Talk:Bernard Nathanson

message: This article has no references and is highly dubious in nature. It has been posted on Articles for Deletion, and will likely be dealt with there. Bumm13 05:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing incorrect in the assertions made here. While it does not provide references, Bumm13 could just as easily research them and see that they are correct rather than continue the wikipedia jihad against adding controversial articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.59.84.2 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It was rather sparse before and the deletion vote got my attention. Finding neutral sources is difficult, but hopefully I gave a variety of views on him despite the fact I'm personally Pro-Life.(Although in actuality I'm not sure how I feel on this particular Pro-Life person) Also some links and even a note that lists sources for one assertion. I wish though that I could find his birth year and also a neutral source or site. On the whole only activists on the abortion issue seem to still say anything about him.--T. Anthony 05:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean it to cast doubt on that he did it. I just wanted to mention that Pro-Choice people would often agree that doing so goes against their medical ethics as well. (I'm Pro-Life, but I believe this was listed as an NPOV violation when I edited it)--T. Anthony 10:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I can't find a way to reconcile this: 
"Bernard Nathanson is a medical doctor and former pro-life activist..." 
with the later text, particularly this:
"He is now a staunch supporter of the pro-life movement."
I naturally assume that the opening sentence was meant to read "...former pro-choice activist..." but I don't want to edit based on an assumption, and I know basically nothing about this person.  Can someone address this please? zadignose 06:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major error in opening text? 

message: Sorry for uncivil edit-summary ("Read article IF YOU CAN"), which was directed at Schrandit.  Schrandit's comments on the talk-page of the Jill Stanek article, about Stanek's support for domestic violence, show that Schrandit is severely reading-challenged.  Even still, the edit-summary is not the place to respond to this.  Humble apologies! SingingZombie (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Apology

message: When Nathanson co-founded NARAL, NARAL in contrast to this article, was National Association to Repeal Abortion Laws.  Kogut  (talk)  23:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I fixed it, kogut.  --Kenatipo (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  First name of NARAL 

message: An editor has repeatedly inserted links to a YouTube copy of Eclipse of Reason (e.g. ). I would like some reassurance that we're not linking to a blatant copyright violation. The film is currently sold by American Portrait Films, and does not appear to be freely distributed by the studio (please correct me if I'm wrong). It seems to me quite dubious to link a free YouTube copy of a film which appears to be under copyright and not freely available. Could the person adding these links, or anyone else, address this question? MastCell Talk 06:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The youtube uploader, rosaryfilms, operates a channel and appears to be an account of a small video production outfit called "Secret of the Rosary." In the beginning of the film is displayed a permission notice from Nathanson. Everything seems to be in order.– Lionel (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, nothing that you said inspires much confidence about the copyright status of the work. It's posted by a YouTube account that "appears" to belong to a "small video production outfit" called "Secrets of the Rosary"? They must be small, because I can't turn up any evidence on Google that even corroborates the existence of such an outfit (perhaps you can?)Secondly, anyone can claim that Nathanson gave them permission to show the film for free, particularly since Nathanson is deceased. I could open a YouTube account and make a similar claim. Why should we accord this anonymous YouTube account the benefit of the doubt for this rather exceptional claim, especially given that YouTube is notoriously rife with copyright-violating material?Finally, and most importantly, even if we take the aforementioned claims at face value, my understanding of copyright is that Nathanson cannot give permission to show the film for free, anymore than Martin Scorcese could give me permission to post "Taxi Driver" on YouTube. Nathanson presumably doesn't hold the copyright - American Portrait Films does, which is why they can market and sell the video. I am not a lawyer, but these strike me as extremely dubious copyright claims on a basic commonsense level, and out of keeping with your previously demonstrated zealous approach to copyright issues. MastCell Talk 16:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright status of film 

message: Aborting America is a perma-stub placeholder that contains no content.  I've proposed merging it here, mostly as a redirect. Viriditas (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Is it relevant to.... anything, that he once said three people in his family committed or attempted suicide?  How many had heart disease? Were there smokers? How about kidney stones?  It seems like it's a stealth was of saying 'early in his life, he had close influences that didn't value life. But then he learned the error of his ways." It's inclusion seems to violate WP:NOT.  Thoughts? 
Jwhite85 (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if that POV was the aim or not, but you're right at least that there's no apparent reason to include it, especially without a secondary source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seeing no objections, I'm gonna go ahead and take that down.  Jwhite85 (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Life and Education 

message: See http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/us/22nathanson.html?_r=0
Avb 10:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re performing/presiding over 60,000 abortions  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bernard Nathanson. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070403074816/http://www.aboutabortions.com:80/DrNathan.html to http://www.aboutabortions.com/DrNathan.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I reverted the recent addition of a tenuously related category link and a link to a copyright violation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: I've reverted "pro-life" to "anti-abortion" because it is Wikipedia's preferred neutral language, and indeed is reflected in the titles of things like categories. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pro-life"