Talk:Live Action (organization)

Weasel words
Examples please? --B (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Undue weight and weasel:
 * "sometimes using questionable practices to achieve this goal" "youth led movement dedicated to building a culture of life and ending abortion, the greatest human rights injustice of our time."
 * Unsourced and weasel:
 * "Live Action is best known for..."
 * Does not clarify that no wrongdoing was found:
 * "who they say was allegedly offering counseling to a pimp regarding abortions and testing for his alleged underage sex workers."
 * Undue weight, weasel in "similar" without having source, "failing" is also weasel without a very good source, and again, only one side presented.
 * "In 2010, a similar sting by Live Action on a Birmingham, Alabama-based Planned Parenthood clinic led to a state investigation and the clinic being placed on probation for failing to obtain parental consent before allowing minors to have abortions, which was described as a "technical violation" by the state."
 * WMO 22:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Failed to get the signature ..." is in the original AP article. "Similar" I agree could be "another" instead (I will fix it).  The next sentence clarifies that PP vehemently objects to the allegations.  I don't know that a statement of total exoneration is appropriate since it just happened - the accusation is made, PP denies it, nothing else has happened yet.  "Live Action is best known for" I agree should be "Live Action received national attention in February 2011 for" "sometimes using questionable practices to achieve this goal" I'm missing where that is - it sounds familiar - is that from an earlier version of the article? --B (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My bad, wrong copy paste on the first one, I corrected it. WMO 22:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a quote from their website and it's in quotation marks (as opposed to being offered as evidence to prove that they actually are a youth-led movement or that abortion is the greatest human rights injustice of our time - I could think of one or two that are a bit higher up on the scale - like the various genocides). I don't have any strong disagreement with removing it - it was a part of the original (pre-copyvio) article, not something I added. --B (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It just helps in making the article a rosy portrait of a very controversial and misguided (imho) organization that regularly breaks the law, etc. WMO 23:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed. Are there any other points of contention regarding the "weasel" tag? --B (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the weasel tag. Also, I somewhat undid your second edit because I had worked on editing a bunch of things and didn't want to lose all of it due to an edit conflict. I think we pretty much did the same thin on that sentence but feel free to re do it if you want. (We both changed to whom). I also removed a youtube citation. WMO 23:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This line here - Her work in creating these "stings" have been widely referred to as "hoaxes" perpetuated by "anti-choice groups" "in order to entrap clinic staff."[5][6][7][8] - has several problems. NONE of the four links refer to "anti-choice groups", except in a few user comments, nor, I would imagine, would that be the language of neutral sources in any event.  "Widely referred to" is a weasel language that suggests the sentiment has wide acceptance when at most it's the point of view from one side of the political spectrum.  The term "hoax" is used, but it describes the fictional scenario (a pimp seeking an abortion for his underage girl), not the videos themselves.  The scenario described in the "sting" was a hoax and doesn't purport to be anything other than a hoax.  As far as "entrap clinic staff", only one of the four articles uses that language and it's taken out of context here - that is from  and they are paraphrasing Planned Parenthood, not offering their viewpoint.  While obviously the whole purpose was to entrap clinic staff, this passage puts it in quotes and makes it sound like there are four sources saying something that none of them did. --B (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The word "hoax" is used by aol news, if you would like we could change it to "scam" since it also used that to describe it?
 * "An anti-abortion group called Live Action has posted video of its scam, in which group members pretend"
 * that same sentence also uses "anti-abortion group," and it describes the whole incident as a scam/hoax. "Widely referred to" should probably be replaced. "Entrap clinic staff" is also in that article earlier, I don't mind taking it out of quotes and say trick staff or something like that which is clear? WMO 00:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly support removal about of said sentence and would like to know more about the reliability of that aol source. - Haymaker (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Why would we remove it? Because it is one of two sentences cites criticism of the subject? Could we also remove all criticism from the Planned Parenthood article?
 * Because you used non-reliable sources and the text you added does not match what the sources say. - Haymaker (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Which source is unreliable according to you? AOL? TPM? Raw Story? All reliable news sources. WMO 00:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * From the website of People's World; "The PW is known for its partisan coverage. We take sides". - Haymaker (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but that's one non-reliable source. Where are these non-reliable sources you were talking about? WMO 00:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You throw that garbage in this article and expect me not to take pause? TPM and TRS are both leftist and I still want to know more about that aol source.  Who is Mary Phillips-Sandy and why is her opinion worth a hoot? - Haymaker (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)This isn't about removing criticism - it's about correcting a completely inaccurate claim. There are numerous problems with the sentence.  Not a single one of the four articles says "anti-choice groups".  One of the articles - http://peoplesworld.org/republicans-drop-forcible-rape-but-war-on-women-continues/ - is actually published by the Communist Party USA (hardly a reliable source for anything) - and even then only mentions the incident in passing and isn't even relevant.  The Talking Points Memo piece refers to the "sex ring" as a hoax, which, of course, it was.  The "sex ring" is a hoax - the video depicts a hoax.  The video is not a hoax.  A movie is a movie.  A movie is not the thing it depicts.  Had they passed the video off as something it was not, for example, had they rented their own office space, had an actress pretend to be the PP employee, then tried to pass it off as actual video they shot from within a PP office, then the video would be a hoax.  Does that make sense?  The article needs to be careful not to confuse the two - the video was an authentic depiction of a fictional scenario.  The sex ring was a hoax.  The video was not a hoax. --B (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The comment about removing criticism wasn't directed at you, like I said, I don't have any special attachment to the wording, reword it however you want, as long as it clearly notes the criticism against it as well. WMO 00:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I took a stab at reformulating it. When three quarters of the sentence is quotes that nobody said, I'm not sure how much there is to keep.  Other than the communists, they were just reporting Planned Parenthood's position without very much opining of their own. A concern, that I suppose will take care of itself over time, is that the majority of the article is about this one incident and the majority of that is the Planned Parenthood response to that one incident. --B (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "TPM and TRS are both leftist." Is there a requirement now that a source has to be unbiased? I guess we can stop using Fox News and MSNBC as sources from now on. 24.199.34.245 (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Salon.com editorials
Why do they mater? - Haymaker (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Because they are a reliable secondary source that substantially reported on the incidents. WMO 23:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They are editorials. I do not think you have read RS. - Haymaker (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is also clearly noted as an editorial. Editorials are notable as opinion. WMO 00:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why doens't it say "Alex Pareene criticized..." - Haymaker (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Editorials are fair to use as criticism. In fact, the rules state that criticisms must be sourced, but given a general "some people." So if this is disallowed, why is this article somehow exempt from having criticisms?24.199.34.245 (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Title
Currently title is POV and inaccurate. Any objections to Live Action (pro-life organization)? Lionel (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. The current title in factual. This organization opposes abortion. That's their purpose. They don't oppose the death penalty, or the military, or eating meat, or medical testing of animals, so it is inaccurate to call them 'pro-life' as a general label. We're an encyclopedia: When we use words, we should mean what we say. ("Pro-life" as a euphemism for anti-abortion—since when do you need a euphemism for being against murder??—is also regional; if not specific to the US, at least not reliably understood on a global level.) — kwami (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Kwami here, the organization is anti-abortion, that's what neutral outlets call them, that's what we should call them. WMO 02:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Right now, there's a debate at the pro-life page on which term to use, "anti-abortion" or "pro-life." Currently, the policy is to use the term "pro-life." I hope this helps, AnupamTalk 02:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the current title is inconsistent with related articles such as "Pro-life" and the category "Pro-life movement". Lionel (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That is different, the discussion there is whether to rename that article, one of the primary arguments against anti-abortion there is that it is limiting it to only a part of the pro-"life" movement, that is not the case here as this is referring to a specific organization who is in fact, anti-abortion, nice and easy. Look it up in the New York Times, Associated Press, LA Times, anywhere neutral practically, they say the same thing. WMO 02:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Since such a move is clearly controversial, it would have to go through the full move discussion process. If you make that suggestion, perhaps you should also request that anti-abortion violence be moved to pro-life violence? WMO 02:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For that article, I would name it either violence against abortion providers or violence by abortion opponents. We have Violence against women, Violence against LGBT people and violence against prostitutes as comparably named articles.  We do have Anti-Christian violence in India, but that isn't exactly analogous - the violence in our case is directed against providers of abortions, not against the abortions themselves. --B (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

For hard cases like this, this comes in handy. This suggests pro-life. I agree there is a real distinction in the terms with one being a subset of the other. But as both terms are used, logically the superset is more correct (pro-life). Oh and did I mention this? lol Seriously though the guideline seems pretty clear. 96.227.230.57 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC).

Pro-life and anti-abortion are both used in RS. So consistency becomes the deciding factor. The main article and the category are "Pro-life." From WP:TITLE: Consistency – titles which follow the same pattern as those of similar articles are generally preferred. Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principal criteria above. I think that settles it. If there are no further objections, I'll move the article. Lionel (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Chill, let the discussion have its space. But I agree, it should be moved, as I found pro-life quite easy. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Moved back. Right under the guideline of using their terminology, there's the guideline to be specific. They are an anti-abortion group: just read their mag. I see no evidence that the are vegetarians or oppose the death penalty or take on pro-life causes in general.

Why you would be embarrassed to admit that you're anti-abortion if you think abortion is murder is beyond me, but it's not up to us to cater to people's insecurities. — kwami (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Live Action identifies itself as "a leading new media, investigative, and educational organization committed to the protection and respect of all human life" and their mission statement is to "build a culture of life". A search of "'live action' pro-life" yields 840,000 Google hits while "'live action' anti-abortion" yields 216,000 results. Let's not impose our agenda here, folks. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The agenda is denying that they're an anti-abortion org. I have no idea why, but anti-abortionists seem to be afraid of their own position. — kwami (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Really dumb question: why not just name it Live Action (organization) and worry about an adjective at some point in the future when some other organization called "Live Action" comes along? The whole purpose of disambiguating it in the title is that there is some other thing called "Live Action" and we need a unique title. Any title satisfies the technical need for something unique ... so why not just leave the adjective out of there? --B (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. — kwami (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Works for me. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion
After an informal poll at Talk:Lila_Rose found that there is some general support for this move, I would like to propose that we merge Lila Rose into Live Action (organization). (Lila Rose would become a redirect to this article.) The reason for the merge is that there is really very little meaningful to say about her apart from her work with her organization. While it's technically not WP:BLP1E (since there are multiple events), it's a very similar situation. --B (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - per reasons in previous discussion. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 05:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Both are notable based on reliable sourcing. As long as both are notable, regardless of a merge, eventually someone will come along and expand the redirect. Lionel (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Some people have their 15 minutes and we never hear from them again.  If we hear from her again, she needs an article.  If we don't hear from her again, she doesn't need an article.  Either way, RIGHT NOW / TODAY, there is almost nothing to say from her apart from what she did through her organization. --B (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose - There is a lot of ongoing coverage of this organization. I would prefer to wait a few weeks and wait to see how all of the recent (and ongoing) sources get incorporated before we decide whether or not to fold this into another article. - Haymaker (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, this article is a bit sparse and the organization was founded by Rose. If anything, wouldn't this article be folded into Rose's? - Haymaker (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Rose does not appear to have notability outside of this organization. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Both are notable outside of each other. If there's going to be a merge, I would say merge Live Action into Lila Rose. Forgive me if this has already been discussed. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it hasn't been discussed. I'm largely indifferent as to which way the merge is done - just that if both articles are written as completely as they can at this point in time, they will largely be duplicates of each other.  Consider as an analogous situation Shirley Sherrod.  She is far more "notable" than Lila Rose, but Shirley Sherrod redirects to a section within Resignation of Shirley Sherrod.  Like Lila Rose, Mrs. Sherrod was the news story du jour recently.  Shirley Sherrod has a far greater argument to have been notable independent of the story concerning her resignation.  For example, here is an article about her from 1986.  But with Lila Rose, there is almost nothing you can say that doesn't belong in the Live Action article.  Maybe at some point in the future there will be - who knows? - but for now there is not. --B (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: no clear consensus to merge. Who wants to close? Lionel (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support close NYyankees51 (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * On what planet does 3-3 justify a snowball close? --B (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * On POV pusher planet. Also, Haymaker is a "weak," and we work by consensus, not voting anyway. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 19:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Strong" and "weak" mean nothing. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, strong and weak comments are worthless in assessing consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support merge - nothing of note apart from Live Action (organization). Looking at the discussion, if User:Haymaker was to reconnsider and support a merge there would be a consensus to merge. Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge -- both are notable with multiple sourcing and appearances in various media nationally. 66.210.101.146 (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am adding an RFC tag below to hopefully get some outside views here - the above is basically the same group of us going around and around. --B (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC
Lila Rose is the head of Live Action (organization), a pro-life group that has recently been in the news for its campaign against Planned Parenthood. Her notability is derived primarily from her work with this organization. Should Lila Rose be merged into Live Action (organization)? --B (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Alex Pareene / Salon

 * For reference: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/02/01/planned_parenthood_sting/index.html and the diff in question in our article

This passage has been added to multiple articles over the last few weeks and I don't think it has any business in any of them. Even pretending for the moment that this is a reliable source and not a non-notable opinion ... let's look at what the piece actually says:

Between Jan. 11 and Jan. 15, five separate Planned Parenthood clinics received mysterious visits from men who claimed to be involved in underage sex-trafficking. This meant, obviously, that someone was trying to pull a James O'Keefe-style "sting," in which deceptively edited Internet videos would prove that some organization dedicated to providing services to the poor or otherwise non-privileged was in fact engaged in high crimes and conspiracy against freedom.

When the blogger speaks of "in which deceptively edited Internet videos ...", he is describing a "James O'Keefe-style 'sting'". He is saying that when he heard about the men visiting the clinics, his gut reaction was to say, "ah, this is another one of those O'Keefe things with deceptively edited videos". It is completely false to say, "A Salon.com editorial criticized the visit as a 'James O'Keefe-style 'sting', in which deceptively edited Internet videos ... [etc]' ...". This falsely gives the impression that the rest of the whole thing was his description of the Live Action sting. It wasn't. It was his description of the James O'Keefe sting.

Lastly, it is not a "Salon.com editorial". An editorial is an opinion piece written by the editorial board of a newspaper or other publication and signed by the newspaper as a whole, not but an individual person. If you look over to the right of the piece, it says, "War Room is our political news and commentary blog ...". So if it is characterized as anything beyond "Alex Pareene said", it should be a "blog entry", not an "editorial".

I don't think it should be included at all and certainly not without refutation, but if it is in there, it should not mischaracterize the type of piece it is or what he was talking about. --B (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you on most points above, B, I have to take issue with your characterization of the Salon edits as "completely false". If it's quoted properly, it's hardly false. Misleading perhaps, depending on the exact context, but not "completely false". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * By "completely false", I was referring to the misleading/out of context quote. If quoted in context, it is not false ... only tangentially on topic, I suppose, but not false. --B (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm for removal. This editorial has creeped up on a few other pages.  Its relevance to them should be reexamined as well. - Haymaker (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In any case, it's WP:UNDUE; one single editorial does not deserve a full paragraph in a short article. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We should include the best source presenting the most accurate response of Planned Abortionhood. This editorial is useless in presenting a meaningful response of PP and is taking up valuable space in the article. Why can't we just quote a PP spokeshole from the NY Times or similiar? Lionel (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we stop with the name calling? That doesn't seem very civil. The editorial is from a reputable and reliable source, there is no reason for it to not be included. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 06:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Salon.com is a liberal blog, not a reliable source for these sorts of articles. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, actually Salon.com is a very reliable web magazine and is a reliable source for any claim. Certainly more reliable than Fox News or New York Post and probably on par with the Wall Street Journal. Let's stop attacking sources that disagree with you. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 08:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * More reliable by your standards. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears we have consensus for removal. Lionel (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Why exactly is it wrong to add criticism to this article? Plenty of articles include criticisms of their organizations. Just off the top of my head, there is Planned Parenthood criticism and NPR criticism. Why is Live Action exempt from this? 24.199.34.245 (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Tags
Can we please stop adding tags without providing reasons or attempting to discuss them? NYyankees51 (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not mind readers. It's against policy. Everyone has been warned. It's disruptive and will probably end up at AN/I. Lionel (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What policy is it against again? Tags are self-explanatory. Removing tags is disruptive. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 06:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they are not self-explanatory (except for citation needed tags). That's why all the tags refer the reader to the talk page for discussion. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure "unbalanced opinion" is pretty self explanatory. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 08:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, don't explain the tag. Please note: "Anyone who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag" Per WP:TAGGING I'm going to remove it. Lionel (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's obvious, its simply stating propaganda from the website without counterbalance. Thus, I have readded the tag, do not remove it. I have explained my concerns on this page and you have simply dismissed my concern as out of hand. That does not allow you to then go remove the tag per the essay you cited. Regardless, you are quoting an essay which has no policy value. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 14:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Lila Rose doesn't like Planned Parenthood, but critics say Planned Parenthood is great. Lila Rose likes ice cream, but critics say ice cream is unhealthy." Your approach to "balance" isn't going to fly. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly acceptable to use an org's own words to describe itself in the lede as long as it is not self-serving. Your objection is preposterous.Lionel (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is self-serving. We all know that Live Action is funded by Morton Blackwell and his "Leadership Institute", "Gerard Health Foundation" and other major "Koch-style" Astroturf organizations, to call it a "youth led movement" while receiving such funding is deceptive. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 03:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That link starts off, "On a conference call with bloggers convened by Media Matters for America ...". --B (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting reading http://www2.guidestar.org/ReportNonProfit.aspx?ein=42-1764425&name=live-action# (registration required to view irs forms, get a login from bugmenot.com) --B (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Media Matters is a great source, particularly for matters of fact which they research very well. They're on the level of SPLC, etc. in their accuracy. Your bugmenot.com site is awesome though, hadn't seen that before. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 03:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Weight tag
I reorganized the article into a criticism section. Since the new section has about as much weight as the rest of the article, I added an undue weight tag. If we can add more on their activities then perhaps the criticism section can grow. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I just reverted it -- I don't think there's enough material to support a separate criticism section at the moment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nor do I, I was just moving it to get the undue weight out of the lead before we discussed it more. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Summarized the criticism in the lede. The article is quite heavy with criticism: primarily opinion and editorializing. Lionel (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Live Action (organization) and Lila Rose duplicate a lot of material. I propose we merge everything under Live Action and move unique Lila Rose material under a founder section. Both she and Live Action haven't been active for a while, so there's no reason to expect them to grow separately any time soon.Mattnad (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I support this proposal: essentially none of the article Lila Rose is about her as a person, and all of the sources seem to be about her work as an activist. --JBL (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)::


 * Damned fine-looking woman; I say we give her a separate article. Motsebboh (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The internet is a very strange place. My comment is about WP:PSEUDO, in particular the question "Do any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage, or is the person mentioned only in connection with an event or organization?"  What's yours about?  --JBL (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I think there could be one article on all of these video "stings" against PP. They come up every year or so and get into the news, but since they never find anything, they don't remain enduringly notable. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC):


 * My above comment was meant to be humorous. Not an issue that I'm particularly drawn to. However, having Googled her briefly, I see that she is personally profiled in Media Matters, Politico , and the National Catholic Register so I'm not sure that there is much of a case here for eliminating her Wikipedia bio. Seems suspiciously political. Motsebboh (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally don't care if Live Action is merged to Lila Rose or the other way around. What I don't like is two nearly identical articles for a tiny, nearly unknown organization and founder who did a few failed stings.  One article is enough.Mattnad (talk)


 * I was thinking of adding info about the World Congress of Families and opposition to birth control on one or both articles.
 * Washpo 2014 "Rose, whose organization also opposes birth control"

Rose was in a 2013 video for WCF opposing legal access to birth control
 * PFAW Religious Right Activists Argue For Recriminalization Of Birth Control In 'The Birth Control Movie
 * PFAW What The World Congress Of Families' 'Natural Family' Means For Women


 * Sourcing on the birth control issue is difficult - People for the American Way's right wing watch is, in my opinion, a mix of fact based VER statements that repeat what conservative groups say to their own donors, mixed in with progressive editorialising. For a small group that doesn't have much mainstream coverage, one of the few groups reporting on their background is an activist group using snippets from their own films to establish that they oppose birth control.


 * I'm happy with a merge so long as it's not used as a cover to remove critical information currently in either article. -- Callinus (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * My opinion, they should both be merged to live action.


 * Is anyone willing to declare consensus? -- Callinus (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any objections, so I think we have a consensus. I'll get to the merge later on this week.Mattnad (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly object. There is no consensus and the person saying there is has already been reported for edit warring. This seems to be motivated by an animus to the person in question who in all decency should be contacted. I think this violates Wikipedias position of a neutral point of view and that the discussion, e.g. the irrelevant comments about contraception, indicate a political motivation and animus. If the page is merged I will report it to the Wikipedia editors.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC73:E3B0:A0AA:B4A:AA05:733D (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So we have one objection, by an anonymous editor who seems to have personal motivation (suggested by his or her statement), to keep two nearly identical articles separated. Any objections from neutral editors?Mattnad (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would object, at least if the merging would remove the Lila Rose bio. As I said before, given the fact that she has been profiled in Media Matters, Politico, and the National Catholic Register, she merits a bio here. Motsebboh (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no problem merging Live Action into Lila Rose. In some ways, she is the organization (or rather the organization is her).Mattnad (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * My name is Ciaran ODonnell and I am in not affiliated with Live Action. There are more people involved in Live Action than Lila Rose, regardless of her prominence. Certainly the article on Live Action could be improved, for example by adding a pointer to the web site. Looking at the two pages they are remarkably different. Perhaps we could begin with a quantitative measurement of the amount of identical comment. There seems to be a consensus that the page on Lila Rose needs to be kept. The issue is whether conflating Lila Rose and Live Action would affect the general quality of Wikipedia pages. Hoping this clarifies matter, and my apologies if my previous comments reflected animus, simply I am disputing the "duplication of material" as while the two articles do indicate a different viewpoint removing or significantly modifying one would affect the general Wikipedia work. I also respectfully suggest that we stay content neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.199.62.59 (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * So to summarize, my objection is based on the fact that (1) It is not true that the two pages are duplicate, and I am requesting that that be substantiated (2) It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor, having contributed to the two pages in question to make a value judgement such as Lila Rose and Live Action are the same thing, and (3) The discussion on this talk page is inappropriate for editors as regarding politics. I have submitted a general question to the Wikipedia FAQ page. I appreciate the work both callinus and mattnad have done in helping the community, I also appreciate my own ignorance of the rules, but I do think things should be done in a way that is both content neutral and that gives no appearance of being otherwise. I dont think a small group of people should ignore objections from the public. I am in fact, quite offendedm and saying that I am pro life whereas you are pro choice only makes matters worse. If this goes on I will complain to James, the founder of Wikipedia myself. Ciaran O;Donnell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC73:E3B0:6CA6:C8BC:E62:3F14 (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Objection noted however you represent a minority of one. All other editors agree to a merger and we have an otherwise strong consensus.  A merger does not prevent details of both Rose and her organization from being presented.  The reason for it is that they overlap massively, and are not really that notable anyway outside of pro-life circles.Mattnad (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking totally objectively, Lila Rose and Live Action are two separate organisms, both of which are continuing to grow and produce. Lila has been involved with talk shows, interviews, editorials, publications, and other activity perhaps at times with the same subject concerns as her initial activities in Live Action, however, also expanding beyond the scope of Live Action. Live Action, being a living organism as well, is continuing on with or without Lila and the activity of filming Planned Parenthood's activities is carried on through other branches similar to Lila's branch of Live Action, however also expanding the focus to include other points of interest. Abe Lincoln went on to do more than the Gettysburg Address; did the Gettysburg Address continue without Lincoln? Martin Luther King said more than the "I have a dream" speech; did the speech continue on without him? The Beatles produced more than the song "It's Only Love". Did the song continue without them?In the same way, Lila and Live Action are continuing originally associated and now each with a life of their own. Abe and Gettysburg; King and the Speech; the Beatles and the song all have their own wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC73:94E0:214:51FF:FE82:C897 (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support there is too much duplicated material. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There does seem to be material duplicated from the Live Action article in the sections, Sex Trafficking, Sex Selective Abortion, and Inhuman of the Lila Rose article. The other sections of the Lila Rose article are not duplicated. The point has already been made is the articles have different subjects and Rose has sufficient notoriety for a Wikipedia article. In terms of quality, would you accept deleting these sections from the Wikipedia article and doing a merge into Live Action?

VictorFrankl (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support an article of with Lila Rose with Live Action as a subsection. Live Action has not done anything for a while (and never did anything without her participation), so that makes sense.  My original proposal was a starting point, but really they are one and the same as far as I can tell. Even their "about" page is all about her, and she is the only listed person. So we can keep her article and merge LiveAction into it.Mattnad (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedias editors are anonymous as are people in many organizations so saying she is the only person in the organization does not seem to be a valid point nor is it credible that other people are not involved. VictorFrankl (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - These should be merged as most of the content and scope is duplicated. No opinion on the direction of the merge. Kaldari (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - biography of person may need correction but ORGANIZATION page and BIOGRAPHY page should remain separate otherwise there will be another "discussion" to DELETE all the information about Lila Rose on the LIVE Action organization page and CREATE a BIOGRAPHY page. The founders of organizations all have their bio pages on wiki as well as their organization pages. Let's focus on improving data, references, accuracy. Wiki users want info on BOTH "LIVE Action" and "Lila Rose" and all you need to do is look at the myriad examples on wiki where bio and organization founded remain separate. All you need in the Organization page is a hotlink to Lila Rose and vice versa on her bio page for LIVE Action, etc.

I should also note that the LIVE Action website shows considerable current and ongoing activity. Their wiki editors may be to busy to update wiki and other wiki editors too busy or disinterested to update. The losers are wiki users but wiki wins even if wiki users hotlink to the LIVE action website referenced for updates until wiki editors catches up. Startarrant (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Live Action (organization). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130609012828/http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/113th/hear_05232013.html to http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/113th/hear_05232013.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Live Action (organization). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130909161617/http://www.liveaction.org/inhuman/investigation-2-washington-d-c/ to http://www.liveaction.org/inhuman/investigation-2-washington-d-c/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131503431500/http://www.gop.gov/votes/113/1/251 to https://www.gop.gov/votes/113/1/251

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Obviously terrible edits
This edit by is obviously terrible: it intentionally misrepresents the BFN article, and uses NR as a source (for utterly tedious information that shouldn't be in the article anyhow). Also, of course, there is the silent re-insertion after objection without discussion. --JBL (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Obviously terrible" is not a valid argument and I would appreciate you WP:AGF rather accuse me of "intentionally mispresent[ing]" anything. Loksmythe (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have articulated twice precisely what about them is terrible. Your edit misrepresents the source (it passes off the words of LA as if they are supported, but the source at best could support "LA said this, Pinterest said that" on this point, which furthermore is of no significance whatsoever) -- I have struck "intentional" since I guess this could be a twice-repeated error on your part.  If you are unwilling to make a substantive defense of your edit, then you should self-revert immediately. --JBL (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe the wording now makes clear these are allegations by LA. Loksmythe (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)