Talk:Human Life International

Should this be classified as "abortion-related"?
I'm not sure if this is the most accurate category. This group is opposed to abortion because it is pro-life. Isn't there a section for pro-life organizations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.128.38.161 (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of antisemitism
The anti-Defamation League has asserted that certain members of Human Life International have expressed anti-semitic sentiments, presumably because of support for abortion among large sections of the American Jewish community. This could maybe be added in the controversies section if the article ever becomes more detailed. ADM (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would hope that it would be done very carefully. It is all too common to attribute bigotry to those one disagrees with, and it doesn't necessarily warrant a mention.  The Anti-Defamation League, according to you (I don't question it, but I hadn't heard of it before) has asserted this.  Likewise, a former US President has labeled one who called Obama a liar as a racist.  Never mind that Obama is a liar--on record; one who merely asserts that truth is a racist, according to Jimmy Carter.  That's absurd on its face.  The assertion from the Anti-Defamation League might be just as absurd.    140.147.236.194 (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Response to the Above
The above ADL link has now been added to this article, given Marx' recent death.Calibanu (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)USer Calibanu

Tone concerns
I have concerns about the tone and argument style of the article and its lack of neutrality; this is a partisan issue and parts appear to have been weaselly written, specifically the "rebuttal of ADL accusations" section that is an apologia rather than part of a Wikipedia article.  Ogress  smash!  16:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I second the tone concerns Ladam11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Response to antisemitism charge
This charge has been published here for years, with no adequate citation. It would be odd for a deeply anti-Semitic organization to remain silent for so many years on an issue that supposedly defines them. This is clearly, as a previous editor noted as a possibility, a matter of attacking the organization based on a very old and poorly sourced charge in order to harm their reputation. The "antisemitism" charge should therefore be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.25.97.145 (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Tags
To the IP (23.25.97.145) who removed all the tags from the page, can you please explain your reasoning? Thanks Meatsgains (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Sure (not sure how to do this exactly, hoping you get this response). One of the tags had to do with improper or lacking citations. The only cited example of this was fixed previously, leaving the tag outdated unless one can be more specific about what is lacking. One had to do with objectivity, citing a response to an inadequately sourced and 20-year-old charge of "antisemitism," as if this was a fair charge against the organization. Many, many people and orgs have been charged with antisemitism, with varying levels of merit. We do not find this charge fair given its outdatedness and the complete lack of context in which it was presented (partial quotes, no context of original presentation). It amounts to name calling or even, as one suggested earlier, bigotry. The organization's defense (I work for the organization) was, of course, partisan, but this is an odd charge given the inadequacy of the antisemitism charge. If HLI was antisemitic, there would be more evidence, and not a legacy of working with prominent Jewish leaders who shared the org's mission (as cited, though more citations are available but would only add to the defensiveness). This is why the tag and the "Controversy" section were deleted. Much of what HLI says can be called controversial, but poorly sourced charges of antisemitism that are 20 years old are poor justification for maintaining the tag and this particular "controversy" section.

I forget what the other tag was, but it may have had to do with inadequate information, yet it appears you are removing information that you feel is misplaced. We would also appreciate an explanation for these removals, since they are objective statements of fact and not, on any reasonable understanding, partisan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.25.97.145 (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Would appreciate advice on sections that are perceived as reading like ad copy. Specifics will help with rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.25.97.145 (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Explanation of tags?
Can those who added tags be more specific so that the sections can be edited? Otherwise, this is starting to look like a continuing effort to discredit the organization on Wikipedia. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.25.97.145 (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Having just added the tag noting the lack of third-party sources to the article, I can tell you that it applies to the entire article, as there is not a single third-party source invoked. That is poor sourcing under our guidelines for how things should be sourced, which is to rely largely on reliable, third-party sources. And by sourcing the whole things to the subject's source, including leading with a long "Mission" section quoting the ways that the group wishes to portray itself, it makes this article look like a promotional brochure for the group rather than an encyclopedia article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. - Just taking a look at the article's lead section, "Human Life International describes itself as 'the largest international pro-life organization in the world'" sounds promotional and reads like an advertisement.
 * This article relies too much on references to primary sources - Of the page's 5 references, 3 are WP:PRIMARY.
 * http://www.hli.org/about-us/our-mission/
 * http://www.hli.org/about-us/our-mission/a-short-history-of-human-life-international/
 * I've provided a few examples of why the tags were added. Let me know if you have any questions. Meatsgains (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Article written with an obvious BIAS
If the organization touts itself as "pro-life," why is that language not being used? The fact that the writers framed it as "anti-abortion" not only reflects a clear bias but also detracts away from the purpose of the article, which is to be informative. Whatever personal views the Wiki writers/editors may hold (and I doubt it's very "diverse"), the site is read by millions of people of varying beliefs and outlooks, and in fairness to them, we owe them an objective article. MUST EVERYTHING be painted in anti-abortion hysteria? —Preceding unsigned comment added 20:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC) by Ladam11 (talk)
 * Because "pro-life" is a biased term, it is a spin to put the happiest possible face on the stance against abortion (much as "pro-choice" is spin for those who wish abortion to be legal.) To obfuscate them being an anti-abortion organization would be to obfuscate. We're not saying being "anti-abortion" is bad. It is not a hysterical term. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * NatGertler's right. Unless there's some consensus on high that I'm not aware of, let's stick to the more neutral terms.  Blue  sphere  06:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

No sources
Currently the article lacks even a single source about HLI not published by the organization itself. Assuming the characterizations in the article are correct, I find it difficult to believe that none exist. My first attempt to find any was only somewhat successful, producing these three hits:   . Perhaps these could be used to start turning this article into something less pointless. --JBL (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)