Talk:Stop the Church

RFC: Does the desecration of a consecrated communion wafer (Eucharist) belong in the lede?

Should the lede of this article mention that the desecration of a consecrated communion wafer (Eucharist) took place during the protest and became a major story in the media? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, it should. The WP:LEDE, should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." This was a very prominent controversy both at the time, and for years after. Consider what the sources have to say about the incident:
  • "...the crumbling of a communion wafer by just one member came to represent the entire demonstration in the eyes of the media and the public."
  • "The news coverage in that night and in following days was dominated by the desecration of the host."
  • "The single incident, considered an act of sacrilege by many, has since consumed reams of newsprint..."
  • "Although 111 people were arrested, the news media focused on and distorted a single Catholic demonstrator's personal protest involving a communion wafer."
  • "The coverage most prominently featured the person who threw the wafer;"
  • "Media accounts of the protest underscored one particular action that occurred within the cathedral: a young man crumbled the sacred host."

If this incident "came to represent the entire demonstration," it seems to me pretty obvious that it belongs in the lede. I think language like this would be appropriate, but I am open to other formulations as well. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• No, leave it out. Undue, needless detail, no matter how tightly we clutch our pearls over such transgressions. BTW, the lede is missing what a massive effort this was for ACT-UP, I believe their biggest protest to date. Also missing was a lot of support from the AIDS and LGBTQ communities at the time and since. I would say that although there were some in the community that felt conflicted about disturbing a religious service, they were far outweighed by those furious at the Catholic Church for its stances against LGBTQ people and safe sex practices, especially promoting condoms to save lies—all while openly secret pedophile priests were victimizing children throughout the church’s reach in U.S. and elsewhere. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes. The LEDE could definitely benefit from expansion in a number of ways, as per Gleeanon409, but among those ways, I'm absolutely in favor of the proposed addition and the wording of it proposed by Slugger O'Toole. The sources make clear that this incident had a significant impact on the campaign, and this should be stated in the LEDE and the article body.Talrolande (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
• No. Leave it out. Only those pushing an aggressive pro-Catholic editorial style are obsessed with highlighting this negligible act. How about the lede says something about how many people died as a result of the Catholic church's policy on condoms and why that made so many so angry? And why do you have to insist on the word "eucharist" when none of the sources say eucharist. I mean can you not at least make a pretence of not being a Vatican apologist Slugger for maybe even one day?!Contaldo80 (talk) 04:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes. Right now the lead contains only WP:VAGUE language that the Mass was "distrupted". Host desecration is such a distinctive form of disruption that we have an article for it. This act should be specified in the lead. The other "disruptions" can we mentioned as well, but since it would be useful not to lose focus of this RfC, I'm neutral on those. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
• Yes (conditional) - Assuming that this part of the incident was indeed heavily covered in the media, it very clearly meets notability criteria for inclusion in the lede. I'm not inclined to go verify that myself at this time, especially since no sources have been posted in this RFC. To be honest, this doesn't seem like a controversial position whatsoever to me, and I'm a little confused as to why it's become so. If it's notable, it belongs. If the trouble is that there's question over the media coverage itself, please clarify the RFC. This isn't to say that the lede shouldn't also be expanded in other ways, and I do tend to agree with Contaldo80 that using the term "eucharist" may not be the best option, as it's not the most plainly common term used by the general public. I'd defer to whatever language is already accepted on Host desecration. In reading through the comments on this RFC, I'm a little dismayed to see editors making accusations of each other, and I'd like to remind everyone that Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith is not a suggestion, but rather a core principle. Arathald (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Just as a quick followup on language: it does appear that Host desecration does use the term "eucharist" without issue, though the consensus on the talk page seems to be that "host" is the preferred NPOV term in that article, though the primary article on the subject is titled Sacramental bread. This is an aside, as the language in the lede is not the subject of this RFC. Arathald (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

    Arathald, If you look above, there was a large discussion about this very topic not so long ago. Just over a month ago we came to a consensus on compromise language that includes Eucharist in parentheses. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

    • Slugger Thank you for pointing that out, there's a lot of discussion and I missed that. The comment on language was an aside to the RFC anyway, and I'll definitely defer to previous consensus on that topic. I've marked out the parts of my original comment irrelevant to this RFC. Arathald (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, per Talrolande. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• If you do put it in please do not say "desecrated a consecrated communion wafer (Eucharist)". That's way too much WP:JARGON for the average reader in the Lead, and the word "desecrated" here seems to have a very specific meaning (Host desecration) which is subtly different from the ordinary meaning of the word desecration. It would be better to use plain English words that unambiguously, precisely, and concisely say what the protestor did (i.e. "crumbled a communion wafer") without value-laden or technical words like desecrated, consecrated, and Eucharist. Those can be used and explained in the body. ~Awilley (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  Awilley, Have you read the commentary above? You may not know that is consensus language. I happen to agree with you that it is not ideal, but it was the compromise we developed. If you were not aware before now, do you still feel the same way? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  I had not read that. I came here from the RFC page and this discussion is my first exposure to the topic. I don't see anything in the above that should discourage us from trying to find clearer, more neutral, and more encyclopedic wordings that are accessible to a broad audience with limited knowledge of Catholicism. One idea from up there that might be even more understandable to the lay reader would be to use the term "sacramental bread" with a pipe link to communion wafer. If I have time later today I can try writing up some proposed text. Also, a question. The sources provided above clearly show that the wafer crumbling was notable. But the proposed wording says that it was the main focus of the news week. Is there a secondary or tertiary source that directly makes that statement, or is that our analysis here? ~Awilley (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  As I stated up there: as someone who is not a Catholic, not a Christian, and who has never been a Christian, I find the phrase "communion wafer" clearer than "sacramental bread". I even find the phrase "Eucharist" clearer than "sacramental bread". The reason is exactly because both "communion wafer" and "sacramental bread" are jargon terms with exactly one meaning: I've heard them both before, and I know exactly what they refer to when I hear them. "Sacramental bread" is not a phrase I hear often in this context so it's less immediately obvious to me what it means. Basically, I think we should trust our audience to know basic facts about Catholicism in an article about a protest of a Catholic church. If they don't know, they can click through to the page. That's what the link is for. Loki (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• I was originally leaning towards "no" but but it says right in the section that it "became the biggest news story in the days to come", with overly ample sourcing, so I can't really help but vote Yes. (I do think that the number of sources there is odd and frankly suspicious: three or four sources is well-sourced, but eight sources is "this has been the subject of an edit war".) Loki (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• After a month, there are now six editors who favor inclusion, two who do not, and one who expressed an opinion for how it should be worded if it is included. There thus appears to be a consensus in favor of inclusion. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• at some level, maybe, but as with so many previous discussions initiated by the OP, we should not succumb to the in-universe descriptions of a consecrated wafer as the literal body of Christ, because the outrage this clearly inspires in the OP is not shared by the actual sources, which view it as a technical matter - a thing that happened that was deisgned to cause outrage but is not endorsed as what the OP has reperatedly sought to present, a literal desecration of the godhead. Wikipedia doesn't believe in transubstantiation. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)