Talk:Lila Rose/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Noteworthy?

Is this person remotely noteworthy?173.8.220.209 (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, you looked her up, didn't you? Not at levels of O'keefy yet, but may approach them.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources for improvement

I'm sure I'll find more, and will add as I find them, this article may become a bit of a long term project for me. _WikiMan^One 00:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Added to: 01:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

User Haymaker continues to add material that constitutes undue weight to this article. I have asked him to start a discussion in my reverts and he has refused to do so. Thus, I am starting this thread to discuss changes to the article hoping that we can reach consensus. _WM^O 20:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Those stories have received attention from national media outlets and are the reason that the subject is notable. I don't see how the could be considered undue. - Haymaker (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

They are all already summarized. Inclusion of just her supposed stings that actually resulted in some finding but not those that are clearly hoaxes does not constitute due weight. _WM^O 21:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Which content and addition is this? Off2riorob (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No mention is currently made of her Bermingham investigation, which led to punitive action by the State against planned parenthood. - Haymaker (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It is directly can be quoted to have had an effect as you mention resulting in action then it sounds worthy of inclusion to me, which diff id it? Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Birmingham, Alabama Planned Parenthood video

An undercover video shot by Rose at a Birmingham, Alabama abortion clinic recorded the staff saying that the sometimes "bend the rules" regarding the mandatory reporting of statutory rape. Following the release of the tape the State of Alabama placed the abortion clinic on a one year probation and the Department of Health found that Planned Parenthood's actions violated State Law.

comments

Needs to be edited for NPOV first, I don't have time right now but I will later on today. Also, due weight must also be given to the multiple "stings" she conducted that turned up absolutely nothing at all and were calling hoaxes. _WM^O 21:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

What about the above text do you think is NPOV? - Haymaker (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the first source as it doesn't seem to be reliable. I would keep the CBS source as that is reliable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - ::It has one national citation which is good the other one lifenews is a bit opinionated and touch and go if its really a RS, you could ask at the WP:RSN if anything is used from there it would clearly need attributing well. Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There is also this http://www.cbs42.com/content/localnews/story/Planned-Parenthood-Caught-Breaking-the-Law/C41MzG-1vU-u0KRpHkAl3A.cspx, I can hunt for more, if needed. - Haymaker (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That one is also fine - those two are plenty. Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Why are we including that incident but not the others that were called "hoaxes" or worse? Its undue weight and pov unless the article is balanced and includes mention of the failed ones as well rather than painting a glowing portrait of only her most successful sting. _WM^O 22:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this one appears very noteworthy and if one has gone especially badly then expanding details about that would imo also be beneficial - we don't want to paint her in a rosy light if its really a mixture of success and not so success. Off2riorob (ta[lk) 22:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That's what's going on, I don't see what the rush to add this positive information is. Let's wait till we have more info so we can uphold balance in an article that already seems to paint a pretty rosy picture of her. [1] _WM^O 22:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

We should hold of adding information until we also have bad information to add? - Haymaker (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This article is already very positive, the addition of just one of many so-called "stings" which also happens to be the only one that is widely considered successful without the addition of information of the multitude of frivolous stings would definitely not be neutral. _WM^O 22:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Why not just add the sourced material we have and let the reader decide what is positive or negative? - Haymaker (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we'll add that sourced material, but when we add it, lets also include information of the hoaxes she has perpetrated. _WM^O 22:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any such information? - Haymaker (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely.

- http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/01/lila-rose-5-facts-on-the-woman-behind-the-planned-parenthood-ho/ -this one is probably a WP:RS Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- http://veracitystew.com/2011/02/04/anti-abortionist-lila-roses-latest-video-is-another-hoax/
- http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102010014
- http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102030016
- http://slatest.slate.com/id/2282872/

etc._WM^O 22:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you understood (forgive me if you did) those website are all people who chose to describe Rose's videos as hoaxes. They're talking about the same incidents, just choosing to describe them in different terms. - Haymaker (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources like aol news, slate magazine and media matters chose to label them hoaxes. That should be included in any inclusion of the "stings". _WM^O 22:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And CBS, ABC and the New York Times and so many others do not. A cracked.com-style list from aol news and a planned parenthood press release reposted by slate are borderline RSs and media matters definitely is not.

Why isn't Media Matters reliable? We quote World Net Daily on Planned Parenthood, their reliability pales in comparison to Media Matters. _WM^O 22:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

We quote WND on planned parenthood? I would be surprised. - Haymaker (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Note, Off2rio recent edits rolled back, please don't embed your comments within mine. _WM^O 22:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say, stop being so petty, but I can't be bothered - as I said - If you read WP:RS and before you present a bunch of non reliable external links to support your case then other users won't have to bother pointing the fact that your links are a bunch of non reliable externals will they. The two mediamatters blogs are not imo wiki reliable either, at least not unless they are written by someone notable or respected in the topic area- the link http://mediamatters.org/blog/ is only in six BLP articles on the whole of this wikipedia - these two are written by Jeremy Schulman - Ned Resnikoff - Off2riorob (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There has been some concern that Media Matters isn't reliable. Personally I think they are, but most don't. I would not include WND as they have a biased slant to their news. So those two are straight out on consensus (which I don't have time to look up right now). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I could be persuaded to accept a media matters blog if it was uncontroversial content - One of the six BLP article that have a link is the Obama article, this one http://mediamatters.org/blog/201002260024 - Off2riorob (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The last time Media Matters was discussed, consensus was established that is is considered a reliable source. Thats from the WP:RSN. _WM^O 00:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is an oft repeated and different outcome monthly - imo - when as website is only linked to six BLP articles that shows the community in action that it has little respect as reliable - I think if I wanted to use it for specific content then I would take it there to the noticeboard to ask there. The generally accepted websites and publications can and do have thousands of links to them from here. http://mediamatters.org/blog/ has only six. - kinda speaks for itself doesn't it. Anyway - in BLP articles you should not look for the weakest cites you can use but the strongest you can find - I am sure better ones can be found, imo it is better to spend a little time doing that. Also - you look a bit more carefully the difference is often in the minor points - the discussion you have linked to at the WP:RS noticeboard is about http://mediamatters.org to which there are over a thousand links from here to there, but your links have that little extra added bit in the title blog - http://mediamatters.org/blog - and you know how many of them there are linked to from here - yes, six.Off2riorob (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if it were a RS, I think it has been demonstrated that the folks calling these videos "hoaxes" are in so small and politicized a minority as to not warrant inclusion. - Haymaker (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiManOne with the save. OK, MediaMatters is a reliable source. Sorry for the confusion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

But the blogs on it are slightly different I would say and I doubt they have editorial control. Off2riorob (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if they were, and I must stress this, the point they're being used to support is the argument that the media is calling these videos "hoaxes". Scores of RSs can be brought out to the contrary. - Haymaker (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No, they're being used to support the fact that they have been called hoaxes by critics, and that some members of the media such as AOL.com, Slate Magazine, Talking Points Memo, etc. have referred to them as hoaxes. _WM^O 04:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

quote marks

We don't put quote mark on headers like that, why are they desired? Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I can only assume it is to disparage the subject. - Haymaker (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

We need a better title for that section. _WM^O 21:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - "Activism"- in a way as to assert ... something that she is only a " " activist and not a real one..? Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, any suggestions? I don't myself mind activism as the section does seem to be about such things and we have in the first section - Lila Rose is a pro-life (anti-abortion) activist - so finding a section titled that doesn't seem undue - do you assert she isn't an activist? Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"Actions against Abortion?" "Work with Live Action?" I'm sure there are other suggestions. _WM^O 21:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

How about just leaving it [Activism], which is neutral and descriptive?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. - Haymaker (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the name of the section, I think it needs a rewrite. It seems to have some WP:UNDUE problems and slight NPOV problems. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

WM1 said we quote WND but I don't think we do anywhere (and probably shouldn't) - Haymaker (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

New Jersey planned parenthood video

This is probably the single most covered aspect of Rose's career. I attempted to add the following text and sources but it was blindly reverted, what do ya'll think;

Rose received national coverage after releasing a video showing a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic manager coaching two fake sex-traffickers on how to avoid being caught by state and federal laws while seeking abortions and other services for their underage prostitutes. After the video's release Planned Parenthood fired the manager.^[1]^[2]^[3]

Include it with caveats in reporting that this was one of (I don't remember how) many visits and that Planned Parenthood reported it to the FBI, etc. We need to tell the whole story, not just the anti-abortion propaganda. _WM^O 22:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Visits by who? - Haymaker (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Additions

Again, the sections constitute undue weight and also had a serious npov/weasel problem. Again, discuss first. :) _WM^O 00:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

They have received national media attention. Why are they undue? - Haymaker (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Do we have to go over this everywhere you edit? Go read the discussion at Talk:Christianity and abortion and archives of Talk:Planned Parenthood. Just because something received media attention does not mean it is due, particularly when other portions of the article are lacking. _WM^O 00:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason why the entry from Haymaker was undue. I think given the users comments on this talk page, such as calling things a "hoax" and "anti-abortion propaganda", indicate that WikiManOne is only interested in edit warring, pushing a POV and blocking progress towards a neutral article. Interestingly enough, I see he is in trouble for canvassing so it should not be long before he is blocked. Truthsort (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If this is about [2], I have removed it as a BLP violation. The plain simple fact is that none of the four links cited says most of what is in here, there is a Communist Party USA link that is almost totally unrelated, the fictional sex ring scenario depicted is a "hoax" but the passage incorrectly calls the "work" a "hoax". In accordance with our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, contentious material about living persons is to be removed immediately and should not be restored without consensus. --B (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Debate over Rose's/LiveAction tactics

There is a quite large uprising in many parts of the pro-life blogosphere regarding the ethics of the tactics used to portray PP and/or its employees as such. Here is but one example, and there are many others. However, these are without question not reliable for anything other than the opinions of the authors, and commenters where appropriate. If a good neutral third party reliable source is found pointing out the breadth and nature of the debate, it would be a welcome addition to the article. Of course, neither Witherspoon nor Pareen et al are neutral lol. 96.227.230.57 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC).

This is a horrible article

I'm sorry, but this is my first time editing wikipedia. I created an account because I saw this article. This article is so nauseatingly positive of Rose it's not even funny. The Salon editorial is taken out of place, it makes her sound like a freedom fighter or a mainstream figure of some sort. Does wikipedia have any rules to make sure articles are fair? I've read wikipedia for a while and noticed it's bias but this just takes it to a whole new level. If not I'm going to start making edits to this one to make it fair. This is soo crazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sizzletimethree (talk • contribs) 03:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, where should the editorial go, in your opinion? It is after all just that, an editorial, and this is an encyclopedia, not an essay collection. And could you be specific, what changes do you propose? And you didn't see the article before I went over it, the writing read like it was written by someone with a combination of Tourette's and multiple personality disorder lol. THAT was nauseating. Now obviously I think it reads fine, or at least better, so if you think its fair make a suggestions and we can discuss it. 96.227.230.57 (talk)

Regarding the tone you perceive, please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and note especially the subsection of that policy page at WP:WEIGHT. I have not looked at the article so I neither agree nor disagree with your assessment that it is a panegyric but I wanted to provide you the relevant policy addressing your comments. See also WP:PEACOCK. By the way, please remember to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages such as here (but never in articles). To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

See! There is a rule, now we need to make this article follow it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sizzletimethree (talk • contribs) 04:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Help me!

Is this how that tag works? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sizzletimethree (talk • contribs) 03:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Help!

Like this? {{helpme}}

Yes, like that. I have nulled it now. If you have a use for the template, write out a question and then place the template above it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Not working

I'm going to delete everything on that article so it can start over and e more fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sizzletimethree (talk • contribs) 04:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

The "known for" section currently lists "Activism against Planned Parenthood". Rose is known for other things and the phrasing is unusually negative. I'd like to suggest "Pro-life activism" as a more inclusive text. - Haymaker (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Its not negative, that's exactly what she does. Is her activism on behalf of this "consistent life ethic" that the people at that discussion keep referring to or is it specifically directed against Planned Parenthood? Right now it seems her notability is derived entirely from her campaigns against PP, if I'm wrong please point out the instances where she's received independent coverage for other things and I will reconsider my position. _WM^O 23:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I should clarify, I would assume that she and her supporters don't consider being against PP to be a negative, but I guess if that's your opinion, that's certainly something to discuss. _WM^O 23:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

[3]. Sure, she received a lot of recent attention for Planned Parenthood in particular, but it would be like saying Steve Jobs is known solely for creating the iPhone. --B (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Her work against PP is in the lead. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Would you please refrain from making edits unilaterally when they're still under discussion? The Steve Jobs analogy is irrelevant, so perhaps we should use our WP:RS which calls her a 'right wing activist,' sounds fine to me, although I think 'Activism against Planned Parenthood is more specific. The other option is to just remove it entirely, I'm not sure that info box is very helpful. _WM^O 00:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

In how many articles is the "known for" that narrowly construed? For instance, Barry Horne was a terrorist who firebombed stores that sold leather-based products and his "known for" says "Animal rights activism". Whether she is going after a highly visible target like Planned Parenthood or doing other things, it's clearly pro-life activism. Ingrid Newkirk's "known for" is the general field of "animal rights advocacy" (rather than just being known as the founder/President of PETA). --B (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That's because PETA's advocacy is multi-pronged and does a wide number of things related to animal rights advocacy (if all it had focussed on being anti-KFC, then it would probably say that..), I'm a supporter of PETA. How about we go this route, like Paul Watson's article, just say "Occupation: Activist," fair? _WM^O 01:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The gal has a number of things going for her, the common thread is that they're all pro-life. Looking at other BLPs in the Pro-Life Activist category, of the ones that had the "known for" field filled in they're listed as "Social and political activism", "Roe v. Wade", "Pro-life activist, author, musician". On the abortion side, there is "Sex education", "Pulitzer Prize winner", "Sisterhood is Powerful and Mama". All of these people could be described with what they were against, they're all described in terms what they did/were for. - Haymaker (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"Revolution"

The source says "The videos, Rose acknowledges, are a weapon, and like Mr. O'Keefe, she is deploying them toward revolutionary ends." Whether she herself or the article describes them as a revolution is unclear. It doesn't seem to me that Rose calls them a revolution. At the very least, the quotation marks should be removed so that it doesn't look like she said it. (As for the guerrilla tactics part, I was using control-find and was spelling "guerrilla" wrong, so I didn't see it in the article. My apologies.) NYyankees51 (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The headline of the article:

"For Lila Rose, Planned Parenthood video 'sting' is about revolution"

that seems to imply, that's her opinion. _WM^O 00:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw that too and was concerned about whose word it was. I googled and couldn't find anyone else using the word "revolution". It's not in quotes in the article, so at a minimum, it shouldn't be in quotes here. There are probably ways to incorporate that thought and the next thought into a single sentence that doesn't put words in anyone's mouth. --B (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Undid cquote

Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Block_quotations:

Format a long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins. Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template, which are reserved for pull quotes). Block quotations can be enclosed between a pair of <blockquote>...</blockquote> HTML tags; or use {{quotation}} or {{quote}}.

What do you guys think of using block quotation? _WM^O 01:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

An anon has paraphrased the quote on "polemic" grounds. I don't see what the problem is in using her own words. Lionel (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Article being wiped clean

This article is becoming more and more of a glowing pov portait of her by the second. Why was the Salon.com editorial removed? Why isn't it clearly stated that the Alabama clinic was placed on probation under a "technical violation" rather than a full blown, intentional, violation of state law like the article makes it sound like? Those two issues need to be fixed. _WM^O 01:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I have also tagged extremely supportive wording in the article. _WM^O 01:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Why did you tag the Life Prized award? And btw your title of this section could be construed as an accusation of vandalism, and of course, that would violate WP:NPA. Lionel (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It is clearly not accusing anyone of vandalism, to insinuate so would be ridiculous. The Life Prizes award was tagged because it included a quote which used the terminology "respecting the sanctity of human life" which obviously endorses the WP:FRINGE viewpoint that a fetus is somehow a life. _WM^O 01:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is the description of the award, and it is quoted, and she is pro-life, so I really don't see what the objection is. Lionel (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess you could always add something criticizing the award... Lionel (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Your tags don't make any sense. Where's the POV in this? Since when do we tag any and all quotes we disagree with even if they're relevant to the article, as per Lionelt above? Why is "Pro-life" POV when the article Pro-life is entitled "Pro-life"? I'm removing the tags for misuse and fundamental misunderstanding of their purpose. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You've already removed it. You can use quotations to promote a pov, I still don't understand the unilateral removal of the Salon.com editorial that was the only thing giving a small amount of balance to the article... _WM^O 01:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

There is still a dispute on the page, therefore the tags should not be removed. _WM^O 01:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's helpful to explain the issue when you tag an article. You didn't. The tags should be removed until your specific issues are stated. Lionel (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is the problem, we have editors pushing a pov here, and although done in good faith its tainting the article. I tagged specific areas in the article that are of concern, that is the appropriate use of the tags. _WM^O 01:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

But it seems you don't understand what NPOV is or what the tags are for. The quotations you tagged represent the opinion of the speaker. They are not being passed off as the opinion of Wikipedia. You not liking what the quotation says or the title of an article is not grounds for tagging it with NPOV. I'm happy to work with you to create balance where the community agrees it is needed, but we can't overhaul the article based on your opinions. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I checked the edit sum. salon.com was removed per WP:UNDUE. Specifically, I suspect this: "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." I have to agree. An editorial from salon.com is weak. Lionel (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. There's no way Salon.com should be given a paragraph-long soapbox when the article is only eight paragraphs long. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It was an editorial, it shouldn't have been used at all. - Haymaker (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The pic

The pic in the article now has her looking like a Benedictine nun. Has anyone seen this in the CS Monitor? This pro-lifer is smokin'! This dowdy pic is totally POV and we need to get one that expresses her hotness. Lionel (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's image use policy. We only use images of living people that are licensed under a free content license. --B (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Although flickr has a MUCH better photo of her at http://www.flickr.com/photos/24711181@N05/3224086212/ ... the purple fringing is terrible (just as it is in our image) but at least it is in the background. --B (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Problem fixed. --B (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Now... where can I get 8x10s? LOL! Lionel (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

- Gags** 8x10s? _WM^O 01:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I have seen her in the flesh, and even that pic doesn't do her justice. PhGustaf (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

OK guys... talk pages are about improving the article Mattnad (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Violation of Controversial tag

Just a reminder that this article is tagged controversial. An editor has just made major changes to the article without discussion. Continued violation of the tag could result in warning, etc. Lionel (talk) 07:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Requesting any user with rollback to rollback to last version by 50.9.55.111. Thanks Lionel (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything that looks like clear vandalism, I don't think we're allowed to use rollback here... _WM^O 07:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Funny how you guys weren't following the discuss first earlier today... anyways, I was going to leave her a note about making controversial changes but you've already done that. _WM^O 07:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait, who is "her"? --B (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Sizzletimethree. How he deduced her sex is beyond me. Lionel (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess I had no basis for that, I just guessed based on the username since I wouldn't expect a guy to call himself "sizzle," but I could be wrong> I'm also guessing that "B" is a guy and "Lionelt" is a girl based on username, don't correct me if I'm wrong since I'm not trying to WP:OUT anyone. :) _WM^O 20:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Either way, I'm not making substantial edits to this article anymore. Not one of those I'm going to work on from semi-retirement. _WM^O 20:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Umm, I think/assume that "Lionel" is a man's given name and "T" is a middle initial or surname initial. If the user doesn't at least give a strong hint as to their gender I usually say, "the user" or, less commonly "he or she". It's a bad habit that I admit sometimes I have used the grammatically incorrect "they" or to use "he" when the gender is unknown. And yes, I am male. --B (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Wikipedia has a table of all of the possible gender-neutral ways to refer to someone. Gender-neutral_pronoun#Summary --B (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, if I am a girl, then my comments under "The pic" above would qualify me as a lesbian. Have you ever browsed my Contributions? This is the funniest thread ever written on wikipedia! Lionel (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I just manually reverted the major/controversial changes. Hope I got everything. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Why so positive? & Technical Violation!!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

This article makes this person look good and misuses the quotes. I'm just going to delete it so we can start over an make it good. This article dismissed the editorial and makes it sound like only one person thinks that, an doesn't actually say what it says. It needs to be fixed. I'm going to change the thing to say that it wa only a technical violation because that's what the source says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sizzletimethree (talk • contribs) 20:29, 9 February 2011

I think the article was fairly well sourced. Which editorial were you referring to, which part of the article didn't you agree with? Banaticus (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, you don't have to use {{helpme}} here - there are enough people watching this article that anything you ask will be noticed reasonably fast. If you need general editing help, please use {{helpme}} on your talk page (User talk:Sizzletimethree). --B (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I thinking fixed it. We need to still make the article more fair! Its still too nice to her, it needs some other stuff too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sizzletimethree (talk • contribs) 05:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

In what way is it "too nice" and what "other stuff" do you suggest? NYyankees51 (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

How about her ties to Andrew Breitbart? 24.118.169.210 (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Call it an "informal" poll/suggestion (rather than a formal proposal) ... what would everyone think about merging this article with the Live Action article and redirecting this article to that one? As it stands now, 90% of this article is going to duplicate Live Action as basically everything she is notable for was done under the auspices of Live Action. BLP1E isn't exactly on point since there are several discrete events ... but it just seems silly to have these two articles that will be substantial duplicates. --B (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Support, Great idea, everything here is just duplication. _WM^O 01:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Very weak oppose - both articles are being expanded, I think they won't end up as total duplicates. Things are still developing, both in terms of that organization and the work on that article so I'd prefer to wait a week or so and see what happens. At the same time if there is a merger they can always be split later. I'd rather see them kept as 2 different articles but at there really wouldn't be any harm in a merge at this point. - Haymaker (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Also - the LA article is still rather small, if anything I figure we would be better off with it being merged here. - Haymaker (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Opposed I think Live Action is notable in its own right. Since events are still unfolding, we should keep both articles and return to this when the dust settles. Lionel (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with Lionelt, let's wait awhile. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm confused, whether the stings were her work or by other people in the organization apart from her, either way they are appropriate to cover in an article about the organization. My question is, what is there that we want to say about Lila Rose that doesn't duplicate things you would want to say about the organization? --B (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  - Never mind, I didn't really read into the question. Disregard what I said before! NYyankees51 (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Support merge, given current content. Does anyone else know noteworthy information about her that isn't directly related to her Live Action work? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Support - Seems like lots of the detail is or could be duplicted, and that she only notable in relation to her group - I am not sure which way but I think its usual to move to the org. Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
'Support - She and the organization are synonymous and this fork is little more than a stub.Mattnad (talk) 07:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Seeing sufficient interest here, I have made the formal merge proposal. Please see Talk:Live_Action_(organization)#Merge_discussion if you wish to opine. --B (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

National Catholic Register:Non-binding poll

An editor objects to using NC Register as a source; they claim it's not WP:RS. See comments above. Do you support usage of NC Register as a source in the article?

Support Lionel (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not operate on polls, it operates on consensus. Otherwise it would turn into mob rule. If you want to use the register, take it to the WP:RSN. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 08:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This poll is only being used to stimulate discussion and generate consensus. Let's see what the rest of the editors have to say before we bother the good folks at RSN. Lionel (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I added the words "non-binding" to the heading then, as polls do not determine what goes into articles. Either way, the only way this is going to be settled is either to not include the register as a reliable source or to have RSN settle this. If we're going to use the Catholic Register as a reliable source to talk about Catholics, perhaps we could also use the Watchtower (in their news coverage) as a reliable source for Witnesses? Hell, we could even use Christianity Today as a reliable source for Christian leaders. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 08:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

We use The Advocate extensively, and sometimes exclusively in LGBT articles. In fact it is used extensively in Traditional Marriage articles as well. Lionel (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's not discriminate based on sexual orientation here, we also use the New York Times and other primarily straight publications as sources on straight people, which is the same thing. That doesn't really alter this discussion. That's because they (the Advocate) are reliable, and I believe the advocate has been discussed at the RSN (might be wrong), either way, nobody challenged it so its a mute point, and irrelevant to this discussion. If you want to challenge the advocate, go right ahead and apply tags to it in some article and we'll see how the RSN goes on it. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 08:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the link in question and the claim it is/was being used to source? WP:RS says, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." So answering this question apart from knowing the particular link in question and the statement it is used to source is rather meaningless. In general, the National Catholic Register is a respected source. Unlike, say, WorldNetDaily, Media Matters, or DailyKos, they don't pass off extreme bias as though it were truth. But making a blanket judgment is not useful. --B (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that WikiManOne is just trying to be disruptive. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

NCR is being used in the article as a source for statements by individuals, not for rock-hard facts. I'm not sure what is being questioned here? Are you asking if we can reliably believe that those people said those things? - Haymaker (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

How do we know they weren't taken out of context? How do we know they were reported in a balanced way? We don't, because the Register is not reliable. Why should we believe anything from a church that promotes sexual abuse by its priests, as well as is out of touch with society and doesn't seem to respect women? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 03:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

This shouldn't even be dignified with a response. Any chance of getting the ACTUAL article and/or factual claim that you are challenging or is this just a forum for bigotry? --B (talk) 03:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiManOne, it's not a good idea to further damage your credibility. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the tags. If someone is not comfortable with that yet, or WikiMan provides a legitimate reason, replace them. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want to say it, but this does seem to be a case of WMO's prejudice against Catholics. That is not justification for challenging the source. This amounts to nothing more than WP:DONTLIKEIT. The consensus is to remove the tags. Lionel (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Prejudice? Thank you for the personal attack, however, this is not a case of don't like it. It strains credibility to claim consensus on only three other editors. I will "shut up" if the WP:RSN rules in the Register's favor, otherwise, I insist that the Register is not any more reliable than any other sectarian newspaper like the Watchtower. Feel free to WP:PROVEIT that it is a reliable source. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 00:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding [4] (currently source #14), the author of the article is Wayne Laugesen. As such, it should be viewed with "skepticism", but to reject everything it says as automatically invalid is a ridiculous standard. For example, where he quotes Peter Breen, there is no reason that we shouldn't accept that as an accurate quote barring evidence to the contrary. It's not like we're offering this quote to prove that what Peter Breen said is true - it's only being used to offer both sides (PP's side says this, Lila Rose's side says this). Similarly, there is no particular reason to believe that he is not accurately relaying Ken Cuccinelli's comments, though if it was said on FoxNews, we should be able to find a transcript and get it straight from the horse's mouth. I don't accept your contention that everything they say should be out of hand rejected simply because the RCC disagrees with abortion. Like any other source, controversial claims should be reviewed but two of the three claims aren't even controversial - they are just direct quotes from someone else. --B (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If its really an easily checkable/reliable due weight claim, it shouldn't be that hard to find a mainstream media outlet that reports on it. As for this subject, I see no reason why we should use NCR, we could use the New York Times, LA Times, etc. No reason to use the NRC, especially an article with dubious perspectives as that one is. If the Attorney General's comments are notable, we should be able to find it from other publications. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 14:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Every editor here, except you, finds NCR acceptable. What makes you think that all by yourself you can hold the article hostage? Lionel (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Lopsided

I added a lopsided tag to the article. The article only provides Rose's view of the stings and fails to provide "the other side" or other organization's balanced viewpoints of Planned Parenthood's defense. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 19:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're referring to the absence of descriptions of the stings as "hoaxes." You already presented your sources here, and after lengthy discussion the consensus found them wanting.Lionel (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an article about Lila Rose. Not people's opinions of her. We can't be adding criticisms of everything she's said or done, that would make the article look like this: "Lila Rose conducts stings on Planned Parenthood. Liberals think her stings are deceptive. Lila Rose is pro-life. Planned Parenthood thinks that's stupid. Lila Rose likes soda. Her cousin thinks soda is unhealthy. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Very cute hearing you guys claim you and a few other editors somehow constitutes consensus, not so easy. We can't simply post her ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims without posing the very real reservations that have been expressed about them. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 06:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with NYyankees51. The article is about her and her views. Nearly every sentence in the article is backed up with appropriate sources some from sources that are antagonistic towards her. Just because you happen to disagree with her does not mean you should seek a counterpoint to every sentence or put lopsided tags next to them. 66.210.101.146 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

"Ridiculous"? WikiMan, your POV is showing. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It appears we have carefully and deliberately considered WMOs issues for his placement of the Lopsided tag and have consensus that the tagged content is w/in policy. I pointed out that sources he himself presented portraying PPs position were evaluated previously and discounted. Of course nothing is preventing WMO from adding RS content keeping in mind that this is a BLP article and sources have to adhere to a higher standard. I recommend, noting WMOs objection, that we remove the tag forthwith. Lionel (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I have readded the tag, my complaints have not been addressed. You cannot include statements about rose attacking organizations without their response. Nice try, but that is not NPOV. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 08:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Rather than peppering unbalanced opinion tags through the article, why don't you provide something that counterbalances it. You tagged a sentence which asserts that Lila Rose claimed that Planned Parenthood broke laws and covered up abuse. Why don't you find supporting material that shows Planned Parenthood claims that it did not cover up abuse and break laws? You may not agree with the National Catholic Register but challenging it as a reliable source is unwarranted. It is published both in print and online and has no record of publishing falsehoods. The material sourced in this article just provides citations for opinions and quotes that provide context for the article. You are free to balance those opinions from people from other points of view. Warfieldian (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It used to have material from both points of view, this was removed in what seemed to me to be an attempt to whitewash the article. Since some have removed the statements that provided balance to the article, I was left with little choice, as for the NRC, feel free to read above. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 14:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I did read the above and it seems to me the consensus was that it is a reliable source. Warfieldian (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You can't have consensus by numbers with only four (now five) editors participating. When its such a small sample you have to work till you get agreement or go through mediation. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 14:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I added a response to from Planned Parenthood in which they state they do not condone the behavior exhibited in the videos. People can watch the videos and read Planned Parenthood's response. Both sides are represented. Can we agree not to add the Lopsided tag back? Warfieldian (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

[1] ttp://abcnews.go.com/Politics/planned-parenthood-fires-nj-clinic-manager-sting-video/story?id=12822775

[2] ttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/03/undercover-sex-work-videos-fuel-congressional-campaign-planned-parenthood/

[3] ttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/us/03parenthood.html

[1]

[2]

[3]