Talk:National Right to Life Committee

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on National Right to Life Committee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=3792#4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Right to Life Committee. 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/20130114190456/http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/archives/Greenhouse_and_Reva_B._Siegel to http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/archives/Greenhouse_and_Reva_B._Siegel

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) 22:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Right to Life Committee. 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/20120926085900/http://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/guides/findingaid/American%20Citizens%20Concerned%20for%20Life.htm to http://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/guides/findingaid/American%20Citizens%20Concerned%20for%20Life.htm

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) 06:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

One of these things is not like the others
Fromt he lead:
 * The organization, through legislative and educational activity, works against induced abortion, infanticide, euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Infanticide does not belong. It especially does not belong sourced from their mission statement. Why? This is an anti-abortion group. They define abortion and infanticide as synonyms. They campaign for laws to prevent abortion, but no laws are needed to prevent infanticide - it is already a crime, everywhere. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are legal in some jurisdictions around the world, infanticide is not. People are pressing for laws to protect or advance the right to abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide, nobody is pressing for the right to commit infanticide.

The term infanticide, in context, is pure framing. It's an NPOV failure. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's your WP:OR Elizium23 (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , no it's not. They are quite open about it. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , they are not synonyms. Elizium23 (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * North Korean Refugees Face Forced Abortion and Infanticide
 * Infanticide in the Netherlands Elizium23 (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , See the word National? That's the United States. The self-published opinion piece about the Netherlands is, if anything, a point in my favour here: it's a blog post, and Netherlands has a well regulated euthanasia law. The Groeningen Protocol (I have a friend who lives there) is designed to alleviate the suffering of infants born with disabilities incompatible with life.
 * That blog post is exactly what's being described. I'd remind you again: NRLC are not a reliable independent source. On anything related to abortion or end of life care, they are not a reliable source at all other than for their own views, which we do not state as fact. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That blog post is exactly what's being described. I'd remind you again: NRLC are not a reliable independent source. On anything related to abortion or end of life care, they are not a reliable source at all other than for their own views, which we do not state as fact. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

All that needs to be done in the lede is to quote the mission statement and attribute it to the NRTLC: "According to its mission statement the NRTLC is concerned with 'abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, etc' ..."' Whether or not euthanasia is legal in the United States is utterly irrelevant. Many private organizations claim to fight practices that are widely illegal. FBPlunger (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , nope. See WP:MISSION. We don't use marketing statements by activists. For exactly the reasons I laid out above. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Not even going to bother to read. An essay counts for naught. Show me the rule. FBPlunger (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV. Mission statements are not neutral. WP:RS. The group's own website is not a reliable independent source. I know you've been here no time and have 27 edits (at least under this account), so you don't understand our policies yet. Have a look at the discussions at WP:RSN. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Duuuuh! Of course mission statements aren't neutral. By necessity they are not neutral. Reporters and editors quote extremely biased statements all the time, again, by necessity. That doesn't mean they're acting in a biased fashion. As for reliable sources in Wikipedia's rules, I believe that organizations are generally considered to be reliable sources for uncontested information about themselves. You may contest whether the NRTLC spends much time combatting infanticide but it is absolutely uncontestable that concern over infanticide is listed in their mission statement. FBPlunger (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with JzG that mission statements should not be used: either for sources, or included in an article. Yes, WP:MISSION is an essay, but one that I agree with, and that I would support having as policy.  I view mission statements and mottos as propaganda that should not be re-published in Wikipedia.--- Avatar317 (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So, Avatar317, you would oppose the inclusion of the mission statement in this particular article: ? FBPlunger (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , companies describe their own operations all the time, at Boeing, Yahoo!, Google, Procter & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson. It's your special prejudice that's against the pro-life set of organizations from looking more like the rest of Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)