Talk:Feminists for Life/Archive 2

Everyone out of the pool - Timeout
Let's all agree that the article needs help. However, presenting piles of new paragraphs for comment, to me, seems a lot more confusing and is s-l-o-w-i-n-g the process of improvement. I suggest some of the least controversial sections be given a rewrite on these talk pages - each in their own section header so each chunk can be looked at and improved. I did also appreciate dividing up the current text with section headers and would have kept those if they weren't bundled with deletion of content at the same time.

So, if no one objects could we start with 1. adding section headers to divide up the larger sections into parts. 2. starting with the least controversial areas (I know they all have their points of contention) posting proposed new text on these talk pages each in their own sections

Although the above might not be the best efficient process I think it will help keep us more productive and on target. If anyone thinks we should follow any other process for making improvements to the text by all means speak up now. Also as of now all personal jabs and anything as interpreted as less than a good faith effort to improve the article should come to a gracious stop - it isn't helping the article and that's the goal. If you're up for the above simply state sounds good to me or similar. Then let's get started or revisit the process so we can go ahead. FYI, I've added some templates to the article as well as wikilinks and grammar and punctuation clean-up. Benjiboi 23:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Benjiboi. That is exactly what we were doing. We were breaking up "Organization" section so that it would be more readable. --Ladeda76 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You are not simply breaking up "organization", you are deleting large and important chuncks of it. Benjiboi is suggesting we do the split first, then decide what text should be kept, changed, or removed. I agree with that process. Neitherday 23:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me - we are breaking up and consolidating. As I mentioned before, the section rambles.--Ladeda76 23:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That was supposed to be two steps, however in editing I see the logic in doing it in one. I have made an edit (if it is disliked, it can be reverted). I've gone ahead and deleted some material in my edit and attempted to make some NPOV changes. What do people think (and I know more work needs to be done in the article, this is just the beginning. We just need to take this process slowly, so that it is easy to adjust for mistakes or concerns) Neitherday 00:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A change that I see that could be made to my breakup: the 1970s are rather long and could be broken into "Early years" and "Equal Rights Amendment". Neitherday 00:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and made the split. If anyone has a problem with my two recent edits, let me know Neitherday 01:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dates needed and different chapters of FfL
My hunch is that the article will be greatly helped by bring ing sections into chronological order. Although that seems simply it doesn't always work that way and maybe a couple forms of organizing make sense. If anyone can add dates (years is fine for now) when the different chapters of FfL started, ended or did major accomplishments I think that would be helpful. Benjiboi 01:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to amend myself and suggest that although there should be a history section with items in chronological order I think the following should be the main sections in this order of importance,


 * Statement of purpose
 * Current issues
 * History
 * Structure and chapters
 * as I think the statement of the group's purpose can be edited fine to speak for itself and the current issues are more notable and of interest to WP readers than the history sections and structure. Anyone object (or care that much?)Benjiboi 01:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your proposed reordering. It makes sense. Neitherday 03:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've re-organized the article to the above structure which seems like it will work a bit. We need to add dates to the sections under Projects/activities and the Chapters so we can list those subsections chronologically. I've cleaned up the lede so it at least looks like a lede and added a criticism statement. I think the Susan B Anthony section and the high-profile sections deserve attention as they, to me, are the next must-read sections for the general reader of this article/subject.

References clean-up
I think my next sweep will be to clean-up all the references and get them formatted ina user-friendly way and, if easy enough, verify that they indeed cover whatever they are referencing. Benjiboi 10:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk page sections archived
FYI, I archived any old threads and the (very long) cut and paste of content/proposed content that made these pages longer than the article itself. Benjiboi 10:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Call for consensus on the reliability of a source
Hi all, please take a look at this article: Sarah Heath Palin, Middle Class Change or More of The Same. This is currently cited as a source for this article. An editor put it in recently, I took it out, ze put it back in.

It seems to me that this article is very poorly written. It is disorganized. It is a sort of stream-of-consciousness ramble about Sarah Palin, the vice-presidency, JFK, the author's family, Condoleezza Rice, NASA, the colors of the American flag, etc. It makes little sense.

Given this, I believe this article should not be used as a reference. If the author writes so poorly, is it safe to assume she got her facts right?

Note the disclaimer at the end: ''The American Chronicle and its affiliates have no responsibility for the views, opinions and information communicated here. The contributor(s) and news providers are fully responsible for their content.''

Opinions, please. Tualha (Talk) 02:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources are used in context and I see that the information that was to be cited was by yet another source so it would seem that, at least in this case, the source was correct. We don't assume that a less gifted writer is wrong. What we can do is present additional sources that dispute what this one states, if there are any, and then look into what is both true and verifiable. Banj e  b oi   03:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We're not getting much input here, so I've moved the discussion to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Tualha (Talk) 18:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

removed press statement
Feminists for Life released the following statement upon her selection as John McCain's running mate: FFL Member Nominated for Vice President of the United States

[August 29, 2008] Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, has been selected by Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain as his running mate.

According to The Anchorage Daily News published August 6, 2006, "Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child." The article went onto say that "she's a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life." "I believe in the strength and the power of women, and the potential of every human life,' she said."

Feminists for Life's policy is that all memberships are confidential. However, since Governor Palin has been public about her membership, we can confirm that Palin became a member in 2006.

Earlier this week Feminists for Life reacted to the inclusion of woman-centered solutions in the Democratic Party platform, and the inclusion of FFL's trademarked message, "Women deserve better® than abortion,©" in the Republican Party platform.

FFL President Serrin Foster said "It is unprecedented to see the platforms of both major U.S. political parties incorporate key pieces of FFL's unique message."

"Of course there is a certain excitement about the recent movement toward FFL's woman-centered solutions and message by the parties, and now the selection of a pro-life feminist as the Vice Presidential nominee. But as a nonpartisan organization, we cannot endorse any candidates," Foster said.

"FFL members represent a broad political as well as religious spectrum, and we remain both nonpartisan and nonsectarian. There are many issues outside Feminists for Life’s mission. Feminists for Life is dedicated to systematically eliminating the root causes that drive women to abortion - primarily lack of practical resources and support - through holistic, woman-centered solutions. We recognize that abortion is a reflection that our society has failed to meet the needs of women and that too often women have settled for less. Women deserve better than abortion," said Foster.

As each party takes steps to acknowledge and meet the needs of women, Feminists for Life is prepared to work with our elected leaders on behalf of girls and women who deserve far better than abortion. FFL has a long track record of working with both sides of the political aisle on major legislation such as the Violence Against Women Act, Child Support Enforcement Act, and much more. Many members of Congress have already stepped forward to cosponsor the FFL-inspired bill with bipartisan support, the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Act.

"We invite all parties, all public servants, and all people to join us on the bridge of woman-centered solutions," Foster said.

I removed the above text as we already cover much of this material and we don't simply publish press releases as such. Is there anything here that we need for the article? Banj e b oi   05:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The American Feminist reference
Anyone know if this is a book or journal or magazine or ? The cites don't offer much and it would be nice to know what the text says just for verification if nothing else. Benjiboi 01:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.feministsforlife.org/taf/ is a publication put out by the group themselves. Benjiboi 02:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought I'd look in here to see what all the fuss was about and it seems this is a bit of a problem article. If The American feminist is (and from the link it definetly is) a Feminist for Life publication then it is a primary source and not a terribly reliable one.  As per WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N sources need to be "independent of the subject".  Looking through the refs here - there's maybe 1 relieble source about the feminists for life the Pro-Life Feminism: Different Voices ref.
 * This is slightly tangential to this discussion but I'm also very dubious about the Feminist for Life, Ireland's notability- I don't know if they're still active or if they pass WP:ORG. There's certainly be no mentioned I've seen (I could be wrong here) in the media here in Ireland and there's been a number of demonstrations and counter demonstrations about abortion in the last 10-12 weeks.  Breda O'Brien was fairly notable as a pro-life journalist but I can neither see nor find any sources for the Irish chapter-- Cailil   talk 14:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed there is a pile of problems with the article. My first goal was to support the article simply being structured in a way that led to understanding the group and facilitating some clean-up. The American Feminist journal may be self-published but it does seem to be of some decent quality. Having stated that I feel it's OK to use when they are referencing what they believe, etc. They also have college chapters but these may be very temporary ones so all of it needs to be looked at eventually. Thanks for the heads up on the Irish chapter, if you do come across something useful please add it. Benjiboi 15:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Chapters no longer existant
I would like to state that Feminists for Life does not have state chapters any longer, their last major chapter was known as Feminists for Life of New York and without warning they dismissed this chapter in 2007, it is now known as Feminists Choosing Life for New York. 216.201.33.27 07:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible sources
This link here has some possible material for the article. It's been sitting on my talk page and I want anyone to feel free to use it if they want to. Benjiboi 13:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Socialist
Feminists for life's philosophy seems to be extremely socialist, and even their arguements are that women have abortions because of society, should this be included? 216.201.48.10 (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can find a reliable source then go for it. Banje boi  14:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Pro-life?
I remember seeing a pretty clear discussion about the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" both being inherently POV. It's used in the first sentence. Thoughts? --Hawkian (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * They are. But there is a wikipedia truce to use these terms, as you can see by the fact that the respective articles are so-named. The point is that any other terms are just as inherently POV. Homunq (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism
I've seen some criticism of the group, e.g. in the Pollitt article. Is there some guideline or policy against having a Criticism section? Or is it just that no one has made one yet? Tualha (Talk) 17:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The best way to approach that, IMHO, is to write a neutral summary statement at the end of the lede - something like "FFL has been criticized by _____ for _____". And, of course provide sourcing. Banj e  b oi   22:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I added a statement in the lede. A section could certainly be built - usually they are toward the end of an article and titled "Criticism". Banj e  b oi   23:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Update I stand corrected - a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per WP:CRIT. Banj e  b oi   02:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:CRIT isn't policy, or even a guideline. It's just an essay. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Susan B. Anthony
The section on the Susan B. Anthony house is to my mind, quite poorly written. Although it supposedly discusses the organization's ownership of the feminist icon's house, it primarily serves as an argument that she supported their position. What would the best language for a rewrite be?--66.65.125.206 (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit of a rewrite, see if that helps. Banj e  b oi   02:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * First half is definitely better. I'm wondering about the quotes, though--they seem like the sort of thing FfL would deliberately cite to show support from Susan B. Anthony, and the inclusion of Elizabeth Cady Stanton seems tangential at best. Thanks for the work so far, though! I really appreciate it.--66.65.125.206 (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Stanton and Anthony are seen as iconic figures in the issue much as other groups declare their icons or note celebrities. The quotes are both about abortion which is the central issue of this group, they are sourced as well and I even trimmed one down. I don't think I would support removing any of that content. Banj e  b oi   03:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've done another rewrite, starting with the header which gave the reader the idea that the house was under discussion when it was mostly the women's views. Now, the material is presented as the women's views, and the house is appended. And I've brought some context into the Anthony quote which was not presented to her readership quite the same way that it was presented here. Binksternet (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin
The position of Sarah Palin on contraception is in dispute. She had previously taken a pro-contraception position. Current campaign planks oppose contraception.Dstern1 (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reliable source showing she is now anti-contraception as has been suggested. We can then sort out how to work this content on this article. -- <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   02:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

When Sarah Palin accepted her parties nomination for Vice-President, she officially endorsed the entire platform as written. That is part of accepting the nomination at the convention. Frankly, I do jot presently have the time of inclination to research GOP rules to reference the specific rule though I am quite familiar with the rules of both major parties of my own knowledge. I contend that she has altered her position on contraception; I contend it is misinformation for the FFL to continue to state a position of this person which she has since changed. Rather than say she is now anti-contraception which I cannot presently source; my edit deleted the no longer valid position and gave a statement of her current official position per the Party platform. When she ends her silence, she may indeed express a nuanced position. For now, she has adopted the position as written.Dstern1 (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * She may have accepted the parties policy as written but we need to show that via a reliable source. We go by verifiability not truth. We also don't delete content because we believe it's no longer true for the same reason. It's a reliably sourced statement and when something emerges that shows otherwise we contrast the two. Hopefully a source that is considered reliable can be found to help clarify the issue and resolve this. -- <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   00:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If I understand understand you correctly and please correct me if I do not, the appropriate action would be to add her current position along with language showing that she had a different position previously. I am going to wait until later before I make any edits.Dstern1 (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you do not understand. The appropriate action is to make none of the changes you are proposing.  Your speculation that she believes in and supports every jot and tittle of the party platform is prohibited original research that is also more likely false than true - generally speaking, even presidential candidates don't support or personally believe in every jot and tittle of their parties platforms, which contain compromises between different factions of the party and recycling of material left over from prior platforms.  If she issues a statement herself specifically about this issue, then after she does so, we can see what it says and what changes might be appropriate.  GRBerry 14:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not original research. I read the section cited above and believe that I what I am proposing is based upon a primary source which I shall soon locate. As she is not talking to the press, I cannot go upon press interviews. I am actually seeking a transcript of a speech she gave earlier this week in which I am told that she made definitive statements against including education about contraception. I believe that anyone would be hard-pressed to deny a change in position based upon a speech she personally delivered. As blogs and personal communication are not reliable sources, I think a transcript would be the most appropriate source. I shall also reference a press acount of the speech to add credence as a secondary source.--Dstern1 (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As this has been a touchy issue on this article please start a new section with any sources and a proposal of what changes you think are called for - this way we can agree on changes and implement them. -- <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   18:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed links
These links were removed per WP:EL, they may be useful as sources or otherwise help in editing the article. --  <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi    20:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Feminists for Life of New York

Support

 * Feminism & Nonviolence Studies (not a publication of FFL, but some authors have contributed to both)
 * "Suffragette City" by Emily Bazelon, Mother Jones Magazine Jan/Feb 2007
 * Consistent Life (formerly Seamless Garment Network)
 * Pat Goltz pro-life feminism page
 * Homepage of Feminists for Life of New Zealand co-founder Daphne Clair de Jong
 * The Feminist Sell-Out, Daphne Clair de Jong, New Zealand Listener

Media

 * Feminists for (Fetal) Life, Katha Pollitt, The Nation
 * Who Are the Feminists for Life? In a word, dangerous., Lynn Harris, Nerve.com
 * Nominee's Wife Is A Feminist After Her Own Heart, Hanna Rosin, Washington Post
 * Abortion Foes See Validation For New Tactic, Robin Toner, New York Times

An edit I made without a note
I got a message about an edit I made without also providing an explanation--I'm very new to this and didn't mean to violate a convention that makes good sense. I'd like to just explain my thinking, but I'll stay away from making any more actual changes unless the person who reverted my edit wants to change her/his mind.

The second para said:

Feminists for Life maintains that being pro-life is compatible with feminism, and, further, that it is the natural conclusion of feminist values. Members and supporters of the organization claim that being a pro-life feminist is not an oxymoron.

I deleted the final sentence because it didn't seem to add any meaning at all. If it's already established that the group feels that being pro-life is compatible with feminism, and beyond that, that being pro-life is the natural conclusion that follows from feminist beliefs, <I>of course</I> they feel like being a pro-life feminist is not an oxymoron. It seemed to me that the sentence was totally redundant.

Anyway, no more edits without explanations from me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.53.244 (talk) 04:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

legislative goal
The Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Student Services Act is mentioned, but there is no explanation of what that is. That seems like a significant omission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OckRaz (talk • contribs) 00:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've made this into a page.OckRaz (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)