Talk:Heartbeat International

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Heartbeat International (Christian organization) → Heartbeat International (crisis pregnancy center network) — My proposed title says exactly what they are without getting into a POV debate.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:NCDAB says we should name disambiguated articles by the "generic class". The preferred name under that rule would be Heartbeat International (organization). There is another (unrelated?) organization named Heartbeat International, whose article is at Heartbeat International (charity). I just assumed (and didn't even look) that Heartbeat International (organization) was redirected to the dab page. Since it isn't, there's no particular reason not to just rename this article to Heartbeat International (organization), which avoids characterizing it as anything. The primary purpose of the parenthetical in the article name is simply that there is a technical limitation against having two articles with the same name. We could accommodate that need by naming them Heartbeat International (1) and Heartbeat International (2). (That's obviously not the style we use, but it would satisfy the need on a purely technical basis.) I think "crisis pregnancy center network", while 100% true and 100% neutral, is pointlessly lengthy. My preference would be (organization), which is the shortest, but has the downside of being confusing when the other one is (charity), or (Christian organization), which is distinct and neutral, albeit less precise. We see this a lot with names of athletes. For example, consider Bill Foster. There were, believe it or not, two college basketball coaches named Bill Foster. Both of them coached at multiple schools and had lengthy stints at more than one school (in other words, not a case of someone like Bobby Bowden who coached at WVU but is primarily known for coaching at FSU. One of them is Bill Foster (college basketball coach) and the other is Bill Foster (basketball coach) and you can't really get more precise than that without doing something like Bill Foster (Charlotte, Miami, Clemson, and Virginia Tech). So having the imprecise and overlapping names of ... (charity) and ... (organization) would not be a unique problem to this situation, by any stretch. --B (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I did consider (organization), but as you point out, that kind of collides with the pacemaker charity.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, my only objection to "(crisis pregnancy center network)" is with the length ... it just seems awkwardly long relative to the length that it needs to be to fulfill the technical need. I don't particularly care overly much as long as we're not putting words in their mouth or calling them something that they do not claim to be (like anti-abortion). Let me ask a silly question - what is wrong with "Christian organization"? I don't think there's any dispute that they are a Christian organization. --B (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd kind of prefer to save (Christian organization) for organizations that are church-related, rather than organizations that do other work based on their religious beliefs.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. I don't have a particularly strong objection to "(crisis pregnancy center network)". I think "anti-abortion" is bad because it implies that abortion opposition is the mainstay of their mission, when it isn't. I can see that your point about "(Christian organization)" is very similar and so if you prefer "(crisis pregnancy center network)", I can't really think of anything better (other than just maybe "(organization)" and just live with it that you have one (charity) and one (organization) even though either label could apply to the other). --B (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not just move this back to plain Heartbeat International per WP:TWODABS? This gets slightly more views than the other charity[1][2] and with only two possibilities a dab page isn't really necessary. It would solve the issue as to what the artificial qualifier should be. My second choice would be "(organization)" with hatnotes on both articles. Station1 (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm kinda hesitant to pick a "winner" in this case ... yes, the Christian one is favored both in g-hits and page views, but I think of "primary topic" as being a bit more overwhelming. I don't have a strenuous objection to that, though. --B (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

And now to make things more complex! Not a huge deal, but I'd be a fan of going back to Heartbeat International (pro-life organization). It is simple, inclusive and in vernacular use. - Haymaker (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that wording, but it's not as neutral as my proposal and might lead to more argument down the line. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support proposed move to Heartbeat International (crisis pregnancy center network, Oppose proposal to rename Heartbeat International (pro-life organization), Oppose making this primary topic by simply using Heartbeat International, and finally Support renamimg to [[Hearbeat International {anti-abortion organization)]]. The two I support are certainly npov and very precise as they are what the organization does. "pro-life" is imprecise and probably incorrect, I don't see them promoting veganism or opposing gun ownership. Picking a "winner," as B stated, by making this the primary topic is simply unjustified. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 19:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support (crisis pregnancy center network), as I don't think "organization" does the job of distinguishing from the charity, and the other suggestions seem misleading or PoV. Alternatively, support making this the primary topic with no disambiguator (neatly sidestepping the problem, while saving readers the extra navigational step of going through the dab page).--Kotniski (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC on content

I am just inviting an RfC on this change, since two individual users have reverted my attempt to remove information I feel is about CPCs in general and not about HBI, both positive and negative ("they provide baby items", but also "they are tricky and trying to restrict choices!", etc). Would welcome uninterested parties. AMightierHeart (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The linked Cosmopolitan article (that should probably be turned into a proper reference) talks specifically about HI and the Heartbeat conference. —C.Fred (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, it certainly seems like everything in the text is verified as related to HBI specifically. @AMightierHeart: is there anything in particular that you thought was only attested about CPCs in general, in the sources? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I explained poorly, I don't dispute the article writes it about HBI, just that the fact HBI provides baby items, or discourages women from abortion is not really encyclopaedic because that's essentially the definition of a CPC. So it's like saying "Sea Shepherd is an NGO that tries to save whales. Because they are an NGO, this means that they are not officially recognised by the US government, or the government of Uganda, but they try to do their best to do what they believe in and they have like-minded people helping them". Including it in the specific encyclopaedic entry, and in the words of the opponent not the subject, of the article framed as the neutral description is misleading. A quoted criticism is valid, but simply "describing" a group in the words of its opponents is disingenuous. AMightierHeart (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@AMightierHeart: You look at this article and you worry that we're describing HBI in its opponents' language too much and that our portrayal is too unfavorable?? :o –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you proposing to remove the only indepedent source in the article? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm proposing to only include encyclopaedic information from the source, not its operating hours, nor what it does insofar that every other group of the same stripe does the same...same as we don't state that Wal-Mart sells telephones, combs, pet food and clothing, we just say it is "a department store" and leave the details in that article. AMightierHeart (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Neutrality

This article in the status quo obviously violates Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality.

"Heartbeat International teaches its affiliated members to make their advertising look as though they are full-service clinics that provide referrals for birth control or abortion. Staff are also trained on how to discourage pregnant women from accessing abortion, and how to discourage young women from using emergency contraception, birth control pills, or IUDs. Heartbeat staff are also encouraged to create two websites, one that has an explicitly Christian message, and one that looks like Planned Parenthood."

The above is unsourced, conjecture, contrary to what Heartbeat's stated purposes are, and until proven otherwise should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revfulop1994 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, considering those statements are specifically sourced, that makes me think that the rest of your sentence is invalid as well. If you have objections, make them properly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey! I'm not sure what you mean - are you suggesting that the above statements are sourced already in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revfulop1994 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Some of them very clearly, some of them implied. Yes, they are.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

There are only five sources on the page; four of them do not support any of these statements; one of them, from Rewire, implies parts of them, but the source in question is a campaigning publication presenting opinion. Their opinion is presented as fact on this this page, which violated Wikipedia's guidelines. In addition, if you do these these sources support what's in the up-front section, they should be attributed to each statement. Right now, they stand alone and read as an opinion, which is what they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revfulop1994 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

The following language included is deceptive: Heartbeat International teaches its affiliated members to make their advertising look as though they are full-service clinics that provide referrals for birth control or abortion. This should be changed to read: Heartbeat International affiliated centers agree to Our Commitment of Care and Competence in which they promise that "All of our advertising and communication are truthful and honest and accurately describe the services we offer." Many pregnancy centers provide limited medical services such as ultrasound and STI testing and therefore are considered pregnancy help medical clinics.

Staff are also trained on how to discourage pregnant women from accessing abortion, and how to discourage young women from using emergency contraception, birth control pills, or IUDs. This should be changed to read: Heartbeat International affiliated centers agree to Our Commitment of Care and Competence stating "We do not offer, recommend or refer for abortions or abortifacients, but are committed to offering accurate information about abortion procedures and risks." Some birth control has been proven to cause abortions, therefore, pregnancy centers do not promote them.

Heartbeat staff are also encouraged to create two websites, one that has an explicitly Christian message, and one that looks like Planned Parenthood. This should read: Heartbeat International affiliates are encouraged to created two websites, one that speaks to donors and one that speaks to clients.

Many pregnancy centers have the ultimate goal of converting women through a born-again experience to "save the mother, save the baby. This should read: Pregnancy centers exists all over the world to meet the needs of their community and provide compassionate support in a time of need. Heartbeat International does not determine the mission of the individual centers, but rather provides training and resources for all pregnancy centers. All Heartbeat International affiliates must adhere to Our Commitment of Care and Competence.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Atrudden (talk • contribs)

Reply 02-OCT-2018

  Additional references requested  

---

The Cosmopolitan piece appears to have supplemented their own original reporting with findings from NARAL. One specific report published by NARAL and written by Lisa McIntire contains many elements which are also found in the Cosmopolitan article—namely, the "dual websites" claim and the "discourage young women" claim. In turn, the work that McIntire produced is based on research informed through the publications of approximately 95 other sources. In light of this, if the McIntire/Cosmo claims in the WP article are to be refuted and replaced with the ones you've suggested (which originate only from the Crisis network itself) I would recommend greatly expanding your search elsewhere in order to locate independent references which verify these statements. When ready to proceed with these references, kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience.
Regards,  Spintendo  16:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Notes

References

Some proposed new citations

The Charlotte Lozier Institute just released in September a full report on the effectiveness of Pregnancy Center Services. Heartbeat International's affiliates and services are mentioned numerous times throughout the document discussing the effectiveness of the centers and the cost-savings to taxpayers by their existence.

Key findings include:

- In 2017, pregnancy centers provided almost 2,000,000 people with free services, with estimated community cost savings of at least $161 million annually.

- 2,752 center locations nationwide provide vital services including medical services, parenting programs, and sexual risk avoidance education.

- More than seven in 10 locations offer free ultrasounds (up 24 percent since 2010).

- 400,100 hours of free services were contributed by credentialed nurse sonographers and registered diagnostic medical sonographers in 2017.

- 100 mobile units with ultrasound are on the road to bring services to women out in the community.

- 30,000 contacts per month reach Heartbeat International’s Option Line hotline and email/chat lines.

- 67,400 volunteers serve pregnancy centers, including an estimated 7,500 medical professionals who freely give of their time and skills.

- Centers carried out 679,600 free pregnancy tests in 2017.

- 295,900 moms and dads attended parenting and prenatal education courses.

- 24,100 after-abortion support clients were seen in 2017 (services include support, counseling, and referral to professional help when appropriate for both women and men).

- More than 1 million students attended community-based sexual risk avoidance education presentations in 2017.

Some statistics are useful (not in this article unless they're HBI specifically), but we're obviously not going to present them in this promotional manner. For instance, your second bullet point would just be an updated number of centers, not "provide vital services." On the other hand, I don't think "2 million people provided with free services" is a particularly useful tidbit in light of the generally accepted fact that a non-zero percentage of these "services" are a medical misinformation spiel. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

References

NPOV lacking

I added a {{POV}} tag to the article. I do not dispute the information and the associated references, just that the article lacks any attempt at neutrality or objectivity. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 02:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, you should dispute the references. Are you joking? Every one of them is hostile to the subject. Rewire! Cosmopolitan! NARAL!! Vice, incidentally, is a highly questionable source for facts (see Perennial sources) but it doesn't actually say that the organization is officially Catholic, only that it seems to have a very Catholic agenda which isn't, of course, the same thing. Goodtablemanners (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Goodtablemanners. I should have stated my intention with greater clarity. Here is an amendment to clarify my meaning: I am not at this time arguing that the information and the associated references are inaccurate or not supported by reliable sources, as I have not thoroughly reviewed them. My point at this juncture is that the article lacks any attempt at neutrality or objectivity. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 22:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

For the record - I put another article named "Heartbeat International" up for deletion because it had only one source, the organization itsself; it was deleted; it was some org in Florida that tried to get heart transplants for children, IIRC. In the course of that deletion, I also searched for sources for THIS organization as well, and there weren't any better sources at the time; I don't know whether any better ones exist today. If you can find any, then post them and we can use them, otherwise I intend to remove the tag after a week or two.

Also, WP:NPOV isn't neutral language, it is following what sources say.---Avatar317^(talk) 01:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Good point. Thank you. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 02:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I would start by removing NARAL as a source because it isn't a regular news source but rather an interest group with a mission entirely at odds with that of Heartbeat International. You might as well use Heartbeat International as a source to describe NARAL. As for WP:NPOV not being neutral language but rather "following what the source says", that's not exactly right. The basic facts a reliable source presents should not be altered but biased, loaded language that might be used by a source in presenting facts should not be duplicated (unless it's an attributed quotation). The last sentence of the article as it presently stands is a good example of duplicating the bias of the source. Goodtablemanners (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Goodtablemanners:Good points, and good clarification on the NPOV, I agree. The NARAL source can be removed; I didn't add that, and I read the Vice source, and the Vice source supports the other statements from what I recall. The openDemocracy statement could be changed from "targeting vulnerable women" to the more factual "???? women with unwanted pregnancies", but the disinformation/misinformation part of that statement is well supported in the source, and isn't bias but fact.---Avatar317^(talk) 06:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I recommend that we first apply a stop-gap measure to the bias in the article by removing NARAL as a source and rewording the openDemocracy statement. After that take a broader look at the article which, even with those changes, isn't especially good in my view. Goodtablemanners (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

openDemocracy material

To Avatar317 and others: If our article was longer and more detailed, then your last two sentences would probably be fine (though, if we are going to call openDemocracy's operatives "reporters", it would be more honest to call them "feminist reporters", i.e., militantly pro-choice reporters, which openDemocracy honestly does in its article). But since ours is now a very brief article, I think my closing sentence is better. Otherwise in an article of nine or ten lines about a third of them are devoted to the openDemocracy material . Too much weight. More broadly in our short article, too much emphasis on the same kinds of criticism of HI and CPC's (medical misinformation, deceptive advertising) and not enough on things such as how effective HI centers are in dissuading women from abortion (which they see as their primary purpose) and what they do in the way of follow-up care for the women they deal with. Goodtablemanners (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)