Talk:Foetal impairment

Dishonest tag
There is a dishonest template tagging this article, claiming it's unreferenced. In fact, it references the NZ law that it summarizes. Unfortunately, the editor who's been going against consensus by repeatedly inserting this template has a history of using false templates to attack articles that he disagrees with. As such, I will be reverting his changes and taking all necessary actions to prevent him from edit warring to get his way. Spotfixer (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Verifiability - Seriously, stop being an ass and read this. - Schrandit (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The unsourced template is to be used for articles that are completely unsourced. This article has one source so that template is not appropriate. That said, I'm a little confused because the link provided in the article doesn't say a word about "Foetal impairment", nor is the link to the legal code in question. Seems like that should be addressed, and it would help if we could contextualize the phrase by citing multiple sources which discuss the phrase independent from the legal code itself. For example, if we had an article on the US concept of "Equal Protection" we could cite the 14th amendment, but then we could go into Strauder v. West Virginia, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Brown v. Board of Education, in addition to citing journal articles in law reviews, and other published works. Is "foetal impairment" ever mentioned outside of the legal code? Have there ever been legal cases surrounding it? Is there multiple, independent sources which confirm it's notability? I suspect there is, but by reading this article that isn't established at all.-Andrew c [talk] 16:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The link has been fixed. Spotfixer (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)