Talk:Political activity of the Knights of Columbus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Culture of Life

I don't want "culture of life" in the lead. It's a term that the catholic church and other conservative christians have come up with to bandy a group of social strictures together. It is not understood outside of these groups - in fact it's meaningless. I mean if you stop abortion and the mother dies is that really promoting a "culture of life". The only way I'd accept this in the lead is to say "the knights promote what they argue is a culture of life". Let's stop playing propaganda games. Contaldo80 (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

"Wave-particle duality" is a term that physicists came up with to describe something in their field. The fact that it is not widely understood outside of the field of quantum physics is not a reason to exclude it from the lead of the article on quantum mechanics. Likewise, a culture of life encompasses all human life, from conception to natural death. That includes mother and child, as well as the great-grandmother on her deathbed. The term certainly is not meaningless. In fact, it has it's own article. --BrianCUA (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a term developed by religious enthusiasts. We can hardly compare it to a scientific term. It's not even a term that is widely understood in political science! It's a woolly silly term that's been developed by christian conservatives over the past few decades to suggest that their opposition to the expansion of civil rights is a good thing rather than a bad thing. It won't wash. This is a secular encyclopaedia. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't look now, but the Knights are religious enthusiasts, and if anyone is unclear on what the phrase means, they are free to click on the link to learn more. --BrianCUA (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Knights are free to believe any silly thing they want. But this does not mean that we accept their beliefs on face value. "Culture of life" is not a neutral term. If you think it is then go ahead and present the evidence to show that it is used as a mainstream term. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't keep reverting. "Culture of life" is not neutral term and needs to be handled with care. Denying a woman an abortion so she dies is not about life. Denying someone with terminal cancer the chance to reduce their pain is not quality of life. It's a highly subjective term that makes some people feel warm inside but it violates NPOV. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

"I don't want "culture of life" in the lead" is not an argument for content inclusion WP:IDONTLIKE. Culture of life accurately describes the position and should be kept.– Lionel^(talk) 03:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Anyway now that the pic is up there it makes sense to use Culture of life since the photo says "Defend life."– Lionel^(talk) 03:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a better suggestion for what this section could be titled, instead of just putting it into quotation marks? --BrianCUA (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Culture of life is not a neutral or commonly understood term - it is a term introduced by partisans of John Paul II to push a particular conservative political agenda. It does not exist as thing outside of this context. Whether I like it or not is not - incidentally - the point Lionelt. So spare me the WP:IDONTLIKE stuff. However in the interests of being constructive I can live with the heading not being in quotation marks, as long as references in the text are.Contaldo80 (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

This is not a "pretend term." It was coined decades ago, is understood well enough to be included in at least one major political party's platform, and has its own article. I am going to remove the quotation marks. If you still disagree, perhaps we should seek a third opinion. --BrianCUA (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "culture of life". It is a conservative christian umbrella term to oppose abortion, euthanasia and LGBT rights. It is not a political or scientific term. It was "coined" by John Paul II - a deeply conservative clergyman to justify his theology. It has its own article which explains what it's about. However, when applied to the Knights of Columbus we explain that they align themselves with this thinking - not that the thinking has an independent validity. And if you look at that other article you will see that it is always accompanied by quotation marks. By all means get a third opinion - but I'm not going to use this article to imply the term is neutral and mainstream. It is not. It doesn't even make sense as a term!Contaldo80 (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to request a third opinion as I think consensus is proving difficult. I would have preferred if the editors in the minority had suggested a compromise or some alternatives as a way forward (particular as two alternative approaches have been suggested and rejected. But that has not happened. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Gay Marriage

Why do we need to pretend that the recent legislative campaigns by the Knights in the US are to simply champion "traditional marriage" (a term which is erroneous in any case in the wider historical context)? The motivation for political donations and intervention was purely in response to efforts to allow people of the same sex to marry. It's quite odd and really rather misleading. It's like trying to hide the fingerprints for future readers. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

In another article, you argue that "We need to be precise with the wording." If that is true there, it must be true here as well. The Knights efforts were to support amendments and laws to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Let's be precise. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you actually arguing that the political campaign to define marriage between a man and woman in California was coincidental? Are you saying that there was no connection to the wider debate on same sex marriage? Really? If you are then you are deluding yourself as the evidence shows otherwise. If on the other hand you appreciate there is a direct link then you are being deliberately obfuscating and at risk of not acting in good faith.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

When the whole world has "opposite sex" [sic] marriage as the norm. Why on earth are the knights seeking to "promote" it? I think you're over-playing this. Just be honest and we can move on - I know the Catholic church has a track record of making some things look like they're about something else. But not our job to act as their mouth-piece.Contaldo80 (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

"Traditional marriage" is one of many ways of accurately and neuttrally describing the Knight's position on marriage. – Lionel^(talk) 03:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

If you think that's the case then why don't you set out here on talk what is meant by "traditional marriage". Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Insurance

"The Knights of Columbus do not involve themselves in political matters unless they touch upon Catholic or insurance issues." I ask again what is a "Catholic issue"? And doesn't it look frankly bizarre that we have a statement indicating that a large religious organisation only gets involved in political lobbying if it's about insurance. Makes them look laughable. I'd suggest re-wording. Contaldo80 (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is bizarre that a Fortune 1000 insurance company is concerned about legislation dealing with insurance issues. Whether or not you think it is strange, or if you think it makes them look odd, it is attributed to a RS. I also added a link to clarify what a "Catholic issue" is. --BrianCUA (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The source you've used is Kaufman from 1982 - nearly 40 years ago. Is this really sufficient. Frankly I think it fails RS in this instance. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Main article

I've looked at the guidance and I can't see where it says that there should not be a reference to the main article (of which this is an offshoot). Can I ask that we be transparent and point to what the wording actually says? Otherwise it can go back in. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with being "transparent." I clearly linked to the relevant governing guidelines. I resent your implication that I am obfuscating. Just take responsibility for lacking comprehension of the guidelines.

Firstly, it is readily apparent to our readers from the title, "Political activity of the Knights of Columbus", that "Knights of Columbus" is the parent article. That is why the hundreds of thousands of subsidiary articles on Wikipedia do not have Main templates.

The Template:Main, in the first sentence says: "This template is used after the heading of the summary." The summary is found in the parent article, as you can see here Knights_of_Columbus#Political_activity. Likewise this is stipulated at WP:PROPERSPLIT: "Create a good summary of the subtopic at the parent article... Add "{{Main|new article name}}"– Lionel^(talk)

Your "resentment" is neither here nor there for me. And frankly to complain about me being "uncivil" is somewhat disingenuous. I asked you simply to point at the relevant section of guidance that backed the argument you were trying to make. It's not an unreasonable request. And don't assume that many readers would deem the "Knights of Columbus" to be the primary article. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Marriage and family section

I think it's odd that I give a heading to a section to deal with opposition to gay marriage. Then someone else puts other non-related material into that. Then someone comes in addition to change the heading to argue in covers more than gay marriage. This is quite circular. Can we just leave the section as opposition to gay marriage thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

If there was a lot of material, I would agree with you. However, per MOS:BODY, "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." When you split off the section on divorce, you end up with two short sentences. This makes the "article look cluttered and inhibit[s] the flow of the prose." --BrianCUA (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you stop being so disingenuous. Fine the Knights don't like the idea of gay people getting married. If they want to oppose it then good luck with them. But then let's not spend valuable time trying to persuade readers that the knights are somewhat indifferent to gay marriage and only accidentally campaign and fund the introduction of gay marriage because they love heterosexual marriage so much. This is just bordering ont the dishonest. Don't try to strip the knights of all their integrity,Contaldo80 (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

In my argument I cited the Manual of Style for why I believe the section should be organized a particular way. Can you come up with a better argument than just accusing me of being dishonest? --BrianCUA (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

What in the manual of style says it has to be done the way you've changed it to? What?! "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." You already had a sub-heading - it wasn't just the one that you liked. Nor does "generally warrant" mean that it can't be done. And unless we are going to go through the rest of the article to align it all I suggest we call this section what it covers. Otherwise I will take out all the other sub-headings where there are only a couple of paragraphs. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

You are turning one subsection into two. When you do this, the second one on divorce only has two sentences. You're right that "generally warrant" doesn't mean that it can't be done. However, you haven't laid out a compelling reason for why it should. You've only made ad hominum attacks. Additionally, if you can improve the layout elsewhere in the article, it would be a welcome addition. --BrianCUA (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Position on marriage and divorce, and opposition to gay marriage

Which words in this section DON'T relate to either (i) the knights position on marriage, (ii) their position on divorce, or (iii) their opposition to gay marriage? I'm frankly intrigued what point has not been captured through this heading. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The Knights' position on marriage includes their position on gay marriage. It is thus redundant to talk about marriage and then gay marriage. Additionally, the section talks about fatherhood and strengthening the family. These topics are not covered by this heading. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

What's "strengthening the family"? Amended title to include fatherhood if you think it needs drawing out specifically. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Section titles should be "concise" per the WP:MOS. As I stated above, the Knights' position on marriage includes their position on gay marriage. There is no need to call it out separately. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Marriage in the United States and many others countries is open to same sex couples as well as heterosexual ones. Therefore the title heading is dishonest. It suggests that there is only one understanding of marriage and the knights defend that one. They are, in fact, defending only a partial aspect of marriage and not defending "marriage" per se. I suggest that divorce, fatherhood and family can be understood by the average reader as relating to marriage in the broad sense. That additionally the exclusion of some citizens from marriage is a departure from that and notable enough to warrant a separate word.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The title doesn't say anything about their position on marriage, what they are defending, or what they are opposing. And, in this case, it shouldn't. There is nothing dishonest about "Marriage and family life." --BrianCUA (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Why can't we make clear that they support heterosexual marriage and oppose same-sex marriage? What's the big deal Briancua? What are you trying to hide away?! The most notable issue in this section is opposition to gay marriage - half of the section. In contrast there are about five words relating to "family life". Contaldo80 (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Why are you so insistent that we include your pet issue in the title? I have requested a third opinion. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

3rd opinion – Would the heading, “Views on marriage and family life”, be acceptable to the both of you? I don’t think opposition to gay marriage needs to be part of the heading for the reason that it represents but one subset of their views on marriage. Likewise, just using Marriage and family life is perhaps not enough. The addition of the word “views” adds a nuance that they may have a particular view. Incidentally, I have never edited this article, read it in the past, nor do I know either of the editors involved. Veritycheck✔️ (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I like that wording. --BrianCUA (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

No I'm afraid that wording is not sufficient for me. The issue is that most of the material in this section relates to the active opposition of the knights to extending marriage rights to gay couples. We need a title that is transparent so that readers know what it is about at easy sight. If you can suggest a solution that uses the word "gay" or "same-sex" then I think we can find a way forward. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It is disappointing, but it has been a week with no further comment. There is only one editor who thinks we need to include the phrase gay marriage in the heading, so I have removed it. --BrianCUA (talk)

Should this section heading specifically mention gay marriage? --BrianCUA (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Mindful that the material in this section is almost exclusively about the rights of same-sex couples to marriage and the active opposition of the knights? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• The current version[1] is ok, but Contaldo80 does have a good point that gay marriage is rather dominating the section. It might be reasonable to split it as two sections, perhaps "Gay Marriage" and "Divorce and family". In particular I note that the article utterly fails to to tell me anything about their position on divorce. It's quite unhelpful on that point. Expanding to explain the divorce issue would help flesh it out as an independent section. Alsee (talk) 07:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Section breaks

Contaldo has removed several section headings several times, despite being reverted. He also, in his most recent revert, has asked others to fix the mistakes his edits create. As stated above, MOS:BODY says that "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." None of the headings he is removing has either small paragraphs or single sentences. Thus, there is no reason to remove them. I am reverting again to the original.--BrianCUA (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you clarify which ones you think are long enough for stand-alone and we can consider them one by one. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The section of racial and religious discrimination is three paragraphs long, not two sentences. I have reverted that change. I also reverted the section on leadership. The MOS says that "short" paragraphs do not justify their own sections. This is five sentences and over 100 words. That's not short. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It was no longer than the section on gay marriage but you decided to cut the heading from that. Probably because you don't want the casual reader to find any awkward material too easily. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Scare quotes

At Contaldo's suggestion, I asked for a third opinion about including scare quotes around the phrase "culture of life." Two other editors weighed in, and both said they should not be included. Contaldo persists in putting the scare quotes back in, against consensus. I am reverting. If anyone would like to include them, I suggest they bring this matter further up the dispute resolution process, but please do not include them against consensus. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't see any consensus about scare-quotes. Suggest you bring to dispute resolution as you have departed from ordinary use of the english language. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Contaldo: this tendentious editing against consensus will only get you blocked. Per MOS:SCAREQUOTES Culture fo Life should not be in quotations.– Lionel^(talk) 23:50, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary there are a number of editors on these pages trying to push their own "tendentious" conservative catholic agenda. The quotes are not "scare-quotes" - that is simply a nonsense way to discredit something individual editors do not like. The main culture of life article makes this plain. "Culture of life" is a term or expression related to conservative christianity and therefore is not an absolute thing. However, in the interests of harmony I am prepared not to push the point on including the quotes further. However, there has been no similar agreement/ consensus that we cannot include words in the article to clarify that the term is an expression. I'd also be grateful Lionel if you avoid threatening me with being blocked - you've done this before. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:17, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Contaldo80 that these are obviously not scare quotes (they're quotation marks intended to indicate that the text inside is a quote to the Knights of Columbus); I'd prefer that the people who object to them stop referring to them as such, since it's going to be hard to productively discuss them when there's such a flat disagreement over what they mean. If we want to quote the Knights of Columbus on their own position, we must do so using quotes or similar qualifiers to make it clear that we're doing so; if we're just describing them in the article text, we must avoid WP:PEACOCK terms like "culture of life" and so on, and go for more neutral terms such as "religious opposition to abortion". --Aquillion (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

My first reaction was similar to Aquillion's when this came up at Talk:Knights of Columbus#Culture of Life. However, culture of life refers to more than just religious opposition to abortion and I didn't see an easy way to summarize it in just a few words. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Aquillion. Absolutely agree. I feel my genuine concerns have been misrepresented by referring instead to scare-quotes. I've never called them scare-quotes, and no wikpedia guidance as far as I've been able to determine likewise refers to scare-quotes. I was simply making the point that some of the terms used in the article are very closely associated to the organization and religious conservatives, and are not accepted as universal expressions by the majority of the world. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

There was an edit summary that referred to consensus against quotations marks, but I see now that was on a completely different talk page. Oh wait, there's an attempt at a RfC below.

RFC on quotation marks

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 conclusions reached follows.

No consensus - insufficient participation2001:A61:443:7700:88EE:A210:51F0:818E (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Should the phrase culture of life be surrounded by quotation marks, or preceded with a phrase such as "what they would describe as"? --BrianCUA (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC) See also this discussion where a third opinion was offered. --BrianCUA (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Is "culture of life" commonly understood as a mainstream term? Contaldo80 (talk) 10:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. The present reading in the article seems perfectly clear to me: "what they would describe as a culture of life" (with link to article on the term) and again "what they see as a culture of life" (also linked). No need for quotation marks, which often signify ambiguity, metaphorical use, inaccuracy, or cynicism toward the usage. I don't find any of these to be appropriate here. If quotes are used the cynicism interpretation seems most obvious to me, and would have to be explained in the article. Jzsj (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks happy to go with the consensus. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  1) The comment period is not complete. 2) When an outside editor came in earlier to offer a third opinion about the scare quotes, you dismissed him and said there was no consensus. That's not how this works. The consensus is not formed simply when people agree with you. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  There's no point BrianCUA trying to be WP:UNCIVIL to other editors and accusing them of not acting in good faith. We have a majority of editors who agree it is more appropriate to make clear that using language such as "what they would describe as a culture of life" is the best way forward. Can you also clarify your point about "The comment period is not complete" - there are no obvious dates until which the discussion must remain open. Do you get to decide when you think the discussion is over? That's not terribly neutral is it. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  I apologize. I didn't mean to be uncivil. My statement about the comment period not being complete is the the RfC has not yet ended. See WP:RFCEND. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  And when does it end? Not terribly transparent. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

  Contaldo80, RFCs don't have a mandatory duration but they almost always run for a default of one month. At that point an automated bot will remove the {{rfc}} template and list the RFC for someone to determine a closing result. That can sometimes take a while, depending on the backlog of other RFCs and how many people show up to do the work. The RFC can be ended at any time if the dispute is sufficiently resolved. In that case see RFCEND and remove the {{rfc}} template to avoid closure workload for others. Alsee (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

• No need for scare quotes per MOS:SCAREQUOTES and no need for "what they would describe as". The sentence makes it clear what the phrase means and the culture of life link provides extensive information for anyone who wants/needs it. It seems that the underlying concern is that our use of the term is some sort of endorsement. We have an article on culture of life because the topic is notably covered in various Reliable Sources. Our statement of their position, and our article on the culture-of-life topic, should not be interpreted as Wikipedia taking any position on the topic. Alsee (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep the qualifiers. The term itself is a WP:PEACOCK term (in the same vein as the "tax-and-spend politician" example given there); when describing a group or individual using such ostentatious or otherwise non-neutral terms, we have to be careful to be clear that it is a self-description rather than something we'd put in the article voice. Beyond that, while it might seem clear to US readers that it's standard political puffery, the terms are not universal elsewhere; and in that global context it's important to clarify that it refers to a particular, specific set of ideological positions that they use to describe themselves, rather than us stating in the encyclopdia-voice that the group or their actions actually follows a general embrace of life according to the literal meaning of the words. Ideally, though, rather than scare quotes, I would prefer to rewrite the section to avoid the words "culture of life" anywhere outside of a direct quote - it's a WP:PEACOCK term that shouldn't be used in article text at all. When describing someone's political positions in the article text, we must use neutral language; if we want to quote the words they use themselves (even when it's non-neutral), we have to explicitly do it in a quote. I would add that MOS:SCAREQUOTES does not apply here - these are quotes in the ordinary sense of the word (ie. establishing that we are quoting the Knights of Columbus about themselves.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

This is not a phrase that was coined by the Knights. As the Culture of Life article states, "various authors used the term from time to time" but "the expression 'culture of life' entered popular parlance from Pope John Paul II." It has been used in encyclicals, political platforms, as the name of a foundation, and plenty of other places. We are not quoting the Knights when we use it. Per MOS:ALLEGED, using phrases such as "what they would describe as" or "so-called" should be avoided. It doesn't qualify as a WP:PEACOCK term as it is not promoting anything like using "legendary, best, great, etc." --BrianCUA (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a flattering self-description used by the Knights (and others who agree with them on that issue.) Is your argument that it is a completely neutral descriptor, used by everyone on all sides of that debate and by unbiased observers? Do you feel that it has no positive connotations whatsoever, that it is value-neutral and does not express any position when used as a term in and of itself? Do you think that people who support legal abortion would generally use that term to describe their opponents, for instance? Because I find that hard to credit. It is a textbook WP:PEACOCK term and must be treated as such. --Aquillion (talk) 05:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. The term is not in common use but has political resonance among conservative Catholics. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

There are almost 50 million Google hits for "culture of life." What would it take for you to consider it to be in common use? --BrianCUA (talk) 03:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that it's not used by religious conservatives but this doesn't make it mainstream as a term. A lot of google hits seem to relate to religious organisations and their websites and ironically about half seem to use quotation marks. The New York Times has "Culture of Life" with quotation marks. Contaldo80 (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Can I check whether we have a reached a common position on this now please as a settled matter? IT's a month since opinions were sought. Three editors suggest either keeping quotation marks or describing the phrase with terms such as "what they would describe as". In which case we should go through the article to ensure it is consistent with this consensus. Thanks Contaldo80 (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we reached a consensus here, unfortunately. There are three users in favor of the quotation marks and/or preceding verbiage, and three against. Perhaps we should try for another RfC. --BrianCUA (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I can see that Contaldo80, Aquillion, and Jzsj are in favour of the idea or either quotation marks and/or phrases to contextualize (the current majority position). I can only see that BrianCUA and Alsee (?) are against quotation marks. Can you clarify who the third against is please? Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Can we please have some clarification on this point? Otherwise I fear we may not be able to close this issue and move on. Is there a majority position either for or against the action? Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The third is Lionelt. --BrianCUA (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks but I don't think that counts. LionelT is perfectly entitled to express his/her view but must do so in the proper place - under this discussion item (here). Otherwise we don't know whether they actually agree with this current proposition - and we'd be doing them a disservice by saying they agree with something that they may not. I invite LionelT to clarify their position as part of this discussion. This will help us finally decide whether the way forward remains split or whether we have a majority either way. Many thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a bit disingenuous. When LionelT said "Culture fo (sic) Life should not be in quotations," I think that was pretty unambiguous. --BrianCUA (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect LionelT made on a completely different article. Again I encourage him/her to make the point here - should they so wish. But we can't go fishing around Wikipedia to try and drag up bits and pieces that an editor may have said to suit us (I can point to lots of other editors on other article pages that have suggested it is not a neutral term and should be contextualized or put in quotation marks). In the absence of LionelT's thoughts on this talkpage on this specific point then there is a clear majority in terms of a way forward (ie quotations or contextualizing are the right approach). If you're not happy with this then could I ask you to please get guidance (from administrators maybe?) as to whether or not we can treat LionelT's previous comments as valid to this particular discussion thread. Please let us know what you find. Many thanks again for your evident hard work in trying to improve this subject area. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

It was on this article's talk page. Look above. Thank you as well for your efforts to improve the page. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome! The comments are not sadly part of the specific RFC that you quite sensibly initiated on 2 August. LionelT may have changed their position - I don't know. But at the moment we have a RFC where 3 editors have agreed that quotation marks of prefacing the term is a sensible way to handle; and two editors have rejected this. I think it's important that if we call for a RFC then we abide by the outcome, even though it may not be what we personally want. Are you content BrianCUA to abide by the terms of the RFC? Many thanks again for your ongoing contributions. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Even if we were to exclude Lionel's contribution (We could ask User:Lionelt to weigh in here, but it doesn't look like he has been active in a couple of weeks.), and I don't think we should since his position is pretty clear, we still don't make decisions by way of a WP:VOTE. Decisions are made by WP:CONSENSUS and we don't have a consensus to include scare quotes right now. When there is WP:NOCONSENSUS, we go with the version prior to the edit. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Lionelt is very welcome to make his/her thoughts known through this RFC. However, in the absence of that then the position in relation to this RFC is 3 editors for scarequotes and 2 editors against. Contaldo80 (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, sure, if you ignore a very clear comment about the topic at hand then yes, you end up with three against two. Remember, though, that we make decisions by WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOTVOTE: "While we do often seem to "vote" on things, the conclusion is almost never reached by simply counting votes, as the strength of argument is also very important." --BrianCUA (talk) 02:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely but I think it important therefore that as the minority voice you like to offer compromise solutions that try to address the concerns of the majority voice and show that you have understood the argument and are willing to make amends to find a way forward. I very much look forward to that. I have suggested referencing documents that the Knights have used that talk about "culture of life" or to identify media or academic literature sources that shows how the term is used more widely. Are you willing to do that? Thanks again. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I am always glad to compromise when I can, but 1) I don't see a problem with the current wording, and 2) I haven't seen a compromise that is acceptable. I also think your language of minority and majority is misguided. Again, we don't make decisions based on votes. Ten votes with WP:IDONTLIKE arguments would fail when up against one vote with a well thought out argument based on policy. In any case, with Reidgreg's contribution below, it is now you who are in the minority, 4-3.--BrianCUA (talk) 00:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I think we can make at least some efforts at a compromise. The most important thing to me is that we absolutely cannot use "Culture of Life" in the article voice (honestly pro-life has similar issues, but is at least more widely accepted in terms of its meaning.) So we can reword to use that term in most situations, and to unambiguously quote them in others, in contexts where there's no chance of it being mistaken for scare quotes. Would that resolve this issue? --Aquillion (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but I don't think your edit quite captures what the Knights are trying to convey. There is a difference between a "culture of life," being "a way of life based upon the theological truth that human life at all stages from conception through natural death is sacred," and being "pro-life," which redirects to Anti-abortion movements. The two are no doubt related, and the latter in encompassed in the former, but the two are not synonymous. I am going to keep some of your edits, but revert others. One of the issues with the quotation marks is that while the Knights certainly do use the phrase, they did not coin it, nor are they the only ones who use it. MOS:ALLEGED says that "detailed and attributed explanations are preferable" to expressions of doubt. This is accomplished in footnote "a." --BrianCUA (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The term culture of life without quotes or context implies that those who follow Catholic theology value and protect human life in a way that those who do not follow Catholic teaching do not. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Plenty of non-Catholics use the phrase.--BrianCUA (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Do you have a source to support your claim? Thanks. I also tried quite hard to suggest a compromise that linked more closely to the sources (linking to the specific resolution) but I've seen that you're reverted all of these to go back to your preferred version; with I'm afraid very little clear justification (and nothing on this talk page to explain). I'm sure you are acting in GOODFAITH BrianCua but I feel I need to remind you that this article is not owned by any one editor. You seem to have a very fixed idea of what you think is right for this article and seem very determined to reject any other approach. You have rejected two compromise efforts from two separate editors and you have tried to extend this debate beyond the usual month, despite the fact that the majority is against your position. I ask you to work collaboratively towards a solution that addresses the concerns of everyone otherwise we may have to move this to dispute resolution. Thanks again for your engagement. Contaldo80 (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm keen to try and again meet you half way on this issue and would like to propose that we amend the text to say "In line with the resolution adopted at their 133rd Supreme Convention (2015), "In Support of a Culture of Life", the Knights oppose any governmental action or policy that promotes or facilitates abortion, any medical research using embryonic stem cells, human cloning, euthanasia or assisted suicide,"unjust wars", the death penalty in all instances, or other issues they regard as offenses against life." Therefore including the link to John Paul II. The resolution provides an unambiguous link to the "culture of life" policy. I'd appreciate views from other editors too.Contaldo80 (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Sure, you need only look at the article to see that George W. Bush, a Methodist, used the phrase repeatedly. I am also very willing to work together to improve the article. When someone makes a positive contribution, like you did, I am happy to let it stand or even build off of it. My objection to your language about "In line with the resolution adopted at their 133rd Supreme Convention..." is, as I stated in my edit summary, that the 2015 convention was not the only time the Knights talked about it, nor even a particularly meaningful mention compared to all the others. Why are we singling that one out as if it was the only time? Their commitment to building a culture of life is longstanding and has been articulated many times. --BrianCUA (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

BrianCUA let me try to articulate the problem here and perhaps it may help with finding a sensible way forward. At the moment we say that the Knights believe in a culture of life because they oppose abortion. Now personally speaking I think abortion is a woman's right and should be defended in legislation - but the implication is that I do not share in a culture of life. Conversely I could argue that if a woman has to have an abortion to save her life then I am the person that celebrates a culture of life and the Order of Knights are not in favour of a culture of life. The point I'm making is that when the Knights talk about a "culture of life" they are talking about a very specific set of ethical or moral decisions. However, these are not the same and are independent of the issue about whether one actually values life or not. It is a subjective term and not an objective one. And therefore I think we need to find a solution that makes that clear - the language on the resolution was an elegant one; and if you want to reference other resolutions then I'm happy for you to do that. But we should avoid the impression that culture of life is prima facie just that - rather it is a political position. The promotion of the term is an attempt to smear opponents - ie you support abortion and so you don't believe in a culture of life. In fact having scanned the internet I can't find any mainstream news media that actually use the term - it is only religious media. It is a highly loaded term.Again I'm happy to try and find a sensible approach but I not the majority remains against you on this point. Many thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but I think you have a few misconceptions. A culture of life certainly includes abortion, but it is much more than that. It encompasses a series of positions on a number of life and death related issues. That you happen to disagree politically with some of those positions does not make it subjective. In any case, we are not here to make decisions based on our own political beliefs. "Culture of Life" is a thing. There are enough reliable sources documenting it to give it it's own article and to give it a commonly understood meaning. I'm sorry that you don't like it, but that isn't a good enough reason to put scare quotes around it or to preface it with expressions of doubt. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks BrianCUA. My point is that "culture of life" remains a highly partisan term used by conservative religious groups. It has not received mainstream acceptance. It is also inaccurate - in that supporters of a "culture of life" can tolerate the death and murder of other people if a war is waged under certain criteria (Just War); or likewise accept the death of a mother from medical complications where an abortion would have saved her life. So it is therefore not an actual thing but a political position - and scare-quotes simply show that there is doubt that the meaning is well-established, understood and accepted. I suggest the best way forward is to gather some sources that show that the term has resonance beyond certain religious communities. I think the best thing you can do please to demonstrate your position than "there are reliable sources documenting it" is simply to include a few examples here (either from mainstream media or academic literature). That will help reassure everyone that the term is as widely accepted as you claim. Thanks in advance. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

It is not a term used just by conservative religious groups. Here is an example of the phrase used by a secular, liberal organization. Google Scholar provides over 7,000 examples of the phrase appearing in academic literature. As noted above, there are 50 million Google hits for "culture of life." Context also matters here. "Culture of life" is a term that originated in moral theology. To use a previous example, you're not likely to find the phrase "wave-particle duality" in a tabloid newspaper, but that doesn't mean it lacks a commonly understood definition. Same with culture of life. An individual's personal political objections to the term are not reason enough to introduce expressions of doubt. In fact, arguing that the term is not accurate demonstrates that there is a commonly understood definition. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

No special treatment needed. Special formatting (e.g.: quotes) can be misleading and ALLEGED lead-ins do not set an encyclopedic tone. The goal should be to inform the reader, so simply use the term and then define it. That's all. There's no reason to make this complicated or controversial, and I'm disappointed that this has dragged on for two months. Specific notes: In the version of the article I'm looking at, "culture of life" appears four times in the prose. The first time, in the lead, is their document "Building A Culture of Life" which requires no additional quotes or qualifiers for the title of a work. The second occurrence is early in the body, dealing with Catholic family and culture of life or insurance issues. Here, the context tells us that culture of life is a set of issues and there is a link for more detail. The third is a section header leading to the fourth: As part of their commitment to building a culture of life which is linked and immediately followed by an inline list of examples which serves to define the term. So no additional formatting is required there, either. However, the section header Building a Culture of Life could be tweaked. If this is the title of the document mentioned in the lead, it should have consistent capitalization and be in double quotes as the title of a (minor) work, and the section should actually mention the document; otherwise, it should have sentence capitalization and perhaps be reworded to better suit the section. In general: I found that Culture of Life was moved to Culture of life in 2006. (There does not appear to have been a move discussion.) If life was capitalized then people would know Culture of Life is a proper noun and not to be interpreted literally (though I doubt many readers would do so). However, it seems sources are mixed and it was decided to use lower case, which suggests the term is entering the language. I feel the ALLEGED/SCAREQUOTES arguments outweigh the PEACOCK side in this case. Also, culture of life encompasses a number of issues and it would be inaccurate to oversimplify it as "opposition to abortion". I think that it would be silly to not use the terms that sources use in discussion of the subject, so long as they are adequately defined, and I believe that they are. – Reidgreg (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this intervention Reidgreg, and I'm likewise disappointed that we haven't really got to a proper understanding of this issue. But your assertion that the term is entering the language is simply not backed up by the evidence. If I felt that the term was used in mainstream media or academic literature without quotation marks on contextualization then I would be content to let this drop. But I have seen nothing to suggest that is actually the case. "Culture of life" as you say is not to understood literally, but the way it is dealt with in this article (and other article) implies that there is an approach that values life, and one that doesn't. And adherents to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church take the first road, and those that don't risk taking the other road. This is inaccurate and misleading. The term is also a misnomer - adherents of this religious philosophy permit the taking of human life (eg "Just War" scenario). I would like to suggest that we collect examples of how the term is used elsewhere in other media and make a judgement on the back of that. Looking at academic literature - "International Public Health Policy and Ethics" edited by a professor at Marymount University uses "so-called culture of life" and discusses the political move by the religious right to use the term to push an agenda. We are playing right into that game. https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=JoMv5H0C0ekC&pg=PA91&dq=%22culture+of+life%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiz3oT9uMjdAhUaa94KHQwMArM4FBDoAQhHMAc#v=onepage&q=%22culture%20of%20life%22&f=false Contaldo80 (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying (and you don't need to repeat yourself with the irrelevant hyperbole; everybody's a hypocrite, that doesn't affect the values themselves), but I haven't seen an alternative that doesn't give a negative treatment. Our job is to be neutral, not go negative in some effort at restoring the cosmic balance with how it may be used elsewhere. I'm not sure that it matters to me whether sources use quotes; that's their style/editorial choice and Wikipedia does not follow styles used in sources. However, I am encouraged by your offer to drop this; perhaps someone who's better [than I am] with sources can find some without quotes for you. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we can remain civil please - there's no need to make the suggestion of finding "someone who's better with sources". I have been quite thorough. But yes I would strongly encourage other editors to bring forward examples of how the term "culture of life" is dealt with in academic and/ or mainstream media sources. And if it can be shown that it is used consistently in such sources without quotation marks or without pre-facing then as I said I would be content to let the matter drop. However, I have only ever seen the term used by religious websites and religious news outlets. I absolutely agree the importance of remaining neutral - that is exactly why I think dropping culture of life into a sentence as if everyone understands and accepts it for what it is risks not being neutral. So I would ask again if editors who feel strongly about this please bring forward examples of how the term is used outside of Wikipedia.Contaldo80 (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I have already cited for you the 50 million Google hits, the more than 7,000 examples of the phrase appearing in academic literature, a secular, left wing organization using the phrase, and that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I'm not sure what it will take to satisfy you, but here is an example from the "mainstream media" taken from the first page of Google results. In another two-fer, here is a secular liberal using the phrase in an academic journal. Again, remember how to WP:IRS: "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." That means that Le Monde or The Economist may or may not use the phrase, but that doesn't mean appearances in Le Monde is the metric by which we should judge it. I fully agree with you that not everyone will understand what "culture of life" means. That's why, in accordance with MOS:ALLEGED, we have a "detailed and attributed explanation" which "is preferable" to your preferred solution. --BrianCUA (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

You're right context does matter. In the article you have referenced the term by linking to John Paul II's encyclical Evangelium Vitae. Have you actually read it? Because if you had you would see that the term "culture of life" uses quotation marks. http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html I am therefore baffled as to why you resist attempts to find alternative wording to this problem. All of the google hits you refer to pretty much link to religious websites. If the local newspaper of Lancaster county is the best mainstream news media we can come up with then I'm right to be worried. Apologies if I've missed the link to 7000 examples used in academic literature. Can you post that link again and maybe that might show the term without quotation marks or prefacing is common within universities. Thanks again. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

You are missing the point of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. When dealing with a specialized phrase, like "culture of life" or "wave-particle duality," places like the mainstream media are not the place to go looking for them. You would find them in publications that deal with ethics and quantum mechanics, respectively. Additionally, as has been pointed out before, Wikipedia follow's its own style, not that of others. --BrianCUA (talk)

If you have those sources, provide them. I'm not seeing it - most of the sources here do not use that term. Unless you can find reliable, WP:SECONDARY, neutral sources using the term, I'm going to go through the article and remove any un-quoted uses of the term; we can agree / disagree on what the more accurate neutral terminology would be, but we absolutely cannot use a non-neutral term like this without sources to back it up, and if it is (as you say) frequently used by neutral observers, it should be easy to find secondary sources describing the Knights' positions in those terms, without quoting them or the like. --Aquillion (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Aquillion, as you can well see, there is an active discussion on this topic, but we have not yet reached a consensus on how to proceed. I think we would all welcome your contributions here, but please do not take actions, like unilaterally deleting text, that could be seen as edit warring. I also would remind you that sources do not need to be neutral. It is we, as editors, who need to be neutral. In fact, "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources." --BrianCUA (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

First, I will point out that you are the one edit-warring to keep the "Culture of Life" section heading in the article; as far as I can tell, looking over the history, someone objected to it very shortly after you created the article, and there has been constant back-and-forth since then. At no point has it had consensus, and at no point has it been adequately sourced; the WP:BURDEN is on you, who wants to add contentious material to the article, to provide sources and demonstrate consensus - in other words, it must stay off the page until discussions are over. The appropriate thing to do in such a case, after all, is to go back to the last stable version (before you added the text that has met objections) until we have a clear consensus for something else. Beyond that, per WP:BRD, you're supposed to provide a specific explanation for a revert; "this is under discussion" doesn't apply (there are almost always discussions, and these discussions are of course over what you consider 'scare quotes' - nobody, that I can see, has argued that those terms are essential. In fact, my quick reading of the consensus on this talk is that there is a rough consensus that "culture of life" is a WP:PEACOCK term and should be avoided in the article text when not essential, but that there's not yet a consensus on what to replace it with - so, for now, removing it is the most appropriate step. While it's useful that discussions are ongoing, your position, as far as I can see so far, is to object to the quotes because you believe they are "scare quotes" and because the proposed alternative wording imply negative things about the Knights. Obviously, this doesn't apply if we simply remove the text in question until we can find a wording that has full consensus; none of it is essential, after all. Also, please be more cautious when evaluating sources - you said that the sources you restored were unique, but if you check the links you will see that most of them are not. One is a dead link to a source moved elsewhere on the cite (eg. "culture", which we already cite by the current link), while the others are to duplicates of stuff cited elsewhere on the site or, in a few cases, outright the same link (eg. regalia2 and res133). --Aquillion (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not saying there is a consensus for keeping them as is. I am saying there is no consensus on how to move forward. We are trying to work things out here, and it is not helpful for you to come in with such a forceful attitude. Please reconsider your tone and approach. I think everyone here would be glad to work with you, but not when you are going to ascribe motives and make demands. --BrianCUA (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe Aquillion has come in with a "forceful attitude". I agree with the points he/she has made in full. BrianCUA you talk about the failure to reach consensus but you have put no alternative approaches forward. It seems to be "your way or the highway". Can you please suggest an alternative approach as a compromise and we can collectively decide if that works. You have rejected two compromise solutions already without saying what might work instead. But for the time-being we can't leave this to stand - you've justified explanation of "culture of life" on the basis of John Paul II's encyclical Evangelium Vitae and have (deliberately?) overlooked the fact that he puts the term in quotes himself. If this is the source of the term then we should simply use it the same way in this article. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be obstinate, but I am also not clever enough to come up with a solution that would satisfy us both. If someone else can, I would welcome it. I have also not overlooked that JPII sometimes put "culture of life" in quotation marks. He did so when he was writing about MOS:WORDSASWORDS. When he was speaking about such a culture, there were no quotation marks. However, as has been pointed out to you several times, just because a pope used it that way doesn't mean that we have to. We have our own style guide to follow, and it says no scare quotes. --BrianCUA (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I went through the article and believe that three of four mentions were essential (the fourth depends on intention as noted above). Having seen some back-pedalling (from use in sources to consistent use in sources) I'm also not sure about moving forward. Consensus is only possible if editors are willing to consent. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• Keep: it's not a commonly used phrase, and putting it in Wikipedia's voice has non-neutral implications. Quotation marks are the simplest way to take an in-bubble phrase used by the organization out of Wikipedia's voice - scare quotes aren't necessarily a bad thing. --tronvillain (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. This RFC has concluded that Contaldo80, Aquillion, Jzsj and Tronvillain are in favour of keeping quotation marks. Under this RFC BrianCua and Alsee are against. Do any other editors - apart from BrianCua - have any issues with now agreeing that we have broad consensus to keep the quotation marks? It would be nice to draw a line and move on. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

You keep excluding Lionelt when his view is clear. We do not make decisions based on a vote. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Finally, we are a far ways away from a broad consensus. --BrianCUA (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2018 (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.

Massacres

The following sentence is in the "Culture of Life" section: "They have also called for national healing and reconciliation following a series of violent mass murders including the Pulse nightclub massacre and 2015 San Bernardino attack." But I'm not sure why it fits here. There is nothing in "culture of life" discussion (either resolution or documents) that specifically says it relates to an opposition to mass murder or terrorism. Can someone clarify please otherwise suggest we should move elsewhere. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The section is about their efforts to protect life in all its stages and in all its conditions, from conception to natural death. The first paragraph says they are opposed to any "other offenses against life" in addition to to the enumerated offenses. The murder of innocent people certainly is included in that. --BrianCUA (talk)

That's surely a bit of a stretch isn't it? I think the wording "other offenses against life" is just not specific enough to justify material relating to massacres. I'd like a more direct reference please. I also find it hard to believe that you'd have to be a Knight in order to object to mass murder. Finally, I'm not sure it's quite correct to describe this as the murder of "innocent people" - this implies that the murder of some people (non-innocent ones?) is permitted. In fact there is some truth in this in that the Knight's policy does permit the killing of other people in the context of a "just war". Again the text as we have it may not properly catch that nuance. Many thanks.Contaldo80 (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

If murder isn't an offense against life, I don't know what is. Additionally, the source says they Knights will "rededicate ourselves to reversing the trend of violence within our society through a commitment to life." --BrianCUA (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how far I'm interested in pushing this point but it does seem incredibly tenuous. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Do you have a reliable source making that connection (ie. linking their stances there to their self-described goal of pursing things they consider to be "building a culture of life"?) Making that connection ourselves is WP:SYNTH. (In fact, if the section is going to have that header, any source that doesn't use the term "building a culture of life" directly and unambiguously needs to be taken out; more generally, I feel we can't use it outside of situations where we have a neutral source that unambiguously uses it - obviously, if we're citing the Knights as a WP:PRIMARY source, we have to make it clear when we're quoting them.) That said, given the small size of the section, I think the easiest solution is to remove the section headers and just make it a general overview of their political positions, without confining it to one specific term. --Aquillion (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Where in the Culture of Life section is it unclear that we are quoting the Knights when using them as a source? --BrianCUA (talk) 03:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Overuse of primary sources

While my initial clean-up was just based on the number of sources that were flatly duplicated, as described above, the mention about using non-neutral sources made me realize that this article depends far too heavily on WP:PRIMARY cites to the knights themselves. It is true that we can use such sources, and it is true that sources are not required to be neutral; however, articles are not supposed to be composed primarily of biased sources, while WP:ABOUTSELF has several important limitations (articles can't depend primarily on such sources, and they can't be used for anything unduly self-serving.) WP:DUE weight is also a major issue here; we can't rely too heavily on the knights, no more than we could rely heavily on any one source (we may also be leaning a bit too heavily on Kauffman, but at least that's a secondary source.) In particular, I object to the ultrasound paragraph, which doesn't cite a single secondary source (outside of one about ultrasounds that doesn't mention the knights at all) - we need at least one secondary source to establish the significance of this program. If no secondary sources on it can be found, I'll trim it down to one sentence at most and merge it into another paragraph, since there's no indication that this initiative is of any actual significance or that it has had any impact outside of the handful of web pages. The Pulse nightclub massacre sentence has similar problems - again, we need at least one secondary source to indicate that someone other than the Knights themselves took note of this and to establish WP:DUE weight. We can't just throw everything statement ever made on the Knights' webpage onto here, or choose based on what editors think are cool; we need secondary sources to guide us in terms of weight and relevance. The Resolutions part of the Immigration section also needs a secondary source for similar reasons. Talking about stuff the Knights accomplishes is always self-serving - we can't do that without a secondary source. --Aquillion (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

By my count, roughly 20% of the sources are primary. I don't think it is fair to characterize the article, then, as relying "primarily" on such sources. I also don't know of any policy that says a piece of information can't be included if it doesn't have a secondary source. That said, I agree with you that secondary sources are always better. Will you work with me to find some to improve the article? --BrianCUA (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I think Aquillion makes an important point and I agree - too much of this material is sourced from the Knights. I'm sure collaboration is desirable BrianCUA but as most of these primary sources were added by you in the first instance I think the onus on you is to address the point. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:SELFSOURCE, we can use sources from the Knights as sources about the Knights. With roughly (possibly even less now) 20% of the sources coming from the Knights, I don't believe that the percentage is too high. That said, you will please note that I have worked to address Aquillion's concern by adding additional secondary sources. I've asked him to help but, as yet, none have been forthcoming. Will you help find some as well? --BrianCUA (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Love to help. Will try where I can but having already to tackle a number of issues you've (rightly) left me to fix with the articles on homosexuality and Catholicism. But I'm sure you'll do a great job regardless! Contaldo80 (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

20% doesn't sound so bad, and WP:CONTROVERSY even recommends using primary sources: Where a person or organization has released published statements about their aims or objectives, these can be summarized for the reader. (Certainly, these should be followed with secondary sources/viewpoints, where forming majority opinions.) – Reidgreg (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. This is not a controversial article so I'm not sure why WP:CONTROVERSY should apply. Can you expand on this reasoning please? Contaldo80 (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

First usage of Culture of Life

Contaldo has asked me to demonstrate when Pope John Paul the Great used the term "culture of life" before 1995's encyclical Evangelium vitae. Here is one example: 1994 in Denver, Colorado. He has also accused me of WP:OR. However, I think he has it mixed up. Indeed, making a claim that isn't true, is easily proven to be false, and without a citation, like he has done with these edits, is OR. --BrianCUA (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is quite right. Without supporting material to demonstrate the actual use of the term prior to Evangelium Vitae then such a claim was indeed just personal opinion and so OR. Please BrianCUA could I urge to continue to assume GOODFAITH. It's ok for editors to ask other editors for clarity on a controversial point. I would ask you not to impugn my motives. You've indicated now that "culture of life" was used in 1994 in a book by Vincent Barry. Can you please quote in full what Barry actually says. I think this is important because it suggests that the meaning of the term "culture of life" may have existed before John Paul II - and therefore it would be wrong to use John Paul II as the source in the footnote to justify the political position of the Knights. I could not in all honesty find a reference before Evangelium Vitae that John Paull II uses the term. Can you help with that please? But you're right that using the term "first" could be avoided unless we have a source that also says it was the first time. Thanks again. Contaldo80 (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I did not impugn any motives. I said that I thought you may be confused. From the source: "At World Youth Day in 1994, the Pope stated: 'The culture of life means respect for nature and protection of God's work of creation.'" In the future, if you can't find a source for a claim, you shouldn't include it here. --BrianCUA (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I was confused because you made an error above. The speech that John Paul II gave where he uttered this sentence in Denver was not in 1994 as you claimed but in 1993: https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1993/august/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19930815_congedo-denver-gmg.html If, however, you are saying that the source you have cited (Barry) speaks about 1994 then one of these claims must be wrong. Which one do you think it might be BrianCUA? And can I add that in that Denver speech the term in several places is italicized. Can we also have more of what Barry says - I think the quote is very selective. Does he say this is the case or that some people believe this is the case? Contaldo80 (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't make a mistake. I copied directly from the source. Again, remember that just because the phrase is written in italics, or in quotation marks, or in Sanskrit somewhere else, doesn't mean we do it here. --BrianCUA (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok in which case we have a problem. The source you have cited says the Denver speech happened in 1994 but the source I have provided from the Holy See's own website says the speech was 1993. Many sources from the web suggest John Paul II was in Denver in 1993 and not in 1994 for World Youth Day (eg https://denvercatholic.org/pope-john-paul-ii-called-for-a-new-evangelization-denver-answered/) Do you think you may be citing a source that is incorrect BrianCUA? Can I also ask you to tone down the sarcasm please ("because the phrase is written in.... Sanskrit)". This is not conducive to a civil debate. Thank you again for engaging on this issue. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I guess the author got the year wrong, but given that you were able to find the quotation elsewhere, and it was prior to 1995, I am not sure what the issue is. Also, I apologize if I came across as sarcastic, but you keep making the same argument over and over again, even after it has been pointed out to you multiple times that we don't follow other's style guides. --BrianCUA (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The issue is that you acknowledge that you have added an incorrect and unreliable source into the article, and evidently failed to check the point you were eager to make about Evangelium Vitae not being the first time John Paul II used the term "culture of life" publicly. I will remove this source and material as we've demonstrate it fails the WP:RS. You are free to appeal in the appropriate channels if you think there is a case to be made. Yes I'm afraid you have been sarcastic and failed to show patience. The argument I am making has not been resolved and is an important one - this is not an issue of style. The issue is whether inclusion of the term "culture of life" within the article is likely to mislead the general reader as it is not widely accepted. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Would you please cite for me the tenant of WP:RS that says if an author makes a single mistake that the entire source in no long reliable? No where in the article is the claim made that JPII used the phrase in 1994. I simply used it here on talk to rebut your WP:OR. The source is a textbook published by Cengage. They are clearly a reliable source, and we should not exclude their entire work for what could simply by a typo unrelated to the sourced material. --BrianCUA (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry BrianCUA but this is becoming quite confusing. So to be clear, when I asked for examples of where JPII used the term before Evangelium Vitae you said "1994 in Denver, Colorado" and provided the link to Barry. Are you admitting that it was you that made a false claim above when you wrote 1994 (and then attributed that to Barry) or that printed in the Barry book it says 1994? Can we have the whole section from Barry to help us resolve. Can I suggest that it is not constructive to continue to restore the material until this issue has been satisfactorily addressed - because errors have been made. Thank you.Contaldo80 (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Barry wrote: "At World Youth Day in 1994, the Pope stated:..." However, just because he got a single digit off on the year, a mistake of no substance to the current dispute, does not mean his entire work is to be discredited. If you can cite for me a policy that says otherwise, I would be glad to abide by it. However, I suspect the reason you ignored my request cite the relevant portion of WP:RS is that it doesn't exist. Remember, disputing the reliability of apparently good sources is a recognized characteristic of tendentious editing. --BrianCUA (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

BrianCUA can I respectfully ask that you stop casting aspersions on my motivations ("disputing the reliability of apparently good sources is a recognized characteristic of tendentious editing"). You do this quite a lot. Can you assume WP:GOODFAITH, unless you have sufficient reason to assume otherwise. My point needs to be taken seriously. You have insisted on using a source which contains a serious factual error. It is significant because you are using the source to argue that Evangelium Vitae was not the first time John Paul II used the term "culture of life" but that he did it 'earlier. The source you use to support that argument is Barry and we have demonstrated that Barry is wrong - it was not 1994 that the speech was made in Denver but 1993. Such a basic factual error throws doubt on the reliability of Barry as a source. Guidance states: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest." I'm also concerned that you yourself did not check this fact on dating before using it so confidently in your editing. Can I ask again for a fuller quotation from Barry about what he says both on the Denver speech and in relation to "culture of life" so that we can be reassured that he is talking about the issues correctly. In the meantime I will post a request to the Reliable sources Noticeboard to see if we can get consensus as to whether or not to use Barry as a source. Thank you. Contaldo80 (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

To be aware that I have now lodged a request on the noticeboard. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2018

Contaldo, you have outright accused me of tendentious editing. You even went back and edited a comment to make the accusation. I have attempted to gently remind you of what the policies are so that we don't run afoul of them. That said, you still have not shown where any policy says that a single error means the entire source is to be considered unreliable. Nor have you shown that Cengage has a poor reputation for checking the facts, lacks meaningful editorial oversight, or has a conflict of interest. Can you do so? Also, I would hardly consider being off by a single digit in a year a "serious factual error."--BrianCUA (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

BrianCUA I am unclear why you are citing discussion from an unconnected talk-page on a separate issue. In relation to this article you have suggested that I could be guilty of tendentious editing for no other reason that I expressed concern that the Barry source was factually incorrect and was uncertain whether it should be used. If Barry gets something as basic as a simple year wrong then what else does he get wrong? The policy does not say "that a single error means the entire source is considered unreliable" but it does say that "questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts". Barry did not check the facts - he got this one wrong. Question, does this make the book an unreliable source or not? I doubt if I was quoting a book that said Columbus discovered America in 1491 then that would equally be fine. I've reasonably asked for the passage in full where Barry refers to Denver and "culture of life". You still haven't provided this - and in the spirit of collaborative working would you please mind doing so? Can I remind you again to please assume [[WP:GOODFAITH]. I'm only trying to make sure we use accurate sources to support material within the articles. Thank you.Contaldo80 (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I have provided the full quote, at 9:47 pm on 25 September 2018. Look above. Also, you have not shown that Cengage has a "poor reputation for checking the facts." You have shown one error, which most likely was a typo. In any case, the year of the speech is not discussed in this article. In the absence of other evidence showing that this publisher does not check facts, I see no reason to conclude that they are not a reliable source.--BrianCUA (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's see... in a 16 August 1993 piece in the Green Bay Press-Gazette we have the pope in Denver for World Youth Day quoted as saying: "The culture of life means respect for nature and protection of God's work of creation. In a special way, it means respect for human life from the first moment of conception until its natural end." So, looks like Bioethics in a Cultural Context was correct about the quote but not the year. --tronvillain (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Wait, what even is the issue here? You already had the transcript that establishes the phrase to predate 1995. --tronvillain (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, yes that's right. My substantive point is that Barry is being cited for the quote but that Barry is wrong in terms of at least part of the facts. The Pope was not in Denver in 1994. My question is whether such a fundamental mistake throws the whole source into doubt. It's a reasonable question. Others may disagree that such a mistake invalidates the whole source. Thanks.Contaldo80 (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This is hardly a fundamental error. --BrianCUA (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

If someone had claimed that JFK was not in Dallas in 1963 then I think some of us would regard that a fundamental error. The discussion on the notice-board has concluded that it is reasonable for me to ask you to provide a fuller quote on what Barry says in relation to Denver, JPII and "culture of life". Are you able to now provide that please so that we can try to move on? Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I have already provided this, but here it is again: "At World Youth Day in 1994, the Pope stated: 'The culture of life means respect for nature and protection of God's work of creation.'" --BrianCUA (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Pledge of Allegiance

Can we collectively take a closer look at the section around the pledge of allegiance. The material used in this section seems very narrowly selected and reads as the Knights having a much more influential role in the decision than the cited sources actually permit. Risk here of WP:PEACOCK. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the Knights, not about the pledge. I'm not sure why we need to talk about the actions of others at all. The piece about Docherty is interesting, but not relevant to this article. It more properly belongs in the article about the pledge. --BrianCUA (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I've made some amendments. The material was highly misleading. It read as if the Knights played a bigger role than they did. If there needs to be a section about the pledge of allegiance in this article that it needs to be truthful and not partial. If that can't be done then suggest we leave it out completely. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

You over-turned all my edits with no justification and no explanation. Even though they were balanced and aligned to the sources. This is edit-warring BrianCua. You can't just do this. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

That is not true. I said here on talk that the piece about Dockerty was not relevant. You then added more information about people who were not Knights. It's good information, but it has nothing to do with the political activity of the Knights of Columbus. I'd like to see it in the pledge of allegiance article. In my edit summary, I said again "None of this is about the Knights." That is far from no explanation and no justification. --BrianCUA (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not acceptable to edit out the facts from this article to imply the Knights had a big role in the Pledge by not referring to those individuals that actually made the difference - and arguing because they are not Knights they do not matter. This is bias, and deliberately misleading. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

No one is saying they don't matter. I've encouraged you several times to add the information to the article about the pledge. Information about the political activities of other people besides the Knights is not relevant to this article, though. --BrianCUA (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Culture of Life

The note was turning into a WP:CONTENTFORK of the linked article. Anyone wanting a definition of the term can just click through. --tronvillain (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, those weren't "scarequotes", it's just not a commonly used phrase. --tronvillain (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Archive 1