This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

LGBT studies C‑class This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. History C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States History C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States 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.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject United States History To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : United States History articles needing attention Infobox : United States History articles needing infoboxes Stubs : Stub-Class United States History articles, Category:United States history stubs Other : Place either of the following WikiProject banners on United States History-related articles and assess: {{WikiProject United States History|class=|importance=}} {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|UShistory=Yes|UShistory-importance=}} United States C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Catholicism C‑class Low‑importance Stop the Church 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Catholicism task list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : see Draft articles Assess : see Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles; Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles Cleanup : Blessed Virgin Mary (see the talk page) Collaborate : Invitation template needed, see Category:WikiProject invitation templates Copyedit : Cuthbert Tunstall Expand : Angelus; Roman Catholicism in Kosovo; Bishop Adolph John Paschang; Cum sæpe accidere; Altar Society; American Board of Catholic Missions; Bernard Häring NPOV : Americanism (heresy); Ensoulment Photo : see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Catholicism Stubs : see Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles; Category:Catholic Church stubs Update : Peer review; John Aloysius Maguire Verify : Archdiocese of Glasgow; Archbishop of Westminster; Bishop; Saint Mungo; Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles Religion C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's Health C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health 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.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Politics C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The bulk - if not all of the sources - say that a wafer was crumbled. Yet the article talks about "desecrating the eucharist". I would like the article to align as strongly as possible with the sources please. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When we had this discussion before, you yourself noted that a majority of editors preferred Eucharist. I haven't seen that consensus change. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong in that instance. The majority of editors did not argue for eucharist. Only you did. So the onus is on you to clarify why despite the fact all the sources say something other than eucharist, we are obliged to use the word "eucharist"?Contaldo80 (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contaldo80, That is incorrect. There was a consensus for Eucharist. If you wish to change the text, you must first change the consensus. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus for Eucharist slugger. Can you stop pretending something that is not true. You want Eucharist, I don’t want Eucharist. No one else apart from you has said they want Eucharist. This is not “consensus” - this is you being uncooperative. The sources do not say Eucharist - they say wafer. Take it to an administrators board if you believe there is genuine consensus and argue your case there. 23:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Slugger you took out my words which spoke about women’s rights (women’s “autonomy”) and replaced with your own words and the term “prolife” - which is a non neutral term to reflect those that oppose abortion rights. Either restore my source or find a more neutral way to describe the issue. Catholic’s aren’t “pro” life, they just block secular authorities form allowing birth control and family planning. 23:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Contaldo, as another editor pointed out to you just 48 hours ago, you have been editing long enough to know the rules. You can't just ignore them because you don't like the outcome. There is a consensus for Eucharist. It's not even a WP:SILENT consensus either, although after months of stability using the word "Eucharist" that certainly applies. In this case, you yourself agreed to use the word. If you have now changed your mind, as you apparently have, then you are welcome to try and change the consensus. Until you do, however, the text remains the same. I also explained my edit about using the word "rights." The source makes clear that the protesters were upset about abortion, not suffrage or the right to drive an automobile or some other right. Using an abortion related term clarifies the motivation for the protest. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me which sentence in the Brown source supports that statement " WHAM! opposed the public positions of the Church which they felt were hurtful to people with AIDS, such as O'Connor's statement that "Good morality is good medicine"and its prolife stance?" Are you actually telling me that the women of WHAM believed the catholic church was in favour (Pro) life and that they were against life? You know full well that "pro-life" is a weighted term - fine if those against abortion rights want to use it about themselves but please show some respect to other people - if these women were in favour of abortion rights then they were in favour of abortion rights - and they were not angry that someone else was "pro-life". I'm going to keep rejecting this change until we find a form of wording that aligns with the source. You moving anti-abortion to another part of the paragraph is bizarre. Secondly how dare you go following me around to other discussions that I might be having (and in which you have not been engaged) to try to embarass me? Finally there is no consensus for eucharist - only you want to use a religious term that is not used in the sources. Tell us why you think eucharist is correct - stop trying to hide behind "consensus". This just obfuscates. Be transparent. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contaldo80, I am not "hiding" behind anything. Please review WP:CONSENSUS, one of the WP:Five pillars. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please state why you think the word Eucharist should be used? It's a simple question. Apart from "it should be used because it's consensus" even though you're the only editor in the history of wikipedia to argue for the inclusion of this specific word. Thank you in advance for your response. In any case to try and move this forward I have requested a third opinion from other editors and invite them to look at the source and help us work out the correct terminology so we don't risk violating NPOV rules.Contaldo80 (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contaldo80, My position has not changed since the last time we had this discussion. I will repeat it here for you again:

I explained my rational in the edit summary you cited. By saying "communion wafer," it is unclear if you are referring to the wafer before or after consecration. If it was before consecration, no one would take offense. The reason Catholics consider the action to be a sacrilege is because it took place after consecration. Saying Eucharist over communion wafer eliminates the ambiguity. All of that said, it was you who first added this material to the article, and you used the word Eucharist. There was consensus for it, and the terminology stayed Eucharist for some time. It is now you who is making a contested edit by trying to change it without first changing the consensus, and without taking it to talk."

I hope this clears things up for you. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Desecrating the eucharist" is POV. What they did was to spit out a communion wafer. How that was interpreted by catholics is a different matter. We should not confuse the two. Guy (help!) 08:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This template must be substituted.

This article was spun of from Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality. We had the exact same discussion there. In that discussion, Contaldo stated that "As a compromise I will leave in Eucharist too as long as I hope other editors note that this is a compromise and the view of a majority of editors." You are also correct that a silent consensus ends when someone complains, but the status quo remains until a new consensus forms. As I've said repeatedly, if one does form, I will abide by it. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slugger O'Toole, so a bad tempered argument between a couple of people, not consensus, as such. Thanks. Eucharist is a POV term of art. It will be less well understood by the general reader. I say that as one who was attending my god-daughter's first communion in a Catholic church when habemus papam was declared for Pope Francis.

Reading it again, I see the problem I think. As far as you are concerned, desecration is sacrilege, a mortal sin and probably far worse than merely protesting in the church. To a non-catholic, the response is "huh, so what". Most denominations do not subscribe to the doctrine of transubstantiation. It's just a symbol. The act was clearly designed to be provocative, yet your description of it requires knowledge of the arcana to understand why. I have tweaked the sentence to explain it, and avoided the POV term "eucharist" which, in non-Catholic churches means the entire service of communion or (more usually) is not used at all, so is inherently confusing in context - I have merely linked to host desecration. Guy (help!) 19:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, I disagree. You have one person explicitly stating a preference for it, a second who says it is an acceptable use, and a third who says he is willing to compromise and use the term. No one dissented. That looks like a consensus to me.

I also disagree that the word "Eucharist" is POV. This is not, for example, using the word to try to force a Catholic understanding of communion into another denomination's article. It is not, for example, using the word "ordinance" instead of "sacrament." This article is written in the Catholic context, and so using a Catholic term is perfectly appropriate.

Additionally, since I have not disclosed my religious affiliations on here, I'm not sure how you can be so sure what my mindset is. However, as a person of tolerance for others' religious views, I do find your comment about "magic bread" to be offensive. Even as a lover of cheeseburgers, I would say the same if you spoke of "magic cows" in a Hindu context.

Finally, while your tweak perhaps gets us a little closer, I don't think it is there yet. I think referring to it as a "host" is far more arcane and esoteric and saying Eucharist. I'm going to attempt another tweak to bring the verbiage WP:ONEDOWN. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slugger O'Toole, the article is host desecration, linking to that is clearly neutral as it does not overlay any personal preference or interpretation. As usual your "compromise" is virtually identical to your starting point. I remind you again: while you as a catholic may well be utterly outraged by host desecration, the average reader is unlikely to even understand why, let alone subscribe to that view. Your obsessive use of the term eucharist in a way that is specific only to the catholic church has no place on a neutral encycloipaedia. Guy (help!) 10:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, I object to your reversion for a couple of reasons. First, I made a good faith effort here. I would appreciate a little good faith in return. Second, the compromise used your sentence structure, not mine. It was far closer to your preferred version than mine. I was obviously OK with the way it was before, but in the spirit of collaboration simply tweaked what you had. Third, and along those lines, WP:BRD says that since your bold edit was partially reverted, you should take the issue to talk. You should not just edit war your version back in.

Fourth, you threw the baby out with the bathwater. By simply reverting back to your preferred version, you reintroduced a sentence where the tenses don't match up. Fifth, you still refer to me as a Catholic, even after I told you I have not and will not identify as such on here. However, in my version I linked to Eucharist in the Catholic Church, which will explain non-Catholics why they found the action objectionable. I think that does more to explain to the average reader than your version.

Sixth, you did not address the issue of the lede. I cited the Manual of Style in explaining why I thought that sentence should be kept in there. I don't think "nope" is an adequate response. Seventh, I have explained why I don't think using the word Eucharist in this context is POV. You have not offered any explaination for why it is in an article about a Catholic mass. Finally, while I am not going to engage in an edit war over the word Eucharist, I will ask you to self revert until we can come to a new consensus. I am, however, going to fix the tenses as I imagine that should be uncontroversial. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slugger O'Toole, your good faith is not in doubt. The problem is that you're not listening to voices from outside your bubble. I already explained the ambiguity over eucharist, for example. Our article bears the common meaning, which is different from yours and will be understood by many as synonymous with the mass itself. Or, in many other cases, not understood at all. You're overlaying an in-universe meaning of a word, I'm leaving all words in their commonly understood meanings as per the article titles. If you can't see why that's a problem, I probably can't help you. And in my view argument from the manual of style is the worst possible argument: it comes a long way below WP:NPOV and use of plain language. All your edits do is add ambiguity in service of promoting catholic jargon. Guy (help!) 15:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, When using words with multiple meanings, there is always the risk of confusion. That is why I pipelinked to Eucharist in the Catholic Church. Likewise, by just saying "communion wafer," you risk confusing people about whether or not it has been consecrated. As explained above, one is no problem while the other is. By saying Eucharist, you remove the ambiguity there. You are trading one ambiguity for another. Also, you also haven't explained why, after being reverted, you simply reinserted your preferred text instead of taking the issue to talk to build a consensus. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slugger O'Toole, but the pipe was completely unnecessary, because by simply sticking with the article titles we remove the ambiguity. There is simply no need for the catholic term of art. Neutrality and precision are not sacrificed by using the common terms as per the article titles. The only thing that's affected is your personal stylistic preference. Guy (help!) 18:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, I respectfully disagree. As pointed out multiple times, communion wafer could mean before of after consecration. Will you consider self-reverting until we have a consensus per WP:BRD? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you disagree. But you are the one seeking to make a contested change so no we will leave it as-is unless anything changes. Guy (help!) 22:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, Guy. You know that isn't true. You introduced new text. I partially reverted. You edit warred your preferred version back in without coming to talk first. It is you who is making a contested change, not me. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that properly listing it as the Eucharist makes the most contextual sense, as if it wasn't a consecrated host then there would be no offense taken. The man intentionally Attempted to offend via religious means, thus the context and terminology should be properly referred to. For Catholics, it's not just a wafer, JzG is being obtuse by trying to ignore the significance of the action through a poor vocabulary choice. It's not a "term of art," it's a religious practice. Eucharist is the correct term here. Drassow (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, As you point out, if a change is contested then things stay the way they were before and, in this case, it is you who have made a contested change. I have asked several times for you to self-revert, most recently two days ago. I see you've made over 50 edits since then, but haven't been active here. While I was OK with the language the way it was before, as a gesture of good faith I am going to revert to my tweaked version of your language in the main. I'm also pasting it below, so that if you still wish then we can workshop it here and come to a consensus.

One protester, Tom Keane, "in a gesture large enough for all to see,"^[1] spat the Eucharist out of his mouth, crumbled it into pieces, and dropped them to the floor, an act he expected to be shocking to Catholics as desecration.^{[2][3][4][5][6][7][8]}

I look forward to working collaboratively with you on this. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slugger O'Toole, I understand that you sinccerely believe that eucharist is the only acceptable term, but we already have language that is more widely understood and less confusing. When you pipe link to a term that is different from our existing article of the same name, it's usually an indication that you're doing it wrong. This is one of those times. Guy (help!) 14:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is the term "eucharist" either confusing or poorly understood? It's exactly, as has been stated above, what's at issue. Abusing a "wafer" would generate no backlash. The terms are not exact synonyms and shouldn't be presented as such. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And actually when you read that article it's describing two separate things: eucharist in the commonly understood meaning, and the Blessed Sacrament, whihc is the bit that Slugger sees as synonymous with euicharist but I see as more synonymous with sacramental bread. The term "eucharist" is clearly ambiguous, in a way that the specific terms around sacramental bread are not. Guy (help!) 15:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eucharist is used interchangeably here^[9] , it appears that you have a personal grudge at using the term that the Church uses, which when used properly gives a better idea of why the act was considered so offensive. This is because Catholics believe it's the Body and Blood of Christ, not just communion wafers. Just saying communion wafers in itself is more ambiguous because it does not elaborate on whether it had been consecrated, and if so, would no longer be considered to be a plain wafer, theologically speaking. You're being petty and obtuse. Drassow (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slugger O'Toole, CoffeeWithMarkets - summarised below. Guy (help!) 16:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Is there any other source that can back up the claim that "After the protest, in an effort to better understand the needs and concerns of the gay community, O'Connor began ministering to those dying of AIDS. He also supported others who did so." I note the source used is a publication of the Roman Catholic Church and may not meet tests around independent verification. If we can find an additional source then I would be happy to retain it but I am somewhat suspect that this is the reality of what happened. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contaldo80, I found solid evidence (in the NYT) that this predates the protest. I think all that happened was that the church made it public, in an attempt to try to neutralise criticism of hisa obvious animosity towards the gay community. Guy (help!) 08:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two elements in dispute, and Slugger O'Toole's reverts treat them as one. They need to be separated.

Lead

Per [1], there are two versions of the lead:

• The protest was widely discussed, including being condemned by media outlets and national figures such as President George H.W. Bush. The protest became the pervasive subject in the news throughout the week. It was also headline news in several European countries. The protest changed the way Americans viewed the Catholic Church.^[1]

and

• The protest was widely discussed, including being condemned by media outlets and national figures such as President George H.W. Bush. The protest, and one protester's desecration of the Eucharist, became the pervasive subject in the news throughout the week. It was also headline news in several European countries. The protest changed the way Americans viewed the Catholic Church.^[1]

In fact neither version is fully supported by the source, but the change Slugger is making is not supported by it at all. The source mentions the act only in passing, "Even among Act Up's own members, there was discord about whether the group had crossed the line between protest and religious hatred -- particularly after it was revealed that one of the St. Patrick's protesters had crushed a communion wafer in his hands and tossed the crumbs to the floor in front of the archbishop." Note also tyhe terminology used.

As far as I can tell, there is no justification for inclusion of the text and one protester's desecration of the Eucharist in the lead, however we render that term. Guy (help!) 16:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did justify the inclusion of this in the lede with this edit summary: "Per WP:LEDE, it should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." This was a major controversy." Would you care to respond to it now? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slugger O'Toole: {{citation needed}}. As noted above, the source absolutely does not support your assertion. Not one of the sources gives the desecration anything like the prominence of the protest itself. That is the effect of your edit. Even ignoring the POV way you obsessively include the word eucharist, your edit makes the claim that this act of desecration was on a par with the disruption itself as a source of its lasting significance. That is, as far as the sources cited in the article go, simply not true. To support your claim you'd need contemporaneous sources that treat the desecration as the primary subject and the protest as secondary, or at the very least give them equal prominence. None of the cited sources do this. All discuss the protest and some identify this as one of the things that happened during it. Guy (help!) 18:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, You are mistaken. There is a cited sentence in the body that explicitly makes this claim: "It was Keane's "act of sacrilege" which became the biggest news story in the days to come." If you look at the ACT UP capsule history source you will find "The news media choose to focus on, and distort, a single Catholic demonstrator's personal protest involving a communion wafer." Also, if you read Keane's interview. he mentions that a photo of the incident made the cover of Newsday and made the news as far away as Turkey. That is three existing sources, both primary and secondary, that say it was at least as big of a news story. I tried finding the Newsday cover and couldn't, but did find other sources saying that it became a major storyline and controversy. I trust it won't be necessary to add a fourth, fifth, or sixth source --Slugger O'Toole (talk) Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So that's one affiliated source. But you're asserting lead-level coverage, on a par with the protest itself, so that would have to be supported by several reliable independent sources as having the prominence you give it. Guy (help!) 19:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, I have added five more sources, plus the three existing. I trust this is sufficient. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Host desecration / Eucharist

There are several terms discussed above:

• Host desecration
• communion wafer → sacramental bread
• Eucharist
• Eucharist in the Catholic Church

I have just change the (unlinked) "communion wafer" to (linked) sacramental bread. The sources all describe the act of spitting or crumbling the wafer. Eucharist in the Catholic Church describes both Eucharist as normally understood and Blessed Sacrament, a distinction that Slugger's edits do not make but which the linked article does. The article Slugger links has a hatnote: "For the Eucharistic Celebration or Mass in the Roman Rite of the Church, see Mass (Catholic Church)." Eucharistic celebration is exactly how most, including many Catholics, will interpret the term Eucharist, and the linked article actually only makes it more confusing by distinguishing the Eucharistic celebration from the Blessed Sacrament in the lead. Again, "sacramental bread" is completely unambiguous, and the sources specifically mention bread, whereas the Sacrament and Slugger's usage of Eucharist are both bread and wine.

It seems to me that sacramental bread is (a) accurate, (b) unambiguous, (c) supported by the sources and (d) requires no piped links, so is consistent with the "principle of least astonishment". I added text, which Slugger does not appear to dispute, to explain that this would be seen by Catholics as host desecration. I am happy to further expand this by clarifying it as "host desecration, a form of sacrilege", or similar. But changing it to "desecration of the Eucharist" is inherently confusing IMO because most non-Catholic and some Catholics would require additional explanation to understand the distinction between disrupting communion and desecration of the Eucharist, whereas disrupting communion and host desecration are obviously distinct without further thought. Is Eucharist in the Catholic Church a separately interesting concept? Yes it is. I added it in "see also".

Slugger demands the satus quo ante and does not appear willing to compromise on his preferred wording. I've made several incremental improvements which he accepts, but this acceptance is apparently conditional on overlaying his preferred terminology, which I find jarring and ambiguous and am confident many other readers will as well (indeed, this is implicit in the need for the piped links). Guy (help!) 16:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, Guy. I do accept some of your incremental changes, although they necessitated the inclusion of a pipelink to which you now object. However, and as you alluded to above, when there is WP:NOCONSENSUS, we do stay with the status quo until there is a new consensus. You yourself alluded to it above, and yet seem to ignore the issue every time that I bring up the fact that it is you making a contested edit, not me. I don't want to edit war over this, but I left a comment here on talk for two days with no response from you. Then, when I made a partial reversion, you immediately swooped back in and changed to your preferred text. That does not seem to me to be particularly collaborative editing. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slugger O'Toole, I don't particularly object to the pipelink, it merely seemed gratuitous to have multiple links to the same target. The status quo ante argiument does not apply after credible policy-based rationales for removal of disputed content have been given, and in fact you're not reverting to the status quo ante anyway, you're leaving the bits you like. Guy (help!) 18:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, Could you please cite for me the policy that says "status quo ante argiument does not apply after credible policy-based rationales for removal of disputed content have been given?" I don't find anything like that in WP:NOCON. Also, I would be perfectly happy to go back to the original text but left most of your formulation as a gesture of good faith towards you. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ONUS. Guy (help!) 20:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, Yes, there I read that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content." It is you who is seeking to include disputed content. There was a consensus to include the word Eucharist. I have not seen a consensus form to the contrary. In that case we [retain] the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Would you like to go back to the version before you started editing until we can come up with a new consensus? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]