This is an archive of past discussions about Crisis pregnancy center. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
RFC: Statement of faith and workplace discrimination
In order to become an affiliate of some CPCs organizations a CPC's staff and volunteers have to be willing to sign a statement of faith. Is it acceptable synthesis that into text that reads that "Many CPCs require their staff to be Christian" and allege work-place discrimination? - Schrandit (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Schrandit fails to mention that the institutions that require this statement of faith are the largest in the USA and Canada respectively, affiliating with well over one thousand centers, and that we also cite unaffiliated centers that require personnel to be Christian. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Those are all volunteer positions and affiliations. Those do not verify the legally weight claims of workplace discrimination. - Schrandit (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Because a company that requires volunteers to be Christian is definitely run by Jews and atheists - but that quibble doesn't really matter, since even without those centers, we still have Care Net and CAPSS, which account for well over a thousand CPCs and which specify that paid workers must also comply with said statement of faith. Care to try another argument? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any reason to suppose that Care Net and CAPSS are lying about making every employee and volunteer of every affiliate sign a statement of faith in Jesus? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The staff in question are not employees of Care Net of CAPSS. Our current text states "Many CPCs require their staff to be Christian.". Do you or do you not have a reliable source that can verify that text? - Schrandit (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
If they are representing the CPC, serving its purposes, the question of whether they are volunteers or paid employees is unimportant. The word staff includes both. Binksternet (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
It is me, BTW, I changed usernames in case you didn't know. The question as to whether they are volunteers or paid staff is incredibly important. If Christianity is a requisite for employment this is workplace discrimination. If we allege workplace discrimination without reason (not only would that fail WP:V) that is defamation. Do we have a source which states that Christianity is a requisite for employment? - Haymaker (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Allegations of workplace discrimination will only be placed in the article if there are explicit allegations, not implied allegations. Such allegations do not stop us from saying that staff are required to sign a statement of religious faith. We are not trying to lead the reader to a synthesis; we are simply describing the situation to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how you could get more explicit than "Many CPCs require their staff to be Christian.". Whats wrong with just spelling out the affiliation process? - Haymaker (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
More explicit is "CPCs have been accused by xx organization or person as violating the laws of workplace discrimination."[reliable reference] That's what is needed to place such allegations into the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Schrandit/Haymaker, your advocacy might have a more valid basis if the standards of affiliation didn't explicitly specify that paid staff also had to comply with the statement of faith, and they might be more reasonable if CPCs as religious organizations weren't exempt from workplace discrimination laws. Do you have any real arguments? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
1. - You have a source that says that the CPCs in question are religious organizations under the tax code?
2. - Assuming that said affiliation was the result of, and continuing impetus for religious workplace discrimination without a source is unacceptable OR and borderline defamation. - Haymaker (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm assuming that that's the reason why they feel secure publicly stating that they only allow Christians to work for their centers. But we don't need to know their reasoning. If we find a source that explains their reasoning, we can add it, but knowing the inner workings of their minds isn't necessary in order to add a line about their behavior. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Come on. You're posting unsourced accusations and I'm support to accept that lack of sources because you think they're hiding it. - Haymaker (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not accusing anyone. I'm simply transmitting the content of the sources, which we have no reason to doubt. Why don't you read the sources and then get back to us? Don't worry, you shouldn't have too hard a time - they don't use very big words. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I read all of our sources and none of them say that one has to be a Christian to be hired by a CPC. Do you have such a source? - Haymaker (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Dude, the standards of affiliation are cited in the article and have been for weeks. If you can't read, you shouldn't be editing articles here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Haymaker, we are simply describing how the CPCs conduct themselves. Describing the conduct is not alleging workplace discrimination, even if the kind of conduct described has been prosecuted as workplace discrimination in some times and places. You are getting all balled up worrying about the difference between describing observed behavior and allegations which have not been made. We are free to describe behavior. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
No, you're describing how you think CPCs work. We, at present, have no sources that say that Christianity is a requisite for employment at a CPC. - Haymaker (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
No, because it's the one sourced to the most news articles, ie., most of the mainstream information we have on CPCs is currently about their false medical information, and it's a major point of the article. Please reread points 2 and 3 (for 3, see also WP:STRUCTURE) as well if you plan to continue advocating that the section be moved. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, not all the news articles have the false information as a focus, of course. If you want to write a section on how CPCs are sometimes seen as constituting a new strategy in the "abortion war," I think that would be a great section. But the point remains that it's the section with the most news support. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
RFC: Pictures of sonograms
The page Crisis Pregnancy Center is 40 kb long and has no pictures. The article has an entire section on the use of sonograms. I would like to include a picture of a sonogram in that section. I am being opposed by an editor who believe that the inclusion of a picture of a sonogram would be a violation of NPOV. Is it a violation of NPOV to include a picture of a sonogram in a section on the use of sonograms? - Haymaker (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
And Haymaker is omitting information. What a shock!
I oppose the inclusion of the picture because the section is not only about sonograms - it's about how these centers use sonograms to try to persuade women not to have abortions. Given this fact, I think the POV problem in including a picture of a sonogram is obvious. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. The image advances an emotional argument and is not neutral. Its presence would be a political victory by the CPCs which are discussed in the article. It should be removed. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems unlikely to me that such an image would be appropriate per NPOV. However, it's going to be difficult for newcomers to this discussion if they can't see the image in question. --FormerIP (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that the image should be included with a suitable caption, e.g., "CPCs use sonogram images to convince pregnant women that a fetus looks like a baby", or something like that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Opposed Seeing that no one in my country (Canada) would do an elective abortion at 20 weeks this is not really an appropriate image. Linking to the article on ultrasound should be sufficient.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment A better image IMO would be of one of the billboards that this group uses to promote itself with an appropriate caption [1]. People protesting in front of one of these clinics may also be useful [2]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Do the owners of those photos say anything about fair use? Before we start debating the individual merits of any picture, we need to make sure we can include it if we decide it's good! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I figured DJ was spinning this off into a larger discussion about pictures for the article. Why does the sonogram section need to be the one to have a picture? Much better to have one that shows a CPC in some way. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
A reasonable enough goal, but not the one that the RFC asks about.
I was just suggesting pictures in general. The US section does not need a picture. Someone said the article did not have any. To get these pictures someone would have to go out with a camera and get it. Not that hard to do.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Other images might be nice, but the RFC is specifically about including an image of a sonogram, in the section about sonograms, so they're not really responsive. Adding other images doesn't resolve the question of whether an image from an ultrasound should be included.
Roscelese, your "aforementioned reason" is that "the POV problem in including a picture of a sonogram is obvious". Please assume that I'm particularly dense this morning, and tell me directly what the POV problem is. Does it violate GEVAL? Does it violate UNDUE? What exactly is the "obvious" POV problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I think including a propaganda image is free advertising for one side. (Although it would be a fascinating thing to include if there was an article on propaganda strategies in the abortion debate - at the moment, that content is spread across a number of articles.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The article abortion contains plenty of images that both sides could think of as (and have accused of being) propaganda. If an image is relevant and informative we should not be constrained from using it because some people don't like it. - Haymaker (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
wikt:propaganda says propaganda is "a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people."
Merriam-Webster says it means "ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause".
How does "this is the kind of thing they're showing to pregnant women" influence anyone's opinions or further a cause? What "set of messages" do you think is present in an ultrasound image? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Er, because context matters, and the "pro-life" movement's use of images of fetuses in CPCs doesn't exist in a vacuum separate from their use of images of fetuses in protests? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
These issues of "context" exist on other issues but have not been used to encumber other articles. This is a poor excuse to censor an article. - Haymaker (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I declare, I'll never understand this tendency of yours to pretend I haven't said something that I have indeed said. This isn't even misrepresenting sources that anyone can easily access by following links - this is saying that something on this very same page isn't actually on this page! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The other four "oppose" votes would seem to disagree with you. Now, do you have something useful to say, or are you going to keep sniping at me because you're sad that your picture was voted down? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
(←) Roscelese, do you have reliable sources for your assertion that an ultrasound image in a medical clinic is just another type of political protest image, or is that your own original research?
Personally, I have a hard time thinking of an ultrasound image as being anything other than medical information. The "set of messages" in these images from where I sit is pretty much limited to size, development stage, likely date of conception, and the possible presence of deformities. The "message" I'd send by placing an image in the article is "If you didn't know what an ultrasound image looked like, then now you do."
Fundamentally, I think that including an image helps people with limited English skills and limited medical knowledge understand what the section is talking about. Some of our readers are too young, too disadvantaged, or too limited in their English skills to know what we're talking about. I'm not sold on Haymaker's choice of image—it's atypical—but I think that some image from an ultrasound would be appropriate. We can (and should) set the context with a suitable caption. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The article itself states that CPCs use ultrasound images to get people to favor one decision over another. Why does Wikipedia need to help them out? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with your implication that providing neutral and accurate information about what these images is "helping them out" in any way. For one thing, our target audience isn't pregnant women, so there's no decision to be favored one way or the other. For another, seeing what the image looks like lets the reader immediately make up his own mind about whether these images could sway someone's decision. A reader might, for example, look at the typical, grainy, black-and-white image from an ultrasound of an early pregnancy and decide that the CPCs are wasting their money on ultrasound equipment.
But if you're afraid that people will make the "wrong" decision if they have full information, then I doubt that anything anyone says here will have the least effect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Dude, I don't really care whether the decision is "wrong" or "right," whether ultrasounds really are a good way of persuading pregnant women not to have abortions or whether most of them really look at the screen and think "oh, a blob." It's not our job to further anyone's agenda, whether they're doing a good job of it themselves or not. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
All that should be at issue is whether or not a picture of a sonogram further helps to illustrate to the reader what a sonogram is. - Haymaker (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Again: how exactly does an image of a sonogram "further anyone's agenda"? You keep asserting that the addition of such an image would further the CPC's agenda, but you have not explained how an image like the ones below actually do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Support Of course it's relevant and also needed to break up the long text. I don't see how it could possibly violate NPOV. Although obviously such images are used by anti-abortion propagandists, it's like saying a picture of a sick puppy is NPOV because such pictures are used as propaganda by the SPCA, or something. It's just a sonogram of a fetus, for pete's sake. Apollo (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there a sizable contingent intent on denying that puppies deserve better? Which is to say, is there an actual political debate that would make the inclusion of a puppy image have the effect of Wikipedia's advertising for one side? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Stylistically similar to the above, but ~12 weeks.
Probably the type of ultrasound actually being used in most facilities.
Thinking about Doc James' comment above about abortions being quite rare at 20 weeks, either of these images, which are from about 12 weeks, might be preferable. Something from around 8 weeks since LMP would be even better, since more than half of American abortions take place within six weeks of conception. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I think there clearly is an NPOV thing here which the above support ignores. I don't think you can illustrate a passage about the contentious use of a certain type of image by making use of that type of image. Similarly, we wouldn't put a picture of some pornography at MediaWatch-UK#Pornography or pictures of God all over Aniconism in Islam. It's about what the encyclopedic value is. We've also got the rest of the article to put images in if we want. --FormerIP (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And the article on Obstetric ultrasonography contains an image of an obstetric ultrasound. This isn't the article on obstetric ultrasonography. (A couple of other articles use the cartoons as well, some but not all in contexts I think are unnecessary, but guess what? It's possible to stay on topic. The images are used to prejudice people in favor of one particular choice. They don't contribute anything essential to the article, because people can click links if they want to know what an ultrasound looks like. There is no reason to include them.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, though, it's about what the encyclopedic value is. The Muhammed cartoons add value to the article because people visiting the page will be interested to see them. For this page, a sonogram seems a random choice of image (ignoring the issue of whether it is agenda-pushing). --FormerIP (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The same can be said here: An ultrasound image adds value because people visiting the page will be interested to see what these images look like. "Here's cartoon that caused the dispute discussed in this article" is no different from "Here's the kind of medical image that caused the dispute discussed in this section." It's not even slightly random: The entire section is solely about the use of these images. If the reader can see the image, then the reader will have more information about the contents of the section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The section doesn't allege any dispute, and if a reader wants to find out what ultrasounds look like, they'll go to the ultrasound article, where the images are presented in a neutral context. The combination of POV and uselessness makes this a poor choice, and if you think that an article of this length should have an image, I recommend finding one of (surprise) a CPC, since that's what the article is about. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why this would be any less a neutral a setting. If anything it would be better as it has a whole section on how sonograms are used. - Haymaker (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm late to the party, I guess. In any event, I'll just rephrase what others have said: the section in question is about, in summary, "The use of sonograms to persuade pregnant women not to abort." A picture of a sonogram does not adequately represent this section. Perhaps a picture of a pregnant woman being shown a sonogram might, but not a sonogram itself. I don't see how seeing a sonogram itself helps me, a new reader, understand this section of the article better. I do think, though, that sonogram should be wikilinked, probably piped past the disambiguation page directly to Medical ultrasonography. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that having a picture of a woman getting a sonogram would be acceptable on general principle, but I also think it would have to be a picture of a woman getting a sonogram at a CPC. This is a picture in a hospital. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "hospital" is a reasonable translation of "University Women's Clinic", or that bare walls, windows, and curtains are sufficient to identify the location, but I agree that this image is not ideal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
That German university clinic offers abortions—it cannot be used to represent the opposite. The woman in the picture is clearly beyond the 'crisis' point in her pregnancy. Binksternet (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - this is my first involvement in this article. I disclose that I have a potential conflict of interest, I have financially supported Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America previously. Ultrasounds are previously a propaganda item used by many anti-choice activists. [4] By putting an image in the article, it will violate WP:NPOV as the wide decimation of ultrasound images is a goal of these CPCs, and its inclusion would constitute support of those goals. WikiManOne02:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Pictures in article
Other editors were starting to get annoyed that the RfC on images of sonograms was getting off-topic and onto a discussion of images in general, so here's a new thread for that. Any suggestions for images? (Keep in mind that it's really doubtful that any fair-use rationale could be found, so please make sure that an image is free before suggesting it!) I recommend, unsurprisingly, that we find an image of a CPC, since that's what the article's about. Flickr hasn't been too helpful because it's absolutely flooded with images of golf outings to raise money for CPCs and parties for CPC clients and that sort of thing, but not many images of CPCs themselves. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
No, I agree it isn't exciting. But, given the above controversy, maybe the most boring possible image is the way to go... --FormerIP (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
In Ireland (where abortion is illegal except when pregnancy endangers the mother's life) the government has created the Crisis Pregnancy Programme (formerly the Crisis Pregnancy Agency), a nation-wide working group to address crisis pregnancies. One of its objectives is to reduce the number of women who opt for abortion, though in contrast to American crisis pregnancy centers, the primary method it uses in pursuit of this goal is the provision of "services and supports which make other options more attractive."[82] The CPP funds crisis pregnancy initiatives and is in turn reimbursed by the Health Service Executive.[82]
I like it, but I recommend holding back until the article has more pictures - at the very least, a neutral lead image of a CPC. It would be bad to have the only image in the article be a biased one. That said, thank you for bringing to my attention that Irish CPCs also have protesters and issues with false medical information; I'll add that. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Here's the link [6] the picture came from, as it states at the footer the pictures are allowed for non-commercial reuse. It has links to other relevant news articles on that particular protest if you're looking for that. [7] If you need help with this article, feel free to ask. I am mostly focusing on articles around my town and the Tea Party Movement article at this time, but I am willing to give input whenever. WikiManOne04:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Great protest photo, but darn it, the "non-commercial reuse" restriction eliminates it from easy use at Wikipedia. Content hosted by Wikipedia can and will be used by others for commercial purposes, so the photo's restrictions disallow it except under non-free fair-use rationale. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Ireland
I'm not from Ireland, so I'm not as familiar as I could be with the situation there and with the language used to discuss it. Some of the resources on "rogue agencies" which seek to dissuade women from abortion and which provide untrue information, such as this story, refer to "genuine" crisis pregnancy agencies. But we have other sources that mention that the (government) Crisis Pregnancy Agency's goal is to dissuade women from abortion. What difference is there here? Is it only that the "genuine" ones do not provide false information, and rather pursue their goal through the "services and supports" already mentioned in the article? Or is there something I'm missing here where "genuine" CPAs are non-directive? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Making the article better!
This article appears always to have had the problem that elements of the topic simply aren't covered. Some of that has been corrected - for example, the "false information" and "religion" sections are fairly new - but, for example, a lot of news coverage also discusses how CPCs are a "new strategy" in the political conflict over abortion, and I think that's deserving of a section because of the way coverage focuses on it sometimes. Would y'all agree and/or be interested in writing said section? (If you agree but don't feel like writing it, I probably will sometime.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree, but I don't have time to write it but I'd be happy to comment, etc. Definitely worth mentioning how pro-life forces are behind this whole thing. WikiManOne00:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, that's not what I meant. News sources seem to generally take it as a given that the motive behind the establishment of these centers is to persuade people not to have abortions. But a number of sources (some already cited - Time, for example - and some probably not) discuss how CPCs are the "new" face of the anti-abortion movement - they are kind and gentle and fluffy, or something, and not all of them use bloody fetus pictures. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Are they "new" or "newly noticed"? <humor>It took them 15 years to become an overnight success!</humor>
I question whether the criticism section needs to exist at all. Currently it is just restating things found in other sections of the article. I propose incorportating the specific "crticism" by particular organizations into the appropriate sections.Marauder40 (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree in principle, but since some of the criticism is related to their advertising methods, I think the information about their advertising should first be split from "CPC services" into a subsection on advertising. I'm not sure if the medical-facility-related stuff would belong there or in another new section. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I've already alluded to problems with the section on Ireland. I'm really questioning now whether it should be included at all. While similar terms are used, the centers are much more like pregnancy options counseling than the CPCs we're describing in this article. I think in order to discuss Ireland, we would have to focus our coverage on these "rogue agencies" whose behavior matches that of (American/Canadian/British) CPCs, rather than on programs that are superficially similar but that lack the defining characteristic of a CPC as we've defined it, ie. the refusal to help a client obtain an abortion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
What makes you the arbiter of what is and is not a CPC? They are CPCs funded by the Irish government, if this is a global article I don't see why they wouldn't be included. - Haymaker (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
So, in your opinion, CPCs are not "pro-life" organizations and do help women obtain abortions? That's in stark contrast to the sources we have about CPCs, so you'd have to provide references to support your view. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
This supposed re-adding of the Irish section by Haymaker was greatly flawed in that it did not restore the negative information about "rogue agencies". I consider the restoration very non-neutral. Binksternet (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Mandatory Counseling
It's kinda interesting that reading the PP article you would never guess they vacuum wombs, and reading this article you would never guess that they save babies. The stench of POV in this article is overwhelming... Wait a sec... I'm going to open a window. This section is a baby step (pun intended) in fixing the article. I'm sure the good folks in SC and SD bloviated ad nauseum about the wonderful attributes of CPCs - let's add it already!
Anyway, Ros has asked me to revert S Carolina. Well, I don't think so: "It provides Internet links on the State Department of Health and Environmental Control website to pregnancy centers that offer free ultrasounds."
Also, this section should not be hidden in "Services". Don't you think 2 states (more on the way) mandating CPC counseling deserves it's own section? Lionel (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Since you mentioned NPOV, then please stop using unreliable sources like "lifenews.com". Unless there is significant media coverage, I'm not sure we need info on pending state legislation yet. The SC bill has NOTHING to do with CPCs, from what I gather. Many states already have mandatory waiting periods. Many states have mandatory counseling. None, except the SD bill, specify that a CPC must do the counseling (well they specify that a "pregnancy help center" must do it). Your new section has some facts wrong and is misleading because of this. I think we should wait for the bill to pass, and gather some more reliable sources and see what we can say about it. I believe the SD bill is notable, and probably we will have the sources for coverage in this article. But what we have now is problematic for the above reasons. -Andrew c[talk]23:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Lionel, you aren't helping yourself by ranting about abortion. Now, if it's really true that South Carolina mandates CPC counseling, you should be able to find a reliable source that says so. You haven't even provided an unreliable source that says so. As Andrew says, "mandatory counseling" does not equal "mandatory CPC visit" - and, as I pointed out to you, South Carolina doesn't even have mandatory counseling! They have a mandatory review of printed material which includes the addresses of those local CPCs which provide ultrasounds. I don't understand why you didn't revert yourself after this mistake was pointed out to you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Effectiveness
I think we need a section discussing CPC results from a NPOV perspective. I.e., how many women seek counseling, how many babies saved, etc. You know, stats & stuff... Lionel (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
(2ec) As long as you're talking about "babies saved" and "vacuuming wombs", there's no possible way to perceive you as an NPOV good faith editor here. PhGustaf (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
That's what I suggested to Maurauder40 above - the proposal had been raised in the past and I think there was general agreement, but no one got around to writing it. You might find sources in the talkpage archives. I sincerely advise against writing about "babies saved," though. (Even aside from the terminology problem, we have no way of getting this information. Binksternet's suggestion of "babies born to CPC clients" is not a useful measure because we do not know how many of those women were seeking abortions and how many were not, and I doubt we will be able to find a reliable source that talks about the number of women that were persuaded to carry to term.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Lifenews content moved from main article
I've moved the lifenews sourced content here. Feel free to keep working on the text, and find more appropriate WP:RS and then readd when up to basic Wikipedia standards:
===History===
The beginnings of the crisis pregnency movement can be traced to Canada. In 1968 the first center was established by Birthright. Alternatives to Abortion, today known as Heartbeat International, was founded in 1971. Christian Action Council founded it's first center in Baltimore, Maryland. The year was 1980. Christian Action Council eventually would become Care Net.[1]
Mandatory counseling
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (March 2011)
In 2010, South Carolina enacted the "Right to Know" law. This law mandates a 24 hour waiting period, and pregnancy counseling, prior to obtaining an abortion.[2] The South Dakota legislature has passed HB 1217 requiring a 72 hour waiting period and mandatory counseling from a crisis pregnancy center. Governor Dennis Daugaard, who is pro-life, has indicated that he is "inclined" to sign the bill into law, though he said that legal staff would first examine it "to make sure there’s no unintended consequences that haven’t been identified during the debate."[3]
I don't think it's a bad idea to include the South Dakota law, though it should be cited to a real source (KSFY has covered it) rather than Lifenews. The South Carolina section, however, is just false. The law doesn't even mandate pregnancy counseling, much less a visit to a CPC. The addresses of CPCs are among the information that a patient is required to look at, and the law was signed at a CPC. That's all. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Andrew, are you saying that Lifenews is not RS when reporting on Christian-based orgs? You may want to peruse this before responding. Lionel (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
They are reporting on state legislature. They are not reliable when it comes to that, are they? KC sums it up well. Use with extreme caution and with an introductory qualification.-Andrew c[talk]00:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Why not directly cite "A Passion to Serve, A Vision for Life"? That is the source for the lifenews article. Page 6 of the 'report' has all the info. I'd be fine with restoring the content, except neither source says that Birthright in 1968 founded an actual center in Canada. Both sources say "pregnancy center network", seeming to signify the first founding of an organizing, parent group. Are you OK with changing the citation to the report directly? -Andrew c[talk]01:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
About 2 mos ago a RfC was 6-4 to exclude a sonogram. Which is VERY DISAPPOINTING beecause it is a free pic. Anyway, does anyone object, besides Ros of course, to putting a sonogram in the article? I did mention that it is free and we don't have to screw around with fair use, right? Lionel (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
LOL @ "it was 6-4 to exclude, does anyone besides Ros object"? Will you notify past participants that we're re-hashing this, or shall I? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure. It's only two months later, but we shouldn't just assume that the voting begins at 6-4. Maybe people have changed their minds. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it is a bit in poor taste to do so. We don't know the affiliation or political leanings of the mother. Would you want your child to be the posterchild for abortion if you were pro-life? Would you want your child to be the posterchild for CPCs if you were pro-choice? Since the photo itself has nothing at all to do with CPCs, it did not come from one, it seems to be taking something out of context, an making it represent something which it doesn't. Furthermore, how does seeing a sonogram help us understand CPCs more? Some CPCs provide free diapers, should we have a photo of diapers? Some perform pregnancy tests, should we have a photo of a pregnancy test (on the other hand, if it was a photo taken inside of a CPC of a display which included such articles, or photo of other resources inside a CPC, then that is another story). Maybe someone could go inside a CPC that has a sonogram machine and take a picture of the examination room and sonogram in situ. -Andrew c[talk]00:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Shouting "VERY DISAPPOINTING" does not help. The article is helped by appropriate images, not by ones that are characterized only by being free. Otherwise, the article would have thousands of free images. Count me as a 'no' vote for any kind sonogram which is not typical of what the first time CPC customer might see. No high-tech images, and no mid- or late-term images. Mostly, the typical experience is to see a ghostly shape which is difficult to identify as human. Binksternet (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The image inserted against consensus was one of a fetus at 16 weeks, too old in most jurisdictions to qualify for an abortion. Any image we use should be 8–10 weeks old. However, the image should be one that can be traced to a CPC, not a generic one of unknown source. Binksternet (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, it could be argued that the raison d'être of CPCs is to show women sonograms. It is the most effective way of saving the baby. Lionel (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Saving the baby from what? Saving it from having a father who doesn't want it? Saving it from having a mother unprepared to deal with it? Saving it from possibly having a cocaine addiction upon birth? Do not use the term "saving the baby" when discussing this topic, please. Binksternet (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
If you're going to advocate the use of the sonogram image, I think it would be a nice show of good faith, after your POV comments here and in your edit summaries, if you were to invite back the previous editors yourself. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Once Andrew gets around to restoring the History section due to WP:RSN thread I posted establishing the Lifenews as reliable, we could snag a pic off of a CPC website and insert it with a fair use rationale. Lionel (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Belatedly - your 6-4 appears to be inaccurate. I count 7-3 (Roscelese, Binksternet, Gaius Baltar, FormerIP, Doc James, WikiManOne, Qwyrxian / Haymaker, WhatamIdoing, Apollo). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Interesting... Well the "excludes" are short one, and with myself, Maurauder and NYYankees it's tied. That's assuming NYY can avoid getting blocked long enough to vote. And with a little bit of my infallible reasoning, I could probably sway Bink. Very interesting... Lionel (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The fact that you automatically assume they would vote with you speaks volumes about your reason for wanting to include this image. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I think your thought process was "They haven't expressed an opinion on the use of images, but I do know they oppose abortion." It's entirely possible that you're right about what their opinions will be if they weigh in, but a) assuming someone's vote without asking them is still a bad idea and b) you're denigrating them by suggesting that they will let their political convictions override a commitment to building a better encyclopedia. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Kidding and politics aside, the sonogram pic is extremely appropriate. It's a huge issue of contention out there and very notable. It's the main thing states mandate when they start restricing abortion. Land put it best "If wombs had windows, people would be much more reticent to abort babies." Both sides know this... Lionel (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
"If wombs had windows"... There would be a great many fewer unwanted pregnancies. The guys would be too weirded out. Hey, as long as we're wishing for the impossible, why can't we say "if scrotums had on/off switches for sperm..." Binksternet (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Unless the sonogram came from a CPC, it is highly inappropriate to include it here. If nothing else, there are most likely BLP issues.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
State funding
This section is ripe for expansion. Each legislative act to fund CPCs in their respective state created a public record and probably news coverage extolling the virtues of CPCs. We need these refs to balance the article. Lionel (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Lead Issues
Sarek reverted my change to the lead "While they provide women with information related to abortion, pregnancy and childbirth, they have routinely been found to disseminate false medical information, usually but not exclusively about the health risks of abortion." This sentence as listed implies that ALL CPCs do this. There is nothing in any of the cites that say that they all do. It is impossible to actual say that all do. You have to remember that this article isn't like the Planned Parenthood article where you have a root company that is in charge of the individual clinics. This would be similar to saying ALL abortion clinics do x, y, and z when you know that the independant clinics may do something totally different. If you read through the section talking about this MOST of the sentences say some clinics have been found to say x, some say y, some say z. But it is OR and SYN to extend this to the ALL case. The only things that you can say about ALL CPCs is that they do not refer people for abortion, beyond that most things only apply to certain centers or organizations that run the centers. I personally know someone that operates a center, is a nurse and claims to never give out any of the information in this article that is listed as false information.Marauder40 (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
You can have all the sources you want, but unless something says they all do it, and they all do it routinely the sentence as currently worded is OR and SYN. It is impossible to prove the ALL case. The sentence after this one is much better at phrasing things in a way that shows that many may, but not all do.Marauder40 (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
No one has said "all." We can say that not all CPCs advertise deceptively because this is what our sources indicate, but we can't say "not all CPCs lie about health risks" because we have no source about any CPC ever telling the truth. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
The sentence as written currently implies "all" that is where I get the all. Sourcing this is like trying to prove a double negative. To imply ALL CPCs routinely give out incorrect information you need a source for that. That is the higher burden of proof. To say some of them is only what the sources provide and which should be in the article. None of the sources say all CPCs give out bad information. Like I said before due to the lose structure of CPCs the only things you can say about all of them are things like they don't refer for abortion. Most of the other stuff only varies location to location, organization to organization, operator to operator.Marauder40 (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you suggest an alternate wording that would satisfy your concerns without implying that we have sources about CPCs that don't give out false information/without implying that the sources we do have say that the CPCs that do are outliers? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs)
Maurauder's point is well taken. "They" needs to be quantified. And removal of the tag I placed indicating there is an issue could potentially be viewed as disruptive. If there is an issue, which there is, the tag should remain until the issue is resolved. Lionel (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
If my interpretation is correct, then User:Roscelese's logic is at fault, because we do not have definitely knowledge on CPC's that were not mentioned by the sources. Suppose you've read twenty sources saying individual Republican senators are adulterous and none that say any isn't, can you make a claim that all Republican senators are adulterous? Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
That's why I've asked these users to suggest alternative ways of wording the sentence that address their problems without implying that we have sources that say these lies are rare or that attest instances of CPCs not lying. I'm hoping one of them will suggest something new, because Marauder's previous wording ("Some clinics have been found that..."), which did suggest that, was obviously not suitable. Do you have any ideas? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
To add to my comment, I wouldn't have a problem saying "Republican senators are routinely found to be cheating on their spouses" because I don't feel that "routinely" implies "all" - "routinely" for CPCs lying seems to me to be comparatively generous! But like I said, I'm open to alternate ways of wording the sentence as long as it doesn't take the implication in the other direction. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
"Routinely" is a rather subjective quantifier and would require WP:RS to back without WP:OR. "Some", on the other hand, works because it simply states there is a non-zero number of CPC that satisfies a certain condition (i.e. whatever legal/moral infringement you guys are talking about). I'd say you should post this on the NPOV notice board. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I'd advise you not to go against consensus alone and edit-war even if you think you are absolutely right. These issues can get you into a great deal of trouble regardless of whether or not your opponents are wrong or disagreeing with bad faith. In this case, I think they actually do have a point and so you shouldn't be so fast to dismiss their views. Anyhow, let's hope this upcoming RfC/NPOV discussion will help you guys sort things out. Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree that striking out boldly against consensus is a bad idea, but there certainly isn't consensus! Even if I was the only user opposing Lionel's and Marauder's edits, two against one does not consensus make. (Posted at NPOVN.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
In that case, you'd be acting without consensus. While majority rule certainly has its flaws, that's really how WP works for the most part. That's not to say there aren't ways to legitimately contest faulty majority decisions, but these things tend to be hard. Bobthefish2 (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
"In that case, you'd be acting without consensus" - LOL, that's true of both adding the tag and removing it! That's why we have talkpages. :D Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
RS listed only documents 8 in Toronto area at one point in time, changed 'they' to 'some' and removed routinely. Gerardw (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Ohforchrissake is it really so difficult to look at the section where this is written up in detail? Sorry, that was unnecessary - you're new to the article and maybe you didn't notice. (It's wikilinked.) We have seventeen separate sources. It would be obnoxious and disruptive to add them all to the lead. It's not just the 8 in that one article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the current format. I also agree with the comments on the NPOV noticeboard that say the entire article reads like an advocacy piece. A couple weeks ago I thought I was going to take a swipe at working on the NPOV issues but the "battleground" that was Planned Parenthood delayed that and this week I had very little online time, maybe next week I will get a chance to look at it in detail.Marauder40 (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Ha, you should have seen it a little while ago! Somehow, it didn't occur to the editors working on it to include anything that people might see as bad. Anyway, as you may have seen from looking at this talkpage, I've suggested other sections that could be written - for example, would you be interested in helping write a section about how CPCs are sometimes seen as a new strategy in the political fight over abortion? Some of our sources take that view (ex. Gibbs). And Dylan Flaherty a while ago had suggested just providing more details about "a visit to a CPC," which I think is a fine idea and which you can find in the talkpage archive. (Also, do we have newer sources on the sonogram thing? Do we know what percentage of CPCs, or even a raw number, use sonograms?) And the "funding" section can be expanded - I'm sure there are notable laws relating to CPCs, we already mentioned that they got some money from abstinence funding but there must be more to say. In short, there are dozens of things one could add if one feels there is a neutrality problem! That's what I did, and if you think I've swung it too far the other way, you can do the same. :) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Also, with regard specifically to the sections that some might view as unfavorable, why don't we add perspectives from "pro-life" people, so that we at least have their point of view? I'm thinking specifically of one person commenting that women had no right to information that would allow them to have an abortion, ie. he thought it was a lesser evil. (Possibly in an article already cited, I don't recall.) I think this was in reference to advertising, but I wouldn't be surprised if we found something like that for medical stuff too. And we mention Birthright's criticism of the Pearson Foundation - do we have coverage of more "pro-life" groups criticizing some specific tactics? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Since you think "routinely" implies too many, and I think "some" implies too few, would it solve the problem to just remove quantifying words and say "...they have been found"? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I've already expressed my concerns with "some." Can you suggest an alternate wording that addresses your concerns without implying that we have sources on CPCs that don't lie? ("Frequently"?) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
At this point, with 4 editors objecting to "they", I think we have consensus on "some" versus "they." Thus, I withdraw my issue regarding Ros's unwarranted, unjustified and disruptive removal {{how many}} tag.Lionel (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I recognize that people disagree with "they" and "routinely," that's why I'm suggesting other ways of wording it, and asking for more suggestions, that address both sides' concerns. Given the seventeen cited sources on CPCs lying and the total absence of sources on their telling the truth (I also have a few more sources bookmarked that I'll get around to citing), would you support, for example, "many" (as subject) or "frequently" (as adverb)? Alternately, we used to have the sentence in the active rather than in the passive - would a phrasing like "Undercover investigations by journalists, congressional investigators, and pro-choice advocates have [routinely?] found..." better convey that this is what all our sources say, without, in your view, implying anything about the ones that aren't described in any sources? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I find Lionelt's "unwarranted, unjustified, and disruptive removal" comment to be a bit strong. So far, I don't see any deliberate POV-pushing, so try not to get too excited. Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Unwarranted: the tag did not harm the article in the least-removal was unnecessary
Unjustified: she had no policy justification for removal whatsoever
Disruptive: it probably prevented editors from joining the discussion because they were unaware of the discussion--and this kind of behavior will eventually result in a block. I mean...look at this thread!!!!! The tag was fully w/in policy. This is outrageous.Lionel (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
These threads are nothing in terms of unproductivity compared to ones I've recently experienced :p. Anyway, at least you guys are getting somewhat productive now. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Another suggestion: getting rid of the contrastive sentence entirely. Bobthefish2 also suggests using "CPCs" instead of "they." How does this sound? (the italics and strikeouts denote changes from the current version)
"CPCs provide peer counseling related to abortion, pregnancy and childbirth, and may also provide pregnancy testing, STD screening, adoption referrals, religious counseling, financial assistance, prenatal services, child-rearing resources and other services. While they provide women with information related to abortion, pregnancy and childbirth, someCPCs have been found to disseminate false medical information, usually but not exclusively about the health risks of abortion."
Without a clear statement of your complaint, I can only guess. I guess that you are comparing your addition to the section under the heading "Proposed 'Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act'". That proposal was put forward again and again and again, and was commented upon widely. Binksternet (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Currently, this section is highly inappropriate. It is citing a primary source (or press release), and apparently giving a play for play detail of it's legislative advancement. This sort of material, and the associated commentary, are not encyclopedic, and not up to Wikipedia standards. I think this could easily be summed up in a single sentence saying it has been introduced and failed X number of times. And only add that if we can source it to something besides the bill track. If it is commented upon widely, then we should cite those. Also, just to be clear on my position, I think the SD bill is very notable (and is quite odd, because it is akin to something like the government forcing citizens to go to an alternative medicine practitioner and wait 3 days before taking any pharmaceuticals). I also would like to think such an odd bill would get media coverage which is suitably reliable for Wikipedia. My main concern was lifenews, followed by a concern that Wikipedia isn't necessarily a blog or online newspaper, and thus breaking, up-to-date news isn't always best or encyclopedic, as we should wait for significant coverage and dissemination of sources.-Andrew c[talk]16:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I've got no problem cutting down the Stop Deceptive Advertising section a bit. Let's name its sponsors and note which Congresses it was introduced in; we don't need the Maloney quote, but I think we should include the quote from the bill's text. (As a side note, Haymaker removed content about the Montgomery Cty. legislation on CPCs - I think what happened is that the Washington Times source it was cited to was removed by someone who thought it was only there to support the statement about Baltimore. Anyone care to restore it? The source can be found in old revisions.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Per consensus and in keepign with Wikikpedia standards removing speculative content relating to "pending" legislation. Lionel (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Use of questionable sources in false medical information section
A while ago we had a review of all the individual sources and we decided that even though NARAL wouldn't normally be acceptable as a source on CPCs, these sources merely provided specific examples/details of a principle that was well-attested by non-partisan sources. But consensus can change, so let's discuss it again. (Certainly it isn't as though the information is unsupported without those sources.)
Note, though, that your assessment of the Examiner source is incorrect. It's hosted on the Choice Ireland website, but it's from a newspaper, and it's a news piece rather than an editorial (see the "news" banner at the top of the page). If you can find the piece hosted elsewhere, that would be good too, but to treat it as a partisan or opinion source is wrong.
I don't think the false medical information subsection should go with the services, since the CPCs don't intend to provide false information or advertise it. Should the section be relocated, and if so, where? NYyankees51 (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that we restore the layout to the way it was before, but rename "services" to "activities." "Activities" makes more sense anyway, given that it currently includes subsections "Religious affiliation" and "Advertising methods." Does that address your problem with labeling false information as a "service"? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Why not refocus the "Religious affiliation" section on counseling, and move the affiliation stuff to the "Affiliations" section? Let's see how that looks before we get rid of "Services" alltogether. Lionel (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure what you're describing is the best way to go about it. It would be difficult to create a subsection for counseling, since that is basically what CPCs do! The sonograms and the false medical information and the evangelism, when present, are part of that. Maybe it would be better to put something in the head of the "Services"/"Activities" section (I still think "activities" is better, because it removes any POV issue with regard to the medical info - it's provided as part of counseling, which is ostensibly a service, but is lying really a service? better to say "activities") to indicate in a general way that sonograms, religious material, false medical info, etc. may be part of the counseling provided.
I think I actually advocated a while ago for the removal of the "Affiliation" section. It's almost entirely redundant to content mentioned earlier, and what isn't mentioned earlier could be. Thoughts? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
A note on the bit about "The NC Atty-General has never received any complaints" - including it is bizarre and unconstructive. No one has asserted that NC CPCs are the worst, no one has said that their provision of false information violates the law, the existing content reflects individual cases rather than general state-by-state situations, and the paper presumably mentions NC at all because it is an NC paper. Why would we single out this one state, except for the fact that you're grasping for positive information about CPCs? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Technical notes
As a favor, can I ask everyone to a) date templates so that a bot doesn't have to do it for you and b) stop using bare URLs as references? The latter is particularly annoying - besides that it is unsightly in the reference list, it also means that if the link goes dead we have absolutely no way of finding the story again. If you use a citation template that includes the title, the author's name, etc. there is a better chance of finding the story at a new address or in an archive. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
NARAL strategy
The "Baltimore model" is a strategy concocted by NARAL to stop CPCs from "taking away their clients" according to Matt Bowman of the Alliance Defense Fund. The strategy is comprised of two steps:
Arrange for the publication of news reports describing how CPCs "mislead women"
Pro-choice activists collaborate with "sympathetic lawmakers" to push though laws which curtail CPCs' ability to assist women
The strategy was first deployed successfully in Baltimore City. An anti-CPC law was written by Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, upon request and lobbying by NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Rawlings-Blake has received special acknowledgments by the two organizations. NARAL was then instrumental in the passing of similiar legislation in Austin, Texas. According to Bowman this is "part of a nationwide strategy by pro-choice groups to force crisis pregnancy centers nationwide to post signs so that women intending to get abortions will not unwittingly enter." The CPCs targeted by these tactics are fighting back. Centro Tepeyac Women’s Center in Montgomery County has filed a lawsuit in Federal court to overturn the law based on free speech grounds. A similiar lawsuit was filed in Baltimore[84] which was ultimately successful.[8]
This is no more POV than the rest of the article. Well, maybe the "concocted" part. But that's fixable. Any objection to restoring with concocted removed? Afterall it's sourced...Lionel (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Washington Times is. Objection handled and I assume you're on board. Anymore Include votes besides Ros? Lionel (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Washington Times's RS status is irrelevant because it doesn't support your claim that NARAL is trying to steal CPCs' clients. The "...says a guy" afterthought isn't really an effective figleaf. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
So when the source talks about CPCs are required to post signage, well, that's relevant, but the part about the NARAL strategy, no, that's not relevant? Well, why don't we just set a policy that anything detrimental to CPCs is relevant, and anything positive regarding CPCs is irrelevant. That solves everything! Lionel (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The source doesn't say that this [Ed. that was unspecific - the ridiculous "stealing CPC clients"] is NARAL's strategy, so your consternation is just a bit unwarranted. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Dude, I've alluded to this before in the discussion about a sonogram image, but I'll say it outright now: Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you're going to let your political opinions take precedence over your commitment to building a better encyclopedia, working on political articles might be a bad idea for you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Lionel, I'm on your side, but Roscelese is right that Wikipedia is not a battleground. I know it's easy to allege a liberal conspiracy on here, but the allegations won't help. That said, I support your edit. The Washington Times information is not derived from ADF but from Women's eNews, and their information comes from NARAL itself. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
No, the Women's eNews item was written by non-NARAL reporter Julia Marsh, who works for a Japanese newspaper: Yomiuri Shimbun. Marsh also has been an editor at The Manhattan Times, an associate editor at Huffington Post, and a reporter for Columbia News Service. Her contribution to Women's eNews is not a NARAL promotion—it is real reporting. Binksternet (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think we could put a statement in the "local ordinances" section that NARAL is behind some of these laws, and perhaps include a brief quote from the Women's eNews article if you want, but Bowman's opinion that it's an attempt to steal clients from CPCs (NARAL is not an abortion provider) has no place in this article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
There are some problematic phrasings going on. We shouldn't allow Matt Bowman to characterize the "Baltimore Model" from the get go. Bowman thinks NARAL is up in arms because they are loosing clients, but this is a very minor point from one individual, not the defining aspect. Next, it is odd that you say it is a 2 step approach, when the Julia Marsh piece makes it clear it is a 3 step approach. While perhaps the Times piece makes that unclear, the way it has been phrased here has introduced an inaccuracy. I don't like the scare quotes around "mislead women". Either quote more of the context from the release, or remove the quotes entirely. Saying NARAL was "instrumental" seems like unsourced commentary to me. Times said that they just took credit for it. Anyway, I see there is a new version in the article, so some of my comments regarding the old version no longer apply. I have made some changes which I think improve readability, accuracy, and NPOV. I'd be glad to discuss any of them in more detail. I think Lionel believes this story puts NARAL in a bad light, and was eager to get it in the article as a zing to that side of the debate. But I think when examined more critically (or phrased more neutrally), it isn't that bad, nor more importantly, that interesting or notable. It would be nice if there were more sources discussing the topic. Perhaps getting in the legal issues, the actual laws and courtcases may be a productive area of investigation. As it is, I feel it isn't that notable and doesn't really help the article much. But with more research and revision, and focusing more on the "disclosure laws" vs. "free speech" issue and court cases, I think we could build up the section to something worthwhile, which is why I don't support outright deletion. However, if additional research doesn't turn up anything, and we are just stuck with this on Times article, and the press release style piece from "womensenews.org", then I think the article may be better off without this section. -Andrew c[talk]21:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Filet-O-Fish offer made in the spirit of WP:Humor. Upon reflection and in fairness to all parties involved, I'm expanding the offer to pro-abortion types and to any fetuses that survived their abortion and who are now productive members of society. Lionel (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
If you're buying I'll take a double-patty sammich with that processed cheese gluing the filets together... and a bit too much tartar sauce. Mmmm! Binksternet (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't know they made a double, Bink!!! My offer is only for a single, but you have to put the section back in... Lionel (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'm pro choice, even though I probably wouldn't be here if abortion had been legal 58 years ago. Personally, I think abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. I don't like CPCs misleading vulnerable young women, so I like what NARAL is doing. I think it is a good strategy. Having said all that, as a Wikipedia editor, I strongly support NPOV and the best possible references. I haven't exhaustively compared the DC Times article vs. the Women's ENews source vs. the "NARAL Strategy" part of this article. I'll leave it to others to ensure good balance and NPOV. I just wanted everyone to have the best sources available. Oh, and thanks for the virtual Filet-O-Fish. Yum! Art SmartChart/Heart02:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I still don't think it needs the weight it's getting - it's a minor point to what is already a minor section. How's this, as a sentence in the "State and local ordinances" section? "Some campaigns to pass disclosure laws are supported by NARAL Pro-Choice America, which cites the ways in which 'the centers mislead women'." It is not necessary to include Bowman's opinion: neither he nor his statement have any credibility. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Shows how much I know... all that talk about a section on "disclosure statements" must have sounded ignorant coming out of me. I just realized we already HAVE that section, titled "State and local ordinances". I think the ordinance section should be merged with the NARAL section, as they are not independent topics at all. We discuss Baltimore and Austin's ordinances in one section, then have a completely different section talking about Baltimore and Austin's ordinances. Really?? Why was this new section created in the first place. Gah. Show what happens when I'm not very active on Wikipedia, and don't keep up with the latest changes and such. Perhaps a sentence (or two) along the lines of Roscelese phrasing can be added in to the preceding section. I'm not completely opposed to Bowman's or the Time's commentary though. -Andrew c[talk]02:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I am so sorry NYY. I misread the history: you should've gotten the Filet. And by the looks of the tartar all over Arthur he's already scarfed it down. But wait, I found another! Lionel (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
But why have fast-food? I recommend homemade dairy kugel for all your meatless holidays...
Lionel, please deliver the filet to me within the next two hours or I will be forced to eat a delicious meatless meal of hard boiled eggs instead! NYyankees51 (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD, the lead should reflect the article content, rather than (necessarily) any one specific source, so "run by conservative/pro-life Christians" would be fine. However, are you still in favor of "run according to a conservative Christian philosophy" or something like that? Could they be combined? (ie. "run by Christian pro-life supporters according to a conservative Christian philosophy" or something, or would that sound redundant?) Roscelese (talk ⋅contribs) 16:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
At this point, you understand my concern (that we not imply that all Christians are pro-life/anti-choice). The specific wording is not one that I'm that wrapped up in. However, I will point out that I am also concerned that whatever wording is used be supported by a source. The article had a citation to an article in the Austin Chronicle that didn't seem to say anything about CPCs being Christian. I would like to see a source that specifically says that most CPCs are run by pro-life conservative Christians. I'm not doubting the assertion. It's just that, without a reliable source, the assertion is susceptible to being characterized asoriginal research. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 03:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I got rid of the Austin source. Not actually sure how it got there - perhaps it was originally cited for something else in the lead and no one took it out as content shifted. (As for your other concerns - is the fact that thousands of centers require their employees to be Christian enough? We don't have a demographic survey - although it would be interesting if one could be found, to get age/sex breakdown and whatnot - but we do have that requirement, and no other source indicates that it isn't enforced.)Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd want to see what the source actually said. On the face of it, it would seem obvious that, if there are 4000 CPCs in the U.S., and "thousands of them" require their employees to be Christian, then most (meaning "more than half") have this requirement. However, "most" is a funny word than can be read to mean anything from "51%" to "90%" so some clarity is useful but difficult to do if there are no sources that provide this level of detail. It would be really easy to perform synthesis here unintentionally. The safest course is to stick to what the sources actually say rather than what we "know" to be true.
::::Also, the question isn't really about whether a CPC employee is "Christian"; it's about what the CPCs mean when they assert this requirement. Would they say, "Hey! you're pro-choice and so you don't meet our definition of 'Christian'. You can't work here."? [The struck-out comment is stupid and mis-informed. Just ignore it. It was totally out in left field. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)]]
It's both. They require employees to oppose abortion, yes, but they also require them to be Christian. An anti-abortion Orthodox Jew could not work at a Care Net or CAPSS facility.
Anyway - our sources state that the networks that make up a vast majority of CPCs both in the US and outside of it are Christian, by description/self-identification and also sometimes by other characteristics such as employment requirements or evangelism. You may disagree, but I don't think it's original research to look at sources that say "these 1000+ centers are Christian" and "these 1000+ centers are Christian" and "these hundreds of other centers are Christian" (for whatever value of the phrasing you'd like). That seems like a summary of the article/paragraph contents. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah... sorry. I think I went off the rails on that point. I think the problem is that I haven't read and absorbed all of the information in the article and the relevant information is in different places in the article. The article reads "Together, Care Net and Heartbeat International accounted for three quarters of CPCs in the United States, as of 2007." Since those two are both Christian organizations, we can assume that three quarters or more of CPCs in the U.S. are Christian. I think that sentence belongs closer to the beginning of the paragraph rather than being buried in the middle. (I just did that) --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Religious affiliation
This section requires the reader to make an inference (that CPCs require employees to be pro-life). It would be better to make the point explicitly. Currently the text reads:
Many CPCs require their staff to be Christian. For example, as a condition of affiliation, Care Net and the Canadian Association of Pregnancy Support Services, the two largest CPC organizations in the United States and Canada respectively, require each employee and volunteer of a prospective affiliate to comply with a statement of faith.[24][57][13] CPCs unaffiliated with either of these may also require staff to be Christian.[58][59][60][25]
The point that is being made here (I assume) is that the Care Net Statement of Faith and the CAPSS Statement of Principles involves a commitment to being pro-life and anti-abortion. We should make that point explicitly by finding these statements of faith and quoting directly the principles that are related to opposition to abortion.
Many CPCs are connected with religious organizations, but few disclose that fact in their advertising.37
Pearson’s CPC guide book states that, “[t]he guiding principles for every Pearson Foundation Emergency
Pregnancy Service shall be: 1. To oppose abortion in all its forms… 2. To be free to talk about God and the
Mother’s relationship to Him…”38 Nevertheless, most CPCs do not initially disclose to women that they are
driven by a religious agenda and that they oppose abortion and birth control. In Canada, many CPCs not
affiliated with Birthright are a part of an umbrella organization known as the Christian Association of
Pregnancy Support Services (CAPSS). Affiliates must adhere to the CAPSS Statement of Faith, Sanctity of
Life Statement, Stewardship Policy, Statement of Principles, Counseling Code of Ethics, and Volunteer
Training Guidelines.39
CPCs offer their “services” to women of all faiths, but their programs are often driven by extreme religious
anti-abortion agendas. In some of their literature CPCs discuss religious messages about abortion and quote
biblical passages that they claim show that God does not support abortion.40 Care Net has a Volunteer Manual
that is full of religious messaging;41 however, it does not instruct volunteers to inform women who call or come to the centers that they are contacting a religious organization. The CAPSS Volunteer Manual instructs volunteers “never to advise or refer a single woman or man for contraceptives” since this would be inconsistent with the “clear command in Scripture to abstain from sexual intimacy outside of marriage.”42 None of these materials mention the numerous religions and religious individuals who support choice and reproductive freedom.43 Despite the CPCs’ claim that their first priority is to ensure the health of women, the name-filled banners reading “Babies Saved from Abortion” and “Salvations” which hung in the staff room of one CPC reveal a very
different agenda.44
The CAPPS statement of principles state: "The CPC [Crisis Pregnancy Centre] is committed to integrity in dealing with clients, earning their trust, and providing promised information and services. The CPC denounces any form of deception in its corporate advertising or conversation with clients, agencies or other individuals. The CPC does not recommend, provide or refer for abortion or abortifacients. However, the CPC is expected to respect the decision of a woman to obtain an abortion, and not to intimidate or judge a woman in this regard."
We could definitely include that as well. However, you seem confused: the statements of faith do require staff to be anti-abortion, yes, but also include the belief that "Our Lord Jesus Christ is God manifest in the flesh" (CAPSS)/"We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Care Net). It isn't an assumption on our part that "opposes abortion" = "Christian," it's actually in the text. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I think I didn't express myself clearly and I may even have been confused along the way. Part of the problem is that we are talking about stuff that is discussed in three different parts of the article. It would be good to bring the points we've been discussing together once in the lead and in a single section in the article.
In brief, you don't have to be a conservative Christian to work in a CPC. You have to be Christian and you have to be opposed to abortion. That probably means you are going to be a conservative Christian but the CPCs don't make any requirements about your beliefs other than about abortion (and, in at least some cases, birth control).
Re birth control... the Catholics oppose birth control but it's not clear to me how Protestants view birth control. The CareNet website doesn't seem to say anything about it. The CAPSS Volunteer Manual instructs volunteers “never to advise or refer a single woman or man for contraceptives” since this would be inconsistent with the “clear command in Scripture to abstain from sexual intimacy outside of marriage.”
In the lead ... "Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), also known as pregnancy resource centers[1][2] are non-profit organizations established to counsel women against having abortions.[1][3][4][5][6]CPCs are typically[7] run by pro-life Christians according to a conservative Christian philosophy, and often operate under the auspices of one of three groups:..." [This seems OK although I have my doubts about "conservative Christian philosophy". "by pro-life Christians" might be enough]
In the section "Religious affiliation"... This section assumes that CPCs are opposed to abortion (well, we did already say that in the lead) but it doesn't make the linkage between Christianity and abortion. The primary goal of a CPC is not to evangelize; it is to prevent the abortion but evangelism is part of the process of preventing the abortion. We should more clearly indicate that the opposition to abortion is based on their understanding of Christian faith. (Yeah, it's kind of implied but the article would benefit from making the linkage explicit.)
In the section "Affiliation"... This section says "Most crisis pregnancy centers are affiliated with several major pro-life organizations that fund CPCs." Yes! And most of these organizations are Christian charities. But why do we need to have a separate section on this that is so far from the "Religious affiliation" section? If we could merge "Affiliation" and "Religious affiliation" sections, the article would make a more cogent presentation of the facts.
I agree that the "Affiliation" section is almost entirely redundant (I've been advocating getting rid of it for a while - I think the only info that isn't covered elsewhere is the name of one of the UK orgs, which doesn't even have an article). As for the linkage between Christianity and abortion, I'm sure we could find quotes from CPC org websites that make that linkage. (Care Net says that its ultimate aim is to share the love of Jesus or something like that, but that seems a leeeetle bit short of the sort of linkage we'd need.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
RfC: "Christian" vs. "affiliated with a Christian organization"
Should the first sentence of the "Religious affiliation" section say:
"The overwhelming majority of CPCs in the US are affiliated with a Christian organization", or:
"The overwhelming majority of CPCs in the US are Christian in nature"?
I (Roscelese) argue that both first-party and third-party sources, as cited, refer to the centers as Christian, that many evangelize and still more require staff to be Christian, that their philosophy and/or material is based on the Christian religion, and that to say they are merely "affiliated with a Christian organization" is to ignore both the descriptions in the sources and the behavior described in the sources. Haymaker wishes to say "affiliated with a Christian organization," rather than "Christian."
We did indeed. But our friend doesn't seem to be satisfied with previous consensus (perhaps is hoping to take advantage of Dylan's ban?), and I can't revert because of the new rules on abortion-related articles. Sarek suggested I start a new RfC. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Christian in nature is the wording I would select from the two possibilities listed. Primary and secondary sources describe the largest CPCs as Christian ministries. Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Christian in nature seems much more appropriate. "Affiliated with a Christian organization" would be a more appropriate designation for associations that are supported by Christian organization in terms of finance or manpower but do not have a religious focus, which CPCs are not. It would also imply a specific church affiliation, e.g. the Catholic Church or the Jehovah's Witnesses, which also doesn't seem to apply to an "inter-denominational" group like this. siafu (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Haymaker hasn't provided a reason for why he advocates his wording, but I'd imagine that he will do so eventually, so editors who have already expressed their preference for "Christian in nature" should check back in case his reasoning might change their minds. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
That's actually a new and undiscussed edit by WikiManOne (it previously said "run by pro-life supporters and typically Christian" rather than "run by pro-life supporters who are typically conservative Christians," which changes the meaning) - I suggested that he join this discussion so we can have everything going on in one place. In any case, I think "run by conservative Christians" is preferable to "affiliated with a Christian organization" (note also that these are two separate parts of the article) but it still doesn't capture the essentials here. As someone else pointed out in an earlier discussion, a Burger King restaurant might also be run by conservative Christians, but these centers describe themselves as Christian and evangelize to others. I think the centers themselves can reasonably be described as Christian Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh my, I am shocked that NYyankees actually agreed with one of my edits. I obviously like my edits the most since it makes clear who is running them. I don't have very strong feelings either way. WMOPlease leave me a wb if you reply05:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
We agreed to "affiliated with a Christian organization" in the past because that is where our sources point, it more accurately describes CPCs and that is where consensus landed us. Have any of our sources shifted since then? - Haymaker (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you point to where that discussion and agreement took place? I was able to find the RfC that seemed to point the other way in archive 2 (thanks, Binksternet), but I haven't seen the agreement you're referencing yet. As an editor who has had no previous involvement with this article or the issue at stake, I'd like to be able to review all the relevant arguments. siafu (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for editing part of the article that was currently under dispute on the talk page with an open RfC. I was vaguely aware of it, but have been out of the loop for awhile, so sorry about that. Anyway, I strongly feel that the phrasing "run by anti-choice supporters and Christian in nature" is not only a poor choice of words, it is grammatically incorrect, and thus poor English. It was also way to verbose, so I changed it to "typically run by pro-life Christians", and I honestly felt that I did not change the meaning of the sentence, and only simplified it and made it flow better, improved the grammar and such. If there was some other meaning in the phrase, it was not being conveyed well enough. If there is a more agreed upon wording (as long as it doesn't contain the POV phrase "anti-choice"), I'd be glad to self revert back to a prior version, and understand that the discussion on this topic is pending. Now my opinion on whether "CPCs are Christian" or "CPCs are run by Christians", I honestly don't see much of a difference between the two phrases. I really don't care, and would rather focus on more important matters. Sorry I can't be of more help there. Hope my edit wasn't too controversial, considering the open RfC, and again, sorry for editing without noticing. -Andrew c[talk]00:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't worry about it - I didn't mean to call you out, just to direct you here so you could join the discussion. Since your wording is now the preferred wording of three editors, do you think I should begin a new subsection to choose between it and "Christian in nature," and call back the editors who voted early? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you may have meant Mainline Protestant? Anyway, when I originally wrote the section, I was as specific as I could be (eg. which centers were Catholic) but most of our sources aren't more specific than "Christian" or "faith in Jesus Christ" etc. If you can find sources that allow us to be more specific, that would be great! (I think I recall reading that Care Net was evangelical, though I don't remember where - it may not be a citable source.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Christian in nature. They describe themselves this way, third-party sources describe them this way, they evangelize, their materials are religious, they require staffers to be Christians. There's no reason not to admit it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
RFC Comment - There is a question as to what exactly qualifies as "Christian" - does it mean groups operated and staffed by Christians, motivated by Christian principles, or in some way supported by Christian organizations, perhaps financially, through volunteers, etc.? There may also be a question with how the phrase "overwhelming majority" is sourced, I don't know. First, I would like to have presented exactly what the sources for the statements are, and how good those sources are. An Austin newspaper article is a good source, but there clearly could be better ones.
Personally, the extreme ambiguity of just calling them "Christian", to me, makes the phrasing "Christian in nature" less preferred. Unfortunately, the phrasing "affiliated with a Christian organization" doesn't necessarily resolve all those problems. What makes those organizations "Christian", and how many of the questions I asked above apply here? Would a political party with the word "Christian" in either its name or platform qualify as Christian? This might be most relevant to Europe and other areas where several party names include that word. I might prefer a more detailed description if such were available, like maybe "CPCs generally receive very significant assistance from organizations with a Christian perspective". John Carter (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
In this case, all of your above qualifications (run by, motivated by, supported by) are met - see the "Religious affiliation" section in the article. Many also evangelize. As for sourcing, we have both third-party news sources and the organizations' websites. Summary:
Major CPC networks: "ultimate aim...is to share the love and truth of Jesus Christ" (Care Net, from their website), "Christian association" whose materials are "consistent with Biblical principles" (Heartbeat Int'l, from their website), "Christian-based pregnancy crisis centres" and is a division of a larger Christian charity (CareConfidential, from the BBC and their own website), "Catholic pregnancy centers" whose philosophy is "in conformity with the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church" (Human Life Int'l, from their website), "Christian charity" whose affiliates "adhere firmly to Christianity" (CAPSS, from their website and from the Toronto Star), other CPCs also are religious (we cite a few more newspapers and CPC websites)
Evangelism: "strongly believes that sharing the Gospel is an essential part of counseling women in pregnancy help medical clinics" (NIFLA, article by its president), claims to have achieved 23,000 conversions to born-again Christianity (Care Net, from their website), visitors report unwanted Christian evangelizing (New York Times, Pasadena Weekly, Colorado Springs Independent, Connect Savannah)
Staff: Care Net requires a statement of Christian faith from any worker at any affiliated center (from their website), so does CAPSS (from both their website and the Toronto Star), other CPCs also require workers to be Christian (websites of two other CPCs/small CPC networks)
My opinions on this issue run along the lines of John Carter's comments posted above.
Strongly oppose using the phrase "Christian in nature" as it suggests that the beliefs espoused by those involved in CPCs are "indisputably Christian" as contrasted to to "being held by some Christians and possibly rejected by others". There is not a single orthodoxy on Christian doctrine such that abortion is uniformly understood by all Christians as a sin. It's not as if the Nicene Creed identifies abortion as a sin (and the Nicene Creed is about the only set of doctrines that are accepted by most Christians). If it is possible for an individual to work in a CPC on the basis of having a Christian faith that accepts abortion as moral, then I retract this objection. If, however, the requirement for "a statement of Christian faith" carries the implied requirement for a rejection of abortion as sin, then "Christian in nature" is unacceptably POV as it takes a side on the debate as to whether abortion is acceptable within Christian doctrine.
Oppose using the phrase "affiliated with Christian organizations" without qualification as to what kinds of Christian organizations CPCs are affiliated with. This is akin to asserting that liberation theology movements have been and are led by Catholic clergy. The assertion is true but omits the important fact that the Catholic clergy who supported liberation theology did not represent the entirety of Catholic clergy worldwide.
Strongly prefer "run by pro-life supporters who are typically conservative Christians" or any other locution which clearly characterizes those who operate CPCs as being associated with pro-life movements within Christianity rather than characterizing them as representing all of Christianity.
Propose "The major CPC networks require affiliated centers to be staffed by individuals who are required to subscribe to statements of principles that oppose abortion and birth control. These principles are typically associated with conservative Christian movements."
This seems to stem from a misreading of the statements of faith, and also ignores the primary and secondary sources that describe centers as Christian. I get what you're saying about not wanting to imply that all Christians have these political views; perhaps "identify as Christian" could solve that problem? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The main problem point seems to me to be Birthright International, which, apparently, has about 400 affiliated CPCs but does not apparently advocate a Christian position. It seems to me to be problematic to apparently not take it into account. John Carter (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
We do mention Birthright in the religion section as an organization with a stated commitment to not evangelizing, but is there more you think we should do? (It doesn't seem especially problematic to me to generalize, even accounting for BI. The number of Christian-oriented centers still vastly outweighs Birthright's numbers.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I think I mentioned BI specifically because, based on my own clearly limited knowledge of the subject, it is, so far as I know, maybe the most active of the CPCs, regardless of their number. Relative activity may also be important, particularly if there are multiple CPCs in the same area with a large population. The one most frequently used, if there is a clear differentiation there, would I think also be relevant. John Carter (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
It would be great if we had more recent sources on CPC activity, and not just for this section, but I'm not sure "anecdotal belief that BI is the most active" justifies ignoring other sources that indicate that most CPCs identify as Christian and/or require employees to be Christian and/or evangelize. We would need sources in order to consider these sorts of changes. Are there any that you can find? (Interestingly, while BI has a stated intent of non-evangelism, centers affiliated with it, it seems, may sometimes identify as Christian - I found this by searching on "birthright international christian." So maybe the umbrella organization isn't explicitly Christian and prohibits affiliates from evangelizing, but doesn't prohibit them from otherwise describing themselves as Christian or operating based on their interpretation of Christian philosophy.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
First, a disclaimer: I know almost nothing about CPCs so I'm relying on a good-faith assumption that what you guys say about them is true.
@Roscelesce: I'm OK with saying things like "operate based on conservative Christian principles/beliefs/philosophy (whatever)". It's important to me that a word such as "conservative" or "fundamentalist" be used to qualify the term "Christian" in this context.
@John Carter: If Birthright International does, in fact, operate 400 CPCs, then the article should certainly mention it as a notable organization. Are there any other organizations that operate that many CPCs or more? If so, they should be mentioned as well. (Rule of thumb: Mention all organizations representing more than 10% of the total) However, I wonder if Birthright International might be the exception that proves the rule (that CPCs generally operate on pro-life conservative Christian perspectives). Are there other organizations that operate CPCs without a Christian pro-life agenda? What is the total number of CPCs affiliated with organizations that avoid a pro-life Christian advocacy? Are there any sources that discuss Birthright International and contrast it to the other CPCs? Birthright International operates 400 centers (worldwide?). There are 4000 CPCs in the U.S. alone. If Birthright International is unique in its commitment to not advocating/evangelizing the Christian pro-life position, it would appear to be in the minority (i.e. representing less than 10% of the CPCs in the U.S.). Let us, by all means, mention Birthright International as an organization with a significant presence in this area but let us also put it into perspective as unique in its refusal to advocate/evangelize the pro-life Christian view.
We do mention Birthright in the religion section as an organization with a stated commitment to not evangelizing, but is there more you think we should do? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the second sentence in this entire article read "CPCs are owned and operated by pro-life Christians.". I have (in accordance with our sources) toned that back down to "CPCs are, with few exceptions, typically run by pro-life Christians. - Haymaker (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Now that I have done a little bit of research via Google, I have a slightly more informed opinion than I had when I first responded to the RFC.
I think the article would benefit from relying more on what the sources say and less on what we "know" to be true about CPCs. Trying to make generalizations about "affiliation with Christianity, even 'conservative Christianity'" runs the risk of original research and synthesis.
I have provided two sources in the section titled Religious affiliation lower on this Talk Page. The key thing that we know as a fact is that CPCs affiliated with CareNet and CAPSS commit, as a condition of their affiliation, to require their employees to subscribe to a Statement of Faith or Statement of Principles that explicitly opposes abortion and forbids employees from referring CPC clients to an abortion center. Making that linkage explicit and clear is far more useful than trying to come up with the right formulation of "pro-life", "conservative Christian", etc. The opposition to abortion is the primary point. That CareNet and CAPSS consider this opposition to be an inherent component of Christianity is an important point but it's secondary to the fact that CPCs in these two networks are required to be anti-abortion. I don't think either network cares what a CPC employee thinks about gay marriage, divorce, ordination of women as clergy, etc. In other words, you don't need to be a "conservative Christian". To work at a CareNet or CAPSS-affiliated CPC, you need to be "anti-abortion" and "anti-birth control". We should say that and avoid tarpit phrases such as "conservative Christian" which carry along with them other beliefs (e.g. about homosexuality) that are not requirements of CareNet or CAPSS affiliation. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, you also need to believe in the divinity of Jesus to work for Care Net or CAPSS. I would venture to say that that is a fairly significant requirement. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
First of all, I hope my comments are taken as constructive rather than prickly or disputatious. If I start to sound that way, lt me know. It's not my intent to get stuck on defending a particular POV. I'm looking for NPOV ways to describe things based on what reliable sources say. That said, there are different levels of reliability among sources. We have to be careful not to rely entirely on the opinions of anti-CPC sources although there are certainly useful points to be gleaned from those sources. We just have to consider the POV of the source when using what they say. And, when describing what CareNet or CAPSS believes, it's best to go to their statements about themselves.
So... from the CareNet website (1100 centers)
The ultimate aim of Care Net and its network of pregnancy centers is to share the love and truth of Jesus Christ in both word and deed. As a result, the hearts of women and men are being changed by Christ's love to desire positive and healthy choices. In addition, those struggling with past abortions are finding God's healing and forgiveness.
Thus, it's safe to say that CareNet identifies itself as Christian.
From the CAPSS website (71 centers)
The Canadian Association of Pregnancy Support Services (CAPSS) is a national, non-political, registered Christian charity, committed to equipping pregnancy support services.
There are 4000 centers in the U.S. alone. Can we account for the other 2800 of them? Are they independent or are they affiliated with other networks? What statements can we make about the majority of centers? How about "Most centers are affiliated with Christian charities which are opposed to abortions."? All I'm looking for here is a way to avoid implying that all Christians are opposed to abortions. I'm not challenging the fact that CareNet and CAPSS self-identify as Christian. I'm just saying the two points are belief in Christ and opposition to abortion. These are a subset of the belief system called "conservative Christianity" but they are not all of it and I don't think you have to subscribe to all of conservative Christianity to work at a Christian CPC, just the two points of belief in Christ and opposition to abortion.
Oh, I don't think you're being disputatious. Your comments are helping us find a more precise phrasing, and the objection makes sense. Most centers are Christian charities rather than merely affiliated with Christian charities - and shifting "Christian" to the affiliated centers doesn't really solve the problem you refer to, because those larger charities also have opposition to abortion as their primary purpose - but does "identify as Christian" (without using "conservative") solve the problem, getting across what needs to be got across without implying that anti-abortionists have a monopoly on Christianity? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Roscelese above. It is important to differentiate between those which are clearly tied to Christian charities, either as stand-alone entities or as subunits of a broader Christian charity, and those which are comparatively independent. The last point you raised above could be addressed by perhaps directly saying something to the effect that while there remains significant disagreement within the Christian community at large about abortion, many of the abortion opponents are actively involved in the anti-abortion movement. However, I do still think that if it is possible determining the relative size and activity of the various CPCs might also be useful, particularly if, as I think might be the case, BI is among the larger, better "staffed", and more active of the CPC entities. John Carter (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
As above, I agree that it would be awesome to have information on the activity of the various CPC networks, particularly if that information is more recent than the info we have. It isn't a good idea to make decisions based on the presumption that Birthright is the most active unless we have a source indicating this, though (for all we know, it's just the more active one in your local area while Care Net is the most active elsewhere).
I don't think it's necessary to say that not all Christians oppose abortion. We'll just have to be more careful to avoid making statements that imply that they do, rather than saying outright that they don't. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Roscelese: stating that not all Christians oppose abortion is a digression. I'm satisfied that we avoid implying that Christianity=anti-abortion or that all those opposed to abortion are necessarily "conservative Christians" (whatever that nebulous term means). Just stick to the "two points" that are required by the CPCs: belief in Christ and opposition to abortion. Now, if there's a source that explicitly asserts that CPCs tend to be staffed by "conservative Christians", we can consider including it but it really would open up a can of worms and I'd be inclined to stay away from it. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I would argue that the purpose of CPCs is not just to "counsel women against having an abortion," as it says in the first sentence, but also to provide the support a woman would need to complete a pregnancy. Often women choose to have abortions because they feel they wouldn't be able to bring the baby to term, and CPCs are supposed to help her with clothes, baby food, counseling, and connections to adoption organizations or childcare agencies. And I think it's unfair to put in the second sentence of the definition of a CPC that they are "typically run by pro-life Christians according to a conservative Christian philosophy." Being Christian isn't part of the definition of being a CPC, it just so happens that a lot of CPCs, like CareNet, are overtly Christian. It is important to note that most CPCs are christian-affiliated, but could we move it further down in the article? Putting a generalization in the second sentence doesn't seem fair. And there's a big difference between the explicitly Christian CareNet and a non-religious, depoliticized organization like Birthright. Bellerophone29 (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
We already mention that Birthright's philosophy includes non-evangelism, but enough other CPCs are explicitly Christian, and CPCs' religious affiliation is discussed in enough detail in the article, that per WP:LEAD, which instructs us to summarize the article, that fact is worthy of inclusion.
The problem with taking away "counsel against abortion" is that it is the factor that defines a CPC. We can't say "CPCs are organizations that provide women with services to help them through pregnancy" because not all do. Some do, and we mention that in the lead (in the same way that we say they're typically Christian without making it definitional by saying "CPCs are Christian organizations that..."), but it's not the definition of a CPC. However, is there a phrasing that you think would be better? "established to try to get women not to have abortions"?
What does "Run by" mean? If it just means "a lot of Christians work/volunteer there, then that is more or less every place in North America. - Haymaker (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that's enough either, but I don't really see what you're objecting to in the text; it currently reads "run by pro-life Christians according to a conservative Christian philosophy." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Neutrality
I agree with the below statement that this is a very slanted article. It absolutely is written as though these centers are bad. This whole article needs a review of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.170.177 (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The article is written from the POV that CPCs are bad. The word "false" appears 13 times, "deceptive/deception" 11 times, "midlead/misleading" 5 times. Total 29. I know word frequency doesn't mean anything in an article: let's just say it quantifies my point. Reading the article is a chore. Every other sentence refers to something false/deceptive/etc. I am not a proponent of Criticism sections, but it may be the only way to get a handle on the redundancy. Lionel (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
To me it reads okay. What you've quantified is your reaction to it, not its absolute neutrality, if there can be any such thing. There's no way a criticism section will make this article better. Criticisms are interwoven with CPC actions and reactions. Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)So find reliable sources that describe positive things they do, and add them. Easy.
What would you propose putting in a criticism section? It seems to me that everything in it could easily be integrated into existing sections (which is why that's exactly what was done with the criticism section that used to exist). I don't see the point of separating "They sometimes advertise that they provide abortions" from "Some people don't like that they sometimes advertise that they provide abortions." A criticism section would create redundancy rather than reducing it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, neutrality doesn't mean we present all views as equal. It means we represent views in relation to their prevalence in our sources, and that we don't take sides. If it appears we are critical of CPCs, it could be because the majority of our sources are critical of CPCs. If we present them in a bad light, it could be because most sources present them in a bad light. However, we do have to be careful of having bias in source selection. We could give the illusion of "most sources feeling X", by selectively citing only biased sources. We also have to be careful how we craft our sentences. Wikipedia itself shouldn't take sides on a controversial issue. We should not make general blanket statements supporting one side of a controversy, but instead attribute those views to the proper sources. But we also have to make clear what views (if any) are more prevalent. Neutrality does not mean it is our job to correct perceived wrongs. We don't have to treat both sides equally if our sourced don't. And perhaps this is the "liberal media" bias or what have you, but again, Wikipedia's place is not to correct those wrongs, just repeat what is found in sources. All this is just general advice. It has been a while since I have read through this article, and I am not commenting on any specifics, nor how well I feel we are currently accomplishing this. I don't think a simple pseudo-statistical analysis of how many times we use negative words is that helpful.-Andrew c[talk]16:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
One of the most heavily used documents in the list of references is from the U.S. House of Representatives. These people are from the "abortion industry", whatever that is? Most of the other sources are mainstream newspapers and magazines. Do these publications perform abortions? I think this statement of yours, Haymaker, is incorrect.
I continue to question whether the POV tag is doing any good here. I don't see the problem defined clearly at all. If it is not actionable, the tag helps no one. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Is this NPOV?
Some campaigns to pass disclosure laws are supported by NARAL Pro-Choice America... which cites the ways in which "the centers mislead women."[89] ... NARAL's model, based on the one used in Baltimore, involves publishing studies on how CPCs mislead women
I also think it's redundant, but if I remember correctly, I'd already made one revert at the time I folded that from a separate section into the local ordinances paragraph, so I didn't want to remove anyone else's text. How about: 'Some campaigns to pass disclosure laws are supported by NARAL Pro-Choice America, a pro-choice political organization, which cites the ways in which "the centers mislead women."[89] The organization took credit for the passage of the Austin law.[86]' Avoids redundancy, avoids unnecessary information (their plan for passing laws includes talking to lawmakers? no really, do tell!) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
An IP has repeated the assertion that CPCs are "medical clinics" and I'm out of reversions for the nonce. Help would be fine. PhGustaf (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "an IP" is name-calling. Anyway, I have followed your suggestion and invited the IP to post his or her views here. PhGustaf (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Tracing "nonce" down in Wiki space, as expected, leads to many interesting paths. I will assure you, though, that when I said "for the nonce" I meant "for the time being" and had no thought whatever about buggering in gaols. PhGustaf (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I asserted it twice, and some CPCs are definitely medical clinics. See - http://www.annarborvitae.com/about.php - Arborvitae, a CPC, has medical doctors on staff. (See the site's "Staff & Board" section.) But it is true that not all CPCs are medical clinics, so I understand the correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.173.120 (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, there is a legal dimension to the term "medical clinic," which is not satisfied merely by having a doctor on staff. This means that saying CPCs are medical clinics is misleading to the point of being false, and especially given that the subject (pregnancy and abortion) is medical and people often use Wikipedia for lay medical research, we should try especially hard not to mislead. Also, given that we have cited information in the body that states that most CPCs are not clinics, the very few that may be are probably not significant enough for mention in the lead. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
![[icon]](/wiki/File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small}
.jpg)
![[1]](http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_3r6sJNDbb0w/SkloOWhNATI/AAAAAAAAEnc/yzOKuhpIlW0/s400/pregnant.bmp&imgrefurl=http://collectingmythoughts.blogspot.com/2009_06_01_archive.html&usg=__CdxhUHnQ-6GbDzAGeRqdRBMYdkM=&h=292&w=400&sz=26&hl=en&start=0&sig2=egAmk-7kuOQa1MwHSk_80g&zoom=1&tbnid=hhZv50C6YgXKTM:&tbnh=152&tbnw=208&ei=NFonTd_dM4G6sQOSubT-Bg&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCrisis%2Bpregnancy%2Bcenter%2Bbillboard%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dcom.google:en-US:official%26biw%3D1680%26bih%3D862%26tbs%3Disch:1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=314&oei=zlknTfLdHJPCsAOLgNGHBw&esq=7&page=1&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0&tx=122&ty=69){kind=link}
