Talk:Abby Johnson (activist)/Archive 1

Catholic

Abby and her partner were still waiting for an annulment ruling on 4 August. She was not confirmed as a Catholic at Easter although she has done RCIA. GerixAu (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The title of the article is "Dioceses around US welcome new Catholics at Easter" and it says, "In the Diocese Austin, Texas, Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood director in that state who has become pro-life, was becoming a Catholic [on Easter]." NYyankees51 (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? NYyankees51 (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think your article only predicted that Abby would enter the church. A Google search will provide my sources. GerixAu (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

e.g. here GerixAu (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

You were right, a new source confirms she hasn't yet entered the church [1]. Sorry about that. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Questionable content

While it's not in dispute that she's said things, should her quotes be just, well, quoted? It's not very informative as a biography to just to quote the person's claims verbatim and mostly without context. I think it's important than scammers have pages so people know about them, but their scams should be fairly and divisively put into context, not given without comment. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Prayer Warriors

In Abby Johnson (activist)#Work at Planned Parenthood:

• Please replace "prayer warriors with Prayer Warriors.
• Or if you prefer, feel free to create prayer warriors as an {{R from other capitalisation}} to Prayer Warriors

Thanks in advance. 72.244.204.164 (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Done Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Dead link

I was interested in checking the source numbered [10] but the article is not there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:483:4000:F2C7:1875:7EC4:B1A3:1CF (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I have now updated the article with the place where the source had migrated to. You can read the source here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Debunked

This is a very biased bio. Her claims were investigated and debunked by numerous sources, including Nate Blakeslee of Texas Monthly. There should be citations to reflect that, at least, and perhaps a section discussing it.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/the-convert/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2010/01/07/abby_johnsons_conversion_story_sounds_great_but_appears_to_be_false.html

https://rewire.news/article/2012/10/19/draft-abby-johnson-defends-statement-that-abortions-are-performed-on-women-who-ar/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pogovasse (talk • contribs) 00:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Abortion-rights movements#RFC: parity for abortion activism

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abortion-rights movements#RFC: parity for abortion activism. Elizium23 (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Wording

Regarding this edit:

1) would you please revert the improper addition of a wikilink inside a direct quotation?

2) supposing we agree that "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" have different meanings, the more precise (and less politically loaded) "anti-abortion" is clearly the correct term here: Johnson's notability derives 100% from her opposition to abortion in particular.

There are other things one could say, but I hope that this will suffice for now. --JBL (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Abby Johnson has taken positions against euthanasia, abortion, and the death penalty. She has professed support for pregnant and post-birth mothers and their born children. She has supported crisis pregnancy centers in their mission to end the demand for abortion. If only one person in these United States could be described as "pro-life", it is Abby Johnson. Elizium23 (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about in (1). It's not in the diff. Elizium23 (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is in the diff; a wikilink ended up within the quote "extremely pro-choice".

Johnson may have taken other positions that one might describe as "pro-life", but her notability seems quite strongly tied to her opposition to abortion, and the blanket replacement of the term "anti-abortion" with "pro-life" in cases where it is clearly addressing opposition to abortion is inappropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Well I believe that blanket replacement of the term "pro-life" with "anti-abortion" in cases where it is clearly referring to being pro-life is inappropriate. So perhaps we should compromise and only use the clearly applicable terms where appropriate. Offhand, I see zero appropriate places for "anti-abortion" so you'll have to convince me about their presence in this article. Elizium23 (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

So, "anti-abortion" in your view isn't the obvious term to describe "The organization seeks to help abortion clinic workers leave the industry."? Or the Washington Times source where it describes how her "about-face on abortion prompted her to resign her job, says she’s gotten flack for her decision from an unexpected quarter: her own church" and mentions not a thing about her views on the death penalty, euthanasia, or any other thing that you might want to stuff into the "pro-life" label, that's not describing "her conversion to the anti-abortion position"? --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Nat Gertler has expressed what I consider to be obviously right. Sure, for some broader definition of "pro-life" Johnson is that, too; but her notability derives 100% from her abortion-specific activities. By analogy, we don't describe her as "former Baptist" in the lead sentence because, while accurate, it has nothing to with why she's notable. Is there a single source in the article that discusses her other activities in a more than incidental way? I don't see any. I am reverting to the previous version. --JBL (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

If the article uses the self-description "pro-choice" then it will also have to use the self-description "pro-life". Otherwise there's a POV slant in there. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The unique appearance of "pro-choice" in the article text is a direct quotation. The idea that that is binding on anything else is absurd. --JBL (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I take it that you have no actual arguments to object against the term "pro-life" in general. It certainly is applicable in the subject's case. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Have you read the thread in which you are posting? Your behavior so far here is embarrassing. --JBL (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Anti-abortion vs. pro-life

There have been repeated recent IP attempts to replace the header Anti-abortion activism with Pro-Life activism or some slight variant thereof. As the section is solely about anti-abortion activities, the former is appropriate. Additionally, this falls under the general category of what was already discussed above under the Wording discussion. The header should not be changed without a new consensus being reached first. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Anti-abortion is used as a critical and possibly derogatory term for pro-lifers, by those who are pro-choice. For example, an article on purely pro-choice activities can also be characterized as "anti-life", by those are are pro-life. Since the person, Abby Johnson, associates with her activities as pro-life, I believe it is not foul play to change the anti-abortion verbiage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.76 (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

No, "anti-abortion" is about as clear as neutral a description of opposition to abortion as one gets. "Pro-life" is used as a term that fuzzes the actual matter being addressed, and is used to cast those of opposing views as opposing "life" rather than supporting "legal availability of abortions". The fact that she describes herself as being pro-life is no more vital than if she described herself as a "hero" or a "good person"; what she is known for is her opposition to abortion. (And in balance, you will notice that if you go to pro-choice as an article name here, you end up with an article not under that title, but under Abortion-rights movements.) Just about everyone is in favor of "life" and "choice"; abortion is a more complex question. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. It is absolutely NOT neutral. It is derogatory. It is KNOWN to be derogatory and must be removed immediately. There is no such thing as Anti-abortion. We are Pro-Life. Abortion ends life; life does not end abortion. Unless you concede that it's appropriate to change all Pro-Choice references to Pro-abortion. Maybe Pro-human-carnage? That would be closest to accurate, if accuracy is truly what you're aiming for. MarkoOhNo Message posted without timestamp, 14:20, 13 April 2019‎

Absolutely agree with Nat Gertler, and indeed it was well-stated. StarHOG (Talk) 14:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Ditto. It is also super-weird that people can't understand the difference between different kinds of negativity; "anti-death penalty" is a negative construction, and "dumb as a brick" is a negative characterization, but only one of those phrases would be problematic in Wikipedia. (Ok, weird-not-weird, but you know what I mean.) --JBL (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Then there should be no problem calling her activities Unborn-rights activities, if you can say that Abortion-rights activities is ok. And that wouldn't be problematic to Wikipedia, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.54.40 (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

If it is a legitimate term, we could debate it, but you can't just make-up terms for the sake of an argument. Wikipedia requires sources, so you would first have to show that this is a term used by notable third-party sources. I did a quick google search on unborn-rights and it only returned articles discussing the rights of the unborn, not "unborn-rights" as a term. StarHOG (Talk) 13:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you trying to phrase that as "gay rights", and thus suggesting that the unborn have voiced their ability to have options, or as in "gun rights", which is the rights of someone else to have access to the unborn, but somehow not including the mother in those rights? --Nat Gertler (talk) 11:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I have added the release of the Unplanned film and linked the title to the film's wiki page. --Abrady0830 (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

People are identified by what they desire to be identified. This is not a political statement, this is a statement of self-identification. There is no consensus for this article's section to be constantly renamed from how the majority of the population identifies this issue and the article's subject herself desires to be be self-identified. This cuts across political lines, as even Democrats are demanding to be called pro-life. Grossmisconduct (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of how people want to be identified, movements are not people and Wikipedia isn't a platform for advocacy or public relations. "Pro-life" is a WP:EUPHEMISM. Anti-abortion is a clear and neutral summary of her position. Grayfell (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

"movements are not people". Really? You've just invalidated your entire argument. Grossmisconduct (talk) 02:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Given the choice between a euphemism and a dysphemism, I'd prefer the former, per WP:LABEL. One side can either be represented with the euphemism "pro-choice" or the dyphemism "pro-abortion". A quick search shows the euphemism is 10x more common on wikipedia. The other side can either be represented with the euphemism "pro-life" or the dysphemism "anti-abortion". A quick search shows that euphemism is 2x more common on wikipedia. (btw, something along these lines, comparing relative frequency of euphemism usage, may be a good way to quantify wikipedia's liberal bias). The manual of style section on euphemisms is just about avoiding vague/confusing terms. There is no confusion about what pro-choice or pro-life mean, and both are used on wikipedia far more often than "pro-abortion"/"anti-abortion".Jwray (talk) 03:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

This is getting tendentious. For whatever reason, on Wikipedia, Anti-abortion movement is the term used—while Pro-life is a redirect. Gain the consensus to change that, on article talk page/s first. Any further edit warring that fails to take this into account will be viewed harshly. El_C 01:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Then let's create a consensus. This is 1 vote for pro-life. Pro-life: 1. Anti-abortion: 0. If the pro-choice group was called anti-life or pro-abortion, that would certainly have a negative connotation. Grossmisconduct (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

That's not what WP:CONSENSUS means, and this isn't a vote. As has already been explained, "pro-choice" is a redirect to abortion-rights movements. If a neutral and accurate description of a position has more "negative connotations" than the movement's preferred euphemism for itself, that's not Wikipedia's problem. Grayfell (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

"People are identified by what they desire to be identified." Only in certain specific categories of identification. I may want to be identified as "King of Spain", "one of the good guys", "master of the pan flute", or "the hottest thing this side of the Pecos", but none of those are going to be how I'm identified on Wikipedia. I'm not sure why you're trying to cover up that she opposes abortion, but it's a key fact and should not be hidden. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a better way of explaining what I was trying to get at by saying that movements are not people. People can call themselves whatever they want, and the people within the anti-abortion movement can call the movement whatever they want. Whatever it's called, it will still be a movement which is defined solely by its opposition to abortion. Trying to apply a group's PR to an individual within that group is misguided for several reasons. Grayfell (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

That would only be fair if you also described all the pro-choice activists as pro-abortion. A quick search shows the former label is 10x more common here. Jwray (talk) 03:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

If you would like to have a discussion about other articles, this is not the correct place to do it. This is the talk page to discuss editing this article. The phrase "pro-choice" appears exactly twice in this article, in direct quotation and the title of a reference, and certainly neither of those is going to be changed. Where it appears elsewhere in the encyclopedia is not relevant.

Based on past experience, I can assure you that there will not be consensus for a broad change from "anti-abortion" to the less accurate and somewhat polemical "pro-life", and there will not be consensus for a broad change from "pro-choice" to the less accurate and highly polemical "pro-abortion", but there will probably be consensus for changing "pro-choice" to "favoring abortion rights" or similar in places where that works in context -- feel free to invite me to any such discussion you initiate, and if I have a few moments to spare I will be happy to weigh in.

Finally, if you think this particular act of politically loaded characterization is the most important thing you could possibly be trying to accomplish on Wikipedia, probably you need a hobby whose values align better with your interests. --JBL (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

JBL, Your first point was completely correct, your opinion on the second point is probably correct, but your third point was unnecessary, please let us all keep this discussion civil. StarHOG (Talk) 14:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2019

Abby Johnson's story of conversion from Planned Parenthood worker to anti-abortion activist has been questioned. There are many contradictions pointed out in this article, which includes an interview with Johnson. Specifically her conversion story is thought by some to be a cover up for her being put on a performance improvement plan by her employer. Also she has routinely suggested that Planned Parenthood is not a nonprofit and that there is a profit motive at work in abortion services. 99Bagel99 (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Both the performance improvement plan and Johnsons claims that abortions were being pushed for profit are already covered in this article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood's statistics of abortion by percentage

There is a statement in the wiki about abortions being only 3% of services provided by Planned Parenthood, which is intended to invalidate Johnson's claims of PP's strong interests in performing abortions. Either that statistic should be removed as "leading the witness" or it should clarified what PP defines a service to be. They equate a birth control pill prescription to an abortion. This helps explain why the 3% comment from PP is not the full story and why it gives credence to Johnson's claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.83 (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The sentence under the 'Resignation' section,

   An article on Salon.com questioned Johnson's statements regarding financial incentives for abortions, asserting that abortions make up only 3% of Planned Parenthood's services, a figure PolitiFact described as "somewhat misleading."

is not supported by the cited articles. The first article is about non-governmental revenue amount, not total number of services rendered, and the 2nd article finds the claim

   97% of Planned Parenthood's work is mammograms, preventive care

to be "Half True", but this 2nd article also states that

   Based on this list, it’s accurate that abortion procedures only count for 3 percent of all services provided, meaning 97 percent of the services Planned Parenthood provides are other forms of reproductive and primary care.  

The problem here being that the conclusions of the Politifact articles are not about the claim "abortions make up only 3% of Planned Parenthood's services" at all, they are about a similar yet factually distinct claim. --Cowlinator (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The entire attempt to apply these articles to either the Slate article or to Abby is that they do not mention either of those things. As such, that qualifies as original research. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2019

Please change "four children" to "seven children": "She lives in Texas with her husband Doug and four children.[2]"

Source: http://www.abbyjohnson.org/thanks-for-stopping-by Other source: The text at the end of the 2019 film Unplanned actually said she has eight children. Kpikhart (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. (And both sources could be correct; she may have eight kids, one of whom has headed off.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

4/8/19 - unreliable source in Resignation section?

From the current revision of the article:

"Johnson says that in September 2009, she was called in to assist in an ultrasound-guided abortion at 13 weeks gestation. She said she was disconcerted to see how similar the ultrasound image looked to her own daughter's. Johnson, who previously believed fetuses could not feel anything while being aborted, says she saw the fetus squirming and twisting to avoid the vacuum tube used for the abortion.[6]"

The latter sentence cites an article from "Catholic News Agency" titled "Abby Johnson reveals details of pro-life turnaround and Catholic conversion." Does this present to anyone else as a biased source? The verbiage used throughout the article reads to me as being pretty definitively anti-abortion, signaling that the agency itself has a bias leaning that way. Not sure if this is a 100% reliable source in this case. Open to other opinions. Maybe reword this section to rely more on direct quotes from Johnson herself rather than paraphrases of the potentially biased article?

Lukebechtel (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Bias does not inherently make a source unreliable, so long as the facts they present are true. All sources are likely to have some leaning. In this case, CNA is being used just to cite Johnson as saying things that are consistent with what she has said elsewhere, so I see no reason to cast particular doubt on its accuracy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks! Lukebechtel (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Records from the Texas Department of Health

This request is now in two new headings on this talk page, not sure if it is appropriate to combine, but it seemed more logical than responding to the same request in two sections. StarHOG (Talk) 14:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

Information to be revised: In the sentence, "Although Johnson said the abortion was of a 13-week-old fetus, records from the Texas Department of Health show no such abortions performed at the Bryan clinic on the date in question." I propose adding the words, "one article says that" before "records." Then I propose adding the following sentences: "Whether the records actually show this is a matter of dispute. Johnson says that the Texas Department of Health would never release that information." Explanation of issue: The assertion that Texas Department of Health records show no abortions of a 13-week-old fetus on that date cites an article in Texas Monthly. Abby Johnson says that the Texas Monthly reporter sent her a copy of the documentation the reporter used. She says it is from Planned Parenthood and not from the Texas Department of Health. Furthermore, she cites the Texas Health and Safety Code 245.011 to say that the Department of Health would never release that kind of information. She also shows that the document sent to the reporter isn't the form that would have been sent to the Department of Health. References supporting change: Revmarple (talk) 00:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

References

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. MrClog (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Abby Johnson's Public Response to Texas Monthly Claim

In section 2.1 (Planned Parenthood/resignation), the following claim cited from Texas Monthly appears: "Although Johnson said the abortion was of a 13-week-old fetus, records from the Texas Department of Health show no such abortions performed at the Bryan clinic on the date in question.[9]"

The Federalist has just published a piece by Johnson in response to these claims, entitled, "Yes, I Really Did See An Ultrasound-Guided Abortion That Made Me Pro-Life".

I would edit the article in order to include Johnson's response, but am not able to do so because it has been placed under Extended Confirmed Protection.

I propose the following or similar wording be added by an editor who qualifies under Extended Confirmed Protection. I propose that it be added directly after the quote noted at the top of my entry (beginning with "Although Johnson said the abortion was..."):

However, Johnson has disputed this claim, stating that the Texas Department of Health does not release such information because of patient privacy issues. She also noted that the form Planned Parenthood reportedly submitted to the Texas Department of Health is not the correct form. Johnson also stated that there were other "glaring disparities" in the report. [10]

Ref: Johnson, Abby (April 8, 2019). Yes, I Really Did See An Ultrasound-Guided Abortion That Made Me Pro-Life. The Federalist. Retrieved April 9, 2019. Liam Patrick (talk)

So, both these requests ask that we use a primary source, Abby's statements, as a reference, which is against Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia mandates that we use 3rd party sourcing as often as possible. Therefore, an article from a reputable source, such as Texas Monthly, can be used. It can be noted that she rebukes them, but that is already taken care of by the fact that her statements about what she saw are already included in the article. If this is to be explored further, than what you need is a 3rd party source who looks at her claims and Texas Monthly's sources and provides an article about it that we can cite. StarHOG (Talk) 14:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@StarHOG: I don't know if this is what you're looking for, but the Catholic News Agency article discussed in the section below [2] includes the lines

Although Planned Parenthood has denied that this abortion ever took place, their assertion conflicts with other comments from Laura Kaminczak, who said she spoke with Johnson shortly after it occurred.

—perhaps that could be mentioned? Cheers, gnu57 15:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, gnu57. I think the addition of the statement/source you mentioned would be helpful. However, I would point out that I once dealt with an article in which a similar situation arose. And a moderator/editor who had authority stepped in and said that it is not an absolute prohibition in regard to allowing such statements from primary sources (especially when published in acceptable sources, rather than personal blogs/websites, etc), when they are helpful in defending the subject of an article against negative allegations made against them. However, the moderator also said that they should be used judiciously/sparingly. Your thoughts? Liam Patrick (talk)

So I looked at this some more and, unfortunately, what we have is kind of like this: Joe said he did a thing. Sarah said she talked to Joe and he told her he did a thing. Sarah's story doesn't confirm Joe's story, it is really the same story. Now, If Sarah interviewed Joe and then did some investigation with other agencies to verify Joe's statements, and told the readers her analysis, that is different. StarHOG (Talk) 17:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm getting confused. Do you mean Joe=Johnson, Sarah=Kaminczak? gnu57 18:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

No, Joe and Sarah are examples, like, Person A said they did a thing, Person B says they talked to Person A..... StarHOG (Talk) 20:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I understood that you meant it as an example; what I'm still confused about is how it lines up with this situation. Is "Person B" in the analogy (the one reporting A's claims without analysing them) Catholic News Agency or Laura Kaminczak? Here's the article about Kaminczak, by the way: [3]. She's a former coworker of Johnson who questions Johnson's account by saying that Johnson had seemed perfectly happy with the abortion procedure when they talked about it immediately afterwards. (Johnson denies Kaminczak's account of the conversation.) The Catholic News Agency article is noting that these two debunkings are mutually inconsistent. Cheers, gnu57 21:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I thought about this some more and realised that I had the wrong end of the stick: the fact that a third-party account (Kaminczak's in the Texas Observer) also contradicts Texas Monthly can be sourced to CNA, but it probably isn't worth including here unless we also give space to describing Kaminczak's other criticisms of Johnson. Setting aside that goose chase, how about tacking on a bald statement like "Johnson has questioned the validity of the records"? I think that can be sourced to Johnson as an assertion about her, rather than about the details of the forms. Cheers, gnu57 13:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we could have that, but the present moment should make clear that we cannot treat every claim of "fake news" as actually invalidating the source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I am all for statements like that, especially in Biographies of living persons. StarHOG (Talk) 16:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2019

Why does Wikipedia insist on calling Pro-Life supporters "anti-abortion"? We all know the answer; Wikipedia is a bunch of leftwingers. If Wikipedia had any integrity, it would at least be consistent and call people who support abortion "pro-abortion."

Wikipedia just keeps losing credibility. 67.78.207.202 (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

You can for example see Talk:Anti-abortion_movement#Requested_move_1_June_2018. "Pro-life" was thought to not be as descriptive, or even ambiguous to a reader. – Þjarkur (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

For a better understanding, and where to begin a discussion, see this article's archived talk here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abby_Johnson_(activist)/Archive_1#Anti-abortion_vs._pro-life StarHOG (Talk) 13:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Recent revert

This is copied from my talk page, with permission. --JBL (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• You recently reverted my addition to Abby Johnson (activist) with the message "zero reliable sources in this addition". Could you please clarify your reasoning for that so that I can do better? I added two sentences: the first stated that the case was ongoing (used two primary sources and one news source) and the second stated that it had been settled (used one primary source). My intended use for these sources was to cite that the case existed, and I'm confused as to how these are not reliable. Could you please clarify what you consider to be "reliable sources" so that I can properly add this information to the article? -Thunderforge (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

• • Hi Thunderforge,
  • In that edit, I count four ref tags. Three go to websites run by the ADF, which was the law firm representing Johnson. The only possibly independent source is from lifenews.com. I did a search of the reliable sources noticeboard for mentions of lifenews. It's come up in ten or so discussions, but mostly just in passing. There are two cases where there was actual discussion about its reliability, here and here. Based on those discussions, I feel comfortable with my stated reason for reversion. Broadly, I would want to see evidence of coverage in non-single-issue media in order to assess the due weight of this event, and to make sure what we write about it accords with a neutral perspective. --JBL (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Good questions, JBL, and especially pertinent since this is about a living person. The subject of sourcing, and what a reliable source is, is one of the core elements of wikipedia, and often, a core source for argument among editors! I would strongly recommend that you do a little reading of the wikipedia guidelines concerning this. It may answer your questions outright, or it might serve just to view the over-all attempt that wikipedia has to source its articles. Here are the ones I would recommend taking a look at: Primary and secondary sources, biographies of living persons and reliable sources, and a general overview of reliable sources. I do hope this helps. We, as editors, often try to paraphrase these rules when quoting them, but nothing says it better than the actual guidelines. StarHOG (Talk) 14:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

A more reliable ref to the 1st document (exactly the same court document) can be found at https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2677192/abby-johnson-v-planned-parenthood-of-houston/ . Another article with the same content as the 3rd ref is at https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/planned-parenthood-accused-of-filing-millions-of-dollars-in-false-medicaid-claims This last ref also includes part of the ADF quote used in the last sentence by Thunderforge.--Ferdilouw (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Court filings are not secondary sources, having them copied other places doesn’t help. For the reliability of the Washington Examiner, see here. —JBL (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Joel, court filing documents are very valuable sources and reliable. How are they supposed to be used in wikipedia? Ferdilouw (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Not really and no and extremely sparingly. (Even court rulings should be used cautiously; see e.g. WP:BLPPRIMARY.) If you’d like a third opinion try WP:RSN. —JBL (talk) 11:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Court fillings are extremely biased opinions by lawyers trying to make or prove a point. They typically only show one side of an opinion and frequently omit facts that don't help further their side of a case. You may inadvertently quote a court filling that has been deemed bogus by a judge. StarHOG (Talk) 13:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Quoting from her book

The following comment is copied from my user-talk page, with Ferdilouw's permission; it concerns these three edits [4] [5] [6]. --JBL (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Joel, thanks for being willing to talk to me.

1. Just btw: Is this the proper way I'm using to start a conversation in WP?
2. I would like to understand what is the argument about quoting a person (in general and in this case and why you have removed it)
3. Why does it seem to me as if a newspaper's second hand quote of a person/party/institution/company is more reliable than a first hand quote from the original source? I've seen the following been criticized as not a reliable source: "XYZ said bla bla bla" \< ref XYZ's own official site \>

Thanks for your wisdom Ferdilouw (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ferdilouw,

Thanks for the message. About your second point, quoting a subject of a biographical article is fine in principle; the question is about doing it in practice. In this case, I removed it because the information it conveyed was already captured by the preceding sentence, Johnson's wording is sensationalistic, and there is some dispute about whether the event she's describing actually happened. With respect to the third point, there are two issues: a primary source is certainly reliable for "XYZ said bla bla bla" but probably not reliable for "bla bla bla is what happened". But the other issue is related to issues of weight and emphasis: notable people say lots of things, and having secondary sources is very helpful to indicate which of those things is significant enough to mention. (Sometimes articles get larded up with quotes in order to "let the subject present their views", which is not an encyclopedic goal.) Would be happy to discuss further, although with the semester starting I may not be spending as much time on WP; perhaps others will weigh in, as well.

Best, JBL (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Howdy Ferdilouw, I would take a look at what wikipedia lays out, it is usually worded fairly well and gets all the pertinent information across better than your fellow editors. I would start reading HERE and stop reading at "Breaking News" StarHOG (Talk) 13:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Addition on Planned Parenthood 3% abortion claim

Under the section "Work at Planned Parenthood" subsection "Resignation", the following sentence appears:

"An article on Salon.com questioned Johnson's statements regarding financial incentives for abortions, asserting that abortions make up only 3% of Planned Parenthood's services,[5] a figure PolitiFact described as "somewhat misleading".[8]

I propose adding the following sentences, drawn from an article at Slate.com and another at Weekly Standard:

"However, an article at Slate.com claimed the 3% figure is misleading and that Planned Parenthood gets at least a third of its clinic income and 10% of all its revenue from abortion. The Weekly Standard claims that the data suggests abortion generates as much as 38.4% of Planned Parenthood's clinic revenues."

Links to Citations:

https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/05/3-percent-of-planned-parenthood-s-services-are-abortion-but-what-about-their-revenues.html

https://www.weeklystandard.com/john-mccormack/do-abortions-account-for-3-or-38-of-planned-parenthoods-activities

Liam Patrick (talk)

As those do not comment directly on Johnson nor on the articles being used, it would be synthesis to use them. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Either the 3% issue should be fully addressed, or fully removed from the article. Abby Johnson did address this issue in an interview at 0:47 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETi4KFJ9cEY As stated currently our article falsely casts doubt on her integrity. On the other hand, the 3% became almost an urban legend being quoted in many places. Let's report more honest facts here. Cecile Richards acknowledge that the 3% is misleading before Congress in 2015 https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4553000/abortions-86-government-planned-parenthood-revenue. Am I right to assume that we agree on the facts, but need to decide whether it should be in? --Ferdilouw (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the current form in which the Salon article is included is sub-standard and a bit coatrack-y. As an extended discussion of the question of how best to measure PP's activities is totally off-topic for this article, it would be nice to rewrite it to discuss the issue in a better way. --JBL (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Retaining a referral to the Salon 3% article serves no purpose. I suggest just remove it and keep it clean and accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferdilouw (talk • contribs) 17:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The specific claim about 3% hasn't been in the article since you removed it in mid-August. The purpose served by including the Salon article is to ensure that mainstream views (viz., that the veracity of Johnson's account of events is doubtful in important respects) are appropriately represented in the article. --JBL (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Court order

I am sure "gag order" is colloquial slang for an injunction, but the source does not say "restraining order" which I would believe is something else, which would physically prevent a person from entering premises or making contact with the plaintiff. I put what the source says. It also does not mention Coalition for Life. If Coalition for Life was affected by the injunction, we'll need a source which says so. Elizium23 (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

racial profiling

Vice has an article up on Johnson's supposedly voicing support for racial profiling. Vice Media is a yellow entry on the reliable sources perennial list, which means that views vary on its reliability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

This was also covered by The Independent (a higher-quality source) here, noting that she defended racial profiling by asserting that "statistically my brown son is more likely to commit a violent offence over my white sons." But overall it doesn't seem to have resulted in much coverage in reliable sources. Seems borderline; I don't have strong feelings about including vs. excluding. MastCell ^Talk 20:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The Daily Beast also saw fit to mention it, in passing, in the context of problematic speakers at the Republican National Convention. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it's borderline given coverage so far. --JBL (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Also covered by The Hill, The Cut, NY Times. skew-t (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Since there are several reliable news articles mentioning it, I definitely think that the inclusion of at least one sentence on this subject is warranted. I'm undecided whether it should be its own section. Maybe we should consider moving "Racial profiling controversy" and "Household voting controversy" under the "Politics" section. Krow750 (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Problems with today's addition

I deleted today's addition first because an unverified YouTube podcast is not a WP:RS. It was re-added with a deprecated unreliable source, so it needs to be deleted again. Furthermore, the category Category:American traditionalist Catholics falls under WP:EGRS and the accompanying high standards of sourcing and self-identification. If Johnson does not explicitly call herself a "Traditionalist" in a WP:RS then we cannot apply the category. I am unable to revert further due to WP:1RR. Elizium23 (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree and have reverted. —JBL (talk) 11:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

"Oh, goodness, are we having trouble with her Catholic status again?" quickly slides to "Oy, have I been editing this article for nine years now?!?" --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2021

change anti-abortion to pro-life Nicoleta E. Luca (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

More to the point, there is a well-established consensus not to use less accurate and more polemical terms when accurate, neutral terms are available. See e.g. this discussion from the talk-page archive. --JBL (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

There is consensus to NOT use that term THROUGHOUT Wikipedia's articles: Please see Talk:Anti-abortion movements/FAQ Q: "Should this article's title be pro-life movement?" A: No. Wikipedia does not use euphemisms. The term "pro-life" is a branding or marketing device and does not reflect the sole focus of the movement, which is opposition to abortion. The fact that the two sides officially call themselves "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is not a reason for Wikipedia to prefer those terms, since neither is neutral, nor accurately describes their positions. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Concur with Avatar317 above. StarHOG (Talk) 14:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2021

CHANGE: “ compared to Norma McCorvey, the "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court case that legalized abortion in 1973. McCorvey joined the anti-abortion movement in 1995.[14]”

TO: compared to Norma McCorvey, the "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court case that legalized abortion in 1973. McCorvey joined the anti-abortion movement in 1995[14] and later admitted that she never really supported the anti-choice movement, but “took their money and they put me out in front of the camera and told me what to say, and that’s what I’d say.”

CITATION: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/jane-roe-from-roe-v-wade-made-a-stunning-deathbed-confession-now-what/2020/05/20/fad9d296-9a09-11ea-89fd-28fb313d1886_story.html%3foutputType=amp 2601:600:C67F:6030:D021:BE5:7A3D:D561 (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:COATRACK; what McCorvey has done or claims to have done is irrelevant to a biography about Abby Johnson. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2021

Change "insurrectionists" to "peaceful pro-democracy protesters." Beriajohn (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.--JBL (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)