The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
well, it's not about pro-choice! -- Kenatipo speak! 22:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I reverted an edit by user:kenatipo to remove a secondary source from a research group on abortions for the subject's about us page. I believe that a secondary source is preferable to a subject's "About Us" page as it establishes notability as well as being a secondary source. Furthermore, I undid the edit changing the link to Pro-choice in "See also" to Pro-life, Pro-life is already linked and therefore should not be linked in "See also" per policy. W M O 22:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Abortion is not healthcare. -- Kenatipo speak! 22:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Why has this been removed? WMO, you may have some explaining to do on this one. -- Kenatipo speak! 22:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The New York Times is not a neutral source in the abortion debate. They always seem to refer to prolifers as "abortion foes". -- Kenatipo speak! 22:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I will be adding that quote back. It is NOT a mission statement. It just tells what they do. The mission statement is on another page of their website. Please read WP:MISSION. -- Kenatipo speak! 00:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a controversial article, can you please provide a source for your recent addition from a third party/neutral/reliable place or remove it? Thanks. W M O 00:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Where is there any unsourced material? - Haymaker ( talk) 00:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Guttmacher says 700 because its 9 years out of date. How many times have you put it back, WMO? -- Kenatipo speak! 01:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything I can stick this on as a reference, but fwiw... http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LICENSE_NUMBER=14563&P_LTE_ID=820 -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 17:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Appreciate your help. (But I have a feeling this article won't stay this way for long). Do you think the article is NPOV at this point? (Is there a barnstar for brown-nosing)? -- Kenatipo speak! 19:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there a consensus for the tag saying this article is "controversial"? I don't see anything controversial in it. My vote is remove tag on this page. -- Kenatipo speak! 19:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to replace this with prose of some sort? W M O 19:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
This is the guideline from WP:RS:
The article currently fails the last requirement. Furthermore, much of the information "verified" using self published sources is self-serving and I think that there can be reasonable doubt as to their authenticity. Look at the crisis pregnancy centers article, if they lie about all that (which they do) I think there is very reasonable grounds to question everything they say. Therefore, I ask that those involved in this article find third party/reliable/neutral sources on the claims made in the article. This includes for those that are supposedly verified using suspect self-published sources from the website. I will begin the process of challenging and removing information shortly if this is not done. (I will do my best to find some as well, I note that both of the sources that are third party in the article were found by me, so this isn't a matter of trying to take out information, I honestly don't think there is enough information about it in reliable sources to make some of the claims we do) W M O Please leave me a wb if you reply 05:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on National Institute of Family and Life Advocates. 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) 21:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
well, it's not about pro-choice! -- Kenatipo speak! 22:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I reverted an edit by user:kenatipo to remove a secondary source from a research group on abortions for the subject's about us page. I believe that a secondary source is preferable to a subject's "About Us" page as it establishes notability as well as being a secondary source. Furthermore, I undid the edit changing the link to Pro-choice in "See also" to Pro-life, Pro-life is already linked and therefore should not be linked in "See also" per policy. W M O 22:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Abortion is not healthcare. -- Kenatipo speak! 22:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Why has this been removed? WMO, you may have some explaining to do on this one. -- Kenatipo speak! 22:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The New York Times is not a neutral source in the abortion debate. They always seem to refer to prolifers as "abortion foes". -- Kenatipo speak! 22:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I will be adding that quote back. It is NOT a mission statement. It just tells what they do. The mission statement is on another page of their website. Please read WP:MISSION. -- Kenatipo speak! 00:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a controversial article, can you please provide a source for your recent addition from a third party/neutral/reliable place or remove it? Thanks. W M O 00:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Where is there any unsourced material? - Haymaker ( talk) 00:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Guttmacher says 700 because its 9 years out of date. How many times have you put it back, WMO? -- Kenatipo speak! 01:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything I can stick this on as a reference, but fwiw... http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LICENSE_NUMBER=14563&P_LTE_ID=820 -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 17:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Appreciate your help. (But I have a feeling this article won't stay this way for long). Do you think the article is NPOV at this point? (Is there a barnstar for brown-nosing)? -- Kenatipo speak! 19:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there a consensus for the tag saying this article is "controversial"? I don't see anything controversial in it. My vote is remove tag on this page. -- Kenatipo speak! 19:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to replace this with prose of some sort? W M O 19:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
This is the guideline from WP:RS:
The article currently fails the last requirement. Furthermore, much of the information "verified" using self published sources is self-serving and I think that there can be reasonable doubt as to their authenticity. Look at the crisis pregnancy centers article, if they lie about all that (which they do) I think there is very reasonable grounds to question everything they say. Therefore, I ask that those involved in this article find third party/reliable/neutral sources on the claims made in the article. This includes for those that are supposedly verified using suspect self-published sources from the website. I will begin the process of challenging and removing information shortly if this is not done. (I will do my best to find some as well, I note that both of the sources that are third party in the article were found by me, so this isn't a matter of trying to take out information, I honestly don't think there is enough information about it in reliable sources to make some of the claims we do) W M O Please leave me a wb if you reply 05:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on National Institute of Family and Life Advocates. 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) 21:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)