Talk:Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted! I have not compared the material here with the material on RCRC's own website, so I cannot speak to whether the material here might be a violation of RCRC's ownership of that information. I write here more as a user of Wikipedia than as an editor. I would be disappointed not to find an article about this organization or any other equally notable organization. The tendency to delete speedily rather than to fix deliberately seems inconsistent with Wikipedia's mission and ideals. Sterrettc (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I now have compared the article's text with that of the organization website. It appears that the words "was founded in 1973" may have been copied without permission. Other than that, the wording is very different and it would be hard to argue that the two are "Substantially Similar," as would be required to establish a copyright violation. I find it very unlikely that RCRC would object to the material here, or that they would pursue legal action for copyright violation, or, if they did pursue it, that they would prevail. Sterrettc (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, Okay, I see now that the version of the article I compared had already had the offending material removed. Sterrettc (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * you might want to take a look at the history section, which is advocacy. It happens to be advocacy that I entirely and enthusiastically agree with, but that doesn't make it better from our NPOV.  DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Self-published sources
The sole third-party secondary source cited is for criticism regarding a "theology of choice"? What is a theology of choice? I could guess, but I've never heard the term, so it'd be nice to expand on that and bring in some other reception sources. The rest of the sources are self-published, not cool, very thin article, undated leadership section, who knows if the affiliates are the same now, I couldn't be arsed to check. Elizium23 (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Coverage in mainstream sources seems pretty thin. Here's what I found:
 * passing mention about an event they co-organized
 * ThinkProgress article that interviews the president and discusses the organization
 * passing mention in a Pew Forum article about healthcare reform
 * passing mention about abortion and religious freedom
 * letter to RCRC from United Methodist Women announcing the latter organization withdrawing; coverage in the United Methodist Reporter of same
 * profile of the group in Vice
 * Only the last amounts to decent coverage. --JBL (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Addendum: actually the ThinkProgress source is also useful (one has to be careful with their slant, but it didn't look to me like that would be a problem in this case) -- maybe that and the Vice source are enough for notability? (It's marginal, though.)  There are also lots of search engine hits in anti-abortion media that I didn't look at at all. --JBL (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV would require us to include pro-life sources; why don't you cite some? Elizium23 (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, no, it wouldn’t, neither as a general principle nor in this particular case (since they were all in venues like LifeSiteNews that are not reliable sources). However, you are welcome to try my methodology (put the name of the org into a search engine, scan through ten pages of hits) to see if I missed something usable. —JBL (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Pro-life reliable secondary sources:
 * Ohio
 * Rev. Matthew Westfox
 * Buffett Foundation funding
 * Hilary Clinton
 * Episcopal Church funding
 * Collar-and-Chasuble Lackey
 * Higher Education investigative report
 * That's exactly two specific sites where I went and plugged in the article title. I am sure I could peel off a dozen more if I worked at it. And yes, NPOV would require these sources because they are secondary and indepdendent and reliable, with an editorial board and a reputation for fact-checking. Elizium23 (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not exactly sure what point you're trying to prove. The claim "NPOV would require these sources ..." is completely different from the claim I objected to above.  It's also still not right: for example, the first two links on your list are opinion pieces/blog posts (so, usable for little), and to call the third a "passing mention" of RCRC would be more than generous. I have to go make dinner so I stopped looking after going 0 for 3.  However, if you do find usable articles from Catholic publications, by all means add them to the list. (Or to the article, as appropriate.) --JBL (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Additional Citations on page for rev h moody
Started page on rev Howard moody, a historically significant pastor and leader of the church in 60s-90s. The citations on that page can provide added independent detail to this page re church’s history advancing reproductive rights + civil rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Howard_Moody Mac (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)