Talk:Laudato si'

Naming issue

Fox News has its own name and etymology for this, calling it The encyclical "Laudato Si," (Praise Be). [1] My gut reaction may be to have more confidence in an anonymous Wikipedian than in Fox news professionals, but actually source 3 [2] says "Laudato Sii" (Praised Be), a line from St. Francis of Assisi's "Canticle of Creatures," ... Laudato sii" is the introductory phrase to eight verses of St. Francis of Assisi's famous prayer thanking God for the gifts of creation. "Praised be you, my Lord, with all your creatures, especially Sir Brother Sun, who is the day, and through whom you give us light," one of the first lines says.

I see three issues:

• Should we use lowercase for the second word? I see from the Encyclical article links we have many with lower case, though honorific (?) upper case is frequently used for second and third words. This is totally outside my competence but I note two sources above agree on capital second letter for this and there's also one without ([3]).

• Is the second word's Roman lettering Sii or Si? Why?

• Is there an apostrophe in it? (only [4] among the three have one - but Washington Post has Si', just to round out the set of possibilities!

The title is a quote from St Francis in the original Umbrian dialect, as explained elsewhere in the entry. It's not a translation into contemporary Italian. Therefore: Si' Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Could someone explain exactly why that apostrophe is there? Just saying it is Umbrian tells us nothing, it still looks like a typo even if it isn't. --Khajidha (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, this is the sort of silly thing that keeps Wikipedians busy. Meanwhile... we're gonna need a lot of redirects, no matter what! Wnt (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not save the link, but a Vatican web page (in Italian) included the apostrophe. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, the relevant guideline I think is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Also, WP:Ignore all rules. I'm happy to follow the established convention for past Papal encyclicals, which has usually named the article with the title in the original language. I have already created a redirect from the English translation, Praise Be to You. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

what's the original language

I'm missing the information in which language the encyclica has been redacted, and in which languagess it has been simultaneously released. -- Oisguad (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"Redacted"? What are you talking about? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Oisguad is probably asking which language the document was composed in—was Italian used throughout the drafting process, or Latin, or English? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, but observe that the language the pope used while drafting the document could possibly be different than the language used in the official release of the completed work. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Identifying the authoritative version, i.e., the language version that represents the official text of which all others are translations, is a longstanding issue. See http://americamagazine.org/issue/100/language-encyclicals I've yet to find anything. You would have thought it an obvious question at the press conference. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this enlightening comment. -- Oisguad (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently this is the first time that Arabic is one of an encyclical's initial release languages. Looking for a better source than this (excellent) blog: http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/ Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

New article that needs starting "Morality of energy policy and climate change"

Are there enough RSs to start an article titled Morality of energy policy and climate change? Sub topics might include (just off top of head)

• Energy poverty
• Contraction and convergence
• Climate refugee
• Fossil fuel divestment

and much more. But I'm more of an earth-science guy. Anybody up on enough RSs to tackle that? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Wait, nevermind. See Climate ethics NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Please restrict talk page comments to comments on the article at hand. There are other places to suggest new articles.12.11.127.253 (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Erroneous redact

Lawrence King removed the text about the incipit in the Content § saying that it claimed it was Latin which is flat false, diameterically opposite of the truth which was that it said it was Umbrian dialect. I just unbolixed the original text that said that into clear English which this user had their knee-jerk reaction to. The matter of fact is unknown to me but presume the original editor that put made a factual but clumsy report, possibly due to not being a native speaker of English. Lycurgus (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I revised the whole paragraph, but kept the content and sources... except for page length. That could get stuck in someplace, but its a detail unworthy of the subject of the first sentence of the section. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

ty, also I realized the truth of the matter is self-evident, Latin doesn't have diacritics. Lycurgus (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, in my edit [5] I removed the words "not Latin as is the incipit" -- which was in fact a statement that the incipit was in Latin. Based on your statement above, it appears that you meant to say that the prayer is in Umbrian, and the incipit is also in Umbrian, but to say that you would have needed to place a comma after the word "incipit". Anyway, I am quite happy with the current version. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 23:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

the anaphora/as-is in "not Latin as is the incipit" doesn't refer to "Latin", does refer (although only logically), to "not Latin", and does refer to a substansive earlier in the sentence , it's common, clear English composition. Lycurgus (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Possessive form of "Francis"

In English as I learned it, we write the possessive as "Francis'". However, there have been back and forth edits that are putting 's on the end making it "Francis's". Is the latter wrong, or are these equally grammatical forms? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Possessives. Each option is acceptable in some variants of English. The apostrophe only form is older, but the 's form seems to be increasing in usage. --Khajidha (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, learn something every.... well, at my age, I have to relearn all the stuff I forgot. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Is Dalai Lama's tweet relevant?

I wonder if it is relevant to include Dalai Lama's tweet in the "Reception" section. It happened that he tweeted that 3 days before the release of the encyclical. But how do we know that it is some kind of "reception" to the encyclical? It could be coincidental that the Dalai Lama thought about the very same issue on that day he tweeted. sentausa (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not the tweet is relevant, it's explicitly clear that the pope and dalai lama, probably others, as leaders of the religion industry (both heads of state heads ftm), were aware of the encyclical and that there would be a major publicity action on which it would be appropriate for them to speak. Lycurgus (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what he Tweeted. Could you provide a link? And yes, if he didn't mention Laudato si' by name, then it's WP:SYNTH to include it in this article. Elizium23 (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I assume you're talking to me. I didn't open this thread, just commenting on the matter of fact underlying the relevance issue in response to Sentausa. Lycurgus (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I was replying to the entirety of this thread, as far as the request for a link I was asking anyine who could answer. Little did I know that the link was already in the article. It has been rightly removed. And my answer about synth was generally just disagreeing with the answer by Lycurgus. Elizium23 (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I take back what I said about SYNTH. The Crux article gave the proper context for the Tweet and the Anglican statement so there is no problem here. Elizium23 (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere in the Crux article that states that Dalai Lama's tweet is a response or a reception to the encyclical. It is WP:SYNTH to me. sentausa (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be explicit. Since the Crux article is about the encyclical, it is the author's opinion that the Tweet applies in that context, and that is what makes it admissible for us, we don't need any such explicit mention. Elizium23 (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

More secondary sources with analysis

• https://stream.org/11-things-probably-wont-hear-pope-francis-encyclical/
• http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/mixing-up-the-sciences-of-heaven-and-earth
• http://spectator.org/articles/63160/laudato-si’-well-intentioned-economically-flawed
• http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-popes-green-theology-1434668086
• http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/06/the-return-of-catholic-anti-modernism
• http://www.ncregister.com/blog/simcha-fisher/should-you-read-laudato-si-a-quiz
• Hope these help. Perhaps next few days, if I am not still on my tablet, I will write some content myself. Elizium23 (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I am as guilty of this as anyone, but I don't think we need any more analysis of the document. The article is most severely lacking in the Content section. We should strive to include more of what it actually says, not what people think about what it says. --BrianCUA (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually something needs to change or I will raise a full WP:NPOV dispute here. This article, like many, relies 100% on liberal, dissenting, and anti-Catholic sources, providing anything but a balanced view of the topic. Elizium23 (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Content section

The main topic of the encyclical is the environment, although Pope Francis does talk about some ancillary and connected topics such as abortion in it. I reverted a good faith effort by User:MickeyDonald to separate out some of these ancillary topics into their own subsections. I did so because they are not main topics of the encyclical, as subsections they only have one or two sentences, and we don't even have much content on the environment in this article. Mickey undid my edit. I don't think we need all these subsections. Other thoughts? --BrianCUA (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. See also the text I added to the article - the comments on abortion are out of context and not the main topic of the encyclical at all. NewJohn (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I will be adding more direct and footnoted text to these subtopics. It's an attempt at POV to hide/bury the subtopics. We are creating a detailed encyclopedia, and subsections and subtopics help arrange this task better for the reader. If your interest in the encyclical is Environmentalism, then please add to that subsection, but please do not delete relevant and footnoted material. Thanks.MickeyDonald (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

This isn't an attempt to hide or bury anything. All the material in your version is still in the article. It is simply formatted differently to avoid giving WP:UNDUE weight to minor topics within the encyclical. I am not opposed to including material from WP:RS, and welcome any additions, but creating subsections for minor subtopics when the main topic isn't adequately addressed isn't appropriate. The encyclical only mentions "abortion" once, and there is only one sentence about "gender theory," a term which Pope Francis doesn't even use. Mentions of those topics proportional to their weight in the encyclical itself are entirely appropriate. Anything more than that would be a POV violation. --BrianCUA (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Embryo is used, and there is no undue weight problem if the source(s) are credible and footnoted and it adds to the encyclopedia's organization. It's not a minor subtopic, there has been much discussion about it. Life is all inter-related as per the encyclical. What we need to address is the actual content of the encyclical, from primary and secondary sources that allows the reader to find the information they seek, and to ensure that we're not giving WP:UNDUE weight to those who would try and hide material as a form of censorship. There are many people who want to know how the encyclical deals with abortion and male-female complementarity given current events in 2015. Subtopics make it easier for the reader to find the material, simple as that. Don't read it then, if you're not interested, but make the encyclopedia easier and better for readers, not less so. Thanks.MickeyDonald (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you might want to go reread WP:UNDUE. Note that "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Giving abortion and gender theory their own subsections violates the policy in this way. Additionally, check out the Manual of Style. There you will see that "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." If your goal is make it easier to read, which is laudable, then adding two sections for a combined total of four sentences will not accomplish this. Finally, might I suggest that your efforts would be better placed adding prose on the environmental portion of this article? It is lacking.--BrianCUA (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

For William M. Connolley

"Please add new talk at the bottom of talk pages; its a universal convention. If you do otherwise, you force people to move it, and that's impolite."

"Also, please discuss articles on the article talk pages, in first instance William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)"

Do you have something substantive to add to the "dissent v. criticism" distinction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eblem (talk • contribs) 01:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You're new here, yes? Article talk pages are to discuss the article, with everyone, not with individuals. I asked you to talk here, not on my talk page, because you were having the same discussion with several people.

As you your question: no; its an uninteresting semantic point already solved: [6] William M. Connolley (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Is your opinion that this is an "uninteresting semantic point" as an expert in semantics or as an expert in Catholic theology? I ask because in English "dissent" and "criticism" while closely related are not synonyms, and in Catholic theology "dissent" is a term of art that describes rejection of a binding teaching. A Catholic is free to drive an SUV, support a war, or support the death penalty because there is no binding teaching forbidding any of them, even though one or more Popes have taken personal positions opposing them. E.g.:

https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfworthycom.HTM

"While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."

I have on my "to do" list a section for this article delineating what is and is not binding on Catholics, but in the interim let me make crystal clear that the section describes criticism, NOT dissent.

Eblem (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Letting the paragraph "From the plant-based food movement" stand

Dear editors: On August 23 I made an edit to the article on Laudato Si’, which was reverted. Below I will share with you 1) the edit I made, 2) the rationale for reverting my edit and 3) my rebuttal of that rationale. Please let me know whether you are against or in favor of the edit, together with good reasons for your view.

1) My August 23 edit of Laudato Si’:

Here is my August 23 edit:

---

(===)From the plant-based food community [should be “movement” instead of “community”](===)

In her essay “Why Pope Francis Wants You to Eat Veggies,” Nivien Saleh of SweetOnion.Net analyzes what the encyclical means for the way we produce, trade, and consume both food and drink. She finds that the encyclical strongly supports a lifestyle that is either fully plant-based or one that emphasizes plant foods over animal products.[46] Three reasons account for this. First, ethically, the encyclical renders the consumption of factory-farmed animal products impermissible, because factory farms mark the absolute domination of animals that Laudato Si’ rejects. Consuming meat from farms that raise livestock in its natural surroundings is more acceptable. Second, the encyclical demands that we stem global warming. We should therefore sharply reduce our consumption of beef, as cattle, through their rumens, produce large amounts of the greenhouse gas methane. Third, says Saleh, the encyclical asks that we preserve the globe’s biodiversity. As much biodiversity can be found in the tropical rainforests, we should stop turning rainforests into livestock ranches.”

---

The source referenced in footnote 46 is “Why Pope Francis Wants You to Eat Veggies: A Look at the Encyclical Laudato Si’”: http://sweetonion.net/pope-francis-encyclical-laudato-si-on-food-and-nutrition/

2) The rationale for reverting the edit:

Elizium23 reverted that edit saying that the source is a personal blog. He (or she?) kindly guided me to the editorial guidelines for Wikipedia articles.

3) My rebuttal of the reversal:

I find that the essay “Why Pope Francis Wants You to Eat Veggies,” aka the source for my original edit, is covered by the Wikipedia guidelines, which say, “Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications.”

The question is therefore if Saleh is an established expert in a relevant field, whose work has been published. Saleh analyzes Laudato Si’ from a global political economy perspective (plus some discourse analysis). That makes global political economy the relevant field. Her political economy framework has been published as a book by Palgrave MacMillan. Her work has also been published in a number of academic journal articles and popular magazines (see http://NivienSaleh.info). She has a Ph.D. from American University and has been a professor both at the University of St. Thomas and the Thunderbird School of Global Management. Having taught at a conservative Catholic university, Saleh has experience with reading encyclicals.

Hence she is covered by Wikipedia guidelines.

Moreover, the referenced essay is of high quality. It cites over fifty sources, in addition to a detailed textual analysis of Laudato’ Si and some analysis of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and related sources. Therefore, not only does Saleh meet Wikipedia criteria, but her work also satisfies academic integrity standards, even though the essay is published on a personal blog.

Your feedback is requested:

Elizium23 invited me to turn to Laudato’ Si’s talk page, which I am now doing. Please let me know your views of my edit, together with good reasons for your view, as I would like the original edit to stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miraculix1 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Miraculix1 (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I think including some of this information is appropriate, so long as we remember that Wikipedia is WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Additionally, creating a whole subsection for this will probably run afoul of WP:UNDUE weight. Perhaps we could include a line in there in the "from other groups" section. --BrianCUA (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I did as you suggested. Thank you, BrianCUA!Miraculix1 (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

That looks pretty nice. Good work, Miraculix! Elizium23 (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)