This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Arturo Sosa is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Venezuela, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Venezuela on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VenezuelaWikipedia:WikiProject VenezuelaTemplate:WikiProject VenezuelaVenezuela articles
Anyone familiar with the discussion on Communion for divorced Catholics knows that Arturo is defending Pope Francis' ideas here and did not personally initiate this issue. Mention of his following the Pope on this is clear in "Sosa's remarks drew criticism.[15]" I suggest we restore some mention of this to be honest on the issue of what Sosa is about, following Pope Francis' lead even as reference 15 makes clear. Jzsj (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is moot. Nothing in the article suggests that Sosa initiated the issue. It is clear from the article text that Sosa's remarks are in response to a specific argument forwarded by Muller, and even the primary source given shows that his remarks came as an answer to the interviewer's question about his view on Muller's argument. Per the article text, "In February 2017, in response to Cardinal Müller's argument... Sosa argued that..."
Francis is also irrelevant here. Remember the bigger picture here - the section where this text resides is about criticism of Sosa, not about the interview, nor about Francis. Only the specific parts that were criticised were reproduced here to give context to the criticism, which is the primary content of this section. Mentions of Francis do not appear in that particular interview question or that particular reply by Sosa. Sosa only mentions Francis at later, tangentially-related questions and answers, but these mentions are not the target of the criticism. There is no need to sidetrack the section to discuss everything else Sosa references in the interview. —Madrenergictalk16:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But Muller was criticizing Pope Francis' position, and C.C. Pecknold in Aleteia is clearly on the conservative side of the live debate, giving not news but "Views and Voices" commentary. Also, in the Messori article we read "He then accused Pope Francis of having a similar attitude, especially when the Pontiff criticises a “Catholic temptation” to have “rigid” rules rather than judging on a “case by case basis”. The old Jesuit tradition of “discernment”, Messori added, has been twisted so it now means to “freely interpret even dogma, depending on the situation, as has happened in some official documents containing [the Pope’s] signature, which have aroused perplexity (to use a euphemism) in some cardinals.”" It's misleading to quote part of this article without it's fuller explanation of how Francis figures into this.
In trying to produce truly encyclopedic content without expert authors as in most encyclopedias, I suggest we recognize that the media need to emotionalize by giving mainly one side, appealing to the right or left. To get truly "news" beyond the sensational headlines and partisan commentary, we need to pick up on bits and pieces that balance the news bit's perspective. As we read in WP:CRIT, a "Criticism" section is usually not ideal – but if we are interested in the whole truth of the matter we can escape some of its pitfalls. The fact that none of the issues in this section are discussed in the rest of the Sosa article makes this section stand out as very one-sided and biased to anyone who knows the live debate going on between traditionalists (of the John-Paul II era) and post-Vatican II theologians (of the Francis era), who differ on the major issues raised here: the merits of liberation theology in Latin America; how recent Scripture studies should impact church doctrine that moved more and more away from Scripture over the centuries and became Scholastic-philosophical; how clericalism and emphasis on papal "infallibility" should give way to a more collegial church. I suggest that the name of this section be changed to "Critical issues" so that more context can be given to Sosa's views. This is also the preference of WP:CRIT. Jzsj (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately you're missing the point. Regardless of whether it is true that there is some conflict between sects or schools of thought within the Catholic Church, it is all irrelevant. I remind you again - this article is about Sosa; it is not about Muller, nor Francis, nor Pecknold, nor Messori, nor John Paul II, nor papal infallibility, nor Catholic theology, nor Second Vatican Council, nor Traditionalist Catholicism, nor liberation theology, nor Catholic theology of Scripture, nor clericalism, nor any other of a number of miscellaneous topics that one might want to bring up. This article Arturo Sosa is about the subject Arturo Sosa only and shall be about the subject Arturo Sosa only. Any content that is written here must relate directly to Arturo Sosa. If it is not, any editor can and will remove it. —Madrenergictalk17:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You keep ignoring the point that you are omitting the material within these articles which would balance the one-sided views of the commentators. You must know that " Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons requires exercising special care in presenting negative viewpoints about living persons." And "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints." As I mention above, if you won't allow reference to the controversies that Sosa is responding to in the Criticism section, then this should be clarified somewhere in the article. Indications are given in the references, but you insist on deleting these. Jzsj (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be talking about different edits and reverts. Please be specific about the edits and reverts that you are upset about and we can address them individually, because not every revert was done for the same reason. Do remember that "Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons requires exercising special care in presenting negative viewpoints about living persons" does not justify the addition of irrelevant material not relevant to the statement being criticised nor the criticisms that arise thereof, if they are not themselves noteworthy. Furthermore, Wikipedia's core content policies must be respected through the provision of WP:RELIABLE sources, maintaining a neutral WP:POV, and avoiding WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH.
If you wish to take issue with how criticism is organised in the article, you are free to reorganise the article in an alternative format and we shall see if it is a better way of discussing the issue without affecting the availability of the content. However, you have not made any attempt nor proposal to do so, so I fail to see why you are quoting WP:CRIT to me when I have never stopped you from doing so, and the Criticism section was in place long before I had begun editing this article. Nonetheless, do note that the listed examples of BLPs dealing with controversies given in WP:CRIT do have separate sections for criticism or controversy (see Kanye West, Michael Collins Piper, and Mel Gibson), so clearly it is an acceptable method of organising criticism, even if its lead paragraph says that is not preferred. —Madrenergictalk18:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jzsj, try not to make a mountain out of a molehill by nitpicking and hammering a tiny point. That approach might leading to undesirable consequences such as a topic ban, as it has for you in the past.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
