This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Slugger O'Toole: if you think my edit was still inaccurate, why would you revert to the more inaccurate, and less clear, version? What is it that you would like to add or clarify? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
There are several other issues identified in that source, plus all the issues in the other sources in the body. Additionally, marriage is already discussed in that sentence. I also don't believe that protecting religious liberty is an issue just for social conservatives and, even if it was, that is far more broad and less descriptive. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 18:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The source you are using talks about more than just abortion and marriage, and when it does mention them it does so in the context of having the government force individuals and organizations to violate their consciences. It does not say, for example, that no insurance program should have to cover the morning after pill. It says that employers should not be required to carry it if it violates their religious beliefs. The source also talks about the importance of the free exercise of religion and more. I believe that calling it religious liberty is a neutral and accurate way to describe these activities, and is sufficient for the lede. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 19:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
I have read the comments by both of the participants in this dispute. After reviewing them, I am going to concur with Roscelese. The sentence under dispute in the lead reads, "More recently it has been active in defense of religious liberty, promoting faithful citizenship, defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and building a culture of life." That could be considered promotional language, in that it tends to support a particular, controversial, point of view. If a statement that a group defends "religious liberty" is immediately followed by one stating that it supports defining marriage as between one man and one woman, that could be understood to imply that "religious liberty" includes defining marriage in that fashion, which lends Wikipedia's support to a given, controversial social stance. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 22:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC) |
Perhaps, given that we are discussing the lead, it should be sufficient to say "social conservative issues", and expand upon that in the body of the text? If the KoC have been active in issues that are not typically considered socially conservative, those could be called out in the lead. DonIago ( talk) 14:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Again, the Little Sisters of the Poor case was about requiring employers, like a group of nuns, to provide contraception to employees against their religious beliefs. It wasn't about banning contraception. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 13:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Slugger, given that you re-added your promotional jargon in flat defiance of the above consensus against the use of those terms, I've reverted again. Please stop wasting the time of those editors who are interested in building an encyclopedia rather than writing PR material for the church. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 21:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I believe the section on the pledge of allegiance is misleading and does not reflect the actual facts. It suggests the Knights played a more significant role than they did but leaving out crucial details.
The current text says "The Order was influential in the early stages of the movement that eventually led to the decision by the US Congress to add the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. Though others had proposed the idea before, the idea bubbled up in the order from Fourth Degree assemblies. In April 1951, the Supreme Board of Directors adopted a resolution directing the Fourth Degree to add the words to their recitations. The Knights were the first group to voluntarily do so on a regular basis. The Knights also began lobbying Congress to make the change. At the urging of five state councils, the Supreme Council adopted a resolution in 1952 encouraging Congress to officially insert the words into the pledge. Adding the phrase, the Order believed, would acknowledge "the dependence of our Nation and its people upon the Creator of the Universe." New York Congressman Edmund Radwan entered the resolution into the Congressional Record on March 25, 1953. Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart, the then-president of the National Fraternal Congress, got the other 110 fraternal societies to adopt the resolution as well. After signing the change into law, Eisenhower wrote to Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart thanking the Knights for their efforts to get the phrase added. In his letter, Eisenhower praised the order's patriotism and said "For the contribution which your organization has made to this cause, we must be genuinely grateful." In October 1954, the National Executive Committee of the American Legion adopted a resolution thanking the Knights for initiating, sponsoring, and bringing about the amendment."
My alternative wording would say: "The Order was influential in the early stages of the movement that eventually led to the decision by the US Congress to add the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. Louis Albert Bowman, an attorney from Illinois, was actually the first to suggest this addition and it was used in the 1940s at meetings of the Illinois Society of the Sons of the American Revolution. However, the Knights also adopted the practice following the Fourth Degree Assemblies in April 1951. Though the words had not yet officially been added nationally, the order added the phrase to their recitations, the first group to voluntarily do so on a regular basis. Doing so, the Order believed, would acknowledge "the dependence of our Nation and its people upon the Creator of the Universe." The Knights forwarded a resolution advocating for the addition to New York Congressman Edmund Radwan, and Radwan entered it into the Congressional Record on March 25, 1953. The Presbyterian minister, George MacPherson Docherty, was nevertheless the instrumental figure in getting Congress ultimately to act - giving a sermon in 1954 which captured the political attention President Dwight Eisenhower. But it was Rep. Charles Oakman ( R- Mich.), who introduced a bill into Congress in 1954. After signing the change into law, Eisenhower wrote to Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart thanking the Knights for their part."
I would appreciate thoughts from other editors. Thank you. Contaldo80 ( talk) 22:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I know it's kind of arrogant to say this as a brand new user, but looking at the history and discussion of the main KoC page and this one, it's clear that multiple users have been using these pages as advertising for the organization. The language of both pages is incredibly loaded, statistics are mostly mentioned to highlight how wonderful they are (isn't "protecting the sanctity of marriage" great?!) and this page in particular captions all its images like they're on a portfolio. When I have more time, I'll have to undo this all myself. 00Hello19 ( talk) 06:34, December 2, 2019
I've made some significant changes to this article to remove material that I thought was not rigorously independent or self-promotional or that is peripheral. I know want to move to make this a stable version. I'd like to invite other editors to feed in thoughts over the next week. At the end of that period we will assume that consensus has been achieved and we have a stable article. This avoids the risk of future edit warring and to show that we can all work collaboratively and openly. Thanks in advance. Contaldo80 ( talk) 04:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The article fails to identify the group as a Fraternal Order. Since it's a Catholic association, it almost implicitly suggests a religious order. "Organization" would be more precise. Manannan67 ( talk) 06:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Is that still an issue? That tag has been there for three years now. If I'm counting anywhere near correctly, there have been over 300 edits to the page since that tag was put there. Novellasyes ( talk) 16:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Slugger O'Toole: if you think my edit was still inaccurate, why would you revert to the more inaccurate, and less clear, version? What is it that you would like to add or clarify? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
There are several other issues identified in that source, plus all the issues in the other sources in the body. Additionally, marriage is already discussed in that sentence. I also don't believe that protecting religious liberty is an issue just for social conservatives and, even if it was, that is far more broad and less descriptive. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 18:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The source you are using talks about more than just abortion and marriage, and when it does mention them it does so in the context of having the government force individuals and organizations to violate their consciences. It does not say, for example, that no insurance program should have to cover the morning after pill. It says that employers should not be required to carry it if it violates their religious beliefs. The source also talks about the importance of the free exercise of religion and more. I believe that calling it religious liberty is a neutral and accurate way to describe these activities, and is sufficient for the lede. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 19:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: |
I have read the comments by both of the participants in this dispute. After reviewing them, I am going to concur with Roscelese. The sentence under dispute in the lead reads, "More recently it has been active in defense of religious liberty, promoting faithful citizenship, defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and building a culture of life." That could be considered promotional language, in that it tends to support a particular, controversial, point of view. If a statement that a group defends "religious liberty" is immediately followed by one stating that it supports defining marriage as between one man and one woman, that could be understood to imply that "religious liberty" includes defining marriage in that fashion, which lends Wikipedia's support to a given, controversial social stance. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 22:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC) |
Perhaps, given that we are discussing the lead, it should be sufficient to say "social conservative issues", and expand upon that in the body of the text? If the KoC have been active in issues that are not typically considered socially conservative, those could be called out in the lead. DonIago ( talk) 14:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Again, the Little Sisters of the Poor case was about requiring employers, like a group of nuns, to provide contraception to employees against their religious beliefs. It wasn't about banning contraception. -- Slugger O'Toole ( talk) 13:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Slugger, given that you re-added your promotional jargon in flat defiance of the above consensus against the use of those terms, I've reverted again. Please stop wasting the time of those editors who are interested in building an encyclopedia rather than writing PR material for the church. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 21:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I believe the section on the pledge of allegiance is misleading and does not reflect the actual facts. It suggests the Knights played a more significant role than they did but leaving out crucial details.
The current text says "The Order was influential in the early stages of the movement that eventually led to the decision by the US Congress to add the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. Though others had proposed the idea before, the idea bubbled up in the order from Fourth Degree assemblies. In April 1951, the Supreme Board of Directors adopted a resolution directing the Fourth Degree to add the words to their recitations. The Knights were the first group to voluntarily do so on a regular basis. The Knights also began lobbying Congress to make the change. At the urging of five state councils, the Supreme Council adopted a resolution in 1952 encouraging Congress to officially insert the words into the pledge. Adding the phrase, the Order believed, would acknowledge "the dependence of our Nation and its people upon the Creator of the Universe." New York Congressman Edmund Radwan entered the resolution into the Congressional Record on March 25, 1953. Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart, the then-president of the National Fraternal Congress, got the other 110 fraternal societies to adopt the resolution as well. After signing the change into law, Eisenhower wrote to Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart thanking the Knights for their efforts to get the phrase added. In his letter, Eisenhower praised the order's patriotism and said "For the contribution which your organization has made to this cause, we must be genuinely grateful." In October 1954, the National Executive Committee of the American Legion adopted a resolution thanking the Knights for initiating, sponsoring, and bringing about the amendment."
My alternative wording would say: "The Order was influential in the early stages of the movement that eventually led to the decision by the US Congress to add the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. Louis Albert Bowman, an attorney from Illinois, was actually the first to suggest this addition and it was used in the 1940s at meetings of the Illinois Society of the Sons of the American Revolution. However, the Knights also adopted the practice following the Fourth Degree Assemblies in April 1951. Though the words had not yet officially been added nationally, the order added the phrase to their recitations, the first group to voluntarily do so on a regular basis. Doing so, the Order believed, would acknowledge "the dependence of our Nation and its people upon the Creator of the Universe." The Knights forwarded a resolution advocating for the addition to New York Congressman Edmund Radwan, and Radwan entered it into the Congressional Record on March 25, 1953. The Presbyterian minister, George MacPherson Docherty, was nevertheless the instrumental figure in getting Congress ultimately to act - giving a sermon in 1954 which captured the political attention President Dwight Eisenhower. But it was Rep. Charles Oakman ( R- Mich.), who introduced a bill into Congress in 1954. After signing the change into law, Eisenhower wrote to Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart thanking the Knights for their part."
I would appreciate thoughts from other editors. Thank you. Contaldo80 ( talk) 22:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I know it's kind of arrogant to say this as a brand new user, but looking at the history and discussion of the main KoC page and this one, it's clear that multiple users have been using these pages as advertising for the organization. The language of both pages is incredibly loaded, statistics are mostly mentioned to highlight how wonderful they are (isn't "protecting the sanctity of marriage" great?!) and this page in particular captions all its images like they're on a portfolio. When I have more time, I'll have to undo this all myself. 00Hello19 ( talk) 06:34, December 2, 2019
I've made some significant changes to this article to remove material that I thought was not rigorously independent or self-promotional or that is peripheral. I know want to move to make this a stable version. I'd like to invite other editors to feed in thoughts over the next week. At the end of that period we will assume that consensus has been achieved and we have a stable article. This avoids the risk of future edit warring and to show that we can all work collaboratively and openly. Thanks in advance. Contaldo80 ( talk) 04:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The article fails to identify the group as a Fraternal Order. Since it's a Catholic association, it almost implicitly suggests a religious order. "Organization" would be more precise. Manannan67 ( talk) 06:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Is that still an issue? That tag has been there for three years now. If I'm counting anywhere near correctly, there have been over 300 edits to the page since that tag was put there. Novellasyes ( talk) 16:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)