Talk:Crisis pregnancy center/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Cathie Adams?

Why are we including the line that mentions her, particularly under that section heading? Dylan Flaherty 00:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea, but as this article still needs a lot of work, removing it wasn't my top priority. Roscelese (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Not mine, either, but if we can't think of any reason to keep it, then that's that. Dylan Flaherty 01:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

BRD

I'd like to go over the recent bold changes, one at a time, to make sure there are no misunderstandings, and to head off any possible edit war:

  1. "with few exceptions" - We only know of 50 for sure. There are probably more, but all the data we have says they're few and exceptional.
  2. "However, investigations by congressional staffers, journalists, and pro-choice organizations have consistently found" - This is exactly what our sources say. This is not a case of "Pro-choice advocates have argued", since the sources vary from pro-choice to disinterested, and these are not arguments but investigations and studies. And, to be frank, we know it's true because we can check for ourselves, as I mentioned earlier. If you know the difference between a uterus and an ovary, it's hard not to laugh out loud when reading that FAQ!
  3. "are not medical clinics" - This is completely accurate; CPC's that are medical clinics are outnumbered 4:1 by those that aren't. And even the clinics are very much limited in their services.
  4. "The overwhelming majority of CPCs in the US are Christian ministries which" - I believe that anything over 75% would count as an overwhelming majority, and our figures are in the 90+% range. The term "ministry" is comes straight from the directory; no OR needed.
  5. "many require their employees" - Care Net does and it accounts for about a thousand centers. As a raw number, this qualifies as "many". Given that our highest estimate of the total number of CPC's is under 4000, I believe that over 25% also counts as "many".
  6. "unwanted religious evangelizing" - Agreed that "religious" is redundant here.
  7. "Centers for Disease Control, the Texas Attorney General" - No reason was given for removing these two. Do we need even more citations that we already have?

If anyone has counter-arguments, I suggest that we discuss them here and build a consensus. In the meantime, most of the changes will be reverted, as they were never properly justified. Dylan Flaherty 09:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This is complete bullocks.
1 - We're quoting a source, why would we deviate when quoting?
2 - Again, the bullocks - Henry Waxman is Henry F'ing Waxman, The source for the Austin article is the Waxman source and NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, The first NYT source is an opinion piece from 1987, the second NYT source (also from 1987) complains about false advertising, but not false medical advise, the Star-Telegram uses and anonymous woman and the head of the National Abortion Federation, the Star-Telegram does give a pretty solid indictment of a CPC in Toronto (but just a CPC in Toronto), I shouldn't have to go in about NARAL, the TIME article merely quotes the concerns of pro-choice activists, Savanah quotes pro-choice concerns.
These are not "investigations by congressional staffers, journalists, and pro-choice organizations" consistently coming to a conclusion - this a rambling amalgamation of 23 years of reliable sources quoting pro-choice advocates.
3 - They're not lots of things. The definitions of "medical clinic" and "medical services" are unfixed. Maybe "The majority of CPCs are not medical clinics though most offer some medical services"?
4 - I've got a 3-2 consensus to keep the current wording. Unless something has shifted about that I don't see any reason to continue to hash this over again.
5 - This is America, you can't fire an employee based on religion. Those people are not employed by Care net The sources listed are asking volunteers to be Christian and frankly I'm surprised that they haven't been sued.
6 - Cool.
7 - Utter bullocks. The source comes no where close saying that. - Schrandit (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm certain we can have a civil discussion about this without strong language, or even euphemisms for such language.
1) I agree that we should not deviate from a source when quoting, but I don't see why we should quote that source when we have multiple sources that (quite literally) add up to a simpler and more accurate phrase. The original quote came from a reporter who was being unnecessarily careful; we have enough hard numbers that we can speak more directly.
2) You are generalizing about 11 13 sources, but these generalizations do not hold up to even cursory scrutiny. Let's go over them briefly:
i) House of Representatives Report.
ii) Jordan Smith for the Austin Chronicle, in a story explicitly labeled news, not opinion.
iii) New York Times editorial which cites public records of court cases in three states. Or are those just matters of opinion?
iv) Jane Gross writing for the NYT in a piece that is NY/Region, not opinion.
v) Stephanie Simon for the Los Angeles Times; again, not an opinion piece.
vi)Jan Jarvis for the Star-Telegram; not an opinion piece.
vii) Joanna Smith for the Star; not an opinion piece.
viii) NARAL, a reliable but not neutral source. There are 35 citations for 20 pages, so it's not fluff.
ix) Nancy Gibbs for Time; not an opinion piece.
x) Beth Goers for Savannah Connect; not an opinion piece.
xi) Star News investigation; not an opinion piece.
xii) Hunter Stuart for RH Reality Check, not a neutral source, but unsure of how reliable.
xiii) NARAL again, still reliable, still not neutral. This time, 30 citations for 7 pages.
Now, even if we (incorrectly) ignore i, iii, viii, xii, and xiii, we still have 8 reliable sources, where 1 would suffice. Also, see below about common sense.
3) I'm using their own terms, in proper context. For example, read the second bullet point here. The reason they're helping centers get licensed is that you need a license to be a medical clinic. This means that it's a legal term whose definition is spelled out. If you wish to claim that the term is somehow ambiguous, please show me your reliable source, otherwise this is a closed issue.
4) Consensus is about following the rules, not counting votes, and it changes as our sources do. The wording I used is fully consistent with the sources we have now. If you have an actual argument against it, I am always willing to listen, but your disapproval alone is not sufficient. If anything, my recent experiences on TPM have shown that even a small minority can win out if it has the rules and sources behind it.
5) I'm not sure where you're getting this from: you absolutely can require religious beliefs from employees. For example, the staff at Catholic schools all sign the standard statement of faith. Even more trivially, Catholic priests who have spoken out against the church have, quite rightly, been defrocked. Again, unless you have some sort of reliable source to back up your statement, there's nowhere to go with this but out.
6) Glad we agree on something.
7) I'm going to play the common sense card now. If it's not enough for you that we have 13 reliable sources, go to http://www.optionline.org/questions/considering-abortion/ and read it. While there are many good reasons not to have an abortion, such as basic morality, the medical information here is simply false. The page goes on and on about risks without bothering to mention that carrying a pregnancy to term is riskier than a first-trimester abortion (for the woman, at least; let's not speak of the unborn child). It also repeats the thoroughly-refuted claims about breast cancer, psychological harm and infertility. Now, I'm about as pro-life as anyone can be, to the point that I've gotten into trouble in my own church for suggesting it would be better if condoms and hormonal contraceptives were used than for women to ever be in a position where they felt compelled to consider abortion, but even I can see that this ranges from intentionally misleading to outright false. Let's cut out the list of investigators or any suggestions about their biases and state the facts on their own. There isn't a single reliable source that contradicts it, and common sense demands it.
Please, this didn't have to become an edit war and it still doesn't. Let's work on this together; the first step is for you to revert your changes for all of the reasons I just stated. Dylan Flaherty 12:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
1 - Legit. I'd be more comfortable with a number (or percentage) than a generalization. Is it realistic to hope for one?
2 - i) A partisan report which should under no circumstances be cited out of context.
ii) A new story indeed, that is commenting on the Waxman report and "Sarah Wheat, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas".
iii) Which speculates on the outcome of future court cases.
iv) Indeed it is not opinion, but its topic is advertising.
v) Sorry, which is the LAT source?
vi) I never said it was an opinion piece, I said it was reiterating the claims of the NAF.
vii) I would be extremely uncomfortable without notifying the reader of the origin of that source.
ix) I never said it was an opinion piece, I said that it just quotes pro-choice activists.
X) The Savannah piece was interesting but its just about one woman saying a CPC was evasive when she asked for an abortion.
xi) Talks a bit about advertising and quotes the NAF.
xii) When in doubt...
I don't see a RS saying "CPCs usually dispense false medical advise" I see a few RSs say "1 CPCs said medically questionable things" followed by a quote from a pro-choice advocate saying "and they're all like that". Most of these RSs seem to be writing about CPCs and go on to quote a pro-choice advocates saying "CPCs usually dispense false medical advise". While it is certainly fair to say that pro-choice advocates claim that most CPCs dispense false medical advise I don't think its fair to write that without that modifier.
Conversely there I think the statement "CPCs often don't advertise themselves as such" would be justified in the lead.
3 - I did a google search (not the best, I know) and I can't find any sort of a definition. When Focus/NIFLA talk about licensing they see to be talking about training to properly use a sonogram.
4 - Our sources describe an affiliation. Why would we move away from our quotable sources toward vague, unanchored generalizations that can be taken out of context?
5.1 - The sources I saw listed were only looking for volunteers.
5.2 - The Church gets a pass, no one else does.
7 - While that certainly wouldn't qualify as a neutral source it has the bejesus cited out of it. Failing the mention inconvenient facts is a world away from lying. Common sense also dictates that people write stories when a woman finds a finger in her burger at MacDonald's, but not about when a woman has a burger at MacDonald's. CPCs has been around for coming on 40 years, there are thousands around the country, more around the world. A half dozen reports seems statistically insignificant. - Schrandit (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Since at this point Schrandit is blatantly just making stuff up (the Chronicle and Star-Telegram just quote NARAL? The Times article doesn't say anything about false medical information?) I'm not sure why we're still having this conversation. I know you're asking for Schrandit to revert the changes to avoid an edit war, but I think you're unusually optimistic, and I'm reverting them myself in the interest of having the article provide real information instead of fake information. Roscelese (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Sarah's experience is not unlike others that have occurred at crisis pregnancy centers around the country, which are largely funded by religious organizations, said Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation.
crisis pregnancy centres are offering misleading information to women who are faced with an unplanned pregnancy,” says Agathe Grametz-Kedzior, program manager at Ottawa-based reproductive rights group Canadians for Choice.
Do you even read the things you cite? - Schrandit (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The Star-Telegram reports the experience of someone who is not associated with NAF, in addition to quoting Saporta. The Star conveys the findings of its own reporter. Nice try, but you're going to have to work a little harder than that. Roscelese (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
The claim of "13 sources" supporting "consistent" findings against CPCs would be laughable were it not so POV. First and foremost among the sources listed is the partisan Henry Waxman minority committee report. Four others (Austin Chron, SF Gate, WaPo, Time) rely on and regurgitate the Waxman report. Two others are NARAL hit jobs. The two NYT refs (one an Op-Ed) are 23 yrs old and concern the Pearson Foundation, which by all indications is no longer in the CPC business. The Ft. Worth paper recites NAF's biased views, while the Savannah Connect (which is what exactly? a blog?) contains a first-person account of someone (journalist? gadfly?) which falls quite short of finding deceptive practices. The only piece of non-NARAL/NAF, non-Waxman investigative journalism of the whole lot is the Toronto Star, which is of course about Canada exclusively. (I couldn't access the UK Sky News video, which is presumably about the UK.) The sentence is poorly sourced and reflective of significant bias against CPCs. Cloonmore (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
You're an independent person, Cloonmore. Just because Schrandit says the newspaper articles regurgitate the Waxman report doesn't mean you have to believe it. Why don't you take a look at the sources for yourself?
Your remarks about the sources are easily disproved simply by reading the articles cited. The Chronicle reports the experience of a caller unaffiliated with Waxman and merely notes the similarity to the report's findings; the SF Gate mentions a CPC that disseminates false information about a cancer risk in a paragraph that happens to follow a paragraph about Waxman, but without even stating that that CPC was one of the ones the report investigated, much less saying that that's where they got the information; the WaPo doesn't mention Waxman even once and reports the experience of someone unaffiliated with the report; and Time mentions Waxman but also quotes a CPC worker defending her decision to give out false information. Likewise, the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram - quotes Saporta, but also reports on an unaffiliated visitor who was told that 50 percent of women who have an abortion get breast cancer and 30 percent die within a year of the procedure. Connect Savannah is a weekly paper.
I'm not really sure what you're getting at with contesting the NYT refs because both cite a medically inaccurate slideshow produced by the Pearson Foundation. The CPCs used the slideshow. Just because it was produced by Pearson doesn't mean that the sources don't support the statement that CPCs provide inaccurate information. If you have a source that indicates that most CPCs now repudiate the Pearson approach, by all means, cite it. And yes, they're op-eds; that means that a statement like "Most CPCs do this" must be attributed. It doesn't mean that we must assume that their report of specific, named people is made up out of thin air.
So yeah, "the sentence is poorly sourced"? Nope. "Reflective of significant bias against CPCs?" Only if you think anything short of a puff piece for CPCs is biased against them. Roscelese (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Roscelese, all you have done here is mock and demean other editors. I see no point in continuing to talk with you. - Schrandit (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Before you say that, please read WP:SILENT. Dylan Flaherty 13:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Roscelese, I'm really unhappy about this. While I've run into editors who seem impossible to work with, Schrandit is not one of them. We were involved in a dispute on another abortion-related article recently, where we didn't completely agree on what to do about a gallery of protest photos but somehow managed to reach a compromise that we were all happy with. I'm sure we could resolve this one, too.
I can't deny that it's not looking good. Looking at the discussion above, it seems clear that neither Schrandit nor Cloonmore have put up responses that are ultimately persuasive or credible. Instead, they are repeating points that have already been resolved while simply ignoring points they cannot refute, which I believe counts as tendentious. Consider that there has been no response to the common sense argument about just reading the FAQ full of obviously false medical claims. I really don't see much point in discussing these matters further, as they've been discussed to death and fully resolved.
I'm going to give the two a bit more time, in hopes that we can avoid an edit war. If they dig in their heals, I'm going to edit the article as the rules and sources dictate, and if they launch a war over it, then I'm prepared to report it and probably get the article Protected for weeks. It sucks, but I don't see any alternative. Dylan Flaherty 21:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The relationship with Christian organizations is a complex issue. Lets put that aside until after we have dealt with the rest. 1 - The contested sentence in the lead.

1.1 - Does this really even belong in the lead?
1.2 - Get rid of Waxman, Waxman's criticism is out of place there and is covered extensively in the rest of the article.
1.3 - The word "consistently" bothers me a lot. A half dozen incidents over 40 years and thousands of CPCs. (more, and longer if you want to talk about traditional maternaty homes) I'd like to see the sentence cut down to the sources that are reporting on their experiences with CPCs (rather than quoting NARAL, which while important is not journalistic inquiry) and read something like "Journalists have found that some CPCs have disseminated false medical information about the health risks of abortion".

2 - Medical clinics - Again, these terms don't have fixed meanings and putting them back to back doesn't make much sense. Is there wording that would make it clear to the reader that though CPCs provide medical counseling and some medical services they are not hospitals? 3 - Requiring employees to be Christian. - I still haven't seen a source that says that. - Schrandit (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's really not complex at all: CPCs are Christian.
1.1. - Absolutely. The lead must not conceal this obvious fact, as that would be a gross violation of WP:NPOV.
1.2. - I'm sorry, but Waxman is a perfectly good source, regardless of whether we agree with him on this matter or share his political views. The fact that we have a couple of sources that claim to refute his report is actually a good thing because it means we have something to balance it with.
1.3 - Consistently, in that no vaguely credible study has ever come back with a different conclusion. Again, this is not a surprise, as any study today would run into Care Net and we all know Care Net is guilty in this regard.
2 - No, we have sources showing that it's a well-defined legal term. NIFLA's lawyers will, for a price, help you get your CPC certified as a clinic, primarily so that you can provide ultrasound. We have no sources to suggest that the counseling that CPC's provide is medical, and 13 sources saying otherwise.
3 - Even without direct confirmation that Care Net's statement of faith requirement applies to its employees as well as its volunteers, we already know that Catholic CPC's require such a statement, just as Catholic schools do.
Lets move on now. Dylan Flaherty 13:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
1.1 - I'm not trying to conceal anything but not every section needs to go in a lead. The article for Planned parenthood, for instance, contains a healthy, well-sourced criticism section but doesn't mention it in the lead.
1.2 - Waxman is a perfectly good source but he should not be confused for a journalist. We rightly use him as a source throughout the article but he doesn't belong in with that lot.
1.3 - No vaguely credible study has ever come back with that conclusion either. We are dealing with report of a half dozen CPCs out of thousands operating over 40 years.
2 - It is possible, and its not a huge deal but I'd really like to see it in writing rather than trying to guess. A cursorry google search didn't turn anything up.
3 - Care Net doesn't employ those folks. It would be accurate to say that grants and support are conditional on religious faith, but not employment. - Schrandit (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
1.1 - I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest anything about your motives. I was talking from the perspective of the article structure, where we're encouraged to put more information in the lead and to avoid placing criticism in its own section. This isn't even a matter of criticism so much as getting the basic facts across earlier rather than later; in the lead instead of in the very next section. I'm still unsure of precisely what your objection is.
1.2 - I don't believe we ever call him a journalist, and I don't think we should even try to summarize who the 13 sources are. It's a general enough finding that attribution is pointless.
1.3 - There are 13 cited reasons why that's not the case. There's also the simple fact that the Options Line, run by Care Net and HBI, has blatantly misleading medical information up right this moment. This is not something worth discussing at any more length.
2 - NIFLA calls itself "the national leader in the development of legal guidelines to help PRCs convert to licensed medical clinics", and its FAQ says, "A center must be a licensed medical clinic under the laws of the state in which it operates. Unless dictated otherwise by state statutory regulations, a “medical clinic” is defined as a facility which provides medical services under the supervision and direction of a licensed physician."[1]. I think that's clear enough without guessing, and we know that the majority of CPC's do not qualify. Let's use the reference, too.
3 - We also know that Catholic CPC's do have a religious requirement for employees. That's enough right there.
I've been very patient answering your questions, and I've held off on fixing the article in the meantime as a show of good faith, but at this point I don't see anything here that would be a compelling argument. Without doubting your intentions for even a moment, I have to ask you to just let go of this, as the rules and sources do not support these suggestions. I hope you'll remain part of the collaborative editing process regardless and help us make this article better. Based on our previous interaction, I'm confident that we can find a way to work together here. Dylan Flaherty 21:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
1.1 - Its disproportional. The lead is 3 1/2 lines lone and a full line is devoted to criticism. Either fill out the lead to put it in context or take it out.
1.2 - He is currently described as an "investigator", that's bunk.
1.3 - I appreciate the move to "routinely".
2 - Legit. How would you folks feel if I changed that sentence to "The majority of CPCs are not medical clinics and do not offer a full array medical services". To convey to the reader that most CPCs do offer some medical services.
3 - It is unclear if Catholic CPCs operate under those standards (I spent some time at a Catholic school as well and a bunch of my teachers were Jews) and if they do I don't think the small number of Catholic CPCs (50 out of 3,000?) adds up to "many".
4 - As a minor point, does anyone mind if I removed the Maloney source from the Criticism section? It has nothing to do with the text there. - Schrandit (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

1.1 - Without that sentence, we can't even mention that CPC's provide information about abortion, due to WP:NPOV. In the end, it's just one sentence, with citations that are nearly as long as the words themselves, and as I've pointed out, this isn't just some random criticism, it's a basic fact. I think the right answer here is, as Carter suggested, to enlarge the lead. Then this sentence won't stick out at all.

1.2 - I believe his report qualifies as a congressional investigation, which makes him an investigator. I realize that "investigator" may conjure up visions of Magnum, P.I., but that's not the only sort of professional investigation out there. Ask any accountant and prepare for a lecture on auditing. :-)

1.3 - I think it's quite clear that we both want this article to be fair and accurate. I know it hasn't always been easy to find a compromise, but I assure you that it's worth the effort.

2 - Do they? Beyond "pee on this", which amounts to redistributing an OTC product, it's not clear that the majority provide any medical services. The counseling is the primary service, and our sources say that it is typically religious counseling -- ministering -- which is routinely in violation of medical norms. Consider that, at the bare minimum, every CPC affiliated with Care Net and HBI is an example of this. Even the fairly small minority of CPCs that gain medical clinic status so they can have ultrasound aren't performing these for the same reasons that a gynecologist would, or under the same standards. NIFLA, for example, offers training courses in Limited Obstetrical Ultrasound for nurse practitioners.

3 - Ironically, the Care Net statement of faith is, at face value, incompatible with Catholicism, so they had to make special provisions. As you may well be aware, Catholics are all too often singled out in statements of faith by Protestant institutions who do not wish to accommodate them.[2][3] As for Catholic schools with non-Catholic teachers, I'm not entirely sure about how that works. If you look at a typical employment application[4], it certainly reads as though it requires Catholicism. You've aroused my curiosity on the matter, so I'm going to look into it further, even though at this point it has little to do with the article.

In any case, even if Catholic CPC's make provisions for Jews by holding them to a more appropriate standard, that doesn't suggest they'd accommodate atheists, agnostics or even deists. In other words, they would still want a statement of faith, even if it's a different faith. I also suspect that they would not be happy about a Jewish volunteer telling young women that Jesus is not the Messiah.

As for Catholic CPC's, there are hundreds of them. The "50" in the article refers to nonsectarian CPCs funded by the federal government.

4 - It's there to support the mention of the ACLU.

I was wondering if you had any ideas on how to dissolve the criticism section and merge its content into the rest of the article. Dylan Flaherty 14:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

1.1 - I'll try to work on filling out the lead, cause right now a third of it more or less reads "many people think these people are liars".
1.2 - To me, and I'm assuming to others, investigator spurs an image of impartial fact-seeking. The 14 sources listed there right now looks very strange and many of them don't entirely verify the text cited. Would y'all mind if I trim those down to the neutral sources that did investigate the matter (principle the Star-Telegram, Thestar and Contact Savannah)?
2 - Counseling is what most planned parenthood's provide and it is part of their business model. Quick google searches turn up hundreds (probably thousands, I didn't look that long) of CPCs providing prenatal care, STD testing, maternal care and breast cancer screening. What is critically more important, a cursory examination of our source doesn't turn up verification of that sentence.
3 - Do we have anything at the moment that says the Catholic CPCs require their employees to be Christian? Right now our sources just link to protestant affiliated CPCs to ask their volunteers to be Christian.
4 - OK, I thought the NYT source addressed the ACLU but I now see that it does not.
At present I don't see anything that could not reasonably find a home in the "Legal and legislative action in response to CPCs" section. All of the sources are overlapping. - Schrandit (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
1.1 - No, no, no, it's not that they're liars, just misinformed! Once a center gets hooked up with an outfit like Care Net or HBI, they rely on it for training their volunteers and for providing those pamphlets. In my experience, the volunteers are often earnest older women who absolutely believe every word they're saying and genuinely want to help the walk-ins (their term, not mine). They're just good people and there is, on their part, no intent to deceive. Unfortunately, this doesn't prevent them from repeating medically inaccurate claims. It's a systemic problem.
We have two ways of filling out the lead. One is to find lines that are already broad summaries, such as in section headings, and move them up. Another is to summarize existing section content. Let's look at both options, although it might be better to discuss them before making changes, just to keep the edit history clean.
1.2 - Ken Starr investigated Clinton's affair, but he was by no means impartial. It didn't matter: the evidence was impartial, so Clinton was impeached. I'm sure some of the people investigating CPCs were hoping to find problems, but the problems they found are entirely real, as you've seen for yourself.
If there's a source that has nothing to do with the sentence, bring it up here and we'll see if it needs removing. Otherwise, I don't think we should mess with it.
2 - The counseling at Planned Parenthood is medical, but then again, it's not the same sort of counseling that's available at a CPC, which is categorized as "lay or peer". All the data we have suggests CPC's providing any medical services are a small minority. The application for Care Net clearly distinguishes both pregnancy tests and (lay or peer) counseling from medical services such as STD testing, prenatal medical care, ultrasound or comprehensive health.
I know there are some Catholic-run comprehensive health clinics that, for obvious reasons, will not perform or counsel abortions, but I'm not sure that they're even considered CPCs because they don't target pregnant women and do offer medical counseling from doctors, registered nurses and social workers. Still, that's something to look into.
In any case, if we have reliable sources that give different numbers, we can change the wording to match. However, even when there are medical services, and even if it's legally a clinic, we have to be careful not to create a false impression about what's going on: CPC's are primarily about preventing abortions, not providing medical care.
On a related note, I found an interesting article (on a site that's full of them!) about the licensing required to perform laboratory pregnancy tests in a non-clinic setting. Here's the part that stuck in my head:
"When we were sending the tests to an outside lab, the client would go home and await the results. After we started doing the tests in-house, we realized that we were able to counsel the client as she waited for the results. We also found it advantageous to know the test results before the client did. I encourage other centers to get their CLIA waivers so their volunteers can do the tests."
Keep in mind that, unlike the old days back when I was growing up (and we all lived in caves and lacked even Basic Cable), OTC tests for pregnancy are now just as sensitive and accurate as those in the lab.
3 - Well, we can see from that Care Net application that they want to know the church denomination of all board members and require that the center "not engage the services of any board member, director or volunteer who does not concur with the Care Net Statement of Faith". It also asks whether the directory is salaried or waged. I think that's enough right there, and that's without even discussing the interesting Catholic issues you brought up.
Incidentally, there's a section asking about other affiliations, with check boxes for HBI and NIFLA, as well as a write-in. I believe this confirms that centers may have multiple affiliations simultaneously, so we can't just add the numbers for each together to get a total.
I have to tell you, I've found that editing this article has been very educational. Dylan Flaherty 16:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
1.1 - I'll try working on the second option.
1.2 - I don't think anyone would merely paint Ken Starr as an "investigator" and leave it at that. If waxman stays he ought be labeled as a "Congressional Democrat" or something to that extent.
2 - Planned parenthood counseling is "mostly" medical. (and yes, I do have the citations to back that up) and is almost never given by a doctor.
One third of all the hospitals in the United States are run by the Catholic Church and none of them perform abortions or provide referrals for abortions (this was buckets of fun during the socialized medicine debate). I would assume that some number of Protestant and Jewish hospitals operate under the same policy.
You may scoff at the quality and comprehensiveness of CPC counseling but they do provide it, I haven't come across any that don't offer pregnancy testing and all the ones that I've seen offer STD screening. These constitute medical services. It is worthwhile to note that the medical services provided by most CPCs are of a limited nature. It is false to state that most CPCs offer no medical services.
2.1 - We have sources that say many CPCs look like planned parenthoods, I don't think we have any that say they look like hospitals.
3 - The Care Net application is for a grant, those folks do not work for Care Net. It is accurate to say that Care Net requires grant applicants to adhere to their statement of faith, it is categorically false to say that their employment was a condition of their faith. And again, the current sources that we have ask volunteer to be Christians.
No doubt on the education bit. - Schrandit (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
1.1 - Sure, but be careful. One thing I learned recently is that controversial topics are very hard to summarize without losing neutrality. The full version includes all the facts and lets them speak for themselves, but a summary requires us to pick, choose and evaluate, and that's where bias (real or perceived) sneaks in.
1.2 - Party affiliation would make more sense if there weren't such a thing as Democrats for Life. Regardless, there's no space for such detail; with so many sources, it's best to speak of "investigations", which is neutral and accurate, instead of trying to parse out the details of each investigator. That's what links are for.
2 - Right, but we were talking specifically about clinics. PP clinics have social workers and RN's providing medical counseling, under the supervision of doctors who are physically in the building. We know that the overwhelming majority of CPCs are not clinics and do not have a doctor available, and that what they provide is non-medical counseling (politely referred to as lay or peer to avoid saying amateur). There's no point debating quality or comprehensiveness, because these are two entirely different types of counseling: medical and non-medical.
In any case, I haven't run across any information suggesting that Catholic hospitals or clinics routinely lie about medical facts, whereas CPCs, whether Catholic or otherwise, do have this earned reputation. Clearly, there's something about the institution of the CPC that encourages this sort of thing. In fact, at the risk of WP:OR, I am beginning to suspect that we already have some clue: organizations such as Care Net and NIFLA aren't just directories for existing CPCs, they're the providers of training and materials to volunteers.
You're right about pregnancy testing, although this often amounts to "pee on this" or "pee into this and we'll mail it off".
You're not right about STD testing, though. Diagnosing such diseases normally requires drawing blood or performing a pelvic exam, and there are no CLIA waivers for that. Instead, what non-clinics do is provide a referral to center-friendly, pro-choice doctor, often an OB/GYN who would be glad to be there at delivery time. Still, making a phone call for someone is not a medical service, it's a small favor.
Our sources are very clear on this: the overwhelming majority are not clinics and cannot legally offer medical services. If you have some reliable sources that challenge this, you'll need to present them. Until then, I believe this subject is closed.
3 - I am at a loss as to how to explain your misreading of this document; it says nothing like what you suggest. It is clearly labeled "Affiliation Application", and there is nothing in there that speaks of grants. If anything, item 4 specifies that the CPC pays a fee to Care Net in return for affiliation benefits, while item 6 agrees to the pay the expenses of an inspector who will train the board members. The one that matters most is item 3, which says that the board members and director, as well as volunteers, must accept the Care Net statement of faith. We also see from the application that directors may be salaried or waged, with the CPC paying them. This could not be more clear. I have no doubt that you will agree once you take the time to read this more carefully.
In the meantime, I will look over the changes you've made. From the quick glance I took, I suspect that Roscelese would likely revert the whole thing, and that he would not be entirely wrong for doing so. I'm going to make an attempt at salvaging what I can, although I cannot make any promises. Dylan Flaherty 15:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I promised I'd explain why I kept some changes and not others. Here's a brief list:

a) Kept the information about numbers and funding in the lead but cut details about medical misinformation for now, as that's being worked on.

b) An abortion clinic look like any other medical clinic, so we can't say this.

c) The legal term is "clinic", so we can't change it to "medical facility".

d) As explained, these services are not medical. See the CN application for details.

e) The part about on-site lab testing is misleading, as CLIA waivers provide this without clinic status and are much easier to obtain.

f) The phrase "post-abortion counseling" is self-explanatory. The claim about wishing to prevent further abortions by the same women is plausible but unsupported. If we can find a RS, we can keep it.

g) Dropped second attempt at UNDUE "reversal", already explained below.

h) Dropped pick-and-choose shortening of "abortion service" to abortion. Better to stick to our sources and remain consistent. Also, services includes more than just abortions.

i) Removed redundancy in Global Prevalence section, changing it to Affiliation.

Hope that helps. Dylan Flaherty 15:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

1.2 - Fair enough, "pro-choice congressman" will suffice.
Per the sources, Austin Chronicle, NTY Opinion, SFGate, and Time do not verify the stated text, NARAL, Educators for Choice and RHrealitycheck should have never been used to begin with. This leaves more than enough sources but it is time to separate the wheat from the chaff.
2 - The majority of palanned parenthoods do not have a doctor on staff nor do the majority of their staff have any particular medical training. Our souces are by no means clear on the last point.
3 - This last point boils down to a single question. Are those people employed by Care Net? - Schrandit (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
b. - No, we cannot. They don't and that is not what CPCs are being accused of. None of our sources say that CPCs are being mistaken for dentists' offices, that they go to lengths to look like phistical therepy centers or so on. Our sources only show that CPCs look like abortion linics.
c. - I have to challenge you on this point. Laws are exceedingly public things, it shouldn't take more than a minute to find. Show me the law.
f. - That is the quintiseltial ironic reversal, that criticism belongs in the criticism section.
h. - Are there abortion services other than abortion? - Schrandit (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Per the sources, Austin Chronicle, NTY Opinion, SFGate, and Time do not verify the stated text - You know, pretending you can't read really isn't cute at your age. Do you need me to quote the Chronicle, NYT, Gate, and Time for you? Roscelese (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it is true that when discussing sources, we need direct quotes. Here is my attempt at it:
Statement that the refs support:
However, investigations have routinely found that CPCs disseminate false medical information about the alleged health risks of abortion.
References:
  • quote: "During the investigation, 20 of the 23 centers (87%) provided false or misleading information about the health effects of abortion."
  • does the ref support the statement? Yes
  • is the ref a reliable source? Yes
  • my overall vote: Keep
  • quote: "Unfortunately, none of the information is medically accurate."
  • does the ref support the statement? Yes
  • is the ref a reliable source? Yes
  • my overall vote: Keep
  • does the ref support the statement? No. The ref mentions mentions deceptive trade practices, but not false medical information.
  • is the ref a reliable source? No. It occurs in the opinion section of NYT.
  • my overall vote: Delete
  • does the ref support the statement? No. The ref mentions mentions deceptive advertising, but not false medical information.
  • is the ref a reliable source? Yes
  • my overall vote: Delete one use
  • does the ref support the statement? No. The ref mentions mentions deceptive advertising, but not false medical information.
  • is the ref a reliable source? Yes
  • my overall vote: Delete one use
  • quote: "Abortion rights activists are calling for tighter regulations. They say the antiabortion centers mislead women about the health effects of abortion."
  • does the ref support the statement? No. The quote is reified. The Washington Post is not putting their own neck on the line to support the statement.
  • is the ref a reliable source? Yes
  • my overall vote: Delete one use
  • quote: "Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, an abortion rights supporter, last year asked undercover investigators to contact 23 crisis pregnancy centers; 20 gave misleading information, such as exaggerating the risk of abortion, he reported."
  • does the ref support the statement? No, for two reasons: (1)The quote is reified; (2) it talks about "misleading information" not "misleading health information"
  • is the ref a reliable source? Yes
  • my overall vote: Delete one use
  • does the ref support the statement? No
  • is the ref a reliable source? Yes
  • my overall vote: Delete one use
  • quote: ""The Star found volunteers and paid staff at the centres were giving out verbal and written information about the physical and psychological risks of terminating a pregnancy – including breast cancer, emotional trauma and infertility – that either lacked context or has been dismissed by medical experts. ... Here are the three main risks that crisis pregnancy centres visited by the Star claim are associated with abortion. Medical experts have largely dismissed them as myths and exaggerations."
  • does the ref support the statement? No, for two reasons: (1)The quote is reified to medical experts; (2)One weasel word, "largely"
  • is the ref a reliable source? Yes
  • my overall vote: Delete one use
  • quote: "While the majority of surveyed websites simply encouraged potential clients to come in for an appointment to “get the facts” about the procedure, the CPCs that did mention abortion on their websites provided medically inaccurate information: approximately 13% claimed abortion was linked to breast cancer and future infertility, and 25% warned it could cause “post-abortion syndrome” and other health complications.
  • does the ref support the statement? Yes
  • is the ref a reliable source? No because self-published
  • my overall vote: Delete
  • quote: "The main risks the anti-abortion camp focuses on are breast cancer and post-abortion stress syndrome. (The National Cancer Institute refutes any connection between abortion and breast cancer.) ... (Research studies published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, American Psychologist and Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, have all concluded that post-abortion syndrome does not exist.)"
  • does the ref support the statement? No because the ref does not say directly that anything was inaccurate.
  • is the ref a reliable source? No. The bulk of the reference is an opinion piece of a case study: one reporter's experience.
  • my overall vote: Delete
  • is the ref a reliable source? No. Video is hosted by YouTube and it does not have Channel Five News chrome around it.
  • does the ref support the statement? unknown. Didn't watch.
  • my overall vote: Delete. Suggest someone search around the Sky News site to see if there is a video they publish directly.
  • quote: "Reports by Congressional committee staff and the National Abortion Federation found that CPCs provide false or misleading health information in the hope of convincing women not to have abortions."
  • does the ref support the statement? Yes
  • is the ref a reliable source? No. Self-published source.
  • my overall vote: Delete
I appreciate the effort, but you appear to have missed a few things.
When Carla Abbotts decided to terminate her pregnancy, for instance, she looked up clinics in the San Francisco phone book and chose one called A Free Pregnancy Center. She told a counselor she wanted an abortion and was shown a slide show that had "pictures of bloody fetuses in trash cans, and it said abortion led to sterility, death, deformed children and even suicide because of guilt." (NYT, "Right to Lie")
The Manhattan Pregnancy Services advertisement offers accurate abortion information. Ms. Sutnick of Planned Parenthood said the slide show that she saw there - presented at all three centers while women await test results - was filled with statistics about the dangers of abortion that have been disputed by the Centers for Disease Control. (NYT, Gross)
Kirk was given some forms to fill out. A woman took a urine sample for her test. While she was waiting for the results, the woman asked a series of questions about her religious beliefs and then told her about high rates of infection, depression and even death among women who had abortions, Kirk said. (WaPo, sonograms)
In Austin, the diocese hands out a booklet -- approved by the state -- that suggests a link between abortion and breast cancer, though the National Cancer Institute found no such connection. (SFGate, state funding)
a counselor told her that 50 percent of women who have an abortion get breast cancer and 30 percent die within a year of the procedure (Star-Telegram)
So it's pretty clear that all the sources substantiate the claim that the CPCs give out false information. I think the difference of opinion appears to be whether we can look at sources that say "CPCs say X and Y" and "X and Y are false" and write "CPCs say things that are false." I think that's completely a legitimate thing to say. Roscelese (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, I found something that confirms that the program did exist, was filmed by Five News, was presumably aired, and that the centers gave "incorrect information." Unfortunately, it's at thefreelibrary (which still appears to be RS, at least based on how much it's cited across Wikipedia) rather than at the Mirror, because newspapers apparently don't archive their articles aaaagh. Roscelese (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Roscelese, I wish I had waited for your counter-analysis, as I started going through Kev's list and finding mistakes. At this point, are there any sources that still look like candidates for removal? Dylan Flaherty 03:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Depends on your editing philosophy. I agree that the NARAL and RHRealityCheck sources wouldn't be reliable by Wikipedia standards on their own, but here they just corroborate a bunch of journalistic sources - still, others might disagree. And as I said to Kev, I personally think it's completely acceptable to look at a dozen sources that say "CPCs claim abortion causes cancer, sterility, infection, and mental health problems" and dozens of other sources that say "oh no it doesn't actually" and write "CPCs provide false information" - to say nothing of the fact that such information is identified in a number of the sources as false anyway - but Kev apparently disagrees? Roscelese (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm open to reasoned argument, but I think that the only source that's worth considering the removal of is RHRealityCheck. NARAL, while making no attempt at neutrality, is nonetheless quite reliable in this matter. Based on [WP:RS]], WP:UNDUE and WP:RSMED, we are absolutely under no obligation to give equal time to views that are rejected by the medical mainstream. Dylan Flaherty 18:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
1.2. It might suffice to describe Waxman, except that we're not actually describing Waxman here. Even if we followed your suggestion by trimming out any source with a hint of possible bias, there'd still be too many to usefully summarize here, except through a fair generalization such as "investigators". If we held sources to that requirement, we would simply have to delete the article outright, since that is an impossible hurdle. I've read WP:RS and WP:RSMED very carefully and I'm confident that these sources, as we use them, are acceptable.
2. I'm very sorry, but I don't know where you're getting this from. Besides the requirements of any clinic, who do you think is performing the abortions?
3 - I have no idea why you would say it comes down to that. Care Net is, as part of its affiliation program, requiring anyone employed by the CPC to be a signatory of the statement of faith. There is no suggestion that Care Net pays all of these people, since they are its customers, not employees. Perhaps you misspoke. If so, please feel free to explain yourself.
b - I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that CPCs and abortion clinics don't both look like clinics? Or are you saying that abortion clinics and CPCs look alike, but dental clinics are completely different? I was at a veterinary clinic just yesterday, and other than the posters showing pets, it looked just like my dentist's office. Also, consider that what we're calling abortion clinics are quite often clinics that also provide a variety of gynecological and general health services.
c - Actually, you already did challenge me and I already provided NIFLA's FAQ as the source. Search this page for the phrase "defined as a facility" and you'll see it again.
f - I may be misunderstanding, but I think you're talking about your recent move of the post-abortion/abortion-recovery sentence down to criticism. If so, I'm not thrilled about putting more content in the criticism ghetto, but I left it there for now.
h - Yes, actually, there are. For example, this clinic ad reads: "Offering 24 hour abortion services including emergency contraceptives, abortion pill, birth control, surgical abortions and Women's Health Services". Even without searching, I could just have easily pointed out that medical counseling about abortion is an abortion service.
I'm noticing that you made some more changes. As before, I will do my best to keep as many of them as possible while giving you an explanation for whatever I feel we cannot keep. Dylan Flaherty 21:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
1.2 - How would we not be describing Waxman?
2 - Most clinics don't have a doctor on staff, the refer out for abortions. Where are you getting the bit about CPCs being legally prohibited from giving medical advice? CPCs offer medical services. Not as many as a hospital but enough to make the sentence fragment "do not offer medical services" untrue.
3 - Because our text reads "many require their staff to be Christian". Unless Christianity was a prerequisite for employment that sentence isn't true.
b. - Our sources, in no uncertain terms, say that CPCs look like abortion clinics. Is there any legitimate reason to deviate from what our sources lay out?
c. - I'm not taking a segment from an application that many not have been prepared by a lawyer, that may be outdated, that may be state specific or that may be taken out of context. Laws are not hard things to find. I'm challenging you under WP:V - if we are going to move forward with the assumption that there is a legal qualification that CPCs fail to meet I want to see the law.
h. - Reluctantly accepted. Different types of abortion are all still abortion but you have it under abortion counseling. - Schrandit (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
1.2 It's pretty easy: we've got over a dozen sources for that statement in the lead, so we refer to them collectively as investigators without individually describing Waxman. This is a good thing, because it allows us to entirely avoid any debate over how to neutrally characterize him.
2. In order to qualify as a clinic, it must be "under the supervision and direction of a licensed physician". I don't see how that's possible without a physician on staff, do you? Now, while it's true that a minority of PP health centers refer abortions instead of performing them, even those are clinics, as indicated by the other medical services they provide. Take a look for yourself, at http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-center/. It's a good resource and it makes these things quite clear.
3. It is entirely true that ", many require their staff to be Christian", as that is a prerequisite of affiliation. If a non-Christian already had a job at a CPC, it would not be able to join Care Net. And once a CPC does join Care Net, they cannot hire a non-Christian without being kicked out.
b. As I've explained, abortion clinics look like what they are: health clinics that happen to provide abortions. It's not like there's anything unique about their appearance. Perhaps in the old days, they used to have a sacrificial altar to Baal, but that hasn't been true for a few millennia.
Now, if you have some source that claims abortion clinics are distinct in appearance, I'd love to see it. Until you do, I'm not sure what else there is to say.
c. I never denied that a CPC can be a clinic, but we know that only that the majority of them are. The CPCs that offer on-site sonograms, and there are several hundred of these, are all clinics. The thousands of others are not.
I see no reason whatsoever to doubt the definition offered by NIFLA, which is a legal services organization run by lawyers, but I'm going to do you a favor by nailing the coffin shut on this line of inquiry. Under Title 42, a clinic must "provide medical care to outpatients" while "under the direction of a physician". We're done with this topic.
h. Actually, birth control is listed as an abortion service, and these aren't abortions either.
I noticed that you once again made sweeping changes without first discussing them. As usual, I can't promise that we'll keep any, but I'll do my best and explain the rest. Dylan Flaherty 17:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
1.2 - That debate is very much worth having, you can't just duck it because it is convenient to avoid these questions.
2. - I see no reason to believe that medical services provided by a CPC are precluded from being labeled medical services.
3. - If our text read "is a prerequisite of affiliation. If a non-Christian already had a job at a CPC, it would not be able to join Care Net. And once a CPC does join Care Net, they cannot hire a non-Christian without being kicked out." that would be true. The text "many require their staff to be Christian" is a legally inaccurate and unsourced summation and cannot stand. - Schrandit (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
1.2 The debate is impossible to have so long as there are over a dozen sources. Wait until we finish our discussion about their reliability and relevance, which I see you're participating in.
2. - It's entirely true that some CPC's provide (limited) medical services, and I believe we say that. However, those are still a small minority (something like 20%, based on our sources). Past that, I believe we've already discussed the fact that the Care Net application explicitly excludes pregnancy tests and lay/peer counseling from the list of medical services. There doesn't seem to be anything new here.
3. I'm not a lawyer, so you're going to have to explain the distinction. To keep this grounded in reality, please make sure the explanation covers the case of a Care Net affiliate which is approached by a volunteer who is not Christian. Dylan Flaherty 17:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
1.2 - Give me reason to hope.
2. - You've started taking Care Net's word for things now? Pregnancy tests are medical services, not particularly advanced or hard to come by ones but services none the less. It is untrue to state that the overwhelming majority of CPCs "do not offer medical services.".
3. - There is a very real, and legally important distinction that I thought would be obvious. Image a office that has received a grant for hiring a certain percentage of ex-convicts. It would be inaccurate (and potentially legally troubling) to say that their employees are required to be ex-convicts. - Schrandit (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

1.2 - "Hope does not disappoint us, because God's love has been poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit who has been given to us." This line from the catechism, which I had long ago committed to memory, has always worked for me.

2. I'm hewing close to the legal criteria. Anyone can hand out self-service pregnancy tests, like the OTC ones. However, testing someone else's urine is a medical service, which is why it can only be done by medical clinics unless a CLIA waiver is obtained. Even including the waivers, our best data does not suggest that more than a quarter of all CPC's offer any medical services. Also, none of our data suggests that any CPC's offer medical counseling, as opposed to religious lay/peer. As counseling is the primary offering of CPCs, this leaves us with with serious WP:UNDUE problems if we falsely imply that anything in this regard.

3. I asked for an example that covers the case of a Care Net affiliate. You offered an example about grants, but Care Net is primarily an association which collects fees in return for benefits; any grants it helps a CPC obtain are distinct from membership requirements. If it helps, and at risk of seriously dating myself, let me offer you an example borrowed from a classic sitcom.

On "The Jeffersons", which is a spin-off of the more famous "All in the Family", George Jefferson is a black man who owns a chain of dry-cleaning stores. His company is therefore eligible join the Association of Minority-Owned Businesses. In return for his membership fees, the business is listed in a directory and may obtain certain services. If George were to become ill and sell the business to his conspicuously white neighbor, Tom Willis, then it would no longer qualify as minority-owned. However, if Tom signs the business over to his wife, Helen, then (because this is one of TV's earliest interracial marriages), the business would once again qualify.

Just as this association requires that the business be minority owned, Care Net requires CPCs to be staffed exclusively by Christians. If a CPC were to transfer control to Atheists for Life, Care Net would immediately eject them. Dylan Flaherty 21:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

While the analogy is fun, it's also just part of a really large red-herring discussion. Whether Care Net directly employs the people or not is kind of irrelevant, because the sentence as it stands now - Care Net...require[s] employees to comply with a statement of faith - is completely true. We already know that Care Net is a network rather than an employer, so it's not as if it's misleading. But if y'all think it would be better, maybe the sentence could be replaced with something like "Centers affiliated with Care Net and CAPSS, the two largest CPC organizations in the United States and Canada respectively, require employees to comply with a statement of faith." That's even more precise. And we know that they require employees to conform to a statement of faith, because if they didn't, they could not be affiliates of Care Net and CAPSS. Roscelese (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm still stuck with the Jeffersons analogy, to the point where I'm tempted to call you a "honkey", whatever that means. However, what you say makes sense so I agree. Dylan Flaherty 00:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
2. - Forgive me, I have no seen anything that says medical services can only be procured from medical clinics. Is something to this effect codified in law? - Schrandit (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
3. - There is a very large (and legally important) distinction between "affiliated" and "employees". That aside, "require affiliates to comply with a statement of faith." would satisfy all of my concerns on this issue. - Schrandit (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
2. It's called practicing medicine without a license, and it's what CPCs would be charged with if they performed pregnancy tests for women without having a waiver. Insert your own joke here about men falsely claiming to be gynecologists.
3. That's insufficient, because it fails to make it clear that no CPC affiliated with these organizations may have employees or volunteers who fail the religious test. In other words, the agreement affects individuals, not merely organizations. Dylan Flaherty 15:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
2. - Outside of a citation for that, medical services are medical services.
3. - The current wording is legally unsound. If these CPC were run the way our current wording suggests a lawsuit would have shut most of them down a while ago. Why not give it a few extra word to fully explain the complexity of the arrangement? - Schrandit (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
2. We're inside a citation, so this is a closed issue.
3. I believe the current wording is correct. Dylan Flaherty 20:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
2. - I am uncertain as to which citation you are referring to. I do not believe that any have been presented that would lead us to categorize medical services as anything other than medical.
3. - I assure you, as a matter of law, it is not. - Schrandit (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Specifically, the "particularly abortion-breast cancer link" was an inaccurate summary of the sources - yes, many of the sources did say that, but they also talked about mental health risks, perforated uterus, infertility, birth defects in future children, infection, dying within a year of the procedure or something like that. I don't think we need to list every type of medical misinformation the CPCs gave, but we certainly shouldn't put undue emphasis on any one type. Roscelese (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's precisely it. The article should and will have a comprehensive list, but there's no room for it in the lead.
On an unrelated note, is it really just 2,300 centers now? We have other numbers putting them above 3,000, with some close to 4,000. It's clearly a growth industry. Dylan Flaherty 16:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd have thought the same. What's the source for that figure? I know that's what the Time piece had, but that's from over three years ago - is there a more current figure from a RS? Roscelese (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Depression, perforated uterus, infertility and infection all are possible side-effects of an abortion. All the sources that I read that made specific allegations singled out the ABC. I don't see how the sentence fragment I added was inaccurate. - Schrandit (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Very funny, but no, your personal opinion is not a reliable source for the risks of abortion. The studies contradict what the centers are saying, the major health organizations contradict what the centers are saying, and "well, you could get a perforated uterus, those instruments are sharp, you know!" is not a counter.
It's also quite clear, once again, that you haven't read the sources, because they list a wide variety of imagined side effects and do not single out cancer. Do you need me to quote them for you? Roscelese (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Not to get too caught up in the medical details, but a perforated uterus was quite possible in the days when an abortion meant a D&C, as a curette is indeed sharp-edged. I'm not even sure it's possible to perforate with vacuum aspiration, particularly not with MVA, which is even gentler. Ironically, many of the complications that made abortion relatively risky back in the old days have been mitigated by the same sonograms that CPCs use to dissuade women from abortion.
I've said it before but I'm going to say it again; there are many good reasons not to abort, but these reasons are grounded in morality, not medicine. Dylan Flaherty 00:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
My point is that obviously there are risks, as there are risks to dental surgery and triple bypasses and liposuction. But they're not substantial, they're indeed far less than the risks from childbirth, and in any case - the only really important point - they're not what the CPCs are saying they are. Lest anyone has missed it, one of the CPCs visited in the cited sources said that 30 percent [of women who have an abortion] die within a year of the procedure!! Roscelese (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Aren't you both ignoring severe psychological risks? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Nope. Roscelese (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Uhm, I'm not sure why your response is here, but I'll be glad to explain.
If you give a sip of clean water to a few thousand people, some will die. Of course, if you deny that sip to a control group, some will also die. After all, people do die. If the mortality rate in the experimental group is higher to a statistically significant level, we then say that water has a quantifiable risk of death. Otherwise, we do not, even though we found people dying after they had the water.
In the case of mortality from abortion (as well as morbidity in terms of infection, infertility, depression and so on), the medical risk from childbirth exceeds that of a first-trimester abortion. As such, it would be medically inaccurate to speak of abortion as being risky, since it must be evaluated against the risk of the alternative. This error is compounded when the M&M rate is artificially inflated to justify the claim of risk, and when non-existent syndromes or disease correlations are postulated.
This is the reason that the medical claims commonly made by CPCs are considered misleading and false. In listing these errors, we must include ABC, PAS, and all the rest, rather than singling just one out. Dylan Flaherty 21:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
So all of them mentioned the ABC with others making sporadic and non-consistent complaints. How is it inaccurate to say that criticism focused around the ABC? - Schrandit (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
We have no data to suggest that ABC is the most common medical inaccuracy. If anything, we seem to have more mentions of PAS, and each source with the ABC error also contains many other errors. Not sure what else to say about this. Dylan Flaherty 17:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
We have no data to suggest anything, all of this is based on the investigative sources listed and they all talk about the ABC. - Schrandit (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Schrandit, I have to admit that I've been very disappointed with your most recent round of comments. You are, as always, entitled to your own opinion, but you seem to be coming in with your own facts. You can't help but to be aware of the many, many sources that mention PAS, infertility, death and other false medical claims, in addition to the ABC one. Given this, your comment above is frankly inexplicable.
Please don't take this the wrong way, but if you feel that you need a short break from this article, you should understand that you will always be welcome when you return and nobody will think any less of you for it. As it stands, I'm sorry to have to say that you've reached a point where your participation is not improving the article. I'd much rather have you well-rested and ready to collaborate effectively than be forced to continually give you bad news. Again, I mean this advice with only the best intentions, so please accept it as such. Dylan Flaherty 17:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I did a little digging and found the following citation:
Lawrence B. Finer and Stanley K. Henshaw, Abortion Incidence and Services in the United States in 2000, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2003, 35(1): 6-15
It was used to support this text:
"CPCs far outnumber abortion clinics. There are 4,000 CPCs in the United States, compared to about 800 abortion clinics. In Canada, there are about 200 CPCs and roughly 25 abortion clinics."
This certainly supports increasing the number, but the report is dated 2003.
However, it does point to a new source. I'll keep digging. Dylan Flaherty 03:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Why I cut out the ironic reversal sentence

I'd like to explain why I just removed:

Conversely, some abortion clinics have been known to present themselves as CPCs to mislead pregnant women seeking support into being propositioned for an abortion. [5]

The obvious but fixable problems are that it says "some" when the source says one and says "known" when so far it's just accused. Less fixable is the sourcing, which is currently a "Canadian national pro-life organization" that cites nothing. Google turned up repeats of the story, but only in clearly pro-life sites, and then only in blogs and other low-quality venues. Given that this is an accusation of a crime and targets a clinic by name, I think we need a more reliable source. It should be possible, as legal proceedings are matters of public record and this sort of ironic reversal makes good press.

Now, if we can get a better reference, and fix the two issues with language, there's a place for it somewhere in the article. Dylan Flaherty 13:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The source is not reliable.
Also, I have found no mention of the case in New York UCS Search Decisions or New York WebCivil Supreme.
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the research. Also, your recent edit did correct some tortured language, and is much appreciated. Dylan Flaherty 03:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I did a bit more digging and I found [6], [7] and [8]. I do so hate the ironic reversal sentence format on Wikipedia (X happened but Y also happened with the implication that Y invalidates X) but I could think of another, better way to include that information. Any ideas? - Schrandit (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I read through the links carefully. The third source is basically useless, as it's an editorial that's high on professional outrage and low on details. We already know more than we ever wanted to about the flaws of Eliot "Can't Keep It In My Pants" Spitzer.
For the first two, it would have helped if we had more than abstracts, but what we have is enough to actively prevent us from inserting the suggested text. According to the abstracts, the clinic settled what it calls a nuisance suit, and did not accept responsibility for misrepresenting or misleading. In fact, we have no reliable sources to support those strong terms, and we're not going to get one at this rate. It would be quite plausible for the clinic to claim that they took out ads on the "abortion" keyword and it's not their fault that CPCs have a category that misleadingly mentions abortion.
What's left? Well, I suppose that we could say that there was a single incident, four years ago, in which an abortion provider was accused of doing what CPCs do every day, but it didn't really pan out. This would be a poster child for WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK.
I'm sorry, but it looks like this one is dead, barring some shocking admission of intent by the clinic. Dylan Flaherty 15:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, unless something new emerges I'll just move a sentence down to the Court Cases section. - Schrandit (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe it fits there, either. As I said, because there was never a victory in court and the settlement did not admit to anything, we have nothing to mention that would survive WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. I think the best thing to do right now would be to remove it. Dylan Flaherty 15:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
We mention other cases that did not come to judgement, hell, we even talk about Spitzer who had to withdrawl his suits. How is this different? - Schrandit (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Again, this comment seems out of place, but I'll respond.
I cut down the Spitzer section precisely because nothing much happened. I'm thinking of cutting it down again, perhaps merging it with recent activity in NY. Dylan Flaherty 21:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Spitzer, whose lawsuit was literally so frivolous that it had to be withdrawn, gets a paragraph but one sentence about a suit that moved to trial and ended in a multi-institutional settlement is undue? If Spitzer stays so does this. - Schrandit (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Under, WP:UNDUE, our job is to report things in rough proportion to their importance, where one indication of this is coverage. Spitzer's actions were widely reported, while it took us days to confirm even the existence of the Dr. Emily case. This is to be expected, since he was the Attorney General issuing nearly a dozen subpoenas, whereas Dr. Emily was sued in civil court and settled it as a nuisance suit.

It doesn't help your case that your characterization is inaccurate. It turns out that the legal attempt to quash the subpoenas failed, so it would an error to say they "had to be withdrawn" because they were frivolous. Instead, as the article mentions, they served his purpose by allowing him to work out a model agreement with one of the CPC's.

For these reason, there is no basis for mentioning the Dr. Emily case at all. At this point, if you insert it in the article, I will not be able to keep it. Dylan Flaherty 17:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It too me 90 seconds to find more sources. If the Dr. Emily's source is undue because it failed to achieve a verdict then there is no reason to keep the Spitzer subpoenas. - Schrandit (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and we discussed the fact that the content of those sources leaves us unable to mention the case without violating WP:UNDUE. I don't see how any of your comments might be interpreted to address this issue. Dylan Flaherty 17:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
You're application of UNDUE is recent and uneven. All other legal cases in that section have a single source. There is no good reason to exclude this. - Schrandit (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
This is not about a single source. Some of the reasons given were: 1) this is a singular incident without precedent (undue) whereas the reverse situation is ubiquitous 2) it was settled without an admission of guilt (blp/npov). Those are more than enough. Dylan Flaherty 21:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The reverse situation has all of 2 court cases (three, if you really wanted to count the appeal in ND as 2 separate cases.). 2 cases does not ubiquity make. The lack of settlement is an argument for inclusion in a different section, not for exclusion. - Schrandit (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Except we have a number of secondary sources which indicate that it's a perennial issue, whereas your case appears to have no non-local news coverage. From the Times: Nearly a dozen similar suits are still pending around the country. And from the other Times article (Lewin): Advertising by anti-abortion centers, often known as crisis pregnancy centers or pregnancy counseling services, has been debated for a decade. In 1991, at hearings on the issue, Congress estimated that there were 2,000 such centers nationwide, many advertising themselves as abortion clinics, and the lawmakers wrote guidelines for telephone companies in handling their advertising. From "Sonograms" (WaPo): The National Abortion Federation has received hundreds of calls and e-mails from women who say they went into pregnancy centers with vague or confusing names, many of them found under "abortion services" headings in the phone book. And so on and so forth. It's not even necessary for all the suits to have found the CPCs guilty - if there were an equivalent number of suits against abortion providers for false advertising, it would absolutely be worth a mention, but...there aren't. Roscelese (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Great! Go and find those suits and include them in the article. In the meantime no reason for the censorship of the New York case has been presented. - Schrandit (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of changes kept and reverted

aa) While "as well child-rearing resources, adoption referrals and peer counseling" is accurate, it's also in the wrong place. The sentence is limited to medical information so that the next sentence can comment on its accuracy. Instead, we mention these in the next section, on services. I merged your list into the longer one below. Also, you removed citations, where there is no consensus for doing so.

bb) As noted elsewhere, it's not clear how abortion clinics differ from other medical clinics in terms of appearance. Dylan Flaherty 21:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the lead is not summarize sources in a format most convenient for the opposition to rebut. - Schrandit (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The purpose of the lead is to provide a summary of the article. Sticking things in where they don't fit in does not help in this regard. Dylan Flaherty 17:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
And why doesn't this fit? - Schrandit (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence describes the scope of the medical information covered by counseling. The next sentence, per WP:NPOV, comments on the validity of that information. These sentences fit tightly together as a logical unit; they're a highly cohesive paragraph. If the first sentence were intended as a list of all possible services and the second did not logically depend on the first being limited to medical information, then you would have a point. For that matter, if we censored the list of additional services from the article, you would have a point. But these are just counterfactual conditions. Dylan Flaherty 17:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
This paragraph is two sentences. A minuscule one on some of the services provided by CPCs and followed by a ironic reversal sentence twice that length. I see no good reason not to expand on this information. - Schrandit (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I would think that the answer is obvious: Add a sentence listing additional services, placing it after this paragraph. There's still some support for increasing the lead, and this preserves the logical structure while fulfilling all of your requirements. Dylan Flaherty 21:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Very well. - Schrandit (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Schrandit, I've very sorry to say that, after going over the latest edit, I was unable to keep any of the changes because they were repeats of items that had already been rejected with sound justifications. The one that I would have been willing to keep is the move of "abortion-recovery" counseling line to the criticism section, but while I accepted it grudgingly the first time, it has since been rejected by other editors. On the whole, there does not appear to be any consensus in support of these suggestions.
It seems that you've hit the wall, in that you have temporarily run out of suggestions that haven't already been turned down. I know you might feel like your input is being excluded, but I'd like to counsel you not to give up. It's possible you might find reliable sources that allow the inclusion of at least some of these items, and I'm sure you have new ideas that have the potential to fit into the article. There's also plenty more for us to do if we're to integrate the eKyros data; perhaps you could help with that. Again, I'm very sorry it's come down to this, but let's keep at it. Dylan Flaherty 18:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Lede sentence: However, investigations have routinely found that CPCs disseminate false medical information about the alleged health risks of abortion.

Hi everyone,

The discussion about one sentence in the lede is getting lost in the megadiscussion going on above.

The sentence I want to talk about is

However, investigations have routinely found that CPCs disseminate false medical information about the alleged health risks of abortion.

I propose that we organize this discussion. I'll put my signature in here multiple times so that people can comment on parts without worrying that they are breaking my comment into pieces.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the sentence supported by RS?

  • Yes. At least two sources, "Waxman" and "austin", directly support the sentence.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Should the sentence be in the lede?

  • Yes. The sentence should be in the lede to add balance or context to the previous sentence: "CPCs provide women with information related to abortion, pregnancy and childbirth."--Kevinkor2 (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

How many references should the sentence have?

  • I suggest that two are sufficient.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
More than 4 or 5 is excessive. - Schrandit (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • All of them. Citations for controversial claims are like tooth enamel. Enamel is incredibly strong, so each of our teeth is coated with much more than is actually needed. Why? Because, as strong as it is, it tends to get worn down over time and can be broken down by bacterial acid. The "excess" is actually just a safety margin. In the same way, citations are questioned, links break, things change. By having an "excess" of citations, this protects the claim from decay. If this were any less controversial an article, and if the claim wasn't so very strong, perhaps we could do with fewer. As it stands, I'd be content with a few more. Dylan Flaherty 17:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I encourage you to share your reasoning, as an unsupported conclusion is not very convincing. Dylan Flaherty 17:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • As many as possible. In another situation, I might suggest otherwise, but given the constant attempts to discredit perfectly reliable sources, more sourcing can only be an improvement. Nice analogy, Dylan. Roscelese (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment: Thanks, but I can't take any credit for it. I was going to go with elevator cables being able to support 7x the listed weight, but my wife suggested dental enamel, and that one just made more sense. Teeth are subject to gradual wear, whereas elevators need to deal with momentary spikes in load due to movement. I'll pass on your praise, since she deserves it. Dylan Flaherty 18:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Two or three of the best ones should be sufficient once consensus is established here. Afterward, editors can point to this discussion to restore the supported text. To my mind, too many references is an indication of synthesis or insecurity, not an indication of strength and assurance. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment: According to the old joke, you're not paranoid if they're really out to get you. In the same way, given the history of attempts to erode all support for this strong statement, it's not insecurity, it's common sense. With a scary number of citations, perhaps people will realize that the statement is incontrovertibly true before launching any attempt to discredit the sources. With three or four, all it takes is a slow week when nobody's watching, and the sentence will be removed on some pretext or another? If I sound paranoid, please consult that joke. Dylan Flaherty 18:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Fine, pick five. But pick. - Schrandit (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems like the most popular are Austin, Gross, Star and Miami so I'll figure on keeping those. - Schrandit (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Reference by reference discussion

Waxman

<ref name="Waxman">Committee on Government Reform — Minority Staff Special Investigations Division (July 2006). False and Misleading Health Information Provided by Federally Funded Pregnancy Resource Centers (PDF). United States House of Representatives. {{cite conference}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |booktitle= (help)</ref>

  • quote: "During the investigation, 20 of the 23 centers (87%) provided false or misleading information about the health effects of abortion."
    • does the ref support the statement? Yes
    • is the ref a reliable source? Yes
    • my overall vote: Keep--Kevinkor2 (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Dylan Flaherty 00:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Roscelese (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

austin

<ref name="austin">Smith, Jordan (August 4, 2006). "Having Your Baby". Austin Chronicle.</ref>

  • quote: "Unfortunately, none of the information is medically accurate."
    • does the ref support the statement? Yes
    • is the ref a reliable source? Yes
    • my overall vote: Keep--Kevinkor2 (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Dylan Flaherty 00:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Roscelese (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

lie

<ref name="lie">"The Right to Lie?". The New York Times. February 21, 1987.</ref>

  • quote: "In Texas, another such center and its founder were found guilty of deceptive trade practices and fined $39,000. Three New York City centers have been investigated by the State Attorney General, Robert Abrams, and a negotiated settlement is expected soon."
    • does the ref support the statement? No. The ref mentions mentions deceptive trade practices, but not false medical information. It supports a different statement:
      However, courts have routinely found that CPCs use deceptive trade practices.
    • is the ref a reliable source? No. It occurs in the opinion section of NYT.
    • my overall vote: Delete--Kevinkor2 (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Early on, it says:
She told a counselor she wanted an abortion and was shown a slide show that had pictures of bloody fetuses in trash cans, and it said abortion led to sterility, death, deformed children and even suicide because of guilt.
This supports the claim that false medical information ("sterility, death, deformed children and even suicide because of guilt") is disseminated. The falseness of these claims is itself adequately supported elsewhere.
  • Keep Dylan Flaherty 23:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, sentence Dylan quotes supports statement about false information. Roscelese (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
DeleteThis is an opinion piece from 23 years ago. Why is it here? - Schrandit (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment: The fact that she was given false medical information is not affected by the article's status as an opinion piece, as it is not an opinion. As for age, this confirms that the practice is not recent. Dylan Flaherty 18:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

gross

<ref name="gross">Gross, Jane (1987-01-23). "Pregnancy Centers: Anti-Abortion Role Challenged". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-11-06. </ref>

  • quote: "The center ... is one of three ... that are the subject of a nearly completed investigation by State Attorney General Robert Abrams, ... charging deceptive advertising."
    • does the ref support the statement? No. The ref mentions mentions deceptive advertising, but not false medical information. It would support a weaker statement:
      However, an investigation by NY State Attorney General Robert Abrams found that three CPCs use deceptive advertising.
    • is the ref a reliable source? Yes
    • my overall vote: Delete one use--Kevinkor2 (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Odd, it looks like my edit here was lost, so I'll repeat.
Bits:
At the time of Ms. Weinstock's visit, she said, she was told that urine and blood tests were identical and that a urine sample did not need to be taken the first thing in the morning. Both pieces of information are incorrect.
The Manhattan Pregnancy Services advertisement offers accurate abortion information. Ms. Sutnick of Planned Parenthood said the slide show that she saw there - presented at all three centers while women await test results - was filled with statistics about the dangers of abortion that have been disputed by the Centers for Disease Control.
This shows that it supports the claim. Referencing the CDC is a good thing, not a bad thing. Remember, a reliable source reporting on a reliable source is... reliable.
  • Keep Dylan Flaherty 00:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, sentence Dylan quotes supports claim of false information. Roscelese (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete - Source has nothing to do with medical information. - Schrandit (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I'm sorry to have to point this out, but the stated reason is demonstrably false. Dylan Flaherty 17:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sonograms

<ref name="Sonograms">Chandler, Michael Alison (2006-09-09). "Antiabortion Centers Offer Sonograms to Further Cause". Washington Post. Washington Post. p. html. Retrieved 2008-02-24.</ref>

  • quote: "Abortion rights activists are calling for tighter regulations. They say the antiabortion centers mislead women about the health effects of abortion."
    • does the ref support the statement? No. The quote is reified. The Washington Post is not putting their own neck on the line to support the statement. It would support a weaker sentence:
      However, abortion rights activists say that CPCs disseminate false medical information about the alleged health risks of abortion.
    • is the ref a reliable source? Yes
    • my overall vote: Delete one use--Kevinkor2 (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Bits:
"They can set up a waiting room and an exam room, but that doesn't mean they employ actual medical practices," said Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, a D.C.-based network of abortion providers.
The next line related to the discussion we had about CPCs as medical clinics, not to the inclusion debate:
The institute also helps centers complete paperwork to become medical clinics. In most states, the process is fairly simple. The main requirement is for a licensed physician to become the medical director and supervise medical services, though the director does not have to work on site, institute President Thomas A. Glessner said.
Nurses are taught to determine whether a pregnancy is viable and to identify the sex. They are not taught to identify developmental problems.
While she was waiting for the results, the woman asked a series of questions about her religious beliefs and then told her about high rates of infection, depression and even death among women who had abortions, Kirk said.
  • Keep Dylan Flaherty 23:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, sentence Dylan quotes supports claim that CPCs give out false information. Roscelese (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete source only quotes abortion activists. - Schrandit (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I'm sorry to have to point this out again, but the stated reason is demonstrably false. Dylan Flaherty 17:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

statefunding

<ref name="statefunding">Abortion foes are getting public funds, San Francisco Gate</ref>

  • quote: "Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, an abortion rights supporter, last year asked undercover investigators to contact 23 crisis pregnancy centers; 20 gave misleading information, such as exaggerating the risk of abortion, he reported."
    • does the ref support the statement? No, for two reasons: (1)The quote is reified; (2) it talks about "misleading information" not "misleading health information" It would support a weaker statement:
However, Henry Waxman reports that CPCs disseminate false information about the alleged risks of abortion.
    • is the ref a reliable source? Yes
    • my overall vote: Delete one use --Kevinkor2 (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
First, let me comment that the misleading information included health risks: this is medical.
Ok, now for the bits:
In Austin, the diocese hands out a booklet -- approved by the state -- that suggests a link between abortion and breast cancer, though the National Cancer Institute found no such connection.
  • Keep Dylan Flaherty 23:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, sentence Dylan quotes supports claim of false information. Roscelese (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete - Just rehashes Waxman. - Schrandit (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I'm sorry to have to point this out again, but the stated reason is demonstrably false. Dylan Flaherty 17:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

startelegram

<ref name="startelegram">Jarvis, Jan (September 13, 2010). "Advertising practices of crisis pregnancy centers raise concerns". Fort Worth Star-Telegram.</ref>

  • quote: "In April, Austin became the second city in the country to adopt an ordinance requiring crisis pregnancy centers to post signs stating that they do not offer abortions or provide contraceptives."
    • does the ref support the statement? No. It supports a different statement:
      Several cities in the U.S. require crisis pregnancy centers to post signs stating that they do not offer abortions or provide contraceptives.
    • is the ref a reliable source? Yes
    • my overall vote: Delete one use --Kevinkor2 (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Bits:
Instead, she was shown a 20-minute video of "fetuses, complications and horrible things."
Then a counselor told her that 50 percent of women who have an abortion get breast cancer and 30 percent die within a year of the procedure, said Sarah, who asked that only her first name be used to protect her privacy.
  • Keep Dylan Flaherty 23:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. 50% getting cancer and 30% dying within a year isn't false enough for you? Roscelese (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete - Anon woman from pro-abortion source. - Schrandit (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I'm sorry to have to point this out again, but the stated reason is demonstrably false. Dylan Flaherty 17:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

star

<ref name="star">Smith, Joanna (August 7, 2010). "Deception used in counselling women against abortion". Toronto Star.</ref>

  • quote: ""The Star found volunteers and paid staff at the centres were giving out verbal and written information about the physical and psychological risks of terminating a pregnancy – including breast cancer, emotional trauma and infertility – that either lacked context or has been dismissed by medical experts. ... Here are the three main risks that crisis pregnancy centres visited by the Star claim are associated with abortion. Medical experts have largely dismissed them as myths and exaggerations."
    • does the ref support the statement? No, for two reasons: (1)The quote is reified to medical experts; (2)One weasel word, "largely". It supports a differnt statement:
      However, investigations have routinely found that CPCs disseminate information about the alleged risks of abortion that are largely dismissed by medical experts.
    • is the ref a reliable source? Yes
    • my overall vote: Delete one use --Kevinkor2 (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Mentioning medical experts in no way undermines the statement. If all it said was that there was an increased risk of cancer and infertility, it would be due synthesis on our part to note that this have been referred to by many reliable sources as medically false.
Bits:
A woman who has an abortion, she says, puts herself at great risk of developing breast cancer. Terminating a pregnancy is far more dangerous than carrying a baby to term. And she might never be able to get pregnant again.
  • Keep Dylan Flaherty 23:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per WP:MEDRS, the fact that an opinion is attributed to medical experts makes it more reliable, not less! Roscelese (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete - Talks about the context of this advise without providing it. - Schrandit (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I'm sorry to have to point this out again, but the stated reason is demonstrably false. Dylan Flaherty 17:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

naralny

<ref name="naralny">""She said abortion could cause breast cancer": a report on the lies, manipulations and privacy violations of crisis pregnancy centers in New York City" (PDF). NARAL Pro-Choice New York; National Institute for Reproductive Health. October 2010. Retrieved 2010-12-06.</ref>

  • quote: "While the majority of surveyed websites simply encouraged potential clients to come in for an appointment to “get the facts” about the procedure, the CPCs that did mention abortion on their websites provided medically inaccurate information: approximately 13% claimed abortion was linked to breast cancer and future infertility, and 25% warned it could cause “post-abortion syndrome” and other health complications.
    • does the ref support the statement? Yes
    • is the ref a reliable source? No because self-published
    • my overall vote: Delete--Kevinkor2 (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
NARAL is a reliable source, though obviously not a neutral one, and it is heavily footnoted. If we removed NARAL, we would have to likewise remove Care Net, NIFLA and so on, until we have no article left.
  • Keep Dylan Flaherty 23:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I might vote differently if it were the only reference used to support that statement, due to WP:NPOV rules, but here it just substantiates a bunch of journalistic sources. Roscelese (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete - We're taking NARAL's word for things now? You know the quid pro quo that I would be within my rights to ask. - Schrandit (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment: We already quote Care Net, NIFLA and other pro-life sources, so I'm not sure what the issue is. Dylan Flaherty 17:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

savannah

<ref name="savannah">Goers, Beth (October 23, 2008). ""Pregnant? Worried?"". Connect Savannah.</ref>

  • quote: "The main risks the anti-abortion camp focuses on are breast cancer and post-abortion stress syndrome. (The National Cancer Institute refutes any connection between abortion and breast cancer.) ... (Research studies published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, American Psychologist and Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, have all concluded that post-abortion syndrome does not exist.)"
    • does the ref support the statement? No because the ref does not say directly that anything was inaccurate. It supports a different statement:
      However, investigations have routinely found that CPCs disseminate information about the alleged risks of abortion that are dismissed by National Cancer Institute and research studies published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, American Psychologist and Professional Psychology: Research and Practice.
    • is the ref a reliable source? No. The bulk of the reference is an opinion piece of a case study: one reporter's experience.
    • my overall vote: Delete --Kevinkor2 (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I cannot agree with your analysis here, even before looking at the source. The quote is not a generalization, but the reporter's statement about the medically false information she was given, citing the NCI to support the fact that it's false. A reliable source citing a reliable source is... reliable.
  • Keep Dylan Flaherty 23:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article describes the information the author was given perfectly adequately, noting both that she was given X information and that medical bodies say that X information is not true. The article is in "health," not "opinion." (Note that she was also given false information about condoms, though that would be another section if we wanted to discuss it in the article.) Roscelese (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete - this is another rehashing of other outside sources. - Schrandit (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I'm sorry to have to point this out again, but the stated reason is demonstrably false. Dylan Flaherty 17:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

five

<ref name="five">"5 news undercover". Five News. Sky News. Retrieved 2010-12-07.</ref>

    • is the ref a reliable source? No. Video is hosted by YouTube and it does not have Channel Five News chrome around it.
    • does the ref support the statement? unknown. Didn't watch.
    • my overall vote: Delete. Suggest someone search around the Sky News site to see if there is a video they publish directly. --Kevinkor2 (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
If you look carefully, you'll see that it does have the Channel Five chrome, in the form of an overlay near the top left. An overlay in the bottom center identifies Stuart Ramsay, trivially confirmed as the speaker.
It includes a video of an actual visit, and Ramsey's v/o at just short of a minute in says: "medically incorrect, disturbingly graphic and against all guidelines that govern counseling".
I believe it is therefore both supporting and reliable.
  • Keep Dylan Flaherty 23:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Thanks Dylan for noting the overlays - I think I must have misinterpreted Kev's statement about the lack of chrome, because those overlays are quite clear. This article from The Mirror confirms that the program was filmed by Five News and found that centers give out "incorrect information." We've no reason to doubt the authenticity, and of course the video is painfully clear about the false information. Roscelese (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete - youtube should never be used as a source and we have no way of knowing the context/actual length of the video. - Schrandit (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment: The article Roscelese links to shows the context, and YouTube videos of mainstream journalistic broadcasts are reliable sources. Dylan Flaherty 18:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

RH Reality Check

suggest change link to http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/video/reality-check-video-series/crisis-pregnancy-centers suggest change link to http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/video/our-reality-video-series/crisis-pregnancy-centers

    • is the ref a reliable source? No. Self-published source.
    • does the ref support the statement? unknown. Didn't watch.
    • my overall vote: Delete --Kevinkor2 (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The issue here is reliability. I strongly suspect that it's reliable, but I haven't taken the time to reconfirm.
  • Meh Dylan Flaherty 00:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Source adds to little and is of uncertain reliability. Dylan Flaherty 18:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. The link you provided isn't to the same video. Here is the same video (bottom one) on Feminist Campus, a project of Feminist Majority Foundation. Video does support statement, if you watch it. Roscelese (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, there it is. Thanks. Roscelese (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Roscelese, now that you've seen the video, I think it should be clear that it's relevant. But what do you think of its reliability? Dylan Flaherty 17:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Heh, I'd seen the video before I cited it! Wouldn't have cited it otherwise. But anyway, I see this as sort of equivalent to Lifesitenews in terms of reliability (quality of actual content aside): both are partisan, neither are particularly notable in the mainstream, but Lifesitenews gets cited to illustrate the "pro-life" position because it's notable among people of that political position. As is RHRealityCheck on the other side, I think. But we have many other sources, if people don't think this one is good. Roscelese (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I can't argue with that. If our goal was to illustrate the pro-choice position, then this would be somewhat useful. However, these citations are about a purely factual matter; the medical claims typically made by CPCs are objectively false (per WP:RSMED). For this purpose, any partisan sources of marginal or low quality should be omitted. I'm going to change my vote to "delete". Dylan Flaherty 18:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete - No particular reason to keep. - Schrandit (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland

<ref>Kleder, Melissa; S. Malia Richmond-Crum (January 14, 2008). "The Truth Revealed" (PDF). NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland. Retrieved 2010-12-07.</ref>

  • quote: "Reports by Congressional committee staff and the National Abortion Federation found that CPCs provide false or misleading health information in the hope of convincing women not to have abortions."
    • does the ref support the statement? Yes
    • is the ref a reliable source? No. Self-published source.
    • my overall vote: Delete --Kevinkor2 (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Again, NARAL is reliable though not neutral, and this document is heavily footnoted.
  • Keep Dylan Flaherty 23:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Same reason as for the other NARAL source - wouldn't be allowable on its own because of NPOV, but here it's substantiating newspaper sources. Roscelese (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete - NARAL should never be used as a source. - Schrandit (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Comment: This extreme statement is in direct violation of WP:RS. Dylan Flaherty 18:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Miami Times

"Pregnancy centers overstate abortion risks". Vol. 83, no. 45. Miami Times. July 26-August 1, 2006. p. 9B. Care Net, an umbrella group for evangelical pregnancy centers across the United States, instructs affiliates to tell callers there is a possibility that abortion can lead to greater risk of breast cancer, according to Molly Ford, an official with the organization. She said there have been several studies that say it does and several that say it doesn't. A 2003 National Cancer Institute workshop, however, concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman's subsequent risk of developing breast cancer, the AP reported. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

    • does the ref support the statement? Yes
    • is the ref a reliable source? Yes (AllRefer website may not be, but it's reproducing an article from a newspaper; I myself read this article in a newspaper database)
  • Keep. Roscelese (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, as it's exactly on topic, and reliable. Dylan Flaherty 01:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Which references should be kept for this one lede sentence?

  • I suggest "Waxman" and "austin".--Kevinkor2 (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Er, Kev, I've already addressed above your contentions that the sources cited do not support the statement. I provided specific quotes from the sources that indicated that they told visitors that abortion caused cancer, infection, suicide, and whatnot. If your argument is that the source has to actually say that the information is false, rather than saying "the center said X" when X is false, then say so rather than copy-pasting, please. (Although some of the sources do say the information is false, or otherwise refuted by major health organizations.) I also noted that, although the video is not hosted on a Five News channel on Youtube, we have independent confirmation that there was a Five News investigation which found the same things the video found. Care to revise your comment in light of these things? Roscelese (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Without disputing what you said, I think that breaking it down this way was very useful, and the end result is that we've documented the reliability and relevance of each source. Dylan Flaherty 00:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
That's a good point. Roscelese (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I could take 15 sources onto every statement but doing so is highly confusing and unproductive. Is there any reason to have 15 for one sentence in the lead (which usually goes unsourced)? Let pick the top 4 and leave it be. - Schrandit (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

possible source from Family Research Council

Hi,

I saw an interesting annual report from Family Research Council: https://www.frc.org/DL/14-DEC-10__EF09I54_E7E95B9A-FC67-49CE-988A024EDF989838.pdf(broken link) http://www.apassiontoserve.org/

Now, I know that FRC has been classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. <ref>http://splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners#</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/24/AR2010112407042.html</ref> However, I think that some of the graphs in the report might be reliable, showing the growth of the major CPC networks over time.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

While their reliability for certain kinds of statements -- medical claims come to mind -- is known to be low, they're still a very useful source. For example, I was able to confirm that the average CPC sees fewer people a day than the average doctor, but page 22 confirms that the average CPC sees less than one patient a day. This is good stuff. Dylan Flaherty 03:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yeah, I think that would be fine. As with all partisan sources, we'd obviously have to be careful about what we cite it in support of and what we draw from it - as we've just discussed, their claim on page 34 that the centers provide "accurate and medically referenced health information about the risks" of abortion is contradicted by over a dozen reliable sources - but graphs and other number-based pieces of information seem totally OK. Roscelese (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
It helps to recognize where they would have any motive to lie. For example, if they were to misreport the average number of clients per day, we would expect them to increase the number, not decrease it. Therefore, the low figure on page 22 is likely accurate and represents an upper limit. Dylan Flaherty 03:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
That makes sense. We'll probably have to consider each thing individually. Roscelese (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. I have confidence in our ability to muddle through this somehow. Dylan Flaherty 03:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
The report, https://www.frc.org/DL/14-DEC-10__EF09I54_E7E95B9A-FC67-49CE-988A024EDF989838.pdf , is now a broken link. :( But I think the web site, http://www.apassiontoserve.org/ , contains the information.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Reversion discussion

I don't have any problems with this. The clarification regarding volunteers was good, and the sentence about services does need citations (although, since Schrandit originated it, I'll be glad to let him provide those). My only question is whether, once he provides the citations, the sentence would work better at the beginning or end of the paragraph. What's your thinking? Dylan Flaherty 01:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the part about false medical information is the logical thing to immediately follow a generic statement about them giving information. Or do you mean that the adoption referrals etc. should come before the "information related to..."? Because that wouldn't seem to make sense, as all CPCs presumably give information, while not all do other things. (For what it's worth, I moved the other services statement to the end of the paragraph only so that it would be clear what the "citation needed" was referring to - I think it works better there, but don't have strong feelings about it.)
Incidentally, we do have a source to the effect that they sometimes give out baby clothes or something like that. I found it in one of the previously cited sources when I was editing a few days ago, and added the cited statement to the body of the article somewhere. Other things still need citations though. Roscelese (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
No, I definitely agree that the mention of false information must come immediately after the list of information they give out. I was talking about the list coming before. Let me paste here for clarity.
CPCs offer peer counseling and may provide adoption referrals, pregnancy testing, STD screening and other services. While they provide women with information related to abortion, pregnancy and childbirth, investigations have routinely found that they disseminate false medical information. (approx 10^14 citations here)
First, the two sentences specifically about medical information are now joined, making them flow together more tightly.
Second, the structure is now general-to-specific. We start off by briefly listing some of the services offered, all of which are more general than providing information.
Keep in mind that, when CPCs do provide information, it's not just through counseling, so we wouldn't want to commit to that. Medical information is often provided through hand-outs, posters, videos and audios. It's also provided in the course of performing medical services.
Let's worry about this after the list is fully cited. Dylan Flaherty 02:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that order makes sense. Roscelese (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I took that to mean that you agree with my suggested edit. If not, I apologize for any misunderstanding and would be entirely willing to revert that part of my change. Dylan Flaherty 20:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Schrandit 2010-12-19 changes

a) "about the health risks of abortion" - We have citations regarding other medical errors, including statements about when a urine test should be taken, as well as unsupported claims regarding the health of a fetus. Removed.

b) "Many CPCs also provide" - Changed the order to move more common items up front, and made it clear that the only service guaranteed to be provided is the non-medical counseling.

c) "many require their staff to be Christian" - Restored this fact. Also altered the next sentence to clarify the nature of the statement.

d) "In 2006 a New York abortion-provider" - For reasons stated many times, there is no consensus for inclusion. Do not reinsert. Removed.

e) "(D-CA)" - This is blatently pointy. If anyone wants to know Mr. Waxman's party affiliation or home state, they're free to click. Removed.

f) I did not change the post-abortion/abortion-recovery counseling, but I suspect Roscelese may object to it. Dylan Flaherty 20:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

a. - Do we have it that those things are routine?
b. - The info stayed in, no objection.
c. - This is not so and it is legally problematic to state it as so.
d. - Your objection was a sparse number of sources. I found more sources. Let me know where the goal posts are and I'll meet them.
e. - This is standard practice, there is no reason not to give his party and state. - Schrandit (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
a. Since we have over a dozen sources reporting false information and no sources reporting real information (also, since you can actually go to major CPC websites and see for yourself, but we don't have that in the article right now), I think "routinely" is accurate. I would also be cool with "consistently."
c. Is your problem with "many"? Because Care Net and CAPSS are the largest CPC networks in the USA and Canada, Care Net accounts for over a thousand centers, and other unaffiliated CPCs also make such a requirement. Is your problem with "require"? "You can't work here unless you are Christian" absolutely warrants the word "require." Is your problem with "Christian"? Because you've already given your spiel about how we can't knoooooow they're Christian because Christianity is undefinable, and it was rejected as a stupid argument.
d. No, you haven't. You've still only provided local coverage of one incident in which no fault was found, meaning that inclusion would violate WP:UNDUE.
-- Roscelese (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
a. - We have over a dozen sources complaining of untimely urine tests?
c. - I don't care about the term "many". The previous wording was inaccurate to the point of being potentially legally problematic.
d. - I have provided more than local coverage and I accurately summarized the case in a section full of other cases.
f. - Dylan and I both agreed that the post-abortion counseling section should be split. Why do you keep posting it back together? - Schrandit (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
a. Hence my addition of "usually but not exclusively."
c. Could you explain in what way it is inaccurate and/or legally problematic? The centers require their staff to be Christian. We know they require their staff to be Christian (not only Christian, but Christian in a specific way) because if they didn't, they wouldn't be Care Net or CAPSS affiliates. (If you want to split off the first sentence, "CPCs do not turn away customers on the basis of religion," into another paragraph, by all means do - I'd love it if your contributions to this article consisted of things other than removing citations that we agreed should remain and restoring things that we agreed should stay out. One-sentence paragraphs are frowned upon, though, so you'd actually have to do a bit of research.)
d. Uh-huh, that's clearly a credible, non-partisan source.
f. Because it's simply not criticism. There is nothing critical about it; it's not critical of CPCs, it's not critical of post-abortion counseling, there is nothing in that sentence that could possibly be construed as belonging in a criticism section. If you have a problem with it in its current location, by all means find somewhere else to put it that makes sense, but this just looks like a desperate attempt to avoid mentioning CPC political activity anywhere near their services. (Also, as Dylan can't speak for himself at the moment, I'm afraid I have to be the one to point out that lack of reversion - particularly when he didn't revert my placement of it either - is very unlike "agreement." Don't lie and say people support you when they don't. It just makes your position look weaker.)
g. Cute picture, but no.
-- Roscelese (talk) 02:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
a. - 1 report out of 2,500 CPCs in 40 years? Thats undue in a big way and unsuitable for the lead.
c. - I'd be fine without that first sentence. CPCs don't require their staff to be Christian though for some affiliations they have to be able to sign a statement of faith. This is what our sources say and to revert to the previous phrasing would be legally questionable.
d. - Cool.
f. - Please take a deep breath and comment on actions, not users. Dylan stated his support for the movement on this talk page.
g. - Why? - Schrandit (talk) 06:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
a. We can't imply that it's exclusively about the supposed health risks, because that isn't the case. Also, more than one source attests other false information. (Would you support creating a subsection that details the type of false information? Then we could just say "false medical information" in the lead, and elaborate in the subsection.)
c. Yes, they do require their staff to be Christian. We know that affiliates of Care Net and CAPSS require every employee and every volunteer to comply with a statement of faith (which I really doubt is the shahada). We know that this is true because if it wasn't true, the center could not be an affiliate. If you think it's "legally questionable," please explain why as I have asked you to do - assertion is not explanation, much less argument - and do not continue removing material against consensus.
f. Nope.
g. Only tangentially related to article, lends bias. Do we have a picture of a CPC that we could use? That would seem to be the most suitable illustration.
-- Roscelese (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
a. - We use the word routinely the only thing that is remotely reoutinly mentioned is abortion.
c. - Legally, it is not. CPCs do not require their staff to be Christian, though if they want to apply for affiliation for some organizations their staff must be prepared to sign a statement of faith. This is analogous to affirmative action or title X or what ever other preference system you want to compare it to in America. Now there is whatever truth you wish to see in any of those systems but the law (and our sources) do not support the text as you would have it. We can enter into a legally slanderous position by alleging workplace discrimination.
f. - Convenient...but fine.
g. - Its a sonogram of a baby in a section about sonograms of babies.
a. We use the word "routinely" to describe their provision of false medical information. Are you having trouble parsing that sentence? I can break it down for you, if you don't know what it means.
c. It's not a "preference system." Without getting into a tangent that would display just how little you seem to know about affirmative action in the United States, quotas are unconstitutional - a business can't say "We will only hire black applicants." On the other hand, that's exactly what these CPCs do say, substituting "Christian" (sometimes a specific sort of Christian) for "black." To repeat, for the third or fourth time: We know they require personnel to be Christian. We know this because if they didn't require personnel to be Christian, they could not be affiliates under the conditions of affiliation, and they are indeed affiliates. Care Net and the other centers we cited don't seem to have a problem declaring openly that they are committing "workplace discrimination" (which I suspect they're exempt from laws on, as they are religious organizations), so your solicitousness is pretty useless.
g. So I'm sure you'd support the inclusion of a picture of a courtroom. That, in no way, prompts the reader to have any opinions on what CPCs do. I'll remove the ultrasound image again, and let you find a nice courtroom image yourself - then, they can both be added together.
h. It's so cute how you keep claiming everyone agrees with you. That's really the sign of a mature contributor.
  • Two for two is not an overwhelming consensus in your favor, and since yours and Kevin's stated reasons for disposing of a number of the sources are demonstrably (and indeed have been demonstrated to be) false, it might be worth a refresher. I'll let him know on his talk page that we're still on that conversation, and see if he has any response to the comments Dylan made earlier. As for you, would you care to review the sources? Your claims that the sources say nothing about medical information or only quote pro-choice activists are demonstrably and obviously false - do you have any real arguments against keeping the references, or do you just want a statement that might question CPCs' reliability to have fewer sources?
  • Why don't you ask Binksternet which references ze supports keeping? Are you afraid ze might have changed hir mind? "I support having two or three references" =/= "Schrandit, my man, why don't you remove whatever references you personally dislike?"
  • Since you claim that your removal of references was based on consensus, I'm sure the removal of Waxman was just an oversight (ha see what I did there).
i. Since our source is from 2006, I think it's probably better to say "CPCs got $60 million by 2006" or "...between 2001 and 2006," rather than extrapolating - particularly since the change of administration. Do we have a more current source on federal funding?
-- Roscelese (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
a. - Our sources routinely alledge mispresentation of information about abortion and nothing else.
c. - They do no and our sources do not say that they do. If you have sourced commentary on the secondary effect of this affiliation system feel free to include it, OR on what you think CPC hiring practices are could get us sued.
g. - If there is a picture of a CPCs related court case for a section on CPCs related court cases by all means bring it in. The lack of a such a picture is no reason to exclude another pertinent one.
h. - Do not ever presume to speak for me to other users, use standard English pronouns and frankly no, I don't see what you did there - speak plainly, ditch the sarcasm and commentary on other users.
i. - If you'd like.
j. - Why do you keep removing the court case?
k. - Its a reasonable question about the Irish, the agency explicetly exists to provide women with the resouces to make abortion unconsiderable. - Schrandit (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
The court case fails WP:WEIGHT... it is not typical. Binksternet (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
How so. It is one court case among many court cases? - Schrandit (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
a. Then you do need me to parse it for you. It's okay to admit it. "Investigations have routinely found that they disseminate false medical information" - this means that "routinely" applies to "false medical information" as a general category, so that it can encompass the alleged health risks, but also inaccurate descriptions of fetal health, of testing mechanisms, etc. "usually but not exclusively about the health risks of abortion" - this means that most of the false information is about the alleged risks, but not all of it. (I must have missed your response to my suggestion - do you think it would be better to create a subsection on the types of false information they give, source each type separately, and just say "false medical information" in the lead with the understanding that the reader can proceed to the subsection?)
c. You don't need to be Care Net's advocate. I'm sure they pay lawyers for that. If they, or any of these other centers, thought they could get sued from requiring employees to be Christian, they wouldn't put that information out there on the intertubes. Rest easy.
g. Joking aside - like I said, my concern here is POV. "The section is about how CPCs use ultrasound images to try to persuade women not to have abortions...including an ultrasound image couldn't possibly introduce any bias!" I'm sure you're only trying to include the image because you feel it is pertinent, rather than because you want to introduce bias, so why don't you find an image that's even more pertinent - like an image of a CPC?
h. See my response at Kevin's talk page. I don't know if Binksternet is a man or a woman, so I opted to avoid mis-gendering hir, but it's adorable how you think you have the authority to dictate others' use of inclusive language. (The "see what I did there" was in reference to oversight, as the report was issued for the oversight committee. Don't worry too hard about it.)
j. As Binksternet and Dylan said - undue weight. We detail a few cases about CPCs advertising falsely, but our sources say dozens of similar cases exist - on the contrary, yours is the only such case that anyone (Wiki editor or reporter) has managed to dig up, fault was neither found nor admitted, and no non-local sources appear to care.
k. Fair enough. I'll add a bit of info to clarify the difference from American CPCs.
-- Roscelese (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
a. - This is an encyclopedia, specificity is a virtue. We could just "false information" with medical information being encompassed in that and the nature of that information further being encompassed in that. As long as "routinely" is going to stay in there is no reason to deprive the reader of what, exactly, is being routinely discussed.
c. - I'm not, but we can't take your synthesis of sources and in turn accuse CPCs affiliated with Care Net of a crime with out it being explicitly stated by our sources.
g. - I actually looked for one first. This was the most pertinent one I could find. In all seriousness I did and am still thinking about putting a picture of Henry Waxman (we do have 2 of those) in the section about Henry Waxman. An article verging on 40 KB should have a few pics. This was the best I could find for now.
h. - Just guess, hir is dehumanizing.
j. - I'll go with Binkersternet, I never said there was more than one case, that's why I only wrote about one. - Schrandit (talk) 09:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
a. Exactly - specificity is a virtue. That's why it's good to make sure readers know it's not only false information about risks. Your thoughts on a subsection?
c. I've explained over and over again in all the ways I possibly can. If you think there's a legal issue, take it to noticeboard. Until you have either consensus or outside authority to remove this sourced information, stop.
g. That would be...interesting. But I don't think so. Since anything worth doing is worth doing well, if you insist on including pictures, find neutral pictures. Reverted...again.
h. Making things up out of thin air doesn't make you look smarter, it makes you look stupider. I recommend against it.
j. You're almost there! Including this one case, which by any account is a total outlier, violates WP:UNDUE. If there were more such cases, then it could be included.
k. The difference between American CPCs and Irish CPCs is that the former try to persuade women not to have abortions through counseling, while the latter, according to the cited source, try to achieve the same goal by providing "services and supports which make other options more attractive." We know that some American CPCs provide those things, and it may be the case that some Irish CPCs provide anti-abortion counseling, but it seems like the basic definition differs - can you suggest a phrasing that you'd prefer that still conveys this distinction? I thought mine was pretty good as it referred to the primary method that the centers use, ie. not claiming that "services and supports" aren't in the American arsenal as well.
-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
a. - Go to town. In the meantime our sources do not routinely allege anything other than information about abortion.
c. - I'm reproducing the text of our sources nearly word for word. I don't know how you can fault me for that.
g. - You're just removing this because you don't like it.
h. - Use that term in a professional context and let me know how long you keep your job.
k. - We know that most in America do as well. The sentence fragment you inserted is confusing and unnecessary. - Schrandit (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
a. I've already parsed that sentence for you. I won't do so again; just read further up in this section.
c. I've explained over and over again in all the ways I possibly can. If you think there's a legal issue, take it to noticeboard. Until you have either consensus or outside authority to remove this sourced information, stop.
g. No, I'm removing it because I think NPOV is an important standard to adhere to. You may not feel the same, but unfortunately for you, it's one of the core principles of this site.
h. Awwwww, you think you have the authority to fire me now! Have you ever even had a job, to say nothing of underlings? Don't worry, maybe you will one day if you work very very hard.
k. If "most" in America do as well, surely you can prove it with a citation. The citations currently in the article support the claim that some do, or even that many do, but not that most do. Not that it matters, since in order to remove that statement, you'd have to prove that CPCs' primary means of achieving their goal is the provision of services and supports, which is obviously not true.
-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
c. - I'll wait for the RfC.
g. - WP:I just don't like it does not apply.
k. - How do I provide an citation to negate your addition of unsourced OR? - Schrandit (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
g. Then it's a good thing that I cited one of Wikipedia's three core content policies as my rationale, instead of saying that I just didn't like it.
k. Some options: provide a source that indicates that our present sources (which indicate that American CPCs pursue their goal primarily through counseling) are unreliable, provide a different (reliable) source that indicates that American CPCs pursue their goal primarily through providing "services and supports," or provide a source that indicates that the Irish CPA/CPP website is not telling the truth about the centers' primary MO (you could try Irish newspapers). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
a. - You can't have your cake and eat it too. Our sources do not indicate that anything other than the relationship with breast cancer is routinely discussed.
g. - You have provided no rational for why NPOV would apply to a picture of a sonogram in a section about sonograms.
k. - The first and principle service delivered to Irish women in crisis pregnancies by their government is counseling. Services is not a category from which counseling is excluded. - Haymaker (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
a. Wrong.
g. Wrong.
k. Prove it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
a. - I don't think I am and it looks like Jakes concurs.
g. - Same.
k. - proven. - Haymaker (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
a. Then Jakes can come and discuss in talk like everyone else. No one is special.
g. You may not like the rationale. You may think "oooh, fetus!" overrides all NPOV concerns. But I did provide a rationale, so your assertion that I didn't is obviously false. If you're going to misrepresent things, why don't you misrepresent things that other people can't easily disprove for themselves? Doing what you're doing makes you look lazy as well as dishonest.
k. Unsurprisingly, your link doesn't say what you said it does (couldn't you make an effort and read the site?) but I recognize that you may be a little confused. Irish CPCs do offer counseling, but as is obvious from their counseling leaflet and strategy book, this counseling is not provided with the goal of dissuading women from abortion - that goal appears to be furthered, as the site itself says, through the aforementioned "services and supports." (Hence my referring above to the primary method of pursuing the goal. Maybe you're just confused, instead of deliberately conflating the provision of counseling with the attempt to reduce abortion, but even though they're the same in the USA, you see, it appears to work differently in Ireland.) I welcome your suggestion of better ways of phrasing the sentence that would still convey the idea that Irish and American CPCs operate differently. (We could also mention that Irish CPCs will discuss abortion options and largely reject the American system of directive counseling.)
-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crisis_pregnancy_center/Archive_3&oldid=1140139161"