Talk:Feminists for Life/Archive 2

message: Let's all agree that the article needs help. However, presenting piles of new paragraphs for comment, to me, seems a lot more confusing and is s-l-o-w-i-n-g the process of improvement. I suggest some of the least controversial sections be given a rewrite on these talk pages - each in their own section header so each chunk can be looked at and improved. I did also appreciate dividing up the current text with section headers and would have kept those if they weren't bundled with deletion of content at the same time.
So, if no one objects could we start with
1. adding section headers to divide up the larger sections into parts. 
2. starting with the least controversial areas (I know they all have their points of contention) posting proposed new text on these talk pages each in their own sections
Although the above might not be the best efficient process I think it will help keep us more productive and on target. If anyone thinks we should follow any other process for making improvements to the text by all means speak up now. Also as of now all personal jabs and anything as interpreted as less than a good faith effort to improve the article should come to a gracious stop - it isn't helping the article and that's the goal. If you're up for the above simply state sounds good to me or similar. Then let's get started or revisit the process so we can go ahead. FYI, I've added some templates to the article as well as wikilinks and grammar and punctuation clean-up. Benjiboi 23:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not simply breaking up "organization", you are deleting large and important chuncks of it. Benjiboi is suggesting we do the split first, then decide what text should be kept, changed, or removed. I agree with that process. Neitherday 23:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That was supposed to be two steps, however in editing I see the logic in doing it in one. I have made an edit (if it is disliked, it can be reverted). I've gone ahead and deleted some material in my edit and attempted to make some NPOV changes. What do people think (and I know more work needs to be done in the article, this is just the beginning. We just need to take this process slowly, so that it is easy to adjust for mistakes or concerns) Neitherday 00:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: A change that I see that could be made to my breakup: the 1970s are rather long and could be broken into "Early years" and "Equal Rights Amendment". Neitherday 00:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and made the split. If anyone has a problem with my two recent edits, let me know Neitherday 01:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everyone out of the pool - Timeout 

message: I think my next sweep will be to clean-up all the references and get them formatted ina  user-friendly way and, if easy enough, verify that they indeed cover whatever they are referencing. Benjiboi 10:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References clean-up 

message: FYI, I archived any old threads and the (very long) cut and paste of content/proposed content that made these pages longer than the article itself. Benjiboi 10:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page sections archived 

message: Hi all, please take a look at this article: Sarah Heath Palin, Middle Class Change or More of The Same. This is currently cited as a source for this article. An editor put it in recently, I took it out, ze put it back in.
It seems to me that this article is very poorly written. It is disorganized. It is a sort of stream-of-consciousness ramble about Sarah Palin, the vice-presidency, JFK, the author's family, Condoleezza Rice, NASA, the colors of the American flag, etc. It makes little sense.
Given this, I believe this article should not be used as a reference. If the author writes so poorly, is it safe to assume she got her facts right?
Note the disclaimer at the end: The American Chronicle and its affiliates have no responsibility for the views, opinions and information communicated here. The contributor(s) and news providers are fully responsible for their content.
Opinions, please. Tualha (Talk) 02:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources are used in context and I see that the information that was to be cited was by yet another source so it would seem that, at least in this case, the source was correct. We don't assume that a less gifted writer is wrong. What we can do is present additional sources that dispute what this one states, if there are any, and then look into what is both true and verifiable. Banjeboi 03:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not getting much input here, so I've moved the discussion to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Tualha (Talk) 18:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call for consensus on the reliability of a source 

message: I would like to state that Feminists for Life does not have state chapters any longer, their last major chapter was known as Feminists for Life of New York and without warning they dismissed this chapter in 2007, it is now known as Feminists Choosing Life for New York. 216.201.33.27 07:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chapters no longer existant 

message: This link here has some possible material for the article. It's been sitting on my talk page and I want anyone to feel free to use it if they want to. Benjiboi 13:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible sources 

message: Feminists for life's philosophy seems to be extremely socialist, and even their arguements are that women have abortions because of society, should this be included? 216.201.48.10 (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a reliable source then go for it. Banjeboi 14:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Socialist

message: I remember seeing a pretty clear discussion about the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" both being inherently POV. It's used in the first sentence. Thoughts? --Hawkian (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are. But there is a wikipedia truce to use these terms, as you can see by the fact that the respective articles are so-named. The point is that any other terms are just as inherently POV. Homunq (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-life? 

message: I've seen some criticism of the group, e.g. in the Pollitt article. Is there some guideline or policy against having a Criticism section? Or is it just that no one has made one yet? Tualha (Talk) 17:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The best way to approach that, IMHO, is to write a neutral summary statement at the end of the lede - something like "FFL has been criticized by _____ for _____". And, of course provide sourcing. Banjeboi 22:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I added a statement in the lede. A section could certainly be built - usually they are toward the end of an article and titled "Criticism". Banjeboi 23:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Update I stand corrected - a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per WP:CRIT. Banjeboi 02:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CRIT isn't policy, or even a guideline. It's just an essay. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: The section on the Susan B. Anthony house is to my mind, quite poorly written. Although it supposedly discusses the organization's ownership of the feminist icon's house, it primarily serves as an argument that she supported their position. What would the best language for a rewrite be?--66.65.125.206 (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a bit of a rewrite, see if that helps. Banjeboi 02:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First half is definitely better. I'm wondering about the quotes, though--they seem like the sort of thing FfL would deliberately cite to show support from Susan B. Anthony, and the inclusion of Elizabeth Cady Stanton seems tangential at best. Thanks for the work so far, though! I really appreciate it.--66.65.125.206 (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Stanton and Anthony are seen as iconic figures in the issue much as other groups declare their icons or note celebrities. The quotes are both about abortion which is the central issue of this group, they are sourced as well and I even trimmed one down. I don't think I would support removing any of that content. Banjeboi 03:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done another rewrite, starting with the header which gave the reader the idea that the house was under discussion when it was mostly the women's views. Now, the material is presented as the women's views, and the house is appended. And I've brought some context into the Anthony quote which was not presented to her readership quite the same way that it was presented here. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Susan B. Anthony 

message: The position of Sarah Palin on contraception is in dispute.  She had previously taken a pro-contraception position.  Current campaign planks oppose contraception.Dstern1 (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a reliable source showing she is now anti-contraception as has been suggested. We can then sort out how to work this content on this article.  -- Banjeboi 02:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

text: She may have accepted the parties policy as written but we need to show that via a reliable source. We go by verifiability not truth. We also don't delete content because we believe it's no longer true for the same reason. It's a reliably sourced statement and when something emerges that shows otherwise we contrast the two. Hopefully a source that is considered reliable can be found to help clarify the issue and resolve this.  -- Banjeboi 00:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

text: No, you do not understand.  The appropriate action is to make none of the changes you are proposing.  Your speculation that she believes in and supports every jot and tittle of the party platform is prohibited original research that is also more likely false than true - generally speaking, even presidential candidates don't support or personally believe in every jot and tittle of their parties platforms, which contain compromises between different factions of the party and recycling of material left over from prior platforms.  If she issues a statement herself specifically about this issue, then after she does so, we can see what it says and what changes might be appropriate.  GRBerry 14:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

text: As this has been a touchy issue on this article please start a new section with any sources and a proposal of what changes you think are called for - this way we can agree on changes and implement them.  -- Banjeboi 18:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarah Palin 

message: These links were removed per WP:EL, they may be useful as sources or otherwise help in editing the article.  -- Banjeboi 20:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed links 

message: I got a message about an edit I made without also providing an explanation--I'm very new to this and didn't mean to violate a convention that makes good sense.  I'd like to just explain my thinking, but I'll stay away from making any more actual changes unless the person who reverted my edit wants to change her/his mind.
The second para said: 
Feminists for Life maintains that being pro-life is compatible with feminism, and, further, that it is the natural conclusion of feminist values. Members and supporters of the organization claim that being a pro-life feminist is not an oxymoron.
I deleted the final sentence because it didn't seem to add any meaning at all.  If it's already established that the group feels that being pro-life is compatible with feminism, and beyond that, that being pro-life is the natural conclusion that follows from feminist beliefs, <I>of course</I> they feel like being a pro-life feminist is not an oxymoron.  It seemed to me that the sentence was totally redundant.
Anyway, no more edits without explanations from me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.53.244 (talk) 04:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  An edit I made without a note 

message: The Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Act is mentioned, but there is no explanation of what that is.  That seems like a significant omission.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by OckRaz (talk • contribs) 00:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: legislative goal

message: This footnote:
^ Abortion Foes See Validation for New Tactic; Robin Toner, New York Times - 22 May, 2007
links to an article whose only mention of FFL is...
The anti-abortion movement’s focus on women has been building for a decade or more, advanced by groups like the conservative Justice Foundation, the National Right to Life Committee and Feminists for Life.
We think of ourselves as very pro-woman, said Wanda Franz, president of the National Right to Life Committee. We believe that when you help the woman, you help the baby.
It is embodied in much of the imagery and advertising of the anti-abortion movement in recent years, especially the Women Deserve Better Than Abortion campaign by Feminists for Life, the group that counts Jane Sullivan Roberts, the wife of the chief justice, among its most prominent supporters
This doesn't support:
being "motivated by politics, not by science, medical care, or the purposes of compassion." and using "feminist rhetoric"
which is the statement to which the footnote is attached.
Therefore, I am deleting the footnote. OckRaz (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes