Talk:Americans United for Life

ProLifeDC (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC) I am making Wikipedia contributions and edits on this page on behalf of Americans United for Life. I will do my best to make all contributions and edits comply with the spirit of Wikipedia's guidelines, especially relating to COI and NPOV.

Pregnant Woman's Protection Act
I made changes (including a subheading title change to make this section more neutral.ProLifeDC (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Cumbersome phrasing

 * the group aims to protect the rights of fetuses in utero

Wouldn't it be smoother to say that the group advocates fetal rights? Everyone known that the fetus (or "unborn child" lives in the uterus). Why have three different linked terms, one of them hiding "fetal"? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new version
I work for AUL in DC, and I've made some edits to this article before in order to try to make it more reliable. But I'd like the article to be a lot better, so I reached out to a friend who is an editor here and understands Wikipedia better than me to help write a version of this article. My version is now posted here: User:ProLifeDC/AUL replacement draft. With guidance, I've prepared this draft, which seeks to do several things. First, it's a much more complete account of AUL's history and activities, without being promotional. Second, it's carefully sourced, and attempts to comply with all Wikipedia content guidelines, especially WP:NPOV. It is not my intention to "own" this page, but I know AUL very well and want to make sure that readers find accurate and complete information about AUL when they visit here. After all, it is our second result on Google. I'd like to ask anyone here to review and comment on the article, and even make edits to this draft. And if you agree it is better than the current article, please consider making the move to replace it. I am open to all reasonable suggestions, and I will watch this page for responses. Thanks for your consideration, ProLifeDC (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Charmaine Yoest
There was previously a standalone wiki page for Charmaine Yoest. It was redirected to the Americans United for Life page earlier this year (see the discussion at Talk:Charmaine_Yoest. The page was redirected due to a decision that there was a lack of notability, with comparison given to another pro-life leader, Marjorie Dannenfelser, and a profile in the media independent of quotes in stories about the organization. I am aware of OTHERSTUFF & Other_stuff_exists but I would point out a similar discussion about Dannenfelser's wiki page resulted in it being kept, mainly because of a Washington Post profile piece. Using that logic, I would argue that Yoest's page should be up again since, in the interim, a Christian Science Monitor profile piece was written.ProLifeDC (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The CSM is a great source. You probably need 2 more independent sources. I notice Catholic Online did an interview, but it might not count toward notability. The confirmation hearings don't count. Do you have 2 more sources? – Lionel (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * National Catholic Register did a profile piece. However, not to get too wrapped up in OTHERSTUFF - in an argument that ensued over a possible removal of the Dannenfelser page (initiated by the same editor I believe) right after the Yoest one was redirected to this page, it was decided that the one profile (that one in WaPo) was enough to keep the Dannenfelser page. Just using that as an example of determining notability.ProLifeDC (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and restore the article. The worst that will is a certain editor will AFD it. Who knows what will happen at AFD.– Lionel (talk) 07:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Taking your advice shortly, will also be adding the edits to reflect more recent coverage. ProLifeDC (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * At Articles for deletion/Charmaine Yoest, feel free to bring more reliable sources. Note that you are operating under conflict of interest guidelines at that article, too. Binksternet (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Poor reliabiality of sources
I have doubts about the reliability of some of the sourcing in this article. For example, the Washington Times is not a source independent of the Unification Church, and too many (at least of six) the references point to the organization's own website, or its affilated organization, Democrats for Life. At least one source is plucked from PR Web. Bearian (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)