Talk:Crisis pregnancy center/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

POV-Check

The article seems to be completely based around disparaging the subject. I'm no expert on the matter but it certainly seems the article could use a neutral review. PeRshGo (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not an expert either, but I'd be glad to work on it if you would point out specific problems that you have found. Gandydancer (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Generally the users who come in here and say that are drive-bys, usually associated with one or more of these centers, who are angry that we include so much well-sourced information about what they do and so little self-published information about how great they are and how terrible abortion is. Can you tell us how you would improve neutrality by adding information sourced to reliable secondary sources? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If I were to take on the project it would just involve removing the editorial content and writing an even handed encyclopedia article on the subject. It reads like it was written by someone with an agenda. Looking at the talk page here it appears I’m not the first person to make that claim, whether it’s baselessly dismissed as obviously coming from someone “associated with one or more of these centers” or not. But it seems the article is being regularly “patrolled” by more regular editors in order to make sure the agenda is kept intact. PeRshGo (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I would resist any attempt to lessen the voice of governmental institutions and researchers who are critical of CPCs. This article cannot be a whitewashing of the topic. The most authoritative sources must be given the strongest weight, and those sources are not positive. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So your idea of making the article more neutral is removing content cited to reliable secondary sources because you think it makes CPCs look bad, so that a greater proportion of the references will be self-published or otherwise trying to promote CPCs. What makes your proposal any different from any of the other failed proposals? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the tag until the editor points out specific edits/problems that need to be worked on. It is not enough to just state that it seems biased. Gandydancer (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion. The fact that the entire tone of the article is what needs to be changed rather than a few small issues is why I used the article tag rather than say, a section tag. This isn’t about removing sourced material as much as it is about changing this into an encyclopedia article rather than an argument against the subject. Honestly I didn’t place the tag to attract the attention of the same editors who have made this page what this is and “negotiate” with them. My hope is to get some attention from a neutral party. PeRshGo (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If you place a POV tag, you have to identify ways in which the article is deficient so that other editors can fix them. A POV tag isn't meant to be used as a badge of shame; you've got to come up with something better than "it's just not neutral, man! maybe if the tag stays up for a couple of months someone will come along and think of some reasons for me." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The POV tag does not belong if there is no actionable complaint. Binksternet (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that the article is in need of a neutral rewrite. That is most certainly actionable. PeRshGo (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Primary reason for existence

In this edit, BlueMoonlet confronts the question what is the primary reason for the existence of CPCs? BlueMoonlet takes an editorial action which puts the answer as more than stopping abortions. I think the mainstream opinion is that the primary purpose of CPCs is to stop abortions. Are there authoritative sources stating this plainly? Binksternet (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The cited sources should be fine; if you think it's necessary, we could quote (4, for example, has "crisis pregnancy centers...programs explicitly designed to steer women away from abortion") but I think we should avoid that in the lead. I'm more concerned about the repeated attempts to claim (in the lead, no less) that they are formed to, or often do, offer medical services, which is cited mostly to self-published material from individual CPCs but contradicted by real sources (the Cooperman source, which is cited to support the claim, even says that it's only a few hundred out of 3,000 that are doing this). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(And, of course, the repeated attempts to remove the exhaustively cited statement that CPCs regularly give out false medical information about alleged risks that have been disproven.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with your characterization, Binksternet. I found that Roscelese had a valid point in her edit summary, and I changed my edit accordingly. My second edit (the one you diff'ed) no longer makes any changes to the text on "the primary reason for the existence of CPCs". I agree with Roscelese's point that "established to counsel pregnant women against having an abortion" is by itself an appropriate answer to that question. However, by ending the paragraph at that, the article implied (falsely, I think) that that is all that CPCs do. This I addressed by adding "which often offers additional non-medical services". Here I am echoing the statement in the body of the article that "They may also provide STD screening, adoption referrals, religious counseling, financial assistance, prenatal services, child-rearing resources and other services" and am citing the same four references that are cited for that statement. I hope you'll agree that this is a sensible addition, and does not challenge the question that you both have assumed that it challenges.

Roscelese, I also don't agree with your characterization that I removed information. You have not addressed my point that "found" implies some kind of legal finality that is not supported by the cited source. Neither is it at all clear to me that you can source the word "many" instead of "some". And those were the only changes I made on that point. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you just missed the place in the lead where we already mention that some CPCs "provide pregnancy testing, sonograms, and other services"? It's certainly not necessary to talk about services twice in the lead, it makes more sense to do so when talking about what they do in paragraph 2 rather than in the very general paragraph 1, and "often" isn't supported by sources.

I disagree that "found" implies legal finality, but is there another phrasing you would suggest that doesn't imply it's just political opponents throwing out accusations? That is the implication in your present wording. Re "many," the issue with that is that there are dozens of citations about different CPCs all over the world providing false information and no sources at all supporting the claim that any individual CPC has given out accurate medical information. The trick is to find a word that isn't minimizing and doesn't imply that we have material about CPCs that have given out accurate information, which "some" definitely does; in the past, I've been in favor of omitting the quantifier entirely. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't miss it. The line you cite points out medical services that are offered by very few CPCs. This is not at all what I meant, which is why, in response to your excellent point, I modified my text to emphasize that I was referring to "non-medical services". As the body of the article already enumerates (and as I already quoted above), I am referring to counseling, assistance, resources, etc. This is entirely different from what is mentioned in the 2nd pgh, and is also very widespread among CPCs.

Your second point requires a more thoughtful response. More later. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

We still don't have the sources that would allow us to say "often" (or if we do, they're not cited for that statement - we'd need a. reliable sources that b. support the statement, while the current refs for that statement are mostly self-published CPC websites and one reliable news source that doesn't back up "often" - they were fine for where they were cited in the body, where it says that they "may also" without stating or implying that they often do - this is a long parenthetical). And the material would still belong in the second paragraph if it belongs in the lead at all. For comparison, the statements that CPCs proselytize, offer false medical information, and advertise deceptively are much better cited, but are not in the first paragraph of the lead because the first paragraph is a very basic definition of what a CPC is: a nonprofit that tries to get people not to have abortions. I look forward to reading your response to the other part - there's been a lot of discussion over that phrasing so maybe you'll have a new perspective. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Good points. I have changed "often" to "may also". I have also taken all the statements in the Intro of what CPCs do and put them into the first paragraph. This seems a logical way to organize it and avoids the problem I perceived of having the first pgh mention only one thing as if that is all that CPCs do. I hope you like it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That looks better. I may rearrange it slightly to put the non-counseling services in a separate sentence. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, this edit summary criticizes me for implying that "deceptive advertising is confined to CPCs claiming they're abortion clinics". However, my reading of the article indicates that legal action involving CPCs has indeed focused largely on (as my proposed text read) "deceptively advertis[ing] a CPC as an abortion clinic, or [failing] to disclose that they do not offer certain services or possess certain qualifications." Can you please enumerate the additional problems to which you were referring? Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears from the sources that the deceptive advertising prohibited by the laws in question also includes saying or implying that they provide X services or are licensed as a medical clinic, whereas your wording separated the two - "making it illegal to deceptively advertise, and also requiring disclosure." I don't object to a rephrase, but let's make sure it conveys the idea that the laws have to do with deceptive advertising in X, Y, and Z ways. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The third is easily fixed by adding "or a medical clinic" to my previous wording. As for the second, it seems to me that not clearing up misunderstandings (which primarily stem from the other two) is not in itself "advertising" and might best be mentioned separately as also something the legislation has addressed. This one is really just a matter of streamlining the language; I don't think we have a substantial disagreement here. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

An editor might believe that presenting oneself as a medical clinic, for example, doesn't constitute false advertising if they don't say they are a medical clinic, but sources would seem to disagree, and that's what we go on. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

My proposed language included "deceptively advertise a CPC as... a medical clinic". How does that not cover what you are saying? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should look at this from another angle - could you explain what you felt was the problem with the current wording, "punished or attempted to preempt deceptive advertising, targeting those that advertise as abortion clinics or requiring centers to disclose that they do not offer certain services or possess certain qualifications"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

For one thing, it uses "advertise" twice in one sentence, and otherwise could use a bit of streamlining. For another, laws do not "punish" things, they make things illegal; punishment may or may not come later, depending on whether there are violations. Finally, while it may be true that CPCs routinely do the scurrilous things implied by the text, saying so is not actually needed here (it duplicates the first pgh, for one thing); I was trying to find text that sidesteps that issue while focusing on the content of the laws. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what you're referring to about duplication - the first paragraph mentions false medical information, while the laws have to do with false advertising. The points about the language are valid; what do you think of the version I put in? I thought about replacing "deceptive advertising" with "deceptive publicity" to avoid repetition, but "deceptive advertising" is actually a phrase, and it sounded weird to replace it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Your edit is mostly fine. How about "present themselves as abortion clinics"? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It works for me - in your opinion, do you think that covers listing themselves under "abortion clinics" in the telephone directory, etc.? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly it includes that. It is, I think, broader than "advertise", which is more or less limited to what you mention. --BlueMoonlet (t/c)

In response to your point regarding "found" and "accuse" and "many" and "some":

Firstly, I don't agree that "accuse" (another option you might prefer is "allege") implies that the claim is mere partisan bickering or otherwise unbelievable. This is standard language in the media for a claim that is one side of a story, even though it may be highly believable, if it has not been established impartially (e.g., in a court of law). Secondly, on the other hand, we should keep in mind that many of the sources cited in this article, including Waxman and Maloney and many in the news media, are in fact quite partisan on this issue. This does not mean that their claims aren't true, but it does mean that (per NPOV) we should be careful about endorsing controversial claims as true without stipulations from the other side of the controversy and/or concrete findings by an impartial source such as a court of law. I am not suggesting that any information be removed, but rather that controversial claims be identified as coming from their source, rather than being simply stated as fact.

Thirdly, I am concerned whether there is really agreement across POVs that the claims are false. For example, not everyone agrees that the lack of a measurable relationship between abortion and poor mental health means it is inappropriate to discuss the spiritual effects of abortion. More could be said about that, but I just mention it as an example that "false" may seem a strong word, at least in some cases. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

We have plenty of newspaper sources finding exactly the same thing. Our writing style and guidelines aren't those of the news media, however, and "accused"/"alleged" does indeed imply baselessness when someone's reading an encyclopedia. In the past, I've used an active voice (eg. "journalists, congressional investigators, etc. have found") to avoid suggesting that the finding was a legal one, but that was thought to be too much detail in the lead or something, I don't remember why it's not there anymore. Again, is there a phrasing you would prefer to "found" that doesn't suggest that the "accusations" are just random? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

How about "Journalists have reported the dissemination of false medical information by CPCs..."? You may want to add some numerical quantifier to "journalists". I think the qualifier is important; if someone shows up and objects, we can discuss that. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think "reported" is a decent alternative. Do you think it should be in passive voice ("CPCs have been reported") or active ("prospective clients, journalists, etc. have reported")? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you found a passive-voice wording that seems pretty neutral to me. I just made the edit. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Super. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you please tell me why you removed the word "some"? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said - it's minimizing in a way that doesn't reflect the sources. Do you have other suggestions for a quantifier? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to add more citations for this statement that deal more specifically with the percentage of CPCs that may engage in this practice. As far as I can tell, the one currently cited only has specific information about two or three CPCs. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ohhhh maybe I understand the source of the confusion now. There's a whole section in the body cited to dozens of separate sources; it would just be unsightly and disruptive to put all those sources in the lead. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I should think the two or three best sources should be cited in the Intro, and they should actually support the statement. But I'll take some time to look more closely at the sources cited in the body. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You're joking, right? No, we're not dismissing or watering down a firm scientific consensus to give "equal validity" to the idea that abortion causes "spiritual" problems. "False" is the appropriate word to use for claims that are dismissed by all major medical bodies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that science has disproven the idea that abortion is spiritually harmful? I would suggest that science's ability to address such questions is limited. Much depends on what exactly was said at the CPC: It would be false to say that "A has been proven to be harmful" when no such scientific consensus exists; it would be misleading to say that "studies show A to be harmful" when a minority of studies say so but a majority of studies say otherwise; but it's much more of a gray area to say that "A may be harmful, and has been in many cases", especially when the harm comes in forms that are hard to measure scientifically. But I'm not going to press this point at this time. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Qualification seems unneccessary

My edit including a picture with caption "Example of deceptive advertising by a CPC" was edited to include the qualifier "alleged". I feel this is superfluous as this qualification is not backed by what is stated about CPC advertising methods in the accompanying section. --L2blackbelt (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The word "alleged" is not needed—shouldn't be there. Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on how the pictured advertisement is deceptive, and on how it relates to any of the accusations in the text? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Has the topic been covered that many CPCs ARE legitimate medical clinics? The one I volunteer at has a staff of six nurses and a physician medical director and it qualifies by law. CPC's are converting in droves to become legitimate medical clinics. For everyone to assume that CPC workers are making it up does not serve to allow readers a comprehensive understanding of the facts. Krackatoa (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)lp 06/30/12

Source, please. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

The overall tone of the introduction is very anti-CPC bias. Two name a few points:

• The first and second sentences needs to be reworked (merged). The first sentence has a very harsh spin.
• There are numerous negative facts in the introduction but no postives. The intro is on the attack.
• "run by pro-life Christians according to a conservative Christian philosophy" though probably technically true in the majority of cases, this does have undertones of hosility.
• Comparing CPCs to the number of abortion clinincs provides nothing more than trying to take sides, by implying that abortion clinics are being "drowned out and bullied by the huge number of CPCs".

Everything in the introduction is factually true. Though this article is related to a highly sensitive topic (which I more than appreciate), there is clear anti-CPC bias in the introduction which needs to be addressed. Wipkipkedia (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the number of abortion clinics is probably unnecessary in the lead, but other than that...the lead's a summary of the article, and the article reflects what's in reliable sources about CPCs. It's unlikely that positive material of a volume and quality that will match the negative material will be found (ie. I'm sure there are websites and news orgs that say CPCs are awesome, but, being agenda-based, blogs, self-published CPC websites, low editorial standards, etc., they do not meet the RS standards met by the mainstream news sources that have provided our other information).

I do not see any possible way of making the first sentence less "harsh." The purpose of a CPC is to counsel people not to have abortions. This is copiously sourced, and it's obviously a good thing to many people. We've had users in the past who have edited the lead to claim that the primary purpose of CPCs is to provide people with health and childcare services, but this simply is not supported by the sources. I'd like to hear your suggestions for rewording, but any rewording must not change the substance.

Can you explain what you feel could be better about "run by pro-life Christians according to a conservative Christian philosophy"? We've had a lot of contention over how best to summarize the section on CPCs' religious identification and activities, so your feedback would be helpful. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll provide a rework suggestion in due course. 203.160.119.161 (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm looking forward to hearing your suggestions. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Citation overkill

MastCell, I'm sensitive to your argument that there are too many citations, but I've spent a long time at this article and am used to agenda-driven editors (obviously you're not among them) trying to whittle down citations one by one, ostensibly for technical reasons, so that they can eventually remove an exhaustively supported statement. The problem is that the documentation of false medical claims is supported by many, many sources, but each of these sources also supports many different things in the article (false medical claims and otherwise), so it's not so easy as bundling all the sources into one footnote. How do you think we should arrange the citations for easier reading without removing them from the statements they support? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the best option is to handle agenda-driven editing effectively upfront, rather than combating it with citation overkill - but this site's mechanisms for handling agenda-driven editing suck. Really, one or two good refs should be sufficient, and if there are objections on narrow technical grounds then it should be enough to point to the large network of supporting sources on the talkpage.

A second option is to "bundle" all of the relevant refs into a single footnote (see, for example, how we present scientific opinion on abortion and breast cancer in footnote #58 of the abortion article). This doesn't alleviate clutter in the "References" section, but at least makes the article body readable without a distracting screen-wide string of footnotes. MastCell ^Talk 21:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Right, the bundling is the sort of thing I meant to argue was difficult here because of references being cited for many things rather than just one. I feel like we'd wind up with a situation where the citation template for certain sources would appear twenty times in separate footnotes for each type of medical misinformation. Maybe the solution is to create a reference list, then bundle a citation that refers to the references in question by name or shorthand? eg.

False info about abortion and breast cancer[ref1], mental health,[ref2], complications[ref3]

Works cited

Smith, "Crisis pregnancy centers and the anti-abortion movement"

Jones, "Undercover investigation of a CPC"

Rota, "Shock propaganda"

Dennis, "Babies and stuff"

Andrews, "Deception at CPCs"

Hassan, "Trends in medicine and political movements"

References

[ref1] Jones, Rota, Dennis, Andrews

[ref2] Smith, Jones, Rota, Dennis, Hassan

[ref3]Dennis, Andrews, Hassan

Thoughts? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Correlation Between Breast Cancer and Abortion

I'm concerned that the article asserts that CPC's make misleading statements about the link between breast cancer and abortion. This simply isn't true. This link shows 53 studies that showed a correlation. In addition, there are 8 studies showing correlation done since the one in 2007 that any consider the best study showing no correlation. http://www.bcpinstitute.org/epidemiology_studies_bcpi.htm There's an assumption rampant on the web that pro-lifers are a bunch of ignorant yokels, because we have "unscientific" religious beliefs. Because of this, no one takes what we are saying seriously to actually look the studies up. Please take a look at the link I've provided and offer a balanced report. At the very least, it would be helpful that readers understand that no one presenting the link between breast cancer and abortion is intentionally misleading. Thank you. Krackatoa (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)lp 06/30/12

BCPI was founded by Joel Brind solely to distribute its own conclusions on the subject and it not a reliable source of factual information. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

We cannot use anything from BCPI: unreliable. Binksternet (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup, the source is rubbish. We are not going to take the word of an anti-abortion advocacy group over the word of authoritative medical bodies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should not favorably cite the BCPI study. But it would seem important to mention its existence. If people believe what they are saying, then by most definitions they are not lying; they may be mistaken, even irresponsibly so, but they are not lying. Yet the page as currently written implies that CPCers deliberately lie on this issue.

It seems to me that the responsible way to discuss the controversy would be to mention the sources that CPCers cite (this is an article about CPCs, after all, and it is highly relevant what they believe and why), while also mentioning that the scientific consensus is strongly against that position. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

We could mention the studies (if it's in the sources!) because "what sources CPCs cite" is information about CPCs. Other than that, the discredited studies have no place in the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that was my point. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, come on! It's not medical doctors vs. ignorant conservative yokels. There are medical doctors who advise and support us. Yes, REAL medical doctors. Why are your comments so insulting? You say what I show you is "rubbish" but you don't provide any logical reasons why, just brash dismissiveness. The "scientific consensus" isn't strongly against that position. It's just that the pro-choice voice is more active on the internet. Besides, does majority vote make something right? Pro-life doctors have valid medical opinions just as pro abortion doctors. Oh, and can you please critique the actual studies and not just the website they are referenced on? That's far more fair. http://www.prch.org/ Krackatoa (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)lp 07/01/12

You should read the guidelines at WP:RSMED. The fact that "dueling studies" exist does not mean that both sides are equally valid. Our job is to gauge the consensus of the scientific community, using secondary sources when possible.

Science is not just about ideology. Do all (or even most) "pro-life doctors" really believe in the abortion/cancer link? Do you have evidence that they do? And if the science for it were really strong, then there would be plenty of "pro-choice doctors" speaking positively about that evidence despite their political views. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed more information and you are correct that leading medical organizations do say there is no link. I apologize for being a bit reactive. I've very surprised, that's all. I will inform others of these facts. The tone of the article is a bit offensive though, because so many negative things are said and so many pro-choice links are given. I don't see much that would be construed as positive about CPC's. It concerns me. It looks like a pro-choice agenda and not a non-biased one. I know that no one I work with are intentionally misleading anyone. Also, not intentionally scaring them. It's just the facts. Even plain abortion facts- descriptions by doctors of how the procedures are done. From what I hear, no one is routinely shown that at Planned Parenthood. No one is "intentionally luring" and "scaring" women for religious reasons at clinics I know. In fact, no one at my clinic evangelizes or even mentions God in any way unless the client brings it up. From what I understand, quite a lot of protestant clinics do preach God, but Catholic ones do not. Just to say, "intentionally luring for religious reasons" itself just sounds biased. We have a lot of clinics across the nation and segments are "bad apples" just like when people take cameras into Planned Parenthood, they may happen to film a "bad clinic" that isn't representative of them all. So, this is the main bias I see. Why all the references to the bad stuff mainly? CPC's help women find ways to afford their kids and support them. We make it easier for them to become parents. A vast number of women have abortions because they just don't know how they can afford them, so we help. Krackatoa (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)lp 07/01/12

I appreciate what you're saying. A few comments: 1) Although your personal experience may affect your orientation as you edit, I'm afraid it cannot be explicitly cited to support anything in the article, because (to the rest of us) your experience is unverifiable. The only allowable basis for statements in this (or any) article is reliable sources. 2) It's not Wikipedia's purpose to give equal time to pro-CPC and anti-CPC voices; rather, it's to describe the verifiable facts in an impartial way. This is a subtle distinction, but an important one. 3) I agree with you that this page currently falls short of that ideal; however, I think there is good hope for improvement if pro-CPC folks can be found who can listen respectfully and engage with others who may disagree, and who are knowledgeable about reliable sources to support their position. Best, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Well said BlueMoonlet. As I've said before, sure it's possible that individual clinics may be different. But we need real sources, especially if we're to downplay what real sources have already said. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I will work on finding good sources to document what I'm talking about. Krackatoa (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)lp 07/02/12

Roscelese, could you tell me why my sources are inadequate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjilin (talk • contribs) 17:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons isn't a medical journal and so we can't even pretend that it's a reliable source for any sort of medical claim. World Journal of Surgical Oncology may be reliable, but individual studies don't override reviews, statements from major medical bodies about prevailing scientific opinion, etc. See WP:MEDRS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A list of sources supporting text stating one side of a contentious issue is insufficient. The mainstream viewpoint must be made clear to the reader, with due weight given to it. This article is not the place to argue the case, it is the place to describe the argument. Binksternet (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do you say the peer-reviewed Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons isn't a medical journal? Why should we deprive Wikipedia readers the opinion of those that disagree with the (often politicized) established dogma of various medical bodies? Instead of silencing dissident voices let's allow the reader to decide! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimjilin (talk • contribs) 05:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Jimjilin (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's read the Wikipedia article on it (Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons): "The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not listed in major academic literature databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed[45] nor the Web of Science.[46] The U.S. National Library of Medicine declined repeated requests from AAPS to index the journal, citing unspecified concerns.[1] Articles and commentaries published in the journal have argued a number of non-mainstream or scientifically discredited claims,[1]". That sounds like a pretty good reason to not use it as a source to me. NW (Talk) 12:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The article at present cites NARAL and a highly partisan Democratic politician! This kind of bias violates Wikipedia rules. Let's hear both sides of the controversy. Quote about Joel Brind: One expert disallowed from participating was Dr. Joel Brind, a biology and endocrinology professor who had co-authored a meta-analysis demonstrating an abortion/breast cancer (ABC) link. Brind protested that the outcome was predetermined by “experts” handpicked by Dr. Brinton who either were not really experts, were dependent on the NCI or other government agencies for grants, or were pro-abortion extremists, such as two who had previously provided paid “expert” court testimony on behalf of abortionists. Quote about Dr. Louise Brinton: Around February 2003, Dr. Louise Brinton, a National Cancer Institute’s chief of the Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, served as chairperson at an NCI workshop in Bethesda, Md., assessed whether abortion was implicated as a breast cancer risk. Results revealed then there was no link.

However sometime in April 2009, Dr. Brinton co-authored a research paper which was published in the Journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, revealed a conclusion that the risk of a particularly deadly form of breast cancer that attacks women under 40 raises 40 percent if a woman had an abortion. I'm suggesting we move just a little in the direction of fairness.Jimjilin (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't hear both sides of the controversy if one sude is a fringe point of view. You are free to believe what you want in the real world, but that is irrelevant here. Let's see the Wikipedia article on abortion-breast cancer hypothesis: "The abortion–breast cancer hypothesis has been the subject of extensive scientific inquiry, and the scientific community has concluded that abortion does not cause breast cancer. This consensus is supported by major medical bodies,[5] including the World Health Organization,[6] the U.S. National Cancer Institute,[7][8] the American Cancer Society,[9] the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,[10] and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.[11]" This article should merely summarize that article, given how unequivocally it is stated on that page.

As far as your last sentence goes, are you referring to PMID 19423537 or PMID 19861523? Both are irrelevant. If you continue to push your non-neutral point of view using inadequete sources and allegations of conspiracy you may be sanctioned, so I would advise that you knock it off. NW (Talk) 12:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd echo what NW said: we're not going to pretend that a view held by a tiny handful of committed advocates is equivalent to a view held by every reputable expert scientific body in the world. We're just not, so there's no use trying to find a way around it. We're bound by Wikipedia's policies (if not by common sense and basic honesty) to make clear that this purported link has no significant scientific support. I'd add that in the real world, Louise Brinton is among the foremost experts on breast-cancer epidemiology, and by posting poorly-thought-out and totally unsubstantiated accusations that she's committed a politically motivated fraud, you're violating this site's policy on biographical material. MastCell ^Talk 16:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

So NW your contention is that Brinton and Brind are on the fringe? What's your evidence? You say I use "inadequete [sic] sources". Why are the peer reviewed studies I want to include inadequate? What is your proof that all these researchers are on the fringe? Is it right trying to silence dissident voices? Is it really so hard to believe that government agencies, and those funded by the government, will on occasion serve politicians rather than the truth?Jimjilin (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC) MC you write: "Louise Brinton is among the foremost experts on breast-cancer epidemiology". If this is so why do you want to stop me from including her study!!! Here's your unproven hyperbole: "a view held by every reputable expert scientific body in the world." In reality some medical groups recognize the link. Check this out: http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/medicalgroups/index.htm And this: http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdfJimjilin (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC) It's not our job to decide if there is an abortion-breast cancer link, we should simply present the evidence from various respected researchers. I certainly don't want to cover up information from organizations that claim there is no link. I don't understand why some people want to deny women information about a possible serious danger to their health!Jimjilin (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC) My suggestion is that we at least include the study by Louise Brinton.Jimjilin (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)We should also point out that the American Cancer Society states: Studies have found that women using oral contraceptives (birth control pills) have a slightly greater risk of breast cancer than women who have never used them. This risk seems to go back to normal over time once the pills are stopped. Link: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/detailedguide/breast-cancer-risk-factors Jimjilin (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)I also hope we can agree that NARAL is not a neutral source. Using this source is a violation of Wikipedia rules.

The reason given by Roscelese for not including the information from the American Cancer Society is OR on her part. It is WP place to present the fact from valid RS, not to remove facts that are presented because "contraceptives *lower* the risk of some cancers". CPCs have been presenting the link between contraceptives and breast cancer for years, The American Cancer Society studies back it up. To hide that fact is editing with a POV pure and simple. Provide the valid RS that say contraceptives "lower" the risks and let the reader decide. In reality it is two different types, sounds like lower percentage of ovarian cancer, but higher percentage of breast cancer. Although there are studies that say ANY form of birth control (i.e. even a male vasectomy) decrease the percentage of ovarian cancer by the same amount.[1] Marauder40 (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What in ever-loving hell are you talking about? There's a minor associated increase in the breast cancer risk and an associated decrease in the ovarian or endometrial cancer risk (the cervical cancer risk is affected by HPV). [2] The source about CPCs saying contraceptives caused cancer didn't specify which sort of cancer, so, as I explained, we could imagine that they were selectively omitting facts instead of (as in other listed situations) outright lying. If the information isn't false, it wouldn't belong under false information. (And if you would like to retain that information, we would obviously have to include the association with decreased cancer risk as well.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Do phrases like "What in ever-loving hell are you talking about?" really help in a discussion? The source you use that claims CPCs lie and only say cancer is dubious at best. NARAL is a highly questionable source for RS in an article about CPCs. Especially since it is written in WP voice without saying things like "NARAL states." You can find numerous sources that specifically state breast cancer was the example given. Do all CPCs say breast cancer vs. cancer? Most of the literature that I have seen from CPCs talk about an increase in breast cancer. Many online sources say the same thing Perfect example comes from Planned Parenthood's lapdog [3] in relationship to abortion (not contraceptives).Marauder40 (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you need to take another look at the edit you reverted. I didn't just remove the American Cancer Soc. information, I also removed the information which said CPCs tell clients that contraceptives cause cancer. What are these "numerous sources" that mention the same thing? Obviously we have dozens of sources on CPCs' promotion of the abortion-breast cancer myth, but that's not the same thing and is addressed in a different paragraph. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

FRC document

I think this has been brought up before but it must be buried in talk somewhere, and this is presumably more recent anyway - the far-right Family Research Council, which promotes crisis pregnancy centers, releases documents on how they're going, which could be useful to us. One such is linked here. Obviously these will have to be taken with an enormous grain, nay a rock of salt, but maybe there are some useful bits that FRC hasn't managed to spin or lie about. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Decreasing External Link Section

This article has a tag at the bottom for too many external citations. I'd like to start reading the articles, pull relevant info, cite properly, and remove from that section. Since the page is protected I thought I'd come here first and mention it -before- I started. Does anyone have issues with that? Cap020570 (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Need valid citations on risk of childbirth versus risk of abortion

The article should provide valid and accessible sources for the response to misinformation. The article uses citations 11, 13 and 28 to disprove claim of childbirth being safer than abortion (False medical information, 1st paragraph). My comments are below each citation.

11. Smith, Joanna (August 7, 2010). "Deception used in counseling women against abortion". Toronto Star. Article does not mention overall risk of harm or death, thus it doesn't prove abortion is safer than childbirth. Article is valid just for specific discussions on Breast Cancer, Fertility Problems, or Emotional Trauma.

13. Gibbs, Nancy (February 15, 2007). "The Grass-Roots Abortion War". Time Article access requires you to be a paid subscriber. Surely a free source to the topic can be located.

28. Solow, Barbara (June 18, 2003). "Medicine or ministry?". Independent Weekly. Article claims "abortion (is) statistically 11 times safer than childbirth" but fails to cite its source. Thus it is repeating 'hearsay', and is invalid as a verifiable source.

I stopped checking sources after this paragraph, hopefully the rest of article is better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddrav (talk • contribs) 19:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is not about the safey of abortion (which is here). This article is about CPC's and what --they-- do. Cap020570 (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Safe Haven

I would like to remove the 'Safe Haven' section of this article. According to the HHS, CPC's are --not-- including in safe haven drop sites, only 4 states allow churches. see this link. (and that link should probably be put here, but I digress). I thought I would ask here since the page has protection. Cap020570 (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

It's still in effect in Louisiana (per sources from late July/early August 2013). The thing I'd wonder about is whether it could be merged into another section, since the section is one sentence long and unlikely to expand. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you put a link here then. The link that is there now is dead, and I couldn't find it at the site, etc. Cap020570 (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I have it from this - not an announcement of the change, but does list CPCs in the acceptable locations. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I went searching through the document from the HHS I linked above. LA does have CPC's as an option. Still should be merged like you said, I think. Cap020570 (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Separation in subtitle verses each of it's contents

Kearbear73 (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Please separate the subtitle "History and activities". "History" should contain the first paragraph, 'False medical information', and 'Advertising methods', unless sources are cited for 2013. "Activities" should contain 'Use of Sonograms', 'Religious affiliation', and 'Legality'. By not distinguishing between the two, one may assume these practices are current which is false. The most recent article is #12 but is specific to one state (North Carolina) which should be stated in the sentence. The sentence under 'Advertising methods' that begins with, "However, Robert Pearson, identified by some as the founder of the CPC movement, said"...does not give a source about that. Who is "some" in that particular sentence? Kearbear73 (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

 Not done There is no good reason to assume that something documented less than a year and a half ago has stopped happening, and even if that were a reasonable assumption, there's also more recent documentation (not something we would necessarily be able to use, but from 2013: [4]) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Discrepancy in one sentence

Please change the following sentence: However, Robert Pearson, identified by some as the founder of the CPC movement, said that a woman "has no right to information" that will allow her to have an abortion.[23] to; However, Robert Pearson, the founder of the Pearson Foundation, said that a woman "has no right to information" that will allow her to have an abortion.[23][new source] It is noted that many counseling centers are opposed to the Pearson Foundation approach. [new source]One article I found about who Robert Pearson is backs this point by stating, "Even groups vigorously opposed to abortion - including Birthright, a chain of similar counseling centers - have objected to the Pearson Foundation approach." If no correction is made at least here, I would be bold enough to state that this entire article leans towards a pro-choice bias. Is that what it is aimed for or is the article supposed to be informative/unbiased? I respectfully ask these changes because I volunteer at a CPC. I personally told a young lady even today on a phone call that we do not do abortions nor refer for them when she point-blank asked me if we do abortions. Therefore, I disagree with your statement that many CPCs identify Robert Pearson as our founder. May I ask which CPCs believe this? http://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/23/nyregion/pregnancy-centers-anti-abortion-role-challenged.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm Kearbear73 (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

References

One of our sources states that Pearson founded the first CPC in 1967. (Other sources disagree.) I don't think "founder of the Pearson Foundation" is quite enough; do you have another suggestion that you think would continue to convey his importance to the movement while avoiding what you see as CPCs identifying Pearson as their founder? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

How about this: "However, Robert Pearson, who some say is the founder of the first CPC, said that a woman "has no right to information" that will allow her to have an abortion."[23] and then add the sentence, " It is noted none the less, that most CPCs are opposed to Pearson's approach." [new source] It is true other sources disagree because I just found one. http://www.lifenews.com/2009/09/30/nat-5523/ states, "The first pregnancy center network was founded by Birthright in Canada in 1968"... Kearbear73 (talk) 06:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

References

I don't think your new source contradicts the one we have (Pearson's CPC might not have been part of a network). Now that I look again, we specifically mention Birthright's opposition to Pearson methods, two paragraphs up. Do you think that's sufficient? I think stating it multiple times is a bad idea, but perhaps you think we should move the information from where it currently is. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You are right about stating it too many times (others disagreement), it's not needed. Thanks for pointing that out. I think that changing the first sentence I suggested would be sufficient for my argument that many if not MOST CPCs do not recognize him as their founder. I also found another sentence in the first paragraph under History and activies: "Others cite Robert Pearson as the founder of the CPC movement." That sentence should be changed as well. It could read something like...."Others cite Robert Pearson as the founder of the first CPC which can be significant to the entire movement." so that you can get your point across about how significant you want him to be. The word, "can", however is fair enough. Kearbear73 (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, made the change. What do you think? (And do you still think anything needs to be done with the later mention of Pearson?) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I like that first change. Yes, I think the later mention needs to change as well. It can say "identified by some as the first CPC founder"....I want to stay away entirely from the phrase "founder of the CPC movement". I believe there is big difference between the two.Kearbear73 (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, made a similar change to the other mention. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! That's all for now. :)Kearbear73 (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

NPOV:False Medical Information

Obviously, with an issue as contentious as this one it is difficult to maintain neutrality. The assertions in the section called "False Medical Information" are the result of a failure to maintain NPOV. Many studies are cited to backup the position that many other studies are wrong. The data in these studies is being driven, in large part, by personal biases in both directions. It is seemingly the wiki maintainer's belief that the personal bias only or predominantly exists on the anti-choice side. However, that should not influence the information within the article. This sections should at the very least be renamed. Something like controversial, non-consensus, contentious Medical Inforamtion should work much more effectively to convey what is happening. Only linking the the pro-choice studies refute the anti-choice studies should also be avoided. Most assertions of these groups are based on studies and lnking from one group and not the other undermines the NPOV. Anon21 (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.21.145.13 (talk)

Please be aware that when it comes to medical topics, we are particularly stringent in our requirements for reliable sourcing. Thus, material purporting to support the "information" these organizations give out is generally excluded as failing those tests of reliability in medical information. See also WP:FRINGE. Our insistence on a neutral point of view does not mean that we have to treat all assertions as equally valid, without considering the sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Basically what Orange Mike said. Neutrality does not entail accepting all views as equally valid regardless of sourcing - when many major medical bodies state that eg. there is no such thing as "post-abortion syndrome" and the sources that claim it exists are agenda-based websites or old/badly designed studies, it's not "neutral" to state that the centers are providing medical information about it. "Bias" in favor of fact isn't the sort of "bias" Wikipedia avoids. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

If the perceived bias does not exist, why is "False medical information" the largest section of the article? –Joppa Chong (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Er... probably because crisis pregnancy centers are best known for providing false medical information? MastCell ^Talk 04:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no bias here. The information given out at a great many CPCs is medically false, per reliable sources. The sources that defend the information are poor sources, unreliable. The only bias here is in what sources are seen as reliable (scholarly, academic) versus what ones are not (pro-life, religious, activist). Binksternet (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Argument from authority has no place in a neutral discussion. If someone presents scientific evidence that contradicts what the experts say, it should be presented in a non-condemning manner. And the fact you automatically put "pro-life" and "religious" as though they are opposed to "scholarly" and "academic" is clear bias. This page is a clear example of using bias to mislead people. 68.35.138.163 (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If someone presents properly peer-reviewed scientific evidence based upon reproducible research that contradicts what the experts say, it should be presented in a non-condemning manner. Presenting opinion as scientific evidence is a clear example of using bias to mislead people. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The dominating topic seems to be criticism, criticism, criticism. After all, this stuff could serve as a kind of hate page. –Joppa Chong (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Bluntly, that is because there is nothing in the objective literature covering the "medical advice" these centers offer which is other than critical. They are at heart false flag operations, and are widely discussed as such. That's a hard fact, and one you are unlikely to surmount. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Every item cited is from a reliable source. Cap020570 (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Gaining consensus for changes

@Cloonmore: You've made a number of disruptive edits to this article. They may have been mixed in with good edits, but you need to try to make the good edits without mixing them in with the removal of exhaustively sourced information about eg. CPCs' use of false medical information and religious activity or the removal of specific reliable sources. @Padresfan94: it's the end of October, not the first of April. Jokes like "restoring consensus version" when the article had been basically stable for over a year before Cloonmore made massive changes aren't actually funny, you know. Some of us are serious editors trying to improve the encyclopedia and we don't enjoy it when you behave like a troll. Both of you need to learn not to edit disruptively and to attempt to gain consensus for these changes. Would you like to use this talkpage section to try to start? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey serious editor, why did you remove TIME magazine and where did you get the consensus to minimize the contributions to Jews to the field? Padresfan94 (talk) 07:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said already, you need to make constructive edits (such as the addition of a newer source on the singular Jewish CPC) without a whole host of destructive edits. By the way, you seem to have kept your editing window open a long time and accidentally removed all those reliable sources again while removing that category. Please fix this mistake by reverting yourself, so that it doesn't look like you're trying to impose a worse-sourced and POV version of the article through edit warring instead of discussion and consensus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Except that the addition of a new source on the Jewish CPC was indeed accomplished by a constructive edit, and reverted by a disruptive edit by you, Rosc, which included false accusations aimed at me. BTW, the violations of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL seem to be par for the course for you, but that disruptive edit looks like yet another abuse of Twinkle by you, Rosc. Take this as another friendly reminder that your rollback privileges are being put at serious risk. Cloonmore (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, in a long string of edits like that, it's frequently all but impossible to revert them selectively. (But I understand if you don't know this since you don't edit very much and only edit a few particular articles.) You will just have to implement the constructive edits separately. Would you like to undo Padresfan's accidental revert? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You may want to retract that comment, because you're making a very good case for the suspension of your rollback privileges. It is indeed "all but impossible" to revert individual edits when you use Twinkle to roll back en masse edits that even YOU concede included constructive edits. And so wise and experienced an editor as Roscelese surely knows that's abusive.Cloonmore (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Again: frequent/broad-focused/experienced editors are aware that you usually can't undo single edits in a string like that. Now, back on topic, would you like to try to achieve consensus for your changes, or undo Padresfan's accidental destructive revert? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Whoa, lets take it easy with the Personal Attacks there Roscelese and all focus on building. Now are there any issues with the Content, rather than the User, that you sense? Padresfan94 (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Any editor making large-scale edits containing both non-contentious and contentious changes should not be surprised when the entire edit is reverted. If you want to make non-contentious changes to this article, don't roll them in with contentious changes. Also, the only personal attacks that I am seeing here are unjustified allegations of personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless you unpack that and explain what you mean by "large-scale edits" and not "rolling them in," your comment's not particularly helpful. Consider that the issue under discussion concerns a number of 'individual' edits on various stated bases that were subjected to "large scale" reversion. Cloonmore (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Reminder

This article is subject to discretionary sanctions under the abortion arbitration case. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

It should go without saying, but apparently doesn't, that organizations like NARAL, Crisis Pregnancy Center Watch, and the Pro-Choice Action Network, are not reliable sources for info regarding pro-life crisis pregnancy centers.Cloonmore (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

We can certainly tell the reader what has been published about CPCs despite the publishers being activist or watchdog groups. The sources are used widely in the media, cited as fact, respected for their accuracy. They are reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Binx, I'm sure they're respected for their accuracy by you, and may indeed be widely used by lazy "media" and "cited as fact,", but that's far from enough. They're self-published, self-funded "reports" by groups whose aim is to shut down CPCs.

From NARAL NY:

"We are fighting back by raising awareness about CPCs. As long as New York’s women are unaware of their true agenda, these anti-choice organizations will continue to spread misinformation and outright lies to women in our communities. If you'd like to learn more or find out how you can help expose crisis pregnancy centers, please don't hesitate to contact us!"

From NARAL MD:

"We create the It's Lies campaign, a groundbreaking educational campaign on Baltimore City buses that educated people about the deceptive tactics used by CPCs."

ProChoice Action Network no longer exists but is website lives on. It was a "political and educational advocacy group that lobbies for women's right to choice on abortion." Who knows who or what "Crisis Pregnancy Center Watch" was.

All are avowed enemies of the pro-life movement and of CPCs specifically. They are about as reliable on CPCs as the National Rifle Association would be on the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Cloonmore (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't particularly care which side is against which other side. I've never visited a crisis pregnancy center nor do I have a horse in this race. In disputed Wikipedia articles such as this one I turn to studies by scholars, which is what I meant when I wrote "media" above (sorry about the confusion—I should have used the word literature.) My point is that scholars lead the way forward, brushing aside the bias on both sides to tell us the scientific truth. Scholars generally accept the pro-choice arguments as fact while describing the pro-life arguments as sociological positions based on emotion or religion rather than science. Wikipedia goes with the scholars and the science when it comes down to telling the reader what are the facts.

An especially disturbing scenario is this kind of reduction you made in which watchdog references are removed while biased primary references such as Heartbeat International, Arkansas Right To Life, K-Life, CareConfidential, Care-Net and NIFLA are retained. It makes no sense to me. Binksternet (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

"My point is that scholars lead the way forward, brushing aside the bias on both sides to tell us the scientific truth. Scholars generally accept the pro-choice arguments as fact while describing the pro-life arguments as sociological positions based on emotion or religion rather than science." Pure, unadulterated fantasy. I'm almost touched by your childlike view of the academy, Binx. Have you ever actually met a perfesser -- er, scholar? Cloonmore (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And I have no idea what "reduction" you're talking about. The "especially disturbing" diff contains 12 separate edits over a span of 4 days, and I tried to indicated in the edit summaries the basis for each. It's typical of Bink and Rosc to lump all edits together, hold hands, and shout in unison, WE DON'T LIKE! It seems to be a tactic used to avoid addressing specifics. But here we're talking about NARAL, Pro Choice Action Network, et al, as unreliable sources. Let's not change the subject of this thread. Cloonmore (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

"Stable"

@Roscelese: you've made a number of reverts on the sole basis that the article should remain "stable." Where's your support for stability as a Wikipedia value or principle? Please point us to the policy. It appears to be your way of saying that you like it as it is, badly written, non-neutral, sourced with self-published pro-choice screeds, etc. (I know, what's not to love?) Cloonmore (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've actually pointed out several problems with your edits. Per WP:BRD, you should discuss and gain consensus. Please end this continual refusal to engage in the consensus-building process. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

You can't hide behind BRD as a basis for reverting edits you concede are constructive. Please stop playing dumb. Cloonmore (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

In earlier discussions, Cloonmore has called some references unreliable but has failed to prove the case. The references under discussion have been widely cited, so Cloonmore's case against the stable version of this article falls apart. There is no basis for large scale removals of well-cited text. Binksternet (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

What a shock. Bink defending Rosc. I forgot. This is a Bink- and Rosc-owned article. My bad. Cloonmore (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

m:MPOV EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected

Right, I've full-protected it for the time being while changes get discussed. So folks, discuss away. Note - if any uninvolved administrators come by and feel some constructive discussion is happening, feel free to unprotect. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Cas Liber, can you explain rationale for the length of time of protection? It seems very long. Personally, I've not been involved in this dispute at all, and have only previously made minor edits to this article, but looking over the dispute, it seems to involve concern over the use of non-neutral sources, such as partisan pro-choice groups such as NARAL. Because of this, it seems the article should probably have a neutrality disputed tag added, considering it has now apparently been frozen long term with the disputed sources and content left intact. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Indefinite does not mean forever - as soon as some constructive discussion appears then it can be unprotected, which can be in 10 minutes, 10 hours or whenever. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, on second thoughts, seems to have stopped for the moment - will just watch, but remind all that sanctions are in place. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Just added tag for neutrality dispute. As far as I can see, I think part of problem is there's too much being debated at once. I notice there's over 9000 characters of text being edit warred back and forth. I think it might help to edit less at one time so specific sources and issues are clearer. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

RS/Waxman report

The Waxman report, upon which this article is heavily dependent, is not a reliable source. Its prime mover, Rep. Henry Waxman (Dem. CA), is a self-described "leading advocate for reproductive rights." The report's ostensible author, the Committee on Government Reform—Minority Staff -- Special Investigations Division, was a creature of Rep. Waxman. It is a "minority staff" report because it is a product of the Democratic Party members of the Committee on Government Reform, then in the minority in the House of Representatives in 2006. It is a thoroughly political document, created by members of a political party closely allied with NARAL and other pro-choice groups, for political purposes. It violates WP:RS. Cloonmore (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

No, the Waxman report, titled "False and Misleading Health Information Provided by Federally Funded Pregnancy Resource Centers", is given credence by the Guttmacher Institute here. They present the report as accurate and reliable.

Also, the Waxman report was offered as the first piece of evidence in defense of the city of Baltimore's argument in the case Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (2013). The Waxman report was not challenged in that case; instead, the case was entirely trimmed of concerns about false CPC assertions to become a simple freedom of speech issue.[5]

The Oxford University Press book Righting Feminism by political scientist Ronnee Schreiber cites the Waxman report several times without apology. Schreiber accepts the Waxman facts on their face. For instance, on page 100 Schreiber says that $30M in federal funds were dispensed to CPCs during 2001–5, a fact cited to Waxman on page 162. As well, on page 101 Schreiber points to the Waxman report as revealing CPC falsehoods about higher breast cancer risk after abortion. Schreiber also cites the Waxman report in the chapter she wrote for Crisis of Conservatism?, a scholarly book edited by political scientists Joel D. Aberbach and Gillian Peele, published by Oxford University Press.[6]

In the University of California Press book by law professor Lawrence O. Gostin, titled Public Health Law: Power, Duty, Restraint, the Waxman report is cited as evidence proving the United States Department of Health and Human Services purposely obscured scientific evidence against abstinence-only education to promote a right-wing political agenda.[7]

Political scientist Cynthia Burack wrote in Tough Love: Sexuality, Compassion, and the Christian Right about the Waxman report. She accepts its findings as fact, citing the report on pages 194, 195 and 207.[8]

The Encyclopedia of Women in Today's World lists the Waxman report as "further reading" under the CPC entry.[9]

The NYU Press book Our Bodies, Our Crimes, written by sociologist Jeanne Flavin, cites the Waxman report on pages 211 and 292. Flavin uses the report to tell the reader that "nearly 90 percent of federally funded crisis pregnancy centers provided false and misleading information about the physical and mental health effects of abortion."[10]

In the medical school text Prenatal and Postnatal Care, the Waxman report is listed as a reference without commentary.[11] Also listed is a paper titled "Abortion does not raise risk of breast cancer", published in the British Medical Journal. This medical text says that breast cancer risk increases with pregnancy and lactation, not induced abortion—the exact opposite of what the CPCs claim.

It looks like scholars accept the Waxman report as truthful and accurate. There is no need for us to throw it out because abortion foes don't like it. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You've ably demonstrated that pro-choice advocates and academics (or the deferential scholars, if you prefer), have given Waxman's report their imprimatur. So what? How does that render reliable a political document prepared by and at the behest of Democratic pols for political purposes? Cloonmore (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

By definition, if a source is relied upon by respected others then it is reliable. Binksternet (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

By definition?? Do you think, uh, just maybe, that how and why the source is cited by others - and who those others are - might be relevant? There's so much to unpack in your little bibliography above that it's hard to do so concisely, but here goes:

Greater Baltimore Center v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore - You have no basis to say that the Waxman report "was not challenged in that case". And your statement that "the case was entirely trimmed of concerns about false CPC assertions to become a simple freedom of speech issue" is completely nonsensical. The entire case was about Constitutional speech issues: the plaintiff centers sued the city over an ordinance regulating the content of their speech. A crucial issue was whether the centers were engaged in "commercial speech," which is subject to lesser protection under the Constitution. That's why, in the words of your source, the city's lawyers included some of the Waxman report's passages about advertising as evidence "from the ordinance's legislative record." In other words, the Dem-controlled city council relied upon the Dem-prepared Waxman report to conclude that the Md. CPCs were engaged in commercial speech, and the city's lawyers, unsurprisingly, cited that to the court. How you think that makes the Waxman report reliable for anything it's cited for in this article is a mystery.

Gostin -You also have no basis for claiming that the Gostin book cites the Waxman report "as evidence proving" anything. In the section that you cite in the book, the relevant allegations are introduced with the words, "Critics charged", which is a far cry from "the evidence proved..."

Schreiber - Righting Feminism by Ronnee Schreiber is a work of political science by a political scientist and is focused on two political groups, Concerned Women for America and the Independent Women's Forum. It's not a work about CPC's. It's about politics. So it's not surprising that it would cite to a political document like the Waxman report, especially as to federal funding (which is an area Congress would be reliable as a source). Schreiber cannot otherwise buttress the Waxman report as a reliable source.

Burack's book is categorized under "Religion" and is focused on "ex-gay ministries geared to helping same-sex attracted people resist their sexuality and postabortion ministries dedicated to leading women who have had an abortion to repent that decision." It's not a study of CPCs. Note that Burack, like Gostin, groups the Waxman report with a paper by the abortion industry group, National Abortion Federation, and calls them reports by "critics."

Our Bodies, Our Crimes is a sociological work that advertises itself as "a battle cry for all women in their fight to be fully recognized as human beings." It doesn't bolster the reliability of the Waxman report.

Prenatal and Postnatal Care cites the Waxman report under "Pregnancy Care and Gestational Diagnosis" without comment.. Thus, the citation to the report tells us nothing

COMMENT Perhaps the way to deal with the Waxman report is to have a section in the article devoted to "critics," which is how the Gostin and Burack books you cite refer to them. That way, its biases, affiliations and motivations can be disclosed to and assessed by the reader. Cloonmore (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestion of putting Waxman into a criticism ghetto is tantamount to removal. The report is cited in about a dozen paragraphs of this article, so the suggestion is a move to eviscerate those paragraphs. No, I don't agree with your idea at all. I don't think Waxman becomes unreliable because you think the advertising of a scholar's book sounds iffy. What is found inside the book is what is important. If you read more carefully, you'll see that Gostin accepts Waxman on its face, using the report to show that the Bush Jr administration oversaw the suppression of science to further a right-wing social agenda. And Waxman does not become unreliable because political scientist Cynthia Burack's book about the Christian Right is unsurprisingly categorized by Google Books as being about religion. Binksternet (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

In order to centralize discussion, I've listed a number of sources below, a few threads down. We should reduce the article's reliance on the Waxman report, which is a reliable-but-biased source under WP:BIASED, and instead lean more heavily on high-quality scholarly sources such as those I've listed below. Our core policies, like WP:V and WP:RS, mandate that we do so. MastCell ^Talk 02:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

The recent deletion of the "neutrality disputed" notice on the article is a bit weird since it seems that this is what most of the Talk page discussion is about. Perhaps a case of not seeing the forest for the trees? One obvious instance of non -neutrality, however, that no-one has yet mentioned is the heading on the last section, "Ireland: relationship to legitimate centers" which amounts to calling the anti-abortion centers illegitimate. Both centers are legitimate, at least in the sense that they are both legal in Ireland. The "legitmate" centers here should instead be called "government sponsored." Why it would be ludicrous not to make such a change!! Also a tremendous amount of dependence here on the so-called "Waxman Report." I counted 23 citings. It was written, as I'm sure you all know, on the basis of calls that a famously pro-choice Congressman's committee staffers made to these anti-abortion centers, so this Wiki article here is basically relying on their fairness and honesty on the matter. I should think that Wikipedia could do better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.128.88 (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It appears the tag was removed due to an oversight where the remover didn't see any discussion regarding tag on this talk page (but tag was actually discussed in "Protected" section above). Restoring tag because talk page discussion includes arguments there are sources being used that are being described as "unreliable" due to bias. From what I can tell, the sources probably are reliable sources, but are not necessarily neutral sources. NPOV attention for this article seems warranted per WP:NPOVS, to make sure article has an appropriate balance of sources to present an overall neutral article.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Much of the verbiage here seems to revolve around the use of the Waxman report and other pro-choice sources. To be clear, these are potentially reliable but fall under WP:BIASED, as BoboMeowCat points out. While they can be used, subject to proper attribution, the article should rely less on such reliable-but-biased sources and more on high-quality scholarly sources, as outlined in our core policies on verifiability and appropriate sourcing. To that end, the following sources are an (incomplete) list that might be used to improve the article and reduce its reliance on the Waxman report:

• Bryant AG, Narasimhan S, Bryant-Comstock K, Levi EE (2014). "Crisis pregnancy center websites: Information, misinformation and disinformation". Contraception. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2014.07.003. PMID 25091391. Most crisis pregnancy centers listed in state resource directories for pregnant women provide misleading or false information regarding the risks of abortion. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Rowlands S (2011). "Misinformation on abortion". Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 16 (4): 233–40. doi:10.3109/13625187.2011.570883. PMID 21557713. There is extensive promulgation of misinformation on abortion by those who oppose abortion. Much of this misinformation is based on distorted interpretation of the scientific literature... Attention is drawn to how women can be misled by Crisis Pregnancy Centres. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Bryant AG, Levi EE (2012). "Abortion misinformation from crisis pregnancy centers in North Carolina". Contraception. 86 (6): 752–6. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2012.06.001. PMID 22770790. Of the 36 Web sites identified, 31 (86%) provided false or misleading information... Many crisis pregnancy centers give inaccurate medical information regarding the risks of abortion. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Rosen JD (2012). "The public health risks of crisis pregnancy centers". Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 44 (3): 201–5. doi:10.1363/4420112. PMID 22958665. [Crisis pregnancy] centers often provide inaccurate information that may delay or interfere with women's access to abortion and contraceptive services, improperly influence women's reproductive health decisions and potentially increase the number of unintended births. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Gross, Jane (January 23, 1987). "PREGNANCY CENTERS: ANTI-ABORTION ROLE CHALLENGED". New York Times. The centers have been called deceptive by the Texas Attorney General, the North Dakota Supreme Court, the Federal Centers for Disease Control, the National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood and the New York Metropolitan Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights.

As these links demonstrate, it is a fact that reliable, scholarly sources consistently identify crisis pregnancy centers as purveyors of misleading, false, or inaccurate information on abortion. How we choose to present that fact is up to us, as editors. MastCell ^Talk 02:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe there's any real disagreement, from anyone taking this seriously, that CPCs frequently give out false medical information. Surely the issue lies only in some of the specific pieces of misinformation we quote. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess I can't tell for sure what the disagreement is about, then. It seemed to revolve around the specific sources being used, in particular the Waxman report, which is heavily cited. MastCell ^Talk 02:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The disagreement is about the use in this article of self-published "reports" on CPCs by oppositional groups like NARAL, ProChoice Action Network, House Dems, et al, and is under discussion in two threads above, before this third thread was opened. There appears to be a developing consensus that those "reports" are not reliable sources. Cloonmore (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's one point, Cloonmore, but the most obvious thing to me is the absurd "sore thumb" heading Ireland: Relationship to legitimate centers which basically says that the abortion-discouraging centers are illegitimate. How come nobody has changed that one yet?? As for the kinds of sources you mention above, I think that it's not so much that they shouldn't be used but that they should be used more judiciously. I don't think Wikipedia should need eight or nine sources for a particular fact but rather one or two of the BEST (most reliable and politically neutral) sources. Also, I don't think that any single fact should be sourced SOLELY to Henry Waxman's committee helpers unless the reader is told this in the text.

One other thing I noticed in passing was the description of these centers' methods as "heavy-handed." That shouldn't be a description that an editor uses on her own. If a source uses it then the reader should be told in the text. 207.210.128.88 (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I had to become a "registered user" to make these changes since nobody else was. KatieHepPal (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Link resources

I'm not restoring the "frightening clients with graphic videos" text, although it's not duplicated elsewhere, since I think the argument could be made that those graphic videos are about the false medical claims; however, I do want to preserve the removed sources which aren't cited elsewhere in case we can find another use for them. [12] [13] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Use of the word "some"

The question here seems to be whether the sentence in the opening paragraph ought to read "CPCs have also been known to disseminate false medical information, usually about the supposed physical and mental health risks of abortion..." or whether there should be an insertion of the word "some" at the beginning, thus: "Some CPCs have also been known to disseminate false medical information, usually about the supposed physical and mental health risks of abortion."

Let me summarize really quickly the main possible positions, and then give reasons to prefer. My argument is really two fold: that without the word "some," the sentence implicitly claims (loosely) that all information disseminated by CPCs is false, or (more strictly) at least that all CPCs disseminate at least some false information; the second argument I am making is that the citations presented do not support either of the two claims I just mentioned.

There are two possible routes of refutation to my argument: either one can deny that the sentence without "some" does not implicitly make the claim(s) I presented, or one can argue that the cited articles do sustain the claims made implicitly by the sentence (or both, if one is so inclined).

With this in mind, let's look at the justification Roscelese gave for removing the word "some" after my edit: "there simply aren't enough reports of CPCs giving out *accurate* information to make it seem as though it's a small group."

This argument fails in two different ways.

1. Failure to understand burden of proof.

I'll try to keep this brief, but we'll see. When a claim is made, until evidence is given, we do not assume that the claim is either true or false. We suspend judgment. Your position seems to be as follows: that it is okay to claim that all CPCs give out false information because evidence to the contrary has not been presented. This is an argument from absence of evidence fallacy.

2. Failure in proper use of the word "some."

Technically, the claim that A is true of "some" X is true even when A is true of all X. The evidence presented gives certain cases in which CPCs have given out false information. It does not show that a majority of CPCs do so, or even that a majority do so. Note that I am making no claim about how many CPCs give out false information: it may even be true that all do. But that claim is, at least at the moment, unsubstantiated. We can only make claims which extend as far as our evidence will support us; we cannot go further. The appropriate designation in this case is "some," even and especially in the logical sense. Thelastpolymath (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The current wording was a compromise because other people wanted to avoid "many". "Some" is just too misleading. Omitting the quantifier and using the "have been known to" rather than just "CPCs disseminate..." seemed like the right compromise at the time. Consensus can change, though, so can you propose a wording that addresses your concerns without the unduly minimizing "some"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I just wanted to say thanks for being willing to discuss. I apologize if my language is harsh at times; I am sometimes overzealous in my pursuit of technical precision. My use of "some" bears two particular warrants, the first of which is perhaps only marginally relevant (I presented this above, it is the "proper" use of the word "some" in predicate logic). However, a google search of the word "some" defines it as "an unspecified amount or number of," pretty much all the definitions are close to "an unspecified number." It seems true that we do not know how many CPCs have given out false information: doesn't that make the number unknown, and therefore unspecified? Thelastpolymath (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you're relying a little too much on the dictionary or logic definition of the word and not enough on what we expect a reader to understand when they read the sentence. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you think the implication of the word "some" is different? What does it imply? Do you think it has the same implication if the sentence read: "Some CPCs disseminate false information..."? Thelastpolymath (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that "some" connotes "not all", and we just can't support that. The problem with your second suggestion is the same. ("Have been known to" was, as I could have been clearer about, used to, I believe, assuage the concerns of users like you who didn't want to write "CPCs do." Reliable sources note it, so it should be possible to write that they do disseminate false info without the added verbiage. The lack of a quantifier combined with the "have been known to" was intended to compromise between users like yourself who didn't want to say that all or many do, and users like myself pointing out that sources only support one side.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You've misunderstood burden of proof. The sources do not support "all." They do support "some." You seem to think that making unsubstantiated claims in some circumstances is permissible. I wouldn't even mind "many," because this bears at least some support. Even if "some" connotes "not all," and I don't buy that it does, in the absence of information, if we have to assume something (rather than suspending judgment), then by the principle of charity we assume that at least one CPC has not disseminated false information. The sources do not support your side, and they do not support what you perceive to be my side, which is the position that only some CPCs have given out false information. They support a suspension of judgment: i.e. we say the number is indeterminate or unspecified.Thelastpolymath (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

That was the idea behind the previous compromise wording. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Which, as I've argued (unrefuted), does not achieve the desired end. If you agree that the number is unspecified, then the case is closed: the word "some" has been amply demonstrated to mean "an unspecified number." Do you dispute the definition of "some," and on whose authority? Thelastpolymath (talk) 06:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"Technical precision" is not achievable here. There are no sources which discuss how many CPCs give out false information versus how many do not. In fact there are no sources saying one or more CPCs never give out false information. The literature is saying that most or almost all or the great majority of CPCs give out false information, which is what we should try to convey to the reader. Without accuracy in numbers, we simply say that CPCs have been known to do so. Binksternet (talk) 08:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thelastpolymath, I've already explained to you why "some" is misleading. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll just reply line by line.

You say: "'Technical precision' is not achievable here. There are no sources which discuss how many CPCs give out false information versus how many do not." The second claim is true, the first is not. There are precise epistemological terms to indicate a lack of knowledge, or to be as specific is possible. My interest here is that our statements are true, and are as precise as possible. The proper logical phrasing of the position here (translated roughly into English) is "There exists some X such that X is a crisis pregnancy center and X disseminates false information." The logical formulation of the sentence without "some" (which is unsupported) is, implicitly, "For all X if X is a crisis pregnancy center, then X disseminates false information." Both formulations are precise, only the first is true.

You say: "The literature is saying that most or almost all or the great majority of CPCs give out false information..." Read the cited sources and get back to me. While there might be "literature" saying this, it isn't cited here. All we can discuss is the information on hand. If there is another credible source which you think is relevant, feel free to bring it up (in fact, please do: truth is, after all, the pursuit here). What literature suggests your position? Until then, it is unsubstantiated. I should note that, for purposes of this discussion, we can assume that "The Star" article is generally accurate, though in reality it is problematic in several ways (we can talk about that if you like, but I won't waste your time if you're not interested).

You say: "I've already explained to you why "some" is misleading." We have different definitions of "some," which is where the disagreement lies. Unfortunately for you, I'm the only one who has provided support for my definition. Merriam Webster agrees with me, along with all the dictionaries I've looked at so far. That's why I asked you, in my last post, to support your definition. Just making the claim doesn't make it true. Give us a credible dictionary which agrees with you and we can talk. Thelastpolymath (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, you keep waving at the dictionary in defiance of how people actually use words. I'll flip the script: Why do you believe that "CPCs have been known..." means "All CPCs", when it doesn't say "All CPCs"? Is there a dictionary definition of an empty space where it means "all"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Waving at the dictionary definition? Let me rephrase what you just said, in essence: "You keep waving at all this evidence, in defiance of how I feel." Come on. Really? You've already granted that the sentence as it is can reasonably be said to imply "all." Case closed. Thelastpolymath (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"Some" is misleading, not supported. Binksternet (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

You say: "user doesn't seem interested in seeking compromise" First, I should point out that when propositions have truth values, those true values are either true or false. There is a right way and a wrong way of doing things. The truth does not compromise. Second, you have yet to refute anything I've said: literally all my arguments are still standing. Third, compromise between what and what? Simply reverting isn't the compromise you claim to want.

Do you prefer it with "many?"

@Binksternet, that's a nice claim you have there, why don't you try "supporting" it.

Ah, resorting to tyranny of the majority now, eh? Good times:

"Farewell to wisdom" sang the crowd

and like all fools their speech was loud:

though numbers was their only boast,

consensus was what counted most.

Thelastpolymath (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

1RR reminder

This page is under a 1 revert per 24 hour restriction. Violating this constitutes edit warring (even if it's over something this silly). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Partisan sources

I realize that a topic like crisis pregnancy centers naturally tends to attract critics and defenders both in the media at large and on Wikipedia, but it still seems to me that there is an overuse of highly partisan sources in this article. A lot of this seems unnecessary, if innocuous, because such sources are often used in tandem with perfectly okay sources to verify factual information; i.e. why use NARAL or Care Net when the Washington Post and/or the LA Times are also referenced for the same info? Sometimes, though, sources that are not merely partisan but also not reliable by Wikipedia's standards are used as "stand-alone" sources for factual information. For example, the first paragraph of the History and activities uses two stand-alone sources for its information, the Family Research Council and opinion writer Tina Dupuy in the Pasadena Weekly. Neither are kosher sources for facts in Wikipedia. FamRC, at least, is named in the text as the source but Dupuy is not. I think you will also find hostile to the subject sources such as NARAL and Planned Parenthood being used as stand-alone sources for some facts. This should be avoided, as should the use of primary sources (the pregnancy center organizations themselves) except for the most straightforward, undisputed kinds of information. Motsebboh (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Since we've ended up condensing a lot of the details into generalities, probably the NARAL sources are no longer necessary. (It looks like the only things we'd want to replace the source for, as opposed to just removing, is the complications rate and CPCs providing misinformation about hormonal BC.) I do think there's some limited utility for Care Net sources because, while obviously partisan, they are CPCs and so are a reliable source as to eg. what's in their own statement of faith, if we want a quote to elaborate on something a reliable secondary source said. Likewise, FRC is not a great source on principle, but this is their wheelhouse and they're not being cited for anything obviously questionable like "CPCs save 1 million babies a year" - although I'd understand if you thought it should still be removed. I'm not sure what the issue is with the Dupuy source; it's in the news section, not opinion. Can you suggest what changes you think should be made? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should cull out the poorer sources. As I said before, a lot of these simply supplement better sources for particular facts. The bigger problem is where they are used alone for certain information. Don't rely on me, however, to cull with any technical competence. I've already been cited for "cite errors" when I tried to do this on another article. As for the Tina Dupuy piece, it may have appeared in the news section of the alternative media Pasadena Weekly but it is a long, long way from encyclopedic in tone. Lots of anecdotal material and highly subjective language. Dupuy used to edit Crooks and Liars and it shows here. I would say where this source is used alone, at least attribute it to her in-line. Where it only buttresses a more reliable source, remove it. Motsebboh (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

POV tag

10/14/2015 I added a flag to this article because it was incredibly biased. Instead of negative information being written in the entire article, there should be a separate section for "Controversies." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.112.114.42 (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@74.112.114.42: That's directly contrary to best practice, which recommends against the creation of WP:CRITGHETTOs. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the POV user, although not for the same reason. According to best practice, encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. While Planned Parenthood is quoted several times, there are no quotes from any staff involved in Crisis Pregnancy Center. The "Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act" is also discussed in great detail with no mention to the opposition. There is a paragraph about Rhode Island vetoing license plates, again with a quote from a supporter, but no quotes from the 29 states that choose to support them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.140.191.19 (talk) 01:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Shifting new talk to the bottom.

The POV tag complaint is not actionable. For this reason, the tag should be removed. Of course there will be a bunch of readers who do not like the article; that's how it goes with anti-abortion activist efforts such as CPCs. People who want the activism described in positive terms will not be pleased when the sources are cynical and accurate. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It's fair enough for them to point out that there should be little need to quote PP here. I would recommend addressing their complaint by checking (not removing) the references to PP, since - I suspect - at least some of them are there because earlier users didn't want to flat-out write "CPCs do [thing]" and preferred to frame it as "criticism." We should be able to adjust some of those. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Declaring that "the POV complaint is not actionable" is begging the question, Binksternet. The whole point of the comment above your own is to examine reliable sources to determine if the complaint is "actionable." Motsebboh (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: Datedness

@Motsebboh: from the cited source it looks like it's 22 states that fund, not 23 (23 have "measures supporting" but it seems that that can sometimes refer to laws that compel abortion patients to visit CPCs). Anyway, would you agree with something like "Many U.S. states directly or indirectly fund CPCs, and they also received federal funding under the Bush administration"? Although, re the latter, this is a much more recent source that indicates that federal money going to the states (for health stuff? I don't know) is also being directed to CPCs, and the "Jobs for Christians" source that we already cite, which is a dead link at its original location but archived here, also notes other federal sources of income in more recent years. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Yes, that's the right idea, I think. I'll be taking another look at it. I certainly don't think, for example, that twelve year old figures from Canada belong it the lead section. Motsebboh (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Personally, absolute numbers mean very little to me; IMO, the salient fact there is the ratio of CPCs to abortion clinics. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Waxman report

@Motsebboh: I don't remember if we used to have a separate section on the Waxman report that we later integrated by just noting its findings in the relevant sections, but integrating it seems like a better model than having to once again spin out a separate section on the report, which seems like the inevitable consequence of removing the citations from the relevant sections. I would suggest restoring it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Probably an even more dubious source than NARAL. Can you imagine what readers would think if the most heavily cited source in the article was a Republican Congressional Committee staffers' report that did nothing except defend CPCs? The fact of the matter is that we can get rid of almost all the Waxman citations without changing the content much at all, and we should. Motsebboh (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The Waxman report is not a "Congressional report" indicating the approval of Congress, or even a "Congressional subcommittee report" indicating the approval of a Congressional subcommittee but rather a report by the the staffers of the minority party within a subcommittee. It is a a partisan political document, not a governmental one. I notice that MastCell, who I glean is no friend of CPCs, advises against relying on it: We should reduce the article's reliance on the Waxman report, which is a reliable-but-biased source under WP:BIASED, and instead lean more heavily on high-quality scholarly sources such as those I've listed below. Our core policies, like WP:V and WP:RS, mandate that we do so. MastCell ^Talk 02:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC) Motsebboh (talk) 14:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Crisis pregnancy center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101009051610/http://www.time.com/time/2007/abortions/ to http://www.time.com/time/2007/abortions/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1075208-2,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110629132536/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article685118.ece to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article685118.ece
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.crisispregnancy.ie/pub/Reporttwelve.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that the bot added the archive link for the Times Online article, so I'll add it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion regarding bias of "misinformation" and the counter supportive scientific evidence for "valid information"

My edit on Feb 23rd was valid and well documented. The edit was to contrast the previous version that had referenced to biased sources ... such sources that could potentially profit from the study at hand and the previous version spoke generally but the referenced article was speaking for a specific location in the United States making it also a biased statement. However, my corrections were deleted without just cause. Given that I did not delete the reference but provided a counter argument from an unbiased journal it does not seem intuitive as to why my edit would at all be removed. I am adding the edit back in and for further discussion on the matter, please consider the details provided below.

PREVIOUS VS CURRENT VERSION READ:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crisis_pregnancy_center&diff=706488429&oldid=699535466

BIASED REFERENCES:
Notice that the first reference refers only to North Carolina and is published in the journal "Contraception". Both journals referenced are contraceptive journals that could potentially profit from the publication because it would be supportive of Planned Parenthood the leading Abortion facility in the country and that strongly advocates contraception. Crisis pregnancy centers and Planned Parenthood are opponents in the medical industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tifischer (talk • contribs) 01:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Smells like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS... and conspiracy theories? Please read WP:OR. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Violation of WP:SYNTH as the cited source says nothing at all about crisis pregnancy center practices. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Priscilla Coleman's work is very famously complete rubbish, and major medical associations' official statements on these alleged risks is that they are false. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crisis pregnancy center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article685118.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

"Many" versus "most"

Regarding Roscelese's recent edit here [14] what reliable sources tell us that most crisis pregnancy centers are not presently medically licensed? I think the source currently used for this info tells us that as of some time in 2014 or 2015 about 40% of those in California were medically licensed and this percentage is probably larger now since they have been moving toward getting licensed. Motsebboh (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we can make assumptions about what may or may not have happened in the absence of a source that says something. That's a pretty classic WP:V violation. "Many" doesn't even suggest a majority. Let's try to avoid deceptive language in the encyclopedia, please. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Nor does it suggest a minority. It suggests a substantial percentage which is probably a safe bet. Do you have any reliable up to date figure (let's say a year old or less) that says the majority are still not medically licensed? Motsebboh (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The MoJo source is from less than a year ago; it's only about California, but most not being licensed or employing doctors is consistent with earlier reports from other locations. I have no idea why you think "I just bet the rest of them got their license in the past six months" is something to base an edit on. Why not propose language that addresses your concerns without minimizing the number of unlicensed clinics based on your own personal speculation? Is making a policy-compliant change something you are interested in doing? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do you exaggerate? I didn't suggest that "the rest of them got their licenses in the past six months", I suggested that that enough of them may have recently gotten their licenses so that the unlicensed ones are no longer a clear majority. Notice the wording of the Mother Jones article: "At least 40 percent of them are licensed by the state as medical providers" -- not " at most 40 percent . . " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motsebboh (talk • contribs) 04:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Is pro-CPC information allowed?

Is pro-CPC information allowed? I only see articles from pro-abortion periodicals listed in the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannibalscipio (talk • contribs) 19:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neither anti- nor pro-CPC and neither anti- nor pro-choice. We follow Wikipedia's reliable sourcing guidelines, which favor high-quality unaffiliated sources. We do use some info from CPCs and their backers in the article where appropriate, but of course we're going to favor news sources, medical organizations, etc. I hope that answers your question. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on Crisis pregnancy center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100819225336/http://www.nifla.org:80/about-us-what-we-do.asp to http://www.nifla.org/about-us-what-we-do.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725014706/http://www.artl.org/alternatives.html to http://www.artl.org/alternatives.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110106082838/http://www.klife.org/concerts/celebrate-sanctity-of-human-life-week-with-k-life to http://www.klife.org/concerts/celebrate-sanctity-of-human-life-week-with-k-life
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201142524/http://www.atcmag.com/v10n2/ to http://www.atcmag.com/v10n2/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100503193258/http://www.southsidepregnancy.org:80/AboutUs.aspx to http://www.southsidepregnancy.org/AboutUs.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707133108/http://www.americanpress.com/lc/blogs/wpnewssum/?p=5165 to http://www.americanpress.com/lc/blogs/wpnewssum/?p=5165
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080123053431/http://www.bpnews.net:80/bpnews.asp?id=27217 to http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=27217
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004184940/http://www.medicalnewstoday.com:80/articles/23436.php to http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/23436.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://health.allrefer.com/news/20060718533868/health-highlights-july-18-2006.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160306134559/http://tribune.ie/archive/article/2007/aug/19/clashes-at-crisis-pregnancy-clinic to http://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2007/aug/19/clashes-at-crisis-pregnancy-clinic/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201192442/http://www.atcmag.com/v6n3/article9.asp to http://www.atcmag.com/v6n3/article9.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100507165737/http://www.lifeinternational.com:80/site/c.msKTL6PNLrF/b.3564015/k.C7C6/About_Us.htm to http://www.lifeinternational.com/site/c.msKTL6PNLrF/b.3564015/k.C7C6/About_Us.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.choicesaz.org/about_us/biblical_foundation/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229055329/http://washingtonjewishweek.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=4&ArticleID=12948 to http://washingtonjewishweek.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=4&ArticleID=12948
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101204022821/https://www.care-net.org/public/file_server.php?id=798 to https://www.care-net.org/public/file_server.php?id=798
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120608063840/http://americanindependent.com:80/215472/jobs-for-christians to http://americanindependent.com/215472/jobs-for-christians
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100917034911/http://www.pregnancy.ca:80/volunteer/ to http://www.pregnancy.ca/volunteer/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.choicesaz.org/community/volunteer/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719040833/http://www.bethany.org/A55798/bethanyWWW.nsf/0/A10DB54FC3F9A33A852575580062B392 to http://www.bethany.org/A55798/bethanyWWW.nsf/0/A10DB54FC3F9A33A852575580062B392
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101230181613/http://www.hli.org/index.php/about/hli-programs to http://www.hli.org/index.php/about/hli-programs
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110120052504/http://www.camslatinoamerica.org:80/Home_Cams.html to http://www.camslatinoamerica.org/Home_Cams.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130601100102/http://www.businessweek.com:80/news/2012-06-27/christian-pregnancy-center-freed-from-abortion-postings to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-06-27/christian-pregnancy-center-freed-from-abortion-postings
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-12-07/appeals-court-rehears-md-dot-pregnancy-center-cases
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.leg.state.or.us/13reg/measures/sb0400.dir/sb0490.a.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101122222354/http://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/2002/feb/feb28c_02.html to http://www.ag.ny.gov/media_center/2002/feb/feb28c_02.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100817100944/http://www.crisispregnancy.ie:80/about.html to http://www.crisispregnancy.ie/about.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928015144/http://www.prochoice.org/policy/policyreports/cpc.html to http://www.prochoice.org/policy/policyreports/cpc.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:3RR

Editors:

Please do not continue to revert other users' contributions. Reliable, sourced information should only be changed if it disrupts the neutrality of the page. If there is a challenge to the neutrality of sourced information, please discuss it on the talk page. This is a 3RR warning. Avs5221 (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2010‎ (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crisis pregnancy center. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/01/20/DECIDE.ART_ART_01-20-08_A1_K99330S.html?sid=101
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100821012725/http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/media/fact-sheets/abortion-cpcs.pdf to http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/media/fact-sheets/abortion-cpcs.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Abstinence education

Anyone up for writing about this? [15] We already mention that CPCs received federal funding under Bush II that was earmarked for abstinence education, but evidently we have an update. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Outdated and biased information 05/19/2019

There is obviously a lot of controversy surrounding this topic. Much of the discussion is thinly veiled attacks on peo life positions. Much of the supporting material cited is old and again biased. Dabigdoc (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you have sources indicating that things have changed? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

New Yorker article

If useful: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/11/18/the-new-front-line-of-the-anti-abortion-movement –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Lede wording

"Counsel pregnant women against having an abortion" vs. "counsel women about options besides abortion" - I disagree that these are equivalent. Firstly, medical providers that perform or that do not discourage abortions also offer information about proceeding with a pregnancy, so the new text is not a meaningful statement of what CPCs are/do. Secondly, the new language fails to convey that CPCs' work is specifically aimed at being persuasive in nature. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The old language masks the fact that the "counseling" is not value-free, but is purely intended to dissuade. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Orangemike: that's the new language - "against" was the stable version. I will add that the stable language is more in conformity with reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Objectivity

This article is clearly written with a highly negative bias against CRC's and PRC's, and it would be refreshing to see it rewritten with some objectivity and factual information containing both the cons AND the pros of these types of organizations. Instead, the article contains paragraph after paragraph of negatives but not a SINGLE positive thing about the work these organizations do. (And it can't ALL be negative, let's be real here.) For instance, the article states that CRC's only provide over-the-counter pregnancy tests (which is not true in all cases), implying that they provide a lower quality of service than abortion clinics do. But many women who seek help from CRC's are struggling financially, so offering free pregnancy tests, even OTC tests, is a valuable service. That's just one example, but there are many like it throughout the article.

Also, the article states that CRC's received $60 million in federal funding as if that's a shocking amount, yet Planned Parenthood receives over half a BILLION from the government every single year. This important fact provides some context for readers as to how much government support CRC's receive compared to the #1 abortion provider in the country, and it should be included in the article.

2601:989:8200:550:34EA:1B46:FE6C:4775 (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes what's written in reliable sources, and proportionality is based on what's in those sources rather than individual editors' ideas of balance. The best way to address issues you see would be to suggest specific changes based on either the sources already in the article or new citations. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:11, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Objectivity

While this article may have many credible sources, the connotation in which it was written makes it clear that the author has a bias against these organizations. Please consider revising in order to remove the blatant bias in this article and stick to the facts. 2603:8001:4D3F:A200:6474:687:E4DD:F280 (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. To me, it looks accurate and neutral. Binksternet (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Objectivity

This article is severely biased against these organization, and it is clearly evident in the tone in which it is written. Consider revising. 2601:147:4100:D5E0:3C33:F0F1:E3EC:72A5 (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

FACE Act

During the current wave of abortion-rights violence after the Dobbs decision, the FACE Act is relevant to crisis pregnancy centers, such that over 50 Members of Congress have signed letters that cite the FACE Act as an avenue of protection for CPCs. Legislators are aware that, from its passage in 1994, the FACE Act has applied equally to practically all types of CPCs, even non-medical facilities; the FBI considers this to be true, and so it confuses me that the relevant passage with reliable sources should be removed. Elizium23 (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

That x congresspeople agree on something and wrote a letter doesn't get us over the WP:WEIGHT hurdle. If it starts getting a bunch more reliable source coverage, no objections to readding. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

"Fake abortion clinic" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Fake abortion clinic and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 8#Fake abortion clinic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elizium23 (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)