Talk:Campaign Life Coalition

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sallymay456.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources

The following discussion 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.

---

Yesterday I've saved some edits on enWikipedia which used LifeSiteNews as external source. I noticed twice an altert messagge saying that the website is discussed by the WP community as a WP:reliable source that possibly can be blacklisted. I don't know the reason. However, with edit oldid 933967127 of 4 January 2020, I've inserted the opinion given Media Bias/Fact Check upon LifeSiteNews which is essentially based on personal evalutations and on a fact-checking test, failed for three times.

My contribution has been rollbacked without any motivation and therefore I've replaced it now.

2) oldid 933969238: Concerning my second edit oldid 933969238 on pro-Trump political opinions expressed by the website, I think that's less important than the first point. It can be said in the section titled "Federal politics", omitting any quote or in a different form.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• MBFC ls unrelable: [1]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• The "mediabiasfactcheck" site is self-published and not reliable. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources addresses this. Neutrality^talk 02:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

What does it mean? Any journal is self-published. Do we think to admit uniquely peer-reviewed scientific papers or something similar? Its authoritative judgement is controversial, given that we have two divergent reviews by two professional sources: the Columbia Journalism Review and the Poynter Institute. Please, have a look to the WP article on Media Bias / Fact Check, which affirms:

The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst." Van Zandt describes himself as someone with "more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence." The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."

References

I don't think we can censor Media Bias / Fact Check here as well as from all WP articles. This would be equal to blacklist Media Bias / Fact Check, while the blacklist is managed with different rules and with an open discussion of the WP community. And this also would be the case.

However, I don't think it would be useful to open a discussion for a statement of two sentences in the current article of MediaSiteNews. Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

If you are confused about what "self-published" means in context, please see WP:SELFPUBLISH for an explanation. Neutrality^talk 15:48, 5 January 2020 (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.

LifeSiteNews : POV

This section is so one-sided. I see the RCF notice above regarding the reliability of the site. Fair enough, but on Wikipedia, we still have to abide by our neutrality policy. I don't have a dog in this fight, but are you telling me we can't find any RS that gives a different view to the sources cited in this section which all seems to give a negative view of this site? Sorry! I find that hard to believe. As such, I'm tagging this section for POV until it is balanced per weight. I'll also be looking for sources. I'm intrigued to know what other sources have to say about this site. We can't use our political and religious biases to present a one-side view. Isn't that so? Oh does that policy only applies to certain articles? Senegambianamestudy (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: what do you think of this? I note the user has been blocked for harassment, however the section of LifeSiteNews does appear quite heavy on undue weight? Sxologist (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Sxologist, it's a fake news website. Not sure what else we can say. Guy (help!) 07:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

JzG, ok just wanted to check that it was okay to leave it in it's current form. Thanks for the changes you made. --Sxologist (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The Right To Life

This is about these recent edits. It was added to the WP:LEAD and wasn't a summary of an independent reliable cited source. Wikipedia not being the org's website, that statement reflecting what the org would like to say about itself appeared WP:UNDUE. Self-serving controversial claims in Wikipedia's voice should be avoided (WP:ABOUTSELF for more information). —PaleoNeonate – 12:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the content in question as original research. — Newslinger talk 18:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes OK this is the Human Rights content that was removed ( or censored your choice). As noted it simply states well established facts regarding basic Human Rights (UDHR 1948) as relevant to all social/political issues and in this case the term "Right to Life" a standard phrase both in the Pro-Life movement and Human Rights, it is not a POV? or "OR" - Anyway this is the context or observation that was  removed ( or censored our choice) --- Campaign Life supports the ”right to life” as found in Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and understood in respects to Canada's commitment to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, where the “child” is defined as existing before birth in the preamble (paragraph 9), to quote the child requires  “special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth", and in article 6 to quote, “States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.” The convention uses the same term “Right to life” as found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights art.3. a normative international and historic understandings of 'The Right To Life" of all people include the pre-born, as clearly articulated in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as other international Human Rights Documents including the International American Convention on Human Rights,as stated in Article 4 .1. Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. The international and historic understanding of the "Right to Life' is rooted in the prohibitions against killing found in  ancient and current Jewish Law. Today this principle is reflected in contemporary human rights law, and the values of those who adhere to the precepts of the Abrahamic faiths. 

If someone has a problem with the pro-life term "RIGHT TO LIFE" and it's history , possibly they should take it up with the UN.... All the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:E921:DA00:59EA:6AF1:4065:B6F (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The text you added in Special:Diff/1010878556 is original research, because it does not contain any citations and because it synthesizes primary sources to make claims not supported by the mentioned documents individually. None of the documents you mentioned (the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the American Convention on Human Rights) mention the Campaign Life Coalition. Your phrasing ("Given that context the Campaign Life Coalition opposes abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, assisted reproductive technologies, same-sex marriage, and gender identity legislation.") is unverifiable, since it claims a connection between the documents and various topics (including same-sex marriage and gender identity legislation) that is not supported by reliable sources. The recent content additions should be reverted. — Newslinger talk 21:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Wrong, mentioning the UDHR 1948 is not a "POV" or "OR", ( or some kind of "unique synthesis" ) yet is very relevant to the topic... for two reasons 1. HUMAN RIGHTS ie. UDHR 1948 (and related documents as noted) are standard well known "common knowledge" documents , and 2. applies to the Canadian context of this Canadian group. As Canada as a federal state has formally agreed to those values, it is relevant to all Canadian groups, and persons, indeed Canadians have an obligation to both adhere to common Human Rights Values ( UDHR 1948 and related docs.) as well as apply them in all contexts.

The context regarding   assisted reproductive technologies, same-sex marriage, and gender identity legislation."}} is one that may have a more distant connection between the RIGHT TO LIFE and the noted documents and articles  mentioned. These points can be addressed if one wants a more complex rational, (William Schabas ( a Canadian) has written on some of these points )....None the less if you wish to separate out these points from the Human Rights regarding the RIGHT TO LIFE that may be fair, however normative  Human Rights (UDHR 1948 and related documents) can and still apply. 

Thank you for your time ... my name is William Forrestall , as I am advocating only for an awareness , understanding and application of Normative Human Rights in all contexts including this context (see UDHR 1948 art.7 " All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."),I feel no need to hide behind a pseudonym ... that I would think inappropriate. All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:E921:DA00:6D03:635F:D8BB:4872 (talk) 03:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Your argument is original research because it does not cite a single reliable secondary source, nor any source that connects the Campaign Life Coalition to the documents you have mentioned. Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy or a repository of arguments unsupported by reliable sources. There is no reliable source cited in the article that supports the assertion that "assisted reproductive technologies" violate the right to life, and there is no reliable source cited in the article that claims that the documents you have mentioned take only one side of the abortion debate, euthanasia debate, and embryonic stem cell research debate. The content you have added to the article is unverifiable and should be removed. — Newslinger talk 03:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Now sources were provided but do not support the suggested presentation. They mention some self-claims (as being self-claims) so it's still inappropriate to present those claims as facts in Wikipedia's voice. —PaleoNeonate – 07:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

If the Campaign Life Coalition takes positions on certain issues due to a particular interpretation of certain documents, it is okay to mention this, as long as a reliable secondary source covers this interpretation and attributes it to the Campaign Life Coalition. However, this interpretation would need to be attributed in-text to the Campaign Life Coalition, and I agree that it should not be stated as if it were a fact in Wikipedia's voice, as the now-removed text did. — Newslinger talk 19:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding: since these edits were all from 2607:fea8:e921:da00::/64 but that the IP addresses varied, the warnings made at those various talk pages can be considered cumulative. Linking them to make sure the user is aware of those messages:

• User_talk:2607:FEA8:E921:DA00:6D03:635F:D8BB:4872
• User_talk:2607:FEA8:E921:DA00:59EA:6AF1:4065:B6F
• User_talk:2607:FEA8:E921:DA00:40C7:7439:7EE2:D854
• User_talk:2607:FEA8:E921:DA00:F15E:A59C:99EB:6459
• User_talk:2607:FEA8:E921:DA00:69D1:2DC6:44F:3866
• User_talk:2607:FEA8:E921:DA00:A0DA:8DA:4352:65F9

—PaleoNeonate – 07:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

From a quick look, not even the Campaign Life Coalition itself seems to make the legal arguments that you do here, even in their briefing book for legislators. [2], [3], [4]. If you can provide reliable sources that point to where the CLC makes such arguments, then adding the content can be entertained. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:ADVOCACY, WP:OR and edit warring violates wikipedia policies and guidelines. I asked for temporary page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and an admin decided to block the IP range for 3 months [5]. JimRenge (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)