Talk:Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion: Interfaith Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted! I have not compared the material here with the material on RCRC's own website, so I cannot speak to whether the material here might be a violation of RCRC's ownership of that information. I write here more as a user of Wikipedia than as an editor. I would be disappointed not to find an article about this organization or any other equally notable organization. The tendency to delete speedily rather than to fix deliberately seems inconsistent with Wikipedia's mission and ideals. Sterrettc (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I now have compared the article's text with that of the organization website. It appears that the words "was founded in 1973" may have been copied without permission. Other than that, the wording is very different and it would be hard to argue that the two are "Substantially Similar," as would be required to establish a copyright violation. I find it very unlikely that RCRC would object to the material here, or that they would pursue legal action for copyright violation, or, if they did pursue it, that they would prevail. Sterrettc (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Okay, I see now that the version of the article I compared had already had the offending material removed. Sterrettc (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you might want to take a look at the history section, which is advocacy. It happens to be advocacy that I entirely and enthusiastically agree with, but that doesn't make it better from our NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources

The sole third-party secondary source cited is for criticism regarding a "theology of choice"? What is a theology of choice? I could guess, but I've never heard the term, so it'd be nice to expand on that and bring in some other reception sources. The rest of the sources are self-published, not cool, very thin article, undated leadership section, who knows if the affiliates are the same now, I couldn't be arsed to check. Elizium23 (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in mainstream sources seems pretty thin. Here's what I found:

passing mention about an event they co-organized
ThinkProgress article that interviews the president and discusses the organization
passing mention in a Pew Forum article about healthcare reform
passing mention about abortion and religious freedom
letter to RCRC from United Methodist Women announcing the latter organization withdrawing; coverage in the United Methodist Reporter of same
profile of the group in Vice

Only the last amounts to decent coverage. --JBL (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: actually the ThinkProgress source is also useful (one has to be careful with their slant, but it didn't look to me like that would be a problem in this case) -- maybe that and the Vice source are enough for notability? (It's marginal, though.) There are also lots of search engine hits in anti-abortion media that I didn't look at at all. --JBL (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV would require us to include pro-life sources; why don't you cite some? Elizium23 (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, it wouldn’t, neither as a general principle nor in this particular case (since they were all in venues like LifeSiteNews that are not reliable sources). However, you are welcome to try my methodology (put the name of the org into a search engine, scan through ten pages of hits) to see if I missed something usable. —JBL (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-life reliable secondary sources:

That's exactly two specific sites where I went and plugged in the article title. I am sure I could peel off a dozen more if I worked at it. And yes, NPOV would require these sources because they are secondary and indepdendent and reliable, with an editorial board and a reputation for fact-checking. Elizium23 (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly sure what point you're trying to prove. The claim "NPOV would require these sources ..." is completely different from the claim I objected to above. It's also still not right: for example, the first two links on your list are opinion pieces/blog posts (so, usable for little), and to call the third a "passing mention" of RCRC would be more than generous. I have to go make dinner so I stopped looking after going 0 for 3. However, if you do find usable articles from Catholic publications, by all means add them to the list. (Or to the article, as appropriate.) --JBL (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Citations on page for rev h moody

Started page on rev Howard moody, a historically significant pastor and leader of the church in 60s-90s. The citations on that page can provide added independent detail to this page re church’s history advancing reproductive rights + civil rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Howard_Moody Mac (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]