Talk:National Institute of Family and Life Advocates

What the article is about

well, it's not about pro-choice! --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that we keep the negative view that some have of CPCs and CPC networks to an absolute minimum, emphasizing the positive contributions these organizations make to reducing the number of abortions. They save thousands and thousands of lives every year. In other words, we will AGF towards them! --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware they saved a single life. How do they save lives? This could be something to submit to the New York Times magazine? As far as I knew all they did was prevent women from getting a full picture of their options in terms of reproductive health care. _WM^O 23:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's the score: prolife - 2 alive; prochoice - one dead, one wounded. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And, as I said before, abortion is not healthcare. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverting Kenatipo

I reverted an edit by user:kenatipo to remove a secondary source from a research group on abortions for the subject's about us page. I believe that a secondary source is preferable to a subject's "About Us" page as it establishes notability as well as being a secondary source. Furthermore, I undid the edit changing the link to Pro-choice in "See also" to Pro-life, Pro-life is already linked and therefore should not be linked in "See also" per policy. _WM^O 22:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

ThePro-life link in "See also" as it is already linked within the article body, per "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section" from the Manual of Style. _WM^O 22:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right, Prolife was already linked, so I deleted it. NIFLA is a valid source for their own membership numbers; Guttmacher's numbers are out of date or erroneous. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Abortion is NOT healthcare

Abortion is not healthcare. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is, and CPCs are known to spread false medical information, did you even read our article on it? _WM^O 22:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be so blunt, but our CPC article is a biased piece of crap, being 9-tenths critical and negative. That's why I've been re-writing it. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

WMO, your ref from Guttmacher is from 2002! It is out of date. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have a more recent reliable secondary source, feel free to use it, but its not good practice to remove reliable/secondary sources and exchange them for an "About us" page, especially for stubs whose notability is not otherwise established. Also, if you have a better source for glessner being president (secondary, reliable) that would be good as the current source is secondary but not reliable. _WM^O 22:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

External link to NIFLA

Why has this been removed? WMO, you may have some explaining to do on this one. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

When was this removed? _WM^O 22:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like you removed it. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it was attached when other nonconstructive edits were made and I didn't notice, no opposition to adding it here. _WM^O 22:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You are reverting things without even reading them. This is unacceptable. - Haymaker (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The New York Times is NOT neutral

The New York Times is not a neutral source in the abortion debate. They always seem to refer to prolifers as "abortion foes". --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to argue that the New York Times is not neutral on the reliable sources noticeboard. That would actually be quite amusing, the New York Times/Associated Press/LA Times/San Fran Chronicle/Washington Post are the definition of reliable/neutral sources. _WM^O 22:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say the NYT is not RS per wikirules, I said it was not neutral in the abortion debate. And neither are the other orgs you named. PS, you left out Reuters, AFP, Boston Globe, NPR, etc, etc, etc. RS does not equal neutral. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

How do you figure that the organization itself is not a reliable source for its membership, founder and CEO? --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

They might exaggerate membership, with the track record of pro-life groups lying nothing they say is reliable imho. Founder and CEO, perhaps that's okay, but why not use secondary sources when they exist, when we just have to find them? _WM^O 23:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:MISSION

I will be adding that quote back. It is NOT a mission statement. It just tells what they do. The mission statement is on another page of their website. Please read WP:MISSION. --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I realize that, but same things apply. Read why Mission Statements shouldn't be included and explain how this is different. _WM^O 00:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The quote that you removed was not a mission statement. It did not consist of platitudes. It gave information about what NIFLA does. NIFLA's mission statement is on a different page of their website. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source for ultrasound statement by Kenatipo Haymaker

This is a controversial article, can you please provide a source for your recent addition from a third party/neutral/reliable place or remove it? Thanks. _WM^O 00:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Please direct your demands to Haymaker on this one. --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Whenever you read this Haymaker, also kindly remove the non-reliably (primary) sourced statement re insurance. _WM^O 00:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

These folks are accredited by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, credits obtained by from them count toward continuing medical education (if you are unfamiliar with the medical field, this is a big deal) so unless there is some particular reason to doubt them there self-description is good enough. If there is another way you think it could be worded, I'm open to suggestions. - Haymaker (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It needs reliable/secondary/neutral sources. Has this been covered in any newspapers? That is not a claim you can just self-source, so in wiki speak, I am challenging it. _WM^O 00:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, the dismissive nature of your remark is not appreciated, who said I am unfamiliar with the medial field? Please stop insinuating. _WM^O 00:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing was insinuated by that statement. I'll look around for their accreditation records. - Haymaker (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The ACOG doesn't provide accreditation, as far as I can tell. _They_ are accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education, which does not list the NIFLA as an accredited provider. See below for the California info I found, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Refimprove tag

Where is there any unsourced material? - Haymaker (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There are three references to the org's website, and only two to independent sources, so yes, improvement would be a good thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Guttmacher ref does not support 1200 number

Guttmacher says 700 because its 9 years out of date. How many times have you put it back, WMO? --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

California continuing education provider info

I don't see anything I can stick this on as a reference, but fwiw... http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LICENSE_NUMBER=14563&P_LTE_ID=820 --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarek

Appreciate your help. (But I have a feeling this article won't stay this way for long). Do you think the article is NPOV at this point? (Is there a barnstar for brown-nosing)? --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this article Controversial?

Is there a consensus for the tag saying this article is "controversial"? I don't see anything controversial in it. My vote is remove tag on this page. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Leave it for now, I think -- it's not like it's the article itself that's tagged. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Replace with prose

Wouldn't it be better to replace this with prose of some sort? _WM^O 19:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

""NIFLA provides critical legal counsel to PRCs to enable them to avoid legal pitfalls in their operations. NIFLA is the national leader in the development of legal guidelines to help PRCs convert to licensed medical clinics. Of NIFLA’s membership, more than 700 PRCs operate as medical clinics providing ultrasound confirmation of pregnancy. Through The Life Choice Project (TLC) hundreds of PRCs have made a successful conversion to medical clinic status."[3]"

You mean you think it's too poetic? --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Self published sources

This is the guideline from WP:RS:

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

• the material is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The article currently fails the last requirement. Furthermore, much of the information "verified" using self published sources is self-serving and I think that there can be reasonable doubt as to their authenticity. Look at the crisis pregnancy centers article, if they lie about all that (which they do) I think there is very reasonable grounds to question everything they say. Therefore, I ask that those involved in this article find third party/reliable/neutral sources on the claims made in the article. This includes for those that are supposedly verified using suspect self-published sources from the website. I will begin the process of challenging and removing information shortly if this is not done. (I will do my best to find some as well, I note that both of the sources that are third party in the article were found by me, so this isn't a matter of trying to take out information, I honestly don't think there is enough information about it in reliable sources to make some of the claims we do) _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 05:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Institute of Family and Life Advocates. 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/20150416141529/http://www.focusonthefamily.com/about_us/news_room/news-releases/2011/20110503-leading-pro-life-groups-host-live-webcast-event.aspx to http://www.focusonthefamily.com/about_us/news_room/news-releases/2011/20110503-leading-pro-life-groups-host-live-webcast-event.aspx

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)