Talk:Pro Life Campaign

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An image is requested for this article as its inclusion will substantially increase the significance of the article. Please remove the `image-needed` parameter once the image is added.

LGBT issues[edit]

I added some things to the article about LGBT campaigning from this group, which were removed. I'd like to talk about whether it's relevant. I think it is because the group does campaign on this issue (cf. submission to committee on constitution). ____Ebelular (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to talk about. It's sourced, relevant information that satisfies WP:5. Restored. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I thought, I just wanted to get community feedback. ___Ebelular (talk) 13:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They don't actually campaign on LGBT issues though. For example they played no part in the 2015 referendum. Not only is that section not accurate it's also out of proportion to the entire article. Barumba (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to change quotes from what was actually printed to what you would prefer they printed. Please stop. The Irish Times is very much recognised as a reliable source and of course it can be used to reference this article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish times is open about its pro choice editorial line. That is not mutually exclusive with being respected in many quarters. It is therefore as reliable as any other source that has such a line. That is not the issue and it does not make anything they say 'official'. Secondly, as you well know the Pro Life campaign does not campaign on LGBT issues. Some of their members did so in the past and under a different banner so it is dishonest and even malevolent not to mention inaccurate to present them as an organisation that campaigns on that issue and one would have to wonder if you're trying to misrepresent them. Then there is the issue that you cannot even find any evidence that both named individuals are involved in the day-to-day running of the organisation. Finally the fact that one self identified branch (and another organisation with the generic "pro life" in their title) made a submission does not mean that a national organisation has a position. This is a thoroughly dishonest and deliberately misrepresenting edit.Barumba (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, the I.T. publishes a wide variety of opinions both pro-choice and pro-life, and pro- and anti-LGBT rights, including regular columns by the likes of Breda O'Brien on the one hand, and Una Mulally on the other. The only thoroughly dishonest and deliberately misrepresenting edit I've seen today is this one, where you changed quoted material. (For your information, the Gardaí regularly release figures for attendance at marches and events). You seem to be very sure of your information on the PLC - might there perhaps be a conflict of interest? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For your information there is no such thing as official figures and the Garda release no such figures. If you have evidence to the contrary then perhaps you can cite it. The Irish Times have a pro choice editorial line and they're perfectly entitled to have that. Citing one conservative columnist, not a journalist mind-you but one conservative columnist and then one liberal columnist to balance her is dishonest as you know very well most IT columnists are liberal and strongly pro-choice, you might have heard of Fintan O'Toole for example. There is no conflict of interest on my information. You should know better than making an accusation of a conflict of interest. The last time you questioned my integrity you had to eat your words. The fact remains the two men in question never made any remarks in their capacity as PLC representatives and any remarks they made were made decades ago. Attempts to associate the PLC with those remarks smacks of an agenda. Can you confirm that there is no conflict of interest on your part by the way? Barumba (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"you cannot even find any evidence that both named individuals are involved in the day-to-day running of the organisation" Is there any evidence of anyone being involved in the day-to-day running of PLC? Do they publish minutes of meetings? Do they have an AGM where issues are voted on? Is there anyway to see how the PLC is run on a day-to-day basis?

"the Pro Life campaign does not campaign on LGBT issues" Really? There are sources that say otherwise.

I don't know why you're disregarding The Irish Times, it is a reliable source.

"the two men in question never made any remarks in their capacity as PLC representatives and any remarks they made were made decades ago" No, Joseph McCarroll spoke as Vice chairman Pro-Life Campaign in 2015.

____Ebelular (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"you cannot even find any evidence that both named individuals are involved in the day-to-day running of the organisation" Actually there is evidence. Joe McCarroll opened and closed the pro life campaign national seminar in 2012 tweet #1, tweet #2. So that means he's involved in the running of the org. ____Ebelular (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you're challenging that the Irish Times is a reliable source here, and using the "Catholic News Agency" as a source on the Amnesty International Ireland?! I normally try to avoid personal attacks, Barumba, but seeing as you started it above by calling me dishonest, there's a word for what you're doing - hypocrisy. If you have a problem with the Irish Times, take it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added a piece that clarifies that the Pro Life Campaign is a single issue campaign organisation and members are free to hold whatever opinion they like on a completely different issue. It's bizarre though not surprising that an exception is made to normal practice when it comes to articles about a less than favoured organisation, at least amongst editors. It's behaviour like that that calls the credibility of Wikipedia into question. I certainly don't mind saying that this is the main reason why I never contribute any money to this project . Barumba (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's bizarre is resurrecting a 2-yo talk page section with baseless assertions, much like your recent addition to the article. The assertion you introduced is already contradicted further down in the same section. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 01:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not contradicted at all. There is no evidence that this organisation has a policy on LGBT issues. You have no reference to back up your opinion. It hardly matters whether it's 2 months or 20 years, if you have no reference to back up your feelings it shouldn't even be here. The only bizarre thing is that there is even a section dedicated to LGBT issues at all since it is not an issue for the organisation in question and the best you can do is provide references that individual members made remarks on their own behalf or on behalf of different organisations. I'm not really sure why you're afraid of accuracy in this particular issue. Barumba (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, dude. Cop on. Read the bloody article. It's right there in black and white. With references. Next reversion goes to AN/I. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously yourself. You do not seem to understand the difference between an individual and an organization. You have no reference to back up your opinion that the Pro Life Campaign has a policy on LGBT issues. If you did you'd have included it by now and as you said this has been left stand for over two years. In that time you have no reference from Pro Life Campaign literature or its website. If you have any evidence then include it, it's very simple. If Wikipedia wants to be considered a serious source of information it has to have references, serious references, for such accusations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.74.38 (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC) Barumba (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume Barumba and 80.111.74.38 are one and the same. I'll assume good faith and assume you weren't editing while logged out to avoid a WP:3RR breach, but really? Consider this your warning that you are about to breach 3RR and will be reported if you persist in edit warring. You keep reinserting the text "The Pro Life Campaign has no policy on LGBT issues or at least none can be found in any material it has produced and no reference to it has ever ben made on its website." which is a) unencyclopedic, and b) unreferenced, and c) would indicate a certain familiarity with the PLC's policies - do you have a conflict of interest we should be aware of? Or are you just completely mistaken? Certainly, the later, referenced sentences in the very same section, which discuss submissions to government by members and two different PLC branches on LGBT issues clearly indicate that yes, the PLC does have policies/viewpoints on LGBT issues. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it is you editing while logged out... Warning still applies, though be aware you've already broken 3RR. Stop, now? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than issue threats maybe your time would be better employed finding just one reference that the Pro Life Campaign has a policy on LGBT issues? At this stage it's probably a better idea that someone unconnected make a decision on the issue. You have at no stage explained why my edit, that simply said the organization in question has no policy and individual members are free to hold their own position, should be removed or why it is controversial and/or untrue. If you believe it untrue then at least have the integrity to say as much.Barumba (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way. There is no reference to PLC 'branches' on the Pro Life Campaign website or any of its literature. It has a national organization. Even if it does have 'branches' and they did indeed make the submissions, that does not mean the national organization, this is an article about the national organization after all, has a position. A local branch of a political party, for example, does not make national policy and who in their right mind would suggest that it does? The whole section needs to be removed from the article or at the very least amended to read that individual members or branches believe such-and-such. This kind of sloppiness and bias wouldn't be tolerated in an article about a lobby group in any other country. The accusation that the PLC has no policy on X is 'unencyclopedic' is particularly amusing (in a tragic manner) it was only included because you insist on suggesting they have a policy when they clearly do not. Perhaps you could point to where Wikipedia's policy is on referencing something that does not exist? Barumba (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Put simply: 1) The edit you introduced is just unsourced assertion. Do you have any references to support the addition? 2) "or at least none can be found in any material it has produced" - not in any way encyclopedic. 3) As repeatedly stated above (and which you ignored) - the very same section has referenced material outlining a) magazine articles by the PLC chairman (and writing as such), b) submissions by individuals identifying as PLC members, and c) submissions by two different branches of the PLC. You might well say "There is no reference to PLC 'branches' on the Pro Life Campaign website or any of its literature" and yet there's a published government report that's able to list their submissions. Take that up with the PLC, or, indeed, the Oireachtas committee that published the report - but it's certainly enough for us to include the material. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Vigil for Life[edit]

I'm expanding the section on the National Vigil For Life. I can't find anything for 2015? Was it only ran twice? Current article implies it is every year. ____Ebelular (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chairperson[edit]

Cora Sherlock is listed as Deputy Chairperson, but who is the actual Chairperson? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Define SPUC[edit]

The acronym is used throughout the article and never defined or linked to an article on SPUC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmccabe (talk • contribs) 17:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]