Talk:Crisis pregnancy center

message: In a lead-related disagreement that is closely intertwined with the discussion above, we have differing views of an attributed opinion that I sourced to two medical professional associations: , . In my opinion, it is better to attribute the opinion to the associations, than to say it vaguely in Wikipedia's voice. I also consider the source from the two associations, published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, is a reliable and due-weight source, with an impact factor ranking (per our page) of 9th out of 128 pediatrics journals and 30th out of 193 public health journals. I have notified WikiProject Medicine of this discussion, to get more opinions on the suitability of this material (). --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The ATTRIBUTED statement (as you put it) is clearly better than an UNATTRIBUTED "some" which is WP:WEASELWORDS. ---Avatar317(talk) 05:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: An attributed quotation is is fine when it has due weight in an article. The quote in question doesn't for a variety of reasons. The lead is supposed to preview the body of the article. While it is true that the body contains criticisms of crisis pregnancy centers, no material from the quoted sources appears in the body. The quote is a throw-in from otherwise unused sources and not especially prominent ones. These are not America's leading obstetric, gynecological, or pediatric societies. Thus to feature their quote in the lead is most definitely giving them undue weight. Perhaps the quote could be placed in an appropriate section in the body of the article. Goodtablemanners (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with including the material in both the lead and farther down on the page. It's an odd criterion to say that only the leading medical society is eligible for us to cite. Ones that are legitimate medical societies that represent medical practice in their indicated fields are reliable sources, as we define RS, for the mainstream views of practitioners in those medical fields. I hope that some editors from WP:MED will be able to advise us about these two societies. I'd also be happy to ask at WP:RSN. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

text: I've added it lower on the page, so that should take care of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Views of medical associations

message: The definition of a crisis pregnancy center is not as stated. This is a completely blatant example of political misinformation. A crisis pregnancy center is not a trap to torture pregnant "people." Some women have unplanned pregnancies and need help and resources. It seems as if the writer, who's article has been accepted by Wikipedia, is promoting the opinion that if a pregnancy is unplanned the baby should be killed and anyone who thinks otherwise is irresponsible including the mother. This is an example of political campaigning intentionally disguised as information. No one says 'tough luck' to the diabetic who can't afford insulin, "You should have tried making more money while you were eating all those cheeseburgers." 108.17.88.39 (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's much doubt that the basic purpose for their establishment was to persuade women from having abortions. Naturally, they don't just cast these women aside once that has been accomplished. That said, I'm sure that some pregnant women, who never intended to have an abortion in the first place, come to them for assistance, So, I will add the word "primarily" to the sentence in question. Goodtablemanners (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with adding "primarily", although I don't think it's absolutely necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate, misinformation 

message: The Waxman report material, if used at all, should go in the False medical information section of the article rather than the Legality of advertising methods section. One should also keep in mind that this source was not produced by the full Congressional committee that Waxman sat on, but rather by the staff of the minority party members. Goodtablemanners (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be fine with moving it to the other section. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

text: The Waxman report has been cited by relatively neutral mainstream media sources who portray Waxman's findings as authoritative and correct.  All of these sources describe the Waxman report as proving that false medical information is being given out by CPCs. So yes, the report should be shifted to the section about false medical information. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved it to that section. I also revised it to focus more on the false information, and less on the partisan politics, as well as revising the language so that it is no longer a verbatim copy from the (public domain) source. But I think it is clear that it belongs in the article, and should not be deleted entirely. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

text: I'm unpersuaded by the argument that, because the Waxman report is a primary source, we must present it as "according to": , . (I'm also concerned about an appearance of slow edit-warring by staying just outside of the 72-hour restriction, something that will not play well at AE if it continues.) If we had sourcing that cast doubt on the report, that would be another thing. But as Binksternet shows just above, numerous secondary sources cite the Waxman findings as being reliable and meaningful. It is clear to our readers that we are sourcing the content to that source, so there is nothing that would mislead our readers. Instead, treating the content as "according to" comes across as trying to cast doubt on the source in a way that falls afoul of WP:NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm okay with Avatar's wording here . For me, the Waxman Committee material is excess because there's already plenty of better sources for CPC misinformation. We don't really need to include a partisan political document that bases its conclusions on the responses of twenty-three of the thousands of existing CPCs. However, it isn't worth a battle from this quarter. Goodtablemanners (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I also support Avatar's version. I do not object to attribution, only to attribution that implies doubt. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waxman report material