Talk:James J. Martin (priest)

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)

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/enwiki/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.