Talk:Crisis pregnancy center

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)

Worklist

This is my list of stuff to do in the article. Partly for my own reference, but also in case other people want to tackle them, of course.

• try to get demographics of CPC clients: numbers, ages, etc. (need neutral sources for this, or very careful use of promotional sources) Numbers on how many people find CPCs when looking for abortion clinics would be awesome but might not exist. (we do however have two different stats on how many women in Ireland encounter a CPC when looking for non-directive crisis pregnancy counseling)
• include in "activities" a little information on the "delaying" tactic of CPCs (use existing sources, which I'm sure talk about it)
• consider integrating the court cases section to the advertisement section of the article, since they're all about that. Anyhow, the sections in the legal status section are somewhat arbitrary - as we mention in the local ordinances section, there have been court cases about that too, and I'm sure we could rustle up court cases about funding - this info about mandatory counseling isn't a law but would still seem to belong.
  • court cases about funding?
• Boes v. Deschu, another court case. Like the others, state-level with no evident fallout, so it may be worth trimming all of them a bit. Though see immediately above re: desirability of section.
• bring things up to date (numbers, funding)
• integrate Ireland section (CPCs vs. legit pregnancy counseling) into other sections of article
• add to "activities" a subsection on adoption ([1], find more sources)

Here's a great article on that very thing! Shotgun Adoption

• do more with the sources we're aware of but haven't used yet, eg. in the external links, or some that I have bookmarked; there are probably also some that we already cite but could get more from.
• on CPCs' role in the anti-abortion movement (also from sources we have, eg. grassroots, fight)
• web advertising: [2]

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) (not putting a date so this won't be archived)

• two articles regarding google removing CPC false advertising [[3]] [[4]]

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)

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)

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)

"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)