Talk:Lila Rose/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Abortions in Public

There are multiple videos on youtube that document the actual quote that is referred to the article stating Lila Rose believes "abortions should be done in public." I think this quote was taken out of context and needs to be balanced by the rest of the quote. Here is the full quote found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Piny4Ur1EEA. "If I could insist, as long as they are legal in this nation, abortions would be done in the public square until we were so sick and tired of seeing them that we would do away with the injustice altogether. Maybe then we would value the unborn child as much as we value the one-year old child just learning to walk." Since this is a controversial article, I'd like thoughts on this before making any edits. Either the entire quote should be used to provide context or, since I have only been able to find this quote in YouTube videos and no text version, if it can't be attributed to a more reliable source, then perhaps the quote should be removed totally in accordance with WP:BLP. Warfieldian (talk) 02:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. YouTube is not a reliable source. I haven't looked but there definitely is a reliable source for her saying they should be performed in public. If you can't find one, I can find it. I haven't even seen the rest of the quote and don't plan to look unless one of the news sites I follow puts it up. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 08:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Health Centers Vs. Clinic

Health Centers appear to be the way that Planned Parenthood itself refers to its clinics. So, if we are to be as neutral as possible, I propose that we should use the terminology that the organization uses to refer to itself. Warfieldian (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a rather silly thing to argue about. They use both terms on their own website [1][2] (although health center is used far more commonly on their site). Do they make a distinction (eg, "health center" locations perform some services, "clinic" locations perform others)? Looking at their health center search, if I look at the ones in Virginia, one of them is "Medical Center", one is just "Center", and the other five are "Health Center". I looked in Florida and five are "Clinic", one has just the location name with no descriptor, one is center, and the other 18 are "Health Center". If they make some distinction between "clinic" and "health center", then perhaps we should just say "location" (unless all of the ones they went to are self-described as one or the other). --B (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, we get to pick among "abortion mill", "abortion clinic", "clinic", and "health center". ("Location" doesn't mean much.) Of these, "clinic" seems the most neutral. PhGustaf (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's a silly thing to argue about. But, it would be good if we could agree on one to use and avoid an edit war on it. I have seen both terms used and I'm not strongly in favor of either but Health Centers appears on the home page of their website. Warfieldian (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The PP website search function states "Find a Health Center", so that would be my preference, but I don't see any particular reason not to use "clinic" here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The health centers do more than provide clinical services. They also provide health education resources, etc. Furthermore, if you look in your phonebook, it probably says "health center" and is listed under "social services" not "clinics," or at least mine does. It should be health centers. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 08:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this really necessary? The article is about Lila Rose and doesn't need a long explanation of who Planned Parenthood is. A simple link to the article is sufficient. If explanation is needed of what Planned Parenthood is, it doesn't need to take up over half of the lead. --B (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and fixed. I see that the current version says "facility", rather than "clinic" or "health center", and that sounds pretty NPOV. But it's hardly a big deal: Whatever name we use is a problem only if it implies that abortion is PP's main business. PhGustaf (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure as to whether all PP "health centers"/"clinics" perform abortions. But a place that performs abortions is known as an "abortion clinic". Rose does not target PP clinics that don't perform abortions. Therefore, "clinic" seems, to me at least, to be the most accurate term. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Many (most?) Planned Parenthood locations do not perform abortions. And I don't know if it's true that they didn't target ones that don't perform abortions. The ones that don't will still make referrals for abortion, so unless we know for a fact that they didn't go to one that only makes referrals, we shouldn't comment one way or the other. --B (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Source to be worked in

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/24/planned-parenthood-funding_n_827886.html Might work on it later. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 08:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be even more convincing if their source for claiming that the videos were heavily edited were something other than Planned Parenthood's PR firm. If you click on their links to "frame-by-frame reviews of the full-length videos", all of them are from caminopr.com, the website for Camino Public Relations. Among their client list is Planned Parenthood. --B (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Pro-life to anti-abortion edit

I think we can all agree that 'anti-abortion' vs. 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' vs. 'pro-abortion' are terms that groups apply to themselves. Generally speaking, groups like to refer to themselves as 'pro' rather than 'anti.' Of course, either one would be technically correct but, where possible, a group should be referred to as it refers to itself. For that reason, I am going to change the lead portion back to 'pro-life' since that is how Lila Rose identifies herself. Warfieldian (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Referring to PP as world's largest abortion provider

Lila Rose targets Planned Parenthood clinics that perform abortions. She does not target them because of their other "services". So it's irrelevant to talk about PP's other services or "reproductive rights in general", because she only cares that they're the world's largest abortion provider. Does that make sense? NYyankees51 (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need to include that information. It's from a different section of the BBC article than the part about Rose, the WaPo doesn't mention Rose at all and should not be cited, and I don't see that the statement appears at all in the LA Times article. None of the sources cited for that statement say that she does these hoaxes because they're the largest provider. In short, it's original synthesis. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

In the BBC article, just before describing the Live Action videos, we see this quote, Planned Parenthood is a "favoured target for the anti-abortion lobby because it is America's leading provider of abortions." So, we have Live Action, whose efforts are described in reference to the anti-abortion lobby, as pursuing these actions because Planned Parenthood is "America's leading provider of abortions." This does not appear to be original synthesis to me. Warfieldian (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be in there under any wording. It is a remnant from an effort to counterbalance this and not make it sound like she was an evil monster targeting PP because of their non-controversial women's health services. It's not in any way relevant to a biography of Lila Rose. --B (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The statement has reliable source backing from a BBC news article discussing Live Action's activities and it provides context for why she has targeted PP as opposed to other abortion providers. Warfieldian (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It's in a paragraph that's visually distinct, separated by a section heading. The paragraph it is in concerns attempts to strip PP of federal funding. Yes, the BBC discussed three elements of the US abortion battle in one article. That doesn't mean everything in the article can be hung on to anything else mentioned in it. (And for what it's worth, the BBC article also talks about PP's other services.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

NYY makes an excellent point. It is fundamental to the article to illustrate why she is waging this war against PP, isn't it? Why keep it a secret? Afterall it let's readers know the best place to get their womb's vacuumed. That's great advertising! I would think pro-abortion editors would want inclusion. To respond to -B, I didn't add it to counterbalance anything: I added it because it adds context to the article. Lionel (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Lionel, may I suggest that you edit your comment to substitute "pro-choice editors" or "editors who support abortion rights" for "pro-abortion"? Remember, incivility is part of the new sanctions on abortion-related articles, and "pro-abortion" is a gratuitous and inaccurate propaganda term. The civility issue aside, you haven't actually made a policy-based argument here. Other editors have pointed out that it's unnecessary (are readers really unaware that PP provides abortions?) and synthetic (the sources do not connect PP's status as the largest provider of abortions to Rose's hoaxes). "PP performs abortions omg" is not an appropriate response. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that the statement about PP being largest provide of abortions provides context for 'why' Lila Rose and Live Action have undertaken their actions of undercover videos. This is supported by the above mentioned reference in the BBC and also by the group's own website. They have issued a press release about a new project today that states, "Live Action, the new media pro-life group responsible for recent undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood aiding and abetting child sex trafficking, has teamed up with Students for Life of America, the nation’s largest pro-life youth organization, to launch a pro-life YouTube video contest for youth who want show why Congress must de-fund Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider." WP:BLPSPS allows the use of press releases on a person's blog or group blog including press releases to provide support for information about a subject of a bio. Their motivation seems to be related to the fact that PP is the nation's largest abortion provider. Warfieldian (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference for award

In this YouTube video at the 2:44 mark, Rose says she used her $50,000 Life Prizes award to pay for a full year of college, donate to Live Action, and donate to other pro-life efforts. YouTube is questionable as a source, so does anyone object to adding this into the article? NYyankees51 (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What about this? Lionel (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

#2 on Hottest List

Can someone, ANYONE, please please restore the Hottest thing in awards. This source from Politico is RS: [3]. Thanks! Lionel (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. I forget, I have 1 revert today! And thanks, everyone, for rushing to my aid. Lionel (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

First, 1RR isn't a license to post the same stoopid stuff over and over. Second, she is quite hot (we need a picture of her with a perm), and quite media-savvy, and she has used those assets well. But presenting her as a hottie on her biography page might be considered as trivializing her work. PhGustaf (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe in the body? - Haymaker (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

convert to catholicism

there is a convert to catholicism tag at the bottom of the page but nothing is said about it in the article. Does anybody know if this claim can be backed up with a source? Peppermintschnapps (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Bias

The more recent edits have removed any critiques of live actions approach. Furthermore, the related Live Action article has also been sanitized.Mattnad (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

"Gendercide" is not a word

There is no such word as "gendercide". I have replaced the heading with "Sex-selective abortion". Goblinshark17 (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"Pro-life"

I changed the attribution to refer to herself as pro-life. She is identified elsewhere in the article as the founder of "pro-life" group at her university. Not the "anti-abortion" group at her university. The Fox news coverage on her own bio page refers to her her as "pro-life activist." Please stop injecting bias in to wiki voice in this article by referring to her as something that she herself says that she is not, namely an "anti-abortion" activist. Warfieldian ^(talk) 18:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, do not introduce factual errors by misrepresenting quotes in a reference - removing words from a quote in a reference changes the nature of the quote, and means that it is not an exact quote. Introducing errors by changing a quote of a foxnews.com article is against WP:CITE

Reuters [google.com/search?q=site:reuters.com%20"lila rose"%20anti-abortion Reuters] is a reliable source. Activist groups that self-publish material are not treated as reliable in the same way, and advocacy groups that claim that their self-published activist material should be prioritised are discouraged from editing Wikipedia.

Wikipedia has policies against censorship, they are summed up in this quote:

Wikimedia Projects serve the Information Needs of Individuals, Not Groups "it is important to note as essential the principle that Wikimedia projects exist to serve individuals, as individuals, in their full autonomy, and consequently, the projects, as a general rule, do not and should not consider as legitimate censorious demands by institutions, of any kind, political, commercial or voluntary claiming to represent those individuals, or making demands, which, in the community’s opinion, represent only their own interests"

@Warfieldian: -- Callinus (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Fox news referred to her as "pro-life activist," and Breitbart News does as well and they are both reliable sources. Reuters clearly has a bias against pro-life views. Changing it to "anti-abortion" repeatedly as you have, merely injects your own bias against her views in to the article. Warfieldian ^(talk) 14:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

@Warfieldian: Look up Breitbart on WP:RSN (here)

"Reuters" and "bias" - you're welcome to make a case on WP:RSN that Reuters is biased, along with the Associated Press as well, but that Breitbart has great editorial standards, having never mixed editorial content and news reporting. -- Callinus (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

No thanks. Reuters is self-evidently biased, as are *all* news sources. You just have to take that in to account when reading them whether they are liberal or conservative. To categorically exclude conservative news sources from the mix of reliable sources is biased and is against Wikipedia's goals of neutral point of view. Warfieldian ^(talk) 13:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This kind of debate happens around Abortion topics. Generally we use "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice". Since Rose is "Pro-life" by her own admission, we should avoid using terms favored by those on the opposite side of the debate. Similarly, we should not use "Pro-abortion" to describe those in favor of abortion rights.Mattnad (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Newsmax and Breitbart are not considered reliable sources. Material supported by these sources will not remain in the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

NPOV?

I'm just wondering what in this article was flagged with POV. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 05:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)