Talk:American Life League

message: :The views of ALL, such as attacks on Bill Gates [3] and criticisms of British Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, [4] are seen as bizarrely extreme by observers outside the USA.
I removed the above section, which was added by User:Hardcoredemocrat, because if you think about Bill Gates donating money to charities in Africa that promote contraception, it is completely logical. Also it doesn't site a source for the observations of those outside the USA, only ALL's attacks. AND even if it did cite a source there is no need for use of words "extremely bizarre" (for that is what he meant I hope), which seem overly dramatic. Chooserr 23:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning the international prespective of ALL's attacks on Bill Gates and others 

message: I removed this paragraph from the Controversy section. It's a bald assertion with no source.
American Life League is often controversial, and has been accused of being and divisive within the larger pro-life community. Of particular interest is separate, and often competing events during the weekend of the annual March for Life. In fact, American Life League was formed after Judie Brown disputed with other members of the National Right to Life Organization. Furthermore, ALL often runs advertisements in national newspapers campaigning for policy change and against certain bishops of the Catholic Church.
Even with a source, part of this seems to go against the WP:NPOV standard.
Andrew Flusche 04:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually, the Disney boycott thing is sourced, to Snopes.com (the links following each film name). But maybe what you meant is that you don't consider snopes.com a reliable source; if that's the case, we can use the Washington Post instead ("Group Sees Dirt In Dust"). Either way, the Disney boycott should be included since it's one of the actually notable (in the Wikipedia sense) things about this group. MastCell Talk 22:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification here. That was obviously my mistake. I wasn't trying to hide information in any way. I just overlooked the source. Sorry. In the end, I think the Post is definitely a more reliable source and helps give the article more weight. Andrew Flusche 00:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool... sounds good to me. Feel free to edit my paraphrase of the Washington Post article. I wasn't meaning to accuse you of anything; apologies if it came across that way. Anyhoo, the Post is definitely better than snopes.com as a source, so it works out. Welcome again to Wikipedia. MastCell Talk 01:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Sources 

message: Can't we find less biased sources than the groups "People For the American Way" and "Center for Media and Democracy", which both have a strong leftist slant, particularly on this issue? Sion 01:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on American Life League. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=3792#4
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on American Life League. 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/20070223071948/http://womensissues.about.com:80/od/reproductiverights/tp/ProLifeOrgs.htm to http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/tp/ProLifeOrgs.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=3792
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140326085902/http://www.all.org/nav/index/heading/MTM/cat/MjY5/ to http://www.all.org/nav/index/heading/MTM/cat/MjY5/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140326090013/http://www.all.org/associates/ to http://www.all.org/associates/
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) 11:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on American Life League. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/tp/ProLifeOrgs.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061011205055/http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=3792 to http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=3792
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: On the American Life League page, I removed two programs that are no longer active (they haven't been for years) and replaced them with two programs that are currently active. The editor reverted the edit -- why? The reversion now has old information because of it.
Additionally, I updated a section linking to Charity Navigator referencing 2012 information with more updated information, linking to the same Charity Navigator but in 2019, and the editor reverted that edit too. Why?
There was also a "citation needed" regarding the location the of the organization, so I provided a citation link to their contact page containing their address, phone number, etc and that was reverted. Why?
Byzic0n  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byzic0n (talk • contribs) 01:50, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: My edit summary explains why; you should read those policies to which I linked. ---Avatar317(talk) 04:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Also, by your edit summaries: "We are primarily education and have dedicated library and resources sections on our website in order to teach people about being pro-life" you sound like you are a member of this organization; if so, you should not be editing this article directly, but only making requests here on the Talk page since you have a conflict of interest WP:COI. ---Avatar317(talk) 04:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree with the reversion done by ; I would have reverted this edit too if I had seen it first. For starters Byzic0n, you don't get to remove referenced information from Wikipedia just because the programs are no longer active. All referenced history should be included (as long as it adheres to WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and other guidelines of course). Damien Linnane (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion