. They can shut it down any time they want by prohibiting the Priests/Nuns from being involved. Likewise, they've given the station awards and members of the Pope's staff are its editorial board. To say it isn't official is technically accurate, but misleading.

It isn't even a stretch to say that that his stance is controversial amongst Catholics as they contradict the Catholic church's teachings (whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant). The given articles talk about the controversial views and this statement is an accurate summary of the given reliable sources. It also isn't "homophobic" or "bigoted" to state that there is controversy about this amongst the members of the church, so I'd ask you to stop such rhetoric. Even if it is a fringe view, it's notable enough to make international news and have real-world impacts. That alone makes such opposition notable enough for inclusion. A few sentences about such impacts does not detract from an article. Virtually all BLPs have SOME controversy. Buffs (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

His stance does not contradict the Church's teachings. None of the sources say that. None of the sources say his views are controversial. Wikipedia is now making stuff up. --PluniaZ (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

PluniaZ, if you believe it is well-sourced that there is "a campaign of harassment against Father Martin orchestrated by fringe anti-LGBT groups" can't you find a reliable source which contains that phrase, or the equivalent? EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Those calling him a "heretic" explicitly disagree with your assessment (by definition). We are not discussing whether "his views are controversial". I'm not even saying he's wrong. But it is an accurate summary of these sources to say that there is "controversy among Catholics", which seems to be your sticking point. Perhaps we could come to a consensus via different phrasing? "The publication of Martin's book Building a Bridge in 2017 was met with opposition from some Catholics." ? Buffs (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

What the sources describe is a campaign of targeted harassment against Father Martin by anti-LGBT groups. The first two sources given, CNA and La Croix, refer to them as "conservative cyber-militias." CNA is reporting on an article written by Archbishop Chaput in First Things, wherein Chaput refers to the "bitterness directed at Father Martin" as "unwarranted and unjust". Professor Massimo Faggioli of Villanova Unversity describes the campaign against Father Martin as follows:

The small groups that are behind the campaign that persuaded a prestigious Catholic seminary in the US capital to rescind its invitation to Fr Martin have grown over the last few years. They make up a Catholic cyber-militia that include "news" organizations like the Detroit-based "Church Militant" and bloggers such as Fr John Zuhlsdorf, an American priest known as "Fr Z" who, strangely enough, is incardinated in (that is, belongs to) an Italian diocese, but lives in the United States.

The Washington Post identifies the organizations behind the harrasment campaign as Church Militant and LifeSiteNews, which the Post describes as "fringe." The New York Times describes the harassment campaign as "the scorched-earth tactics of ultraconservatives" that "often gives them a sway disproportionate to their actual numbers."

So the question is, do the harassment campaigns waged by extremist fringe groups against the subject of a BLP deserve acknowledgment in that BLP? WP:BLPBALANCE clearly says the answer is NO - "the views of small minorities should not be included at all." Perhaps this harassment should be mentioned in the Wikipedia articles about those organizations. Perhaps there should even be a Wikipedia page about extremist anti-LGBT groups. But they do not deserve recognition in a BLP about the person they are trying to harass. --PluniaZ (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT applies in spades here. Buffs (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Kindly read some of your own sources with care. For example, Archbishop Chaput writes that "The perceived ambiguities in some of Fr. Martin’s views on sexuality have created much of the apprehension and criticism surrounding his book." Chaput is criticizing the tone and methods used against Martin, but actually reaffirms that he is controversial. Your assessment that any controversy around Martin is only a WP:FRINGE view does not seem accurate—and even if it were, a fringe view that is itself widely reported on should be included with WP:DUE weight. Let's discuss how best to word this in the article. Kim Post (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Here you go: Irish Times, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Martin admitting he knew it sould be controversial in WaPo, USA Today - I could go on, but it's not controversial to call him controversial. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

As an ex-Catholic, I hold no brief for the ultraconservative Catholics PluniaZ describes, but it seems to me that he wants to write them out of Catholicism altogether and accept only liberal and enlightened Catholic views as legitimate expressions of the Catholic faith. As much as I may agree with those views in general, they are very much not the bulk of Catholic opinions, which tends to sit more in the center leaning left in the West, and leaning right elsewhere in the world. PluniaZ seems limited by his or her own personal POV regarding what mainstream Catholicism is, and how the view of those such as Father Martin are received in the hide-bound conservative world of the Vatican. Beyond My Ken (talk)

I concur. Buffs (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the section could be titled "Reactions to Building Bridges, and include a variety of the most responsible. Chaput doesn't actually review the book, but the nature of some of the responses to it. That's not to say his views shouldn't be included, but are better drawn from his own words in the essay in First Things [2] rather than a second hand characterization of them by some anonymous writer for CNA. Rather than identify the reactions as controversial, why not simply describe them. Regarding the rescinding of the speaking engagement at the Theological College, in this instance, Brian Roewe at the National Catholic Reporter is a little better than Sarah Bailey's Post article in that Roewe gives the rector's reasons. [3]. Manannan67 (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I also concur with Beyond My Ken. The suggestions that Manannan67 offered sound reasonable, although I confess that I don't know much about issues within the Catholic church generally.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 06:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The consensus is against the proposed rewrite.

Cunard (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

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

---

Should the section of this page titled "Controversial views" be rewritten as proposed here? --PluniaZ (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Yes - The current version of the disputed section relies on bigoted and homophobic sources, as explained here. The proposed rewrite describes the critical reception of the book by reputable institutions such as the Washington Post, Publishers Weekly and the New York Times. --PluniaZ (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Not as written. At no point is "controversy" mentioned and significant portions of opposition/WP:RS are omitted. Furthermore, these reviews are by the publisher which, as noted above, have a conflict of interest. I do not oppose a rewrite in general, but not this. Buffs (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• PluniaZ - please read up on WP:FORUMSHOP — Ched :  ?  — 15:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  I would concur. Allow ONE process to evaluate the situation at a time (let this one pan out on the talk page). Near as I can tell, you have placed this in 4 different spots...which is too many. Buffs (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - The suggested re-write is blatantly one-sided, and doesn't even reference reviews directly, only through blurbs in the publisher's catalog. It may well be that the current section needs tweaking, or even re-writing, but the offered alternative is not anything which should ever be in a Wikipedia article. The editor seems to fundamentally misunderstand what Wikipedia is about, and what WP:NPOV and WP:BLP mean in practice (not to mention WP:RS). Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. Fails NPOV and is excessively reliant on affiliated sources. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• A neutral pointer to this RfC has been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: the present version of the section is not acceptable. The forum shopping by the user who started this RfC is unconstructive and their proposed content suboptimal, but nonetheless, the critical reception in the Washington Post and New York Times undoubtedly belongs in the article. — Bilorv (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Oppose PluniaZ claims that there's no reason to cite the independent reliable sources when we can instead cite the publisher of the subject's book describing what those sources said. If you buy that request, please leave Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

  That's unnecessarily hostile. Even those with a strong/passionate POV can contribute to WP. However, I agree that a further re-reading/application of WP policies is certainly in order. Buffs (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of current content, support adding proposed content. I agree that the current section is tilted a bit too heavily towards criticism of the book. But that does not mean that critical reviews should be removed to make way for positive ones. The OP's characterization of the sources in the article as "bigoted and homophobic" is indicative of agenda-driven editing, but I have not heard a well-reasoned argument supported by evidence as to why the content that the OP proposed should not be included in the section alongside what is already there. I think that editors on both sides need to respect Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality by not trying to keep opinions out of the article that they dislike. We should include both favorable and unfavorable receptions to the book. Display name 99 (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support overhaul as the current content is poor. Can I suggest the section becomes more about the book itself and the reactions folded into that with a link to Wikipedia articles about traditional attitudes to gay people and their alleged sins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:C5F3:2301:6A82:BC89 (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as written, however some overhaul is in order. 'Controversial views' is fairly meaningless as a section title, either the book title or 'Views on LGBT sexuality/Church's teaching on LGBT sexuality' or somesuch would be more informative. A brief account of the book's views + critical response from clerical + non-clerical sources is in order (btw reviews should be credited to the individual reviewer, not solely to the news source - which is done in the proposed text above - I doubt if WaPo has any opinion on the nature of Jesus' love!). It is almost inevitable that someone proposing a 'new approach' to this subject is going to get quite a lot of reaction from orthodox Catholic opinion. I am not in a position to judge the apt weight to give to any individual part of that response, but this RfC looks like an attempt to excise the very opinions which are essential to giving a balanced view of the response to the book - even if we individually think those responses "bigoted and homophobic", they need to be there. Pincrete (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2019 (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.

Denial of Communion

Thucyd, this page is not a platform for airing your views. The views of Father Dwight Longenecker do not need to be repeated three times. They do not need to be mentioned at all. He is one minor voice among millions in the Catholic Church. Your latest edit is ridiculous: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Martin_%28priest%2C_born_1960%29&type=revision&diff=929966328&oldid=928359867 --PluniaZ (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

It appears adequately sourced and quite WP:DUE, what is the problem? Elizium23 (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:DUE requires that significant viewpoints be represented in in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Thucyd cites only two sources that mention Father Martin - John Hirschauer (who?) in a one paragraph article for the National Review, and Father Dwight Longenecker in a piece that opens with: "Fr. Martin is either stupid or badly educated (and we know this is not true because he is an exceedingly clever and well-educated person) or he is deliberately obfuscating the truth, distorting the Catholic faith and misleading people." Seriously, a vicious personal attack by one person in an opinion column for a minor Catholic publication is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia? You have got to be kidding me. Thucy's third source doesn't mention Father Martin at all. The entire paragraph is attempting to make 1 opinion column and 1 minor blog entry in two minor publications into an event noteworthy of inclusion in a biography of a living person. This falls squarely under WP:BLPBALANCE: The views of small minorities should not be included at all. --PluniaZ (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Three reliable sources from America Magazine, National Catholic Reporter and The Philadelphia Inquirer have been added since PluniaZ's comment. Those reliable sources show that Father Martin's interpretation of canon 915 is noteworthy, adequately sourced and in contradiction with the official interpretation of the Church. Hence the criticisms of his minority viewpoint, in this section dedicated to the criticisms of Father Martin's positions.

I won't discuss the vicious personal attacks made by PluniaZ. I have deleted Father Longenecker's sentences and replaced them with the official statement of support of the priest's decision issued by the Diocese of Grand Rapids. Thucyd (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

Do two opinion columns in minor publications in response to a BLP subject's tweets constitute an event worthy of inclusion in a BLP article? Should the content added in this DIFF be included in the biography of James Martin (priest, born 1960)? --PluniaZ (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose: Per WP:BLPBALANCE, the views of small minorities should not be included at all. The authors of these opinion columns are not prominent, the publications are minor, and they did not generate coverage in mainstream media publications and therefore do not constitute a significant enough event to be included in a BLP article. Wikipedia is not a diary that includes a person's every tweet and response thereto. --PluniaZ (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose This is why Wikipedia is known as a progressive outlet detached from reality: the "mainstream" sources are always leftist sympathizers and the critics are decried as "fringe" websites. Fr. Martin will continue to be well-regarded here until decent books are written well after he's dead giving a more balanced view. As for me, I think it makes more sense to prohibit primary sources from BLPs, which would result in deletion of this article. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose I too think that BLPs should be mostly limited to news reports and wary of including opinion pieces, which come from every side and run on forever, but have little place in an encyclopedia. And if there's to be a debate on what sins are graver than others, then it should be carried on here. Jzsj (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• • But these news reports are primary sources. BLPs on Wikipedia hardly use any actual reliable secondary sources according to the actual policy. Sans primary sources, BLP reporting would implode here and now. Elizium23 (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Is it really that simple? When you add in what's said about independent sources and verifiability and all, there's quite a bit of latitude for common sense judgments. Most of what is published contains the perspective of its prospective readership, books included, and so the word "unduly" before "self-serving" should be carefully noted. Jzsj (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose I would delete Longnecker's statement in the last paragraph: "...same-sex marriage has a "legal component and a contractual, formal component" and is "irremediable"." as it sounds contradictory. The same laws that make it a legal contract also provide for divorce, and therefore not "irremediable". (If he means something else, then it should be deleted as unclear.) Manannan67 (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose as worded. The citations are fine for supporting a discussion of Martin's controversial public statements, but not for the strongly worded text in the edit. Websurfer2 (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose mostly because of the prolix nature of the LGBT section. Here's a suggested copy edit: User:Markworthen/sandbox/JMartinSJ. Feel free to copy and modify as you see fit, perhaps when this RfC concludes.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 20:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Regardless of whether the publishing entity is major or minor, there remains the fact that they are opinion pieces. I am also noting the part stating that several priests and authors criticized Martin's interpretation of the Canon 915. The USA Today reference did not indicate it. It was only the priest-author who was taking a position against it. Darwin Naz (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

This RFC was highly biased and outdated since the first day (cf. gaming the system). The paragraph has been significantly modified and many highly reliable sources added, including the Washington Post, America Magazine, National Catholic Reporter, Philadelphia Inquirer. I have deleted Longenecker's sentences. Thucyd (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Please read WP:RFC. It is not appropriate for you to edit content under discussion in an RfC. Wait for the RfC to close before making further changes, or I will report you for edit warring. --PluniaZ (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• Furthermore, your proposed revision of the paragraph does not address the concerns raised in this RfC, namely WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:DIARY. The only mainstream media source you've cited that mentions Father Martin's views on the denial of Holy Communion is the Philadelphia Inquirer, but that is only in one columnist's opinion column. The Washington Post article does not quote his tweets, nor does it say that Father Martin has objected to the denial of Holy Communion to anyone. All the WaPo article says about Martin is the following:

“In the last few decades, in many places, all issues have taken a back seat to abortion,” said the Rev. James Martin, the editor-at-large of the Jesuit magazine America. “Certainly it’s an important issue — and I am pro-life — but it is not the only issue. And it is not even the only ‘life issue.’ ” ... “If you are pro-life, you are pro all life, and that needs to be squared with how you vote,” Martin said.

That is all the WaPo article says about Father Martin. It says nothing about Father Martin taking a stance one way or the other on the denial of Communion to anyone. You also erroneously cite 5 sources for the claim that "several Catholic authors and priests criticized Martin's interpretation of canon 915", when the only 2 that actually contain such criticism are the original 2 for which this RfC was raised. You also engage in original research by citing Cardinal Ratzinger's 2004 letter on Holy Communion, a connection not made by any primary or secondary source in connection with this incident. And the fundamental issue remains that Wikipedia is not a WP:DIARY that records every single tweet a person sends in their life and the responses thereto. This incident hasn't even made into the biography of Joe Biden, so why the heck would it be considered noteworthy here? --PluniaZ (talk) 23:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that your misleading RFC is now outdated and can be closed.

You are gaming the system in order to push your POV. Your strategy is quite simple: you don't try to improve the paragraph, you don't leave me or someone else enough time to improve the content, you make a RFC by calling all the persons who are likely to share your point of view or your ideological bias.

I could have added many other national reliable sources, and you know it. This paragraph is not only about Joe Biden, but about Martin's interpretation of canon 915.

Your claim that James Martin's position is not perfectly known is laughable and sounds desperate. You just have to read the sources already provided (don't you trust America Magazine anymore?). Many other reliable sources could be added. For example the Huffington Post: "The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest who has advocated for the greater inclusion of LGBTQ Catholics, questioned whether priests in cases like Smolenski’s would also deny communion to Catholic employers who refuse to pay their workers a living wage, or married couples using in vitro fertilization, which the church has deemed immoral.“The Catholic Church is called to proclaim church teaching. But church teaching is, at heart, Jesus’s message of love, mercy and forgiveness,” Martin wrote. “The church also has rules. But these rules must be applied across the board, not selectively, and not simply to one group of people. Otherwise it is no longer ‘church teaching.’ It is merely discrimination,” he said."

Crux explicitly made the obvious connection with the Ratzinger's letter. Same thing for the Philadelphia Inquirer and National review, already in the article. Thucyd (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

You edited the content after I created the RfC. That is not how the WP:RFC process is supposed to work. Since we both agree on the outcome of this RFC, I will close it. I suggest that you create a diff of how you think the paragraph should read and start a new RfC to gain consensus. The article should remain as it is until consensus is reached on whether to add any new content, in accordance with WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. But what I really think you should do is find an article where this series of incidents is more appropriate, such as Eucharist or Canon 915. A BLP isn't supposed to record every instance in which a person commented on an incident. If the incident is noteworthy, then it belongs in its own article or in an article for which it is topical. Your Crux article does not mention Father Martin - please keep this page about Father Martin, and there is no need to mention every opinion column written against him. --PluniaZ (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2019 (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.

Cases regarding denial of Holy Communion

As discussed in the recently closed RfC, the cases involving the denial of Holy Communion do not involve Father Martin. He merely commented on them. As such, it is not a material event in his life that deserves to be included in this article. I have instead transferred that content to the article Canon 915, which seems to be the most appropriate place for it. --PluniaZ (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion to rename page

"James Martin (priest, born 1960)" is a bit of an unwieldy title. Looking at the disambiguation page, it seems that renaming this page "James J. Martin (priest)" would sufficiently distinguish him from other people with this name. •≈20+π^{(talk to me!)} 15:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

We don't do that because WP:MIDDLE says that middle names or initials should follow what is published in reliable secondary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough •≈20+π^{(talk to me!)} 22:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Father Martin's commentary on recent news items

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

It is disputed whether Father Martin's commentary on recent news items involving the public denial of Holy Communion to certain recipients, and two op-ed pieces written in response to his commentary, should be included in his bio page. In particular, it is disputed whether the added material in this DIFF should be added to his bio page. --PluniaZ (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - Both as written and as to substance. As written, this paragraph gets into unnecessary details about the underlying incidents, in which Father Martin was not involved. He merely commented on them. This material belongs in another article more directly related to the incidents, such as Canon 915. As to substance, the entire incident should be excluded from his bio by WP:DIARY. This material only relates to Father Martin in that he made a few comments about the incidents in the form of tweets and statements to a few news outlets. That alone does not constitute an event in his life that is noteworthy of inclusion in his bio page. Public personalities comment on news items all the time, but it doesn't make it into their bio page unless there is something especially noteworthy about the comments, which is not the case here. And the two op-ed pieces written in response to Father Martin are not prominent, are from partisan sources and should be excluded by WP:BLPBALANCE. --PluniaZ (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Support - This short paragraph summarizes Martin's opinion about a recurrent debate in the US Catholic Church: the reception of Communion by persons in manifest grave sin. Martin's opinion is noteworthy, due to the fact that he is one of the most famous priests in the USA, and supported by many reliable sources included in the paragraph (Washington Post, Huffington Post, America Magazine, National Catholic Reporter, National Catholic Register, etc.). The bio page of a commentator should include his most interesting public comments. Moreover, this paragraph has nothing to with WP:DIARY: it summarizes in a few sentences the interpretation of a famous commentator, showing a pattern of thought, is not about a trivial matter. The four (not two) op-ed pieces show that, as written in this single sentence, Martin's interpretation of Canon law drew significant criticism among Catholics. Thucyd (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Support As the banner says, Father Martin is a commentator, author, and news editor (among other things). How can this article give a full view of him if it doesn't present what he comments and reports on. And as Thucyd touched on above, these stances are well cited with reliable sources.HAL333 23:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Support, as this is a notable position that received attention by the media. --Zianon (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Support per Thucyd. Consensus seems to be in favor of conclusion, so perhaps it's time to close this RfC and re-add the material. Display name 99 (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@PluniaZ: Shouldn't you make clear what paragraph you are speaking about, so that we can find where the issue is. The word "Communion" is nowhere used in the article and I don't know how else to find what the issue is. Has the paragraph in question been removed from the article, and if so in what deletion can we find it? I suggest that this Rfc needs clarification before a decision is reached. Jzsj (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Jzsj, I think he did that when he opened the RfC. It appears you didn't bother to read it. If you want to know whether or not the content is still in the article, you can check the editing history. Display name 99 (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

You're right, I missed the technical jargon "DIFF". It would be more respectful of those who come to help without a background in all the Wiki jargon if it was said: "Check at this DIFF for the paragraph which has been removed." Jzsj (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose since the media coverage is so one-sided and confuses "serious matter" with "grave sin" which is a judgment which we are not to apply to individuals. An intelligent commentary would go into the extent of public scandal caused. And in the abortion issue a Catholic can be opposed to abortion but not think this Catholic teaching must become public law in secular society. My other problem is that the America and Washington Post articles are not generally accessible on internet. Also, some Catholics would see here a divide on the homosexual issue, between Catholics who in cases like this see Communion as medicine for us sinners and not just a reward for the righteous. Jzsj (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Jzsj, there are several issues here. The word diff was capitalized and put in bold. A person not sure what it meant could have clicked on it. You are a veteran editor on this site and most people who've been active on Wikipedia for even a little while know what the word means or can at least figure it out if they don't. I also don't see how your proposed version of how he presented the material could have made things any more clear.

You say that a Catholic can choose not to believe that Catholic teaching on abortion must become law "in a secular society." That doesn't seem relevant here, but even if it is, your statement is contradicted by paragraph 2273 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority." Say what you will about grave sin, but Canon 915 specifically states that those who persist in "manifest grave sin" cannot receive Holy Communion. You might not like it, but the text accurately reflects what is written in canon law, which is what actually matters. The Washington Post and America are both considered reliable sources, and even if people sometimes have trouble accessing them on the Internet (and I am one of them), that does not make them unacceptable for usage here. The Washington Post in particular is a high-quality source which is widely utilized on Wikipedia articles. Display name 99 (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll admit I was rushing, but I find it rare and unhelpful to remove a passage from the article while it's being discussed. CCC 2273 doesn't say that we may judge who is in grace sin, that is for the individual to decide,even while the pastor may exclude the person without judging them. Catholics may disagree on which "inalienable rights" must be preserved, especially since the Church doesn't claim that it knows when an embryo becomes a human person. I wasn't denying the usability of WP and A, just a hitch in making the paragraph clear. Jzsj (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, it's customary to keep a disputed passage out of the article until consensus is reached to include it. I believe that the paragraph should be in the article, but it was technically correct to remove it if there was not consensus. The paragraph never says that a priest can judge who is in grave sin, only that someone in "manifest grave sin" cannot be admitted to Holy Communion, which is exactly what the canon says. So I'm not sure where the problem is. The Catechism makes it clear which inalienable rights must be preserved, because that passage came directly after it spent considerable time denouncing abortion. Your statement that the Church doesn't claim to know when human personhood begins is, with respect, pure and utter nonsense. The WP and America are not even the essential sources used in the paragraph. There are multiple citations to other sources which cover more content. Display name 99 (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The "nonesense" you refer to is in The National Catholic Register, a part of the conservative, formerly Mother Angelica, holdings. There it explains the human-being, human-person distinction that the church has always maintained. Since we, admittedly, don't know when we have a human person, it remains a matter of speculation, I suggest that the most we'll be able to get into public law (after years of electing Republicans who make this their one, big, moral issue) is what a majority of the people believe, that the embryo is to be treated like a person in the third trimester. As to receiving Communion, Pope Francis' stand on (adulterating?) remarried couples receiving Communion (long known in confessional practice) may possibly be pointing to new directions in what Jesus intended by this sacrament, though now this is only for speculation in scholarly journals. You're correct on the grave sin, saying it is "manifest" means "apparent", and is not a judgment on the personal conscience of the person. But let's not mislead people into thinking that the statement on Communion in the code (915) has any direct connection to the catechism of Pope John Paul reflections on abortion. Jzsj (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:FORUM, I'm not debating any further on issues that have no connection to what goes in the article. Display name 99 (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I hope that what we've said here will help some to know what to look for in trying to improve this article. Jzsj (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2020 (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.

Disambiguation

@Werldwayd: I have reverted your move. You did not discuss it anywhere. Also, there is another Jesuit priest named James Martin (as seen in the hatnote) therefore "Jesuit priest" is an ambiguous disambiguation. Elizium23 (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Changing opening to be more reflective of Father Martin's ministry

I have updated the opening section to contain a reference to Father Martin's three most popular books rather than focusing on Building a Bridge. Since this is a page about Father Martin and not controversy surrounding his ministry, it is more reflective of his collective body of work to list the works which are most likely to be known. 'Building a Bridge' and its media coverage are described in detail in the LGBT section of the article. Antiphar (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Antiphar, your desire to whitewash the article having been noted, I have restored the neutral material about the controversy which swirls around Father Martin and his writings. Elizium23 (talk) 05:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23, thank you for weighing in. Because this is a biographical article, we should take great care to avoid anything which misrepresents the importance of controversy. Father Martin has written a number of popular books and made a number of media appearances. Summing up his identity with a controversy about a single publication reduces his entire life to merely the opinions of his detractors. While it is true that one of Father Martin's books has provoked a great deal of negative criticism, to list that controversy as part of the summary draws unnecessary attention to it. It is more neutral to list those works which are most likely to be known by potential readers, and thus I chose his first three best-selling books as reported by Amazon. May I suggest that we solve this by mirroring the structure used on the Pope Francis page, which both includes his well known work and also briefly mentions criticism (without using the words backlash or swirling, which have defamatory connotations)? Antiphar (talk) 06:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Antiphar, actually it would misrepresent the importance of the controversy to remove it from the lede section, and that's exactly what you are trying to do. Are you related to Father Martin in some way? Elizium23 (talk) 06:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Elizium23, what's your opinion about my last recommendation to include both sentences, replacing backlash with criticism? Then his most popular works can be listed along with mention of the opposing view, similar to how other articles handle public figures? Regarding your question, I have read Father Martin's books and followed him in the news. Disagreement with your opinion on the significance of a controversy does not constitute a conflict of interest on my part, and I'm perfectly willing to represent both pieces of information as long as it is done impartially and without inflammatory language. Antiphar (talk) 06:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)