This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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): Emilysmall6.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The following is in the first para:
"FFL and similar groups like the National Right to Life Committee FFL and similar groups like the National Right to Life Committee have been criticized, by pro-choice activists, amongst others, as being "motivated by politics, not by science, medical care, or the purposes of compassion." and using "feminist rhetoric"
I question that it belongs there. Nothing comparable is in the opening for the NARAL or NRLC article.
Something like, "Group X and similar groups like Y have been criticized, by pro-choice/pro-life activists, amongst others, as being "motivated by politics, not by science, medical care, or the purposes of compassion." would be a true statement when made of any ro-choice/pro-life group.
Should all pro-life/pro-choice groups have such an addition to there page? It seems superfluous. All of these groups claim that their opponents ignore science, are politicized, and lack compassion. I think that it should be removed or put elsewhere.
I grant that the criticism for using "feminist rhetoric" pertains to FFL, but if that is the significant point, then it should be made in terms of the 'genuineness' of the claim of FFL to feminism. OckRaz ( talk) 05:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Is rhere any reason to use a template? Where is that one from? I question some of the information included in it. On what basis is FFL's "Type" described as "non-profit pro-life feminist organization", its "Field" as "pro-life feminism," and its "Purpose" as "pro-life advocacy"? Sounds like someone just made it up. Cloonmore ( talk) 03:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The lede and the article fail to meet WP standards. The lede violates NPOV in various respects, is not reflective of the article as a whole, over-emphasizes and therefore magnifies criticism by pro-choice opponents of FFL and is too long. Hence, the tag. Cloonmore ( talk) 02:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I removed the Anthony quote "Sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own has it been to me to help bring about a better state of things for mothers generally, so their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them" because she was not necessarily talking about abortion. The context was a question posed to her asking why she didn't have kids of her own. The interpretation of her response is wide open—it has been taken to mean a number of things. The mainstream Anthony scholars take it as a statement about patriarchal inheritance laws. A widow who bore her dead husband a child was not its legal protector—it was the child of the estate, not her child. Binksternet ( talk) 18:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Binkster, please don't preempt this discussion by unilaterally removing quotes at issue, as you just did. Your only stated basis for removing the SBA quote is that you contest whether SBA was talking about abortion per se. That's a fair point to make in the article, with reliable sources, but is not a valid basis for removing the quote wholesale. FFL features it prominently in its materials, and this article is about FFL. Again, you are appearing to be intent on injecting your POV into the article, and I would again caution you not to do so. Cloonmore ( talk) 17:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
These sentences are wrong for the lede: "A bill was sponsored by FFL in 2005–2006, the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Students Act. This bill was criticized for being a "largely hollow 'message bill'" that did little to help U.S. women." The first sentence is inaccurate: FFL didn't sponsor anything. The 2nd sentence gives undue weight to one pro-choice journalist's opinion, and misquotes her at that. The lede shouldn't even refer to the Stanton Act bill since it overemphasizes a topic that is not a major facet of the article. Cloonmore ( talk) 23:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this source can be used, but in this book, Don Sloan, M.D. terms (lower case) feminists for life "anti-choice feminists". He also says "'feminists for life,' as if other feminists weren't." A wry play on words, ultimately critical of FFL. Perhaps it can be used in passing. Binksternet ( talk) 01:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Recently, some back and forth changes have involved the presence or absence of the quote from Susan B. Anthony's periodical The Revolution which starts "Guilty?" One recent version had this blockquote standing alone:
As presented, the quote does not describe what FFL's position is regarding it. Quotes from 130–140 years ago have no bearing on FFL's issues of today unless they are connected overtly and forthrightly with the beliefs of FFL. Some text explaining FFL's stance on the quote must be present.
This version of the page from January 4, 2010 includes the quote, but frames it in terms of its use in Anthony's day:
A good description of the quote and its context can be found at prolifequakers.com.
The smaller version of the quote appears to leave out chunks of original verbiage without giving the reader notice, and that version has not a bit of explanatory text to enlighten the reader why it is important to FFL. The larger version of the quote is more complete but fails to place FFL's position in context with the extensive context given to its 19th century origins. Because of this failing, it required some work—perhaps some text describing when FFL began using it, on which materials or on which campaigns, and why they think it important. Instead, in this edit, Cloonmore took the whole thing out. Subsequently in this edit, Cloonmore re-inserted the quote but without its Anthony context, and with no new context regarding FFL. Without any context whatsoever, I cannot see its relevance to FFL and to this article. Binksternet ( talk) 03:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Here, too, the onus for inclusion of the quote in on the editor submitting the material. I cannot agree with having the quote with no context. Regarding having it with only 19th century context, this solution seems unsatisfactory as FFL was formed 100 years later, and new context should be added about how FFL views the quote or about how they have used it. Binksternet ( talk) 15:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Since there are only two people involved in this discussion at the moment, allow me to offer the following observation: the structure of the article is generally in need of improvement (the first four sections seem plonked at random; "Membership" is clearly related to "structure and chapters" and why is the ""Women Deserve Better" campaign" not part of "History"?). An area where this is particularly relevant to the matter in hand is the overlap between the subsection "Controversy over Susan B. Anthony" and the section "References to 19th century feminists". The latter is again rather oddly and contextlessly positioned. Think about how to improve the structure, and you may move this dispute forward as well. Rd232 talk 16:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I was going to add a simple citation to a sentence for the benefit of readers, before I found the page is currently protected due to a probably unresolvable dispute.
I was surprised to see that the citation is not already there, since the mere addition of it shows acknowledgment of an alternative position, whether or not it is expanded on, and thus providing a modicom of NPOV. The business mantra "location, location, location" is well known. The equivalent Wikimantra would probably be "citation, citation, citation". And the best writers on any subject at the very least acknowledge alternative positions. Enough dribble. Here is what I was going to add, before I found this is currently prevented.
FFL features prominently on its website a quote of Susan B. Anthony, although their quoting of her is not without controversy: [1] [2]
Whether or not the article elaborates on this is unrelated to the mere acknowlegement of it for the benefit of readers. A reader who wants to see what the controversy is about need only click on the inline citation, which takes them to the reference, which takes them to the source. A reader who has no interest in checking it out can continue reading without interruption, but is at least aware that there are other angles to check out should they want or need to. The mere insertion of the citation thus demonstrates that completely regardless of the perspective of individual editors, the article is intended to inform readers rather than drive a particular stance down their throats. Wotnow ( talk) 23:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
As a start, I have amended the above sentence re Susan B. Anthony quote to note the purpose of the quote and the existence of controversy over use of such quotes, with a link to the relevant section, and illustrative citations as currently available. This at least gives a self-contained sentence that can stand alone, regardless of how other paragraphs are developed and amended. Regards Wotnow ( talk) 22:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
This article provides a good example of why we generally avoid criticism sections - and we certainly don't send people to other parts of an article to find the criticism. It makes for poor writing and is a disservice to our readers as well as the subject of the article. Criticism and controversy sections such as this one also tend to be a magnet for WP:Soapboxing on all sides and invite more poor writing. Instead any appropriate content, with due weight, should be integrated in the main article and notable criticism summarized (like the rest of the article) in the lede. If they are criticized, for instance, for extremely high salaries then wherever salaries and compensation is discussed so should that criticism. If the only content we have is the criticism then it should be parked on the talkpage until the subject's response or other content about the salaries, in this example, is added. -- Banjeboi 20:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Katha Pollitt's assessment of FFL's mission goes against FFL's own mission statement. It's not unusual for an organization to say they do one thing but to do something different, or slightly different. FFL says:
Pollitt says that the actual work of FFL is less supportive of individual women and more a political action group—that FFL seeks to make abortion illegal and to punish doctors who perform abortions. The actual work of the group as observed by outsiders is discussed at length in the article body, so this assessment should be present in the article lead section. Binksternet ( talk) 01:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Binks, you're still trying to inject your POV into this article. In our prior discussion, you were hellbent on including in the lead the absurd sentence "FFL has been criticized by pro-choice advocates." As you know, I didn't offer only the NRA as an example of why you were flat wrong. I also cited the National Organization for Women. And NARAL. And the ACLU. And People for the American Way. None of them contains a lead written the way you claimed it should be written. That's because, like FFL, they're all *advocacy organizations*. And, by definition, someone's always going to differ with an advocacy organization. And now -- what a surprise! - you've again discovered that "abortion rights activists" take issue with FFL. It doesn't belong in the lead. It's way past time you quit your advocacy and tendentious editing. Cloonmore ( talk) 16:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I removed the {{tl:Feminism sidebar}} because this article is not about one of the concepts of feminism. Instead, this article is about an organization. Binksternet ( talk) 04:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I removed the Sharon Long quote that starts "regarding contraception". She repeats things Foster has said so her voice is not needed. The message is that there is a wide range of contraception beliefs in FFL's membership, which no one doubts. Foster says this in the NPR interview that is cited right there in the same paragraph. Long is simply not needed.
Another, smaller problem with the Long quote is that the source is inaccessible: http://98.129.134.2/doc/20100405/letter
The URL is to a document folder at The Nation in New York, one that gives me the result "access denied". I can tell by searching The Nation that it was indeed published, but the URL is not helpful to people who do not have a paid subscription. Binksternet ( talk) 04:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm working on too many other articles at the moment to take care of this, but if anyone wants "Contested Loyalties: Dissident Identity Organizations, Institutions, and Social Movements" by Kelsey Kretschmer (Journal of Sociological Perspectives, 52.4 Winter 2009), which discusses FFL, I can get it to them. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 18 external links on Feminists for Life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Feminists for Life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 18 external links on Feminists for Life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://98.129.134.2/doc/20100405/letter{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.feministsforlife.org/news/wdbWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as they meet five criteria. It is suspicious that certain policies are being called in to wholesale delete information about pro-life organizations. Elizium23 ( talk) 01:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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): Emilysmall6.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The following is in the first para:
"FFL and similar groups like the National Right to Life Committee FFL and similar groups like the National Right to Life Committee have been criticized, by pro-choice activists, amongst others, as being "motivated by politics, not by science, medical care, or the purposes of compassion." and using "feminist rhetoric"
I question that it belongs there. Nothing comparable is in the opening for the NARAL or NRLC article.
Something like, "Group X and similar groups like Y have been criticized, by pro-choice/pro-life activists, amongst others, as being "motivated by politics, not by science, medical care, or the purposes of compassion." would be a true statement when made of any ro-choice/pro-life group.
Should all pro-life/pro-choice groups have such an addition to there page? It seems superfluous. All of these groups claim that their opponents ignore science, are politicized, and lack compassion. I think that it should be removed or put elsewhere.
I grant that the criticism for using "feminist rhetoric" pertains to FFL, but if that is the significant point, then it should be made in terms of the 'genuineness' of the claim of FFL to feminism. OckRaz ( talk) 05:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Is rhere any reason to use a template? Where is that one from? I question some of the information included in it. On what basis is FFL's "Type" described as "non-profit pro-life feminist organization", its "Field" as "pro-life feminism," and its "Purpose" as "pro-life advocacy"? Sounds like someone just made it up. Cloonmore ( talk) 03:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The lede and the article fail to meet WP standards. The lede violates NPOV in various respects, is not reflective of the article as a whole, over-emphasizes and therefore magnifies criticism by pro-choice opponents of FFL and is too long. Hence, the tag. Cloonmore ( talk) 02:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I removed the Anthony quote "Sweeter even than to have had the joy of caring for children of my own has it been to me to help bring about a better state of things for mothers generally, so their unborn little ones could not be willed away from them" because she was not necessarily talking about abortion. The context was a question posed to her asking why she didn't have kids of her own. The interpretation of her response is wide open—it has been taken to mean a number of things. The mainstream Anthony scholars take it as a statement about patriarchal inheritance laws. A widow who bore her dead husband a child was not its legal protector—it was the child of the estate, not her child. Binksternet ( talk) 18:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Binkster, please don't preempt this discussion by unilaterally removing quotes at issue, as you just did. Your only stated basis for removing the SBA quote is that you contest whether SBA was talking about abortion per se. That's a fair point to make in the article, with reliable sources, but is not a valid basis for removing the quote wholesale. FFL features it prominently in its materials, and this article is about FFL. Again, you are appearing to be intent on injecting your POV into the article, and I would again caution you not to do so. Cloonmore ( talk) 17:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
These sentences are wrong for the lede: "A bill was sponsored by FFL in 2005–2006, the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Students Act. This bill was criticized for being a "largely hollow 'message bill'" that did little to help U.S. women." The first sentence is inaccurate: FFL didn't sponsor anything. The 2nd sentence gives undue weight to one pro-choice journalist's opinion, and misquotes her at that. The lede shouldn't even refer to the Stanton Act bill since it overemphasizes a topic that is not a major facet of the article. Cloonmore ( talk) 23:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if this source can be used, but in this book, Don Sloan, M.D. terms (lower case) feminists for life "anti-choice feminists". He also says "'feminists for life,' as if other feminists weren't." A wry play on words, ultimately critical of FFL. Perhaps it can be used in passing. Binksternet ( talk) 01:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Recently, some back and forth changes have involved the presence or absence of the quote from Susan B. Anthony's periodical The Revolution which starts "Guilty?" One recent version had this blockquote standing alone:
As presented, the quote does not describe what FFL's position is regarding it. Quotes from 130–140 years ago have no bearing on FFL's issues of today unless they are connected overtly and forthrightly with the beliefs of FFL. Some text explaining FFL's stance on the quote must be present.
This version of the page from January 4, 2010 includes the quote, but frames it in terms of its use in Anthony's day:
A good description of the quote and its context can be found at prolifequakers.com.
The smaller version of the quote appears to leave out chunks of original verbiage without giving the reader notice, and that version has not a bit of explanatory text to enlighten the reader why it is important to FFL. The larger version of the quote is more complete but fails to place FFL's position in context with the extensive context given to its 19th century origins. Because of this failing, it required some work—perhaps some text describing when FFL began using it, on which materials or on which campaigns, and why they think it important. Instead, in this edit, Cloonmore took the whole thing out. Subsequently in this edit, Cloonmore re-inserted the quote but without its Anthony context, and with no new context regarding FFL. Without any context whatsoever, I cannot see its relevance to FFL and to this article. Binksternet ( talk) 03:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Here, too, the onus for inclusion of the quote in on the editor submitting the material. I cannot agree with having the quote with no context. Regarding having it with only 19th century context, this solution seems unsatisfactory as FFL was formed 100 years later, and new context should be added about how FFL views the quote or about how they have used it. Binksternet ( talk) 15:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Since there are only two people involved in this discussion at the moment, allow me to offer the following observation: the structure of the article is generally in need of improvement (the first four sections seem plonked at random; "Membership" is clearly related to "structure and chapters" and why is the ""Women Deserve Better" campaign" not part of "History"?). An area where this is particularly relevant to the matter in hand is the overlap between the subsection "Controversy over Susan B. Anthony" and the section "References to 19th century feminists". The latter is again rather oddly and contextlessly positioned. Think about how to improve the structure, and you may move this dispute forward as well. Rd232 talk 16:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I was going to add a simple citation to a sentence for the benefit of readers, before I found the page is currently protected due to a probably unresolvable dispute.
I was surprised to see that the citation is not already there, since the mere addition of it shows acknowledgment of an alternative position, whether or not it is expanded on, and thus providing a modicom of NPOV. The business mantra "location, location, location" is well known. The equivalent Wikimantra would probably be "citation, citation, citation". And the best writers on any subject at the very least acknowledge alternative positions. Enough dribble. Here is what I was going to add, before I found this is currently prevented.
FFL features prominently on its website a quote of Susan B. Anthony, although their quoting of her is not without controversy: [1] [2]
Whether or not the article elaborates on this is unrelated to the mere acknowlegement of it for the benefit of readers. A reader who wants to see what the controversy is about need only click on the inline citation, which takes them to the reference, which takes them to the source. A reader who has no interest in checking it out can continue reading without interruption, but is at least aware that there are other angles to check out should they want or need to. The mere insertion of the citation thus demonstrates that completely regardless of the perspective of individual editors, the article is intended to inform readers rather than drive a particular stance down their throats. Wotnow ( talk) 23:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
As a start, I have amended the above sentence re Susan B. Anthony quote to note the purpose of the quote and the existence of controversy over use of such quotes, with a link to the relevant section, and illustrative citations as currently available. This at least gives a self-contained sentence that can stand alone, regardless of how other paragraphs are developed and amended. Regards Wotnow ( talk) 22:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
This article provides a good example of why we generally avoid criticism sections - and we certainly don't send people to other parts of an article to find the criticism. It makes for poor writing and is a disservice to our readers as well as the subject of the article. Criticism and controversy sections such as this one also tend to be a magnet for WP:Soapboxing on all sides and invite more poor writing. Instead any appropriate content, with due weight, should be integrated in the main article and notable criticism summarized (like the rest of the article) in the lede. If they are criticized, for instance, for extremely high salaries then wherever salaries and compensation is discussed so should that criticism. If the only content we have is the criticism then it should be parked on the talkpage until the subject's response or other content about the salaries, in this example, is added. -- Banjeboi 20:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Katha Pollitt's assessment of FFL's mission goes against FFL's own mission statement. It's not unusual for an organization to say they do one thing but to do something different, or slightly different. FFL says:
Pollitt says that the actual work of FFL is less supportive of individual women and more a political action group—that FFL seeks to make abortion illegal and to punish doctors who perform abortions. The actual work of the group as observed by outsiders is discussed at length in the article body, so this assessment should be present in the article lead section. Binksternet ( talk) 01:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Binks, you're still trying to inject your POV into this article. In our prior discussion, you were hellbent on including in the lead the absurd sentence "FFL has been criticized by pro-choice advocates." As you know, I didn't offer only the NRA as an example of why you were flat wrong. I also cited the National Organization for Women. And NARAL. And the ACLU. And People for the American Way. None of them contains a lead written the way you claimed it should be written. That's because, like FFL, they're all *advocacy organizations*. And, by definition, someone's always going to differ with an advocacy organization. And now -- what a surprise! - you've again discovered that "abortion rights activists" take issue with FFL. It doesn't belong in the lead. It's way past time you quit your advocacy and tendentious editing. Cloonmore ( talk) 16:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I removed the {{tl:Feminism sidebar}} because this article is not about one of the concepts of feminism. Instead, this article is about an organization. Binksternet ( talk) 04:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I removed the Sharon Long quote that starts "regarding contraception". She repeats things Foster has said so her voice is not needed. The message is that there is a wide range of contraception beliefs in FFL's membership, which no one doubts. Foster says this in the NPR interview that is cited right there in the same paragraph. Long is simply not needed.
Another, smaller problem with the Long quote is that the source is inaccessible: http://98.129.134.2/doc/20100405/letter
The URL is to a document folder at The Nation in New York, one that gives me the result "access denied". I can tell by searching The Nation that it was indeed published, but the URL is not helpful to people who do not have a paid subscription. Binksternet ( talk) 04:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm working on too many other articles at the moment to take care of this, but if anyone wants "Contested Loyalties: Dissident Identity Organizations, Institutions, and Social Movements" by Kelsey Kretschmer (Journal of Sociological Perspectives, 52.4 Winter 2009), which discusses FFL, I can get it to them. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 20:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 18 external links on Feminists for Life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Feminists for Life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 18 external links on Feminists for Life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://98.129.134.2/doc/20100405/letter{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.feministsforlife.org/news/wdbWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as they meet five criteria. It is suspicious that certain policies are being called in to wholesale delete information about pro-life organizations. Elizium23 ( talk) 01:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)