Talk:Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence

Poor quality sources / religious self-published websites

This article currently has quite a few references that come from Catholic self-published websites. These likely do not meet the standards of WP:RS. Especially when controversies are being discussed, we should rely on high quality news sources, ideally Wikipedia perennial sources (WP:RSP), books by well-established publishers, etc. Just because a Catholic website is publishing an opinion, does not mean that this opinion merits inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Note: "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

Along the same lines, there is the use of a very old letters-to-the-editor reference, in which it is usually not made clear which letter is being referenced, and why the Wikipedia article would rely on a letter to the editor. Letters to the editor are not reliable sources for establishing the basic facts about a subject. At least one use of this source is also grossly misrepresenting it, claiming that the ADL made a certain statement, when in fact what is found in the short letter is just a short statement by one member of a local chapter of the ADL. This usage is very misleading. Hist9600 (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Certainly letters to the editor should be referenced individually. The ADL letter, presumably the one in 25 March 1999 letter page, is signed by the Assistant and Associate directors of the Anti-Defamation League San Francisco so is presumably an official statement by the local chapter and thus a bit more legit as a source on the SF ADL's view of the matter (though as we don't have the full context, it and the other letters probably shouldn't be used unless cited by a good secondary source). For the 1999 Easter street party and related controversy, there should now be some good scholarly secondary sources describing it that the editors can use; if not, the incident is probably not 'notable'. Looking at Wilcox 2018 which is a book on the organization written by a scholar (professor of religious studies, UC Riverside) and published by an academic press, it mentions the 1999 event as a comparison to the much smaller 1989 event. The author covers in more detail the mass at Most Holy Redeemer in 2007 where two sisters took communion from the archbishop and the critics responded loudly; an event this article doesn't cover at all. --Erp (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Criticism

I've been thinking about how best to restructure the article to weave positive and negative reactions etc into the overall article rather than having a WP:CSECTION, for the reasons noted at that page. And I realized that the current modular structure (and the fact that several subsections of the "criticism" section do, to their credit, at least mention positive as well as negative reactions) means that just dropping the empty top-level "Controversies and criticism" header and incrementing the header level of "Religious parodies" and (most of) the other subsections would be one easy improvement. (It also makes me notice how excessive the prominence being given to Sullivan's criticism is, currently given its own section of the article and formerly even added to the lead, when it'd be better placed into the section next to it that already discusses Hunky Jesus, or possibly (depending on how much weight his view is given in secondary sources) dropped altogether. -sche (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's best practice to avoid criticism sections, which tend to just pile on negative views about a subject. Better to integrate well-sourced criticisms from reliable, independent sources, into normal sections of the article. And of course, content should follow WP:DUE, so if there are not reliable, independent sources saying something, we should consider whether those specific criticisms need to be included in an encyclopedia article on the subject. Hist9600 (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Tone

User:Tomorrow and tomorrow, you added a {{Tone}} tag at the article in May in this edit. I noticed that you cleaned up some of the problems you found, thanks very much for that. Can you have another look now, and see if you think the unencyclopedic tone issues in the article have been resolved so we can remove the tag? If not, can you point to areas that still need cleanup? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Mathglot, thanks for reaching out. I think it is looking pretty good now. I feel the 'Inception' section still comes across as a bit of a rambling recollection about gay culture in SF, but not really sure how to fix that without re-writing the whole section (and cutting a fair bit of irrelevant WP:SYNTH).

Only other thing - I feel that there is too many quotes by sisters themselves, which get sorta merged with the WP:Wikivoice, and overall adds to WP:Tone concerns. Other than that, mostly good in my opinion. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Tomorrow and tomorrow, Thanks for that. I've been looking at the quotes, and trying to think about what you said about quantity. I think I see what you mean, because on the one hand, the quotes are irreverent and cheeky, but on the other, I think a certain amount of that is appropriate here (as long as it's between double quotes and attributed), to give some kind of flavor to the reader of what they are about. To get a feel for how we handle that in other articles, I had a look at Monty Python, George Carlin, and "Weird Al" Yankovic, and I think some quotations, in whatever the style of the subject happens to be, are actually needed in such articles in order to get away from the necessarily dryer tone of the encyclopedic content in Wikipedia's voice, and to give the reader a little, direct taste of what all those dry words are trying to describe, first-hand. It's a judgment call, of course: how much is too much? I think I'm coming down on the side of "it's about right" in this article, for now, but I would appreciate your feedback. Especially if you could come up with 2-3 more articles that might be about some similar kind of comedic or parody subject, especially if high camp and broad farce and/or costuming was involved, and see how they handle quotations in those articles and report back. (Are you subscribed? I'll stop pinging, if so.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I am subscribed.

Honestly, I think we're good for now, if you want to remove tone tag go ahead. Thanks for being so constructive with all your edits!

Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done And thanks for all the help, and feel free to add them here, or anywhere they're needed. If an accompanying talk page section is not needed, please use the |reason= param in the maintenance template to give some idea of what needs attention. Tip: You can *always* use the 'reason' param with any template, regardless whether it is documented on the Template doc page or not. Thanks again. Mathglot (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

History

Working a bit on the history. Note the story on how they acquired the original habits seems to have several variations. I also note they were quickly replaced by ones they made themselves. I'm relying on the Wilcox book as it is recent and scholarly. We also seem to have more about the context than about the order's own history. Erp (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Introduction criticisms, web scraping concerns

Balancing Perspectives: The introduction presents an emphasis on the criticisms against the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, using strong language like "anti-Catholic" and "hate-group". These should be presented as views held by specific groups, not as universally accepted facts. Equally, the positive views on the Sisters should be given due attention to maintain a balanced perspective. I have made some changes to reflect this.

Emphasis on Controversy: There's substantial focus on the Sisters' disputes with Christian, particularly Catholic, communities. While these are significant, they might be overemphasized in the introduction. It would be beneficial to underscore their charity work, LGBTQ+ activism, and use of satire. They should not be defined by their opponents, but their critics' opinions should be made known as well.

Citation Review: It's essential to verify that all contentious statements are appropriately cited with credible sources. Particularly when specific critics, like the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, are mentioned, the sources need to be reliable. (For example, direct statements or official publications from the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights could be used as sources for their criticisms.) In other words, the claims or criticisms made by these groups should be backed up by sources that are well-respected, accurate, and unbiased in their reporting.

Also, whenever controversial or potentially inflammatory statements are included in a Wikipedia article, such as calling a group an "anti-Catholic hate-group", it's particularly important that these statements are supported by reliable sources to avoid spreading misinformation or bias.

It's crucial to present a balanced, comprehensive view of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in the introduction. Given the provocative nature of their work, it's unsurprising they attract controversy and criticism. Still, it's vital that any Wikipedia article doesn't inadvertently contribute to misinformation.

At the time of this writing, criticisms of the Catholic Church are given a single sentence at the end of four paragraphs. Given their history, this is an act more charitable than any recorded in the Bible; but given the sensitivity of the topic, the vastness of the idea of "The Catholic Church," and the context of being an Encyclopedia entry, it's also common sense.

Just as we shouldn't start the entry on the Catholic Church heavy with its criticisms and its critics' voices, we shouldn't do so for the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Such an approach could yield an unbalanced understanding of any group and particularly, in this case, would overshadow the Sisters' mission and the essence of their organization.

Every perspective, including those of the Sisters' critics, deserves fair representation in this article. However, leading with such criticism can unintentionally mischaracterize the group. An appropriate balance could be to upfront acknowledge the controversial aspects of the Sisters' activities, then delve into specific criticisms in a distinct 'Criticisms' or 'Controversies' section.

As a neophyte editor, I recognize there might be potential issues with this approach, such as it inadvertently facilitating a pile-on of criticisms. However, it's equally crucial to avoid aggregating these criticisms in the introduction, as it currently stands.

My main concern for this is the potential impact on AI-driven information retrieval systems, like Bing's, which will interpret a front-loaded criticism as a definitive categorization of the group as a 'hate group.' Earlier today, Bing looked at this article and decided definitively that OPI was a hate group, because someone here confidently wrote that as fact and cited a Fox News article, in which it was an opinion stated. This contributes to the spread of misinformation much more quickly than even a year ago, as information here is being scraped and presented to others elsewhere as fact. This is a huge problem.

The community may need to consider these newer challenges, presented by AI algorithms' interpretation of article structures, and adjust editorial practices accordingly for fairness and accuracy. 2600:1700:A2C6:500:E4ED:A46C:8A33:CCEC (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

IP 2600, thanks for your comment and your concern, but it's probably not an AI issue at all. Wikipedia is a top website worldwide, and not only Bing but also Google often use basic information from the lead in their search result snippets. Unfortunately, there is a newbie POV editor active at this page, and even though their edits are being reverted, Bing, Google, and other crawlers pick up changes to the page rapidly and show them to searchers, at least until their POV edits get seen by some other editor and reverted. This is just normal web-crawling, not an AI issue. That doesn't mitigate the damage you describe, but just wanted to let you know what is happening. You can help, by removing such unsupported statements from the article, as soon as you see them. Thanks again for raising your concerns. Mathglot (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism and "hate group" description

@Thegodfathero Let's avoid an edit war and discuss here. Your description of the SPI as an "anti-Catholic hate group" represents the viewpoint of a vocal minority. It is an opinion rather than a factual description of the group. This opinion is discussed in depth later on in the article, and does not belong in the first paragraph. Removal of this line does not constitute vandalism, however, I trust you are acting in good faith and therefore will not reverse your edit immediately so that we can discuss first. Bear of Tomato (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your good attitude, but I'll revert it immediately. There is no need to discuss clear violations of policy first; much less when this is their third try. The insertion of unattributed, unquoted, opinion by a non-neutral advocate into the lead sentence of an article which involves living people does not require discussing first. This brand-new editor deserves some slack, like all new editors do, but in their 16-edit career at Wikipedia, over 25% of their edits are trying to stuff their "hate-group" point of view into this article, and they already got the patient responses the last two times they tried it. Now, they just get immediately reverted, not so patiently, along with a (still patient) edit-warring warning on their Talk page. If they try it again, they may get admin action. Mathglot (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in. I'm a novice editor myself and tend to be overcautious. I'll revert such edits immediately in the future. Bear of Tomato (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Distinction between SPI the San Francisco group and SPI the wider movement isn't very clear in the article

The infobox is specific to the San Francisco organization; however, the article deals with the greater movement which is made up of many autonomous groups. Should the infobox be adjusted to be specific to the movement? Or can we otherwise make things clearer? Erp (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

My inclination would be to broaden the infobox, or perhaps make a section for the SF org and move the box there. -sche (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

2009 to-do list

The following text has been copied from the former to-do banner, Talk:Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence/to do, which as Mathglot pointed out is entirely out of date; if any of it still needs to be done, tackle it; otherwise, this can be archived in due time. -sche (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

* ''Controversy section'' - Papal List of Heretics references, confirm, vet and ref. 
* explain their stance on Catholicism (by example and balancing statements)
* work with multiple faith groups
* ''Controversy section'' - The Condom Saviour Consecration and Vow 
* Three Mile Island Protest (first event?)
* Dog Show in the Castro (with Shirley MaClaine (sp?))
* Sistericus
* STOP the Violence Campaign
* Sister Sam and The Queer Army
* [[Burning Man]] festival
* Consisterly Conspiracy archive show
* Princess Diana memorial
* [[Pink Saturday]]
* [[Radical Faeries]]
* [[Operation Spanner]]/SPI London/BDSM
* Klubstitute & Diet Popstitute
* awards? (they get them every year but is there a needs to list or maybe just the more notable ones?) 
* explain their dress and make-up, holy clown, spirit masks, drag/transgender, theater device, etc.

TYT

Yeah, yeah, I know, I should just SOFIXIT myself, but like everyone I have limited time, so I'm commenting here in case anyone wants to beat me to it, help, or express opposition: now that the news cycle has (long) moved on and the fervor of recentism has died down, let's examine how much of the excessively detailed moment-by-moment account of the Dodgers game (currently given a whole section of the article) is actually given weight in the overall coverage of the Sisters (WP:DUE, WP:10YT). -sche (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)