Talk:Crisis pregnancy center

Wikipedia:3RR

Editors:

Please do not continue to revert other users' contributions. Reliable, sourced information should only be changed if it disrupts the neutrality of the page. If there is a challenge to the neutrality of sourced information, please discuss it on the talk page. This is a 3RR warning.

1RR Problem

An IP has repeated the assertion that CPCs are "medical clinics" and I'm out of reversions for the nonce. Help would be fine. PhGustaf (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

For starters, you should redact the name-calling. Then, one might ask the IP to talk about the article here. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "an IP" is name-calling. Anyway, I have followed your suggestion and invited the IP to post his or her views here. PhGustaf (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite certain "an IP" is not name calling, what are you referencing, Gwen? I cannot find it. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops, my botch, I misread the spelling of nonce. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, its like typos of the eyeballs. Hate it when that happens! Thanks for clearing that up. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure exactly how you misread it, but no harm, no foul. PhGustaf (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Having seen this spelling, guess I feel a wee bit less the bumpkin, then. :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Tracing "nonce" down in Wiki space, as expected, leads to many interesting paths. I will assure you, though, that when I said "for the nonce" I meant "for the time being" and had no thought whatever about buggering in gaols. PhGustaf (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I was so much happier before I knew that. (about the alt meaning, not about you, PhG) :-/ KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I asserted it twice, and some CPCs are definitely medical clinics. See - http://www.annarborvitae.com/about.php - Arborvitae, a CPC, has medical doctors on staff. (See the site's "Staff & Board" section.) But it is true that not all CPCs are medical clinics, so I understand the correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.173.120 (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, there is a legal dimension to the term "medical clinic," which is not satisfied merely by having a doctor on staff. This means that saying CPCs are medical clinics is misleading to the point of being false, and especially given that the subject (pregnancy and abortion) is medical and people often use Wikipedia for lay medical research, we should try especially hard not to mislead. Also, given that we have cited information in the body that states that most CPCs are not clinics, the very few that may be are probably not significant enough for mention in the lead. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

There are enough for a brief mention in the lede.– Lionel ^(talk) 22:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

As you know, I hate to be flippant, but: prove it. One self-published source out of over 4,000 CPCs in the USA alone won't cut it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

POV-Check

The article seems to be completely based around disparaging the subject. I'm no expert on the matter but it certainly seems the article could use a neutral review. PeRshGo (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not an expert either, but I'd be glad to work on it if you would point out specific problems that you have found. Gandydancer (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Generally the users who come in here and say that are drive-bys, usually associated with one or more of these centers, who are angry that we include so much well-sourced information about what they do and so little self-published information about how great they are and how terrible abortion is. Can you tell us how you would improve neutrality by adding information sourced to reliable secondary sources? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If I were to take on the project it would just involve removing the editorial content and writing an even handed encyclopedia article on the subject. It reads like it was written by someone with an agenda. Looking at the talk page here it appears I’m not the first person to make that claim, whether it’s baselessly dismissed as obviously coming from someone “associated with one or more of these centers” or not. But it seems the article is being regularly “patrolled” by more regular editors in order to make sure the agenda is kept intact. PeRshGo (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I would resist any attempt to lessen the voice of governmental institutions and researchers who are critical of CPCs. This article cannot be a whitewashing of the topic. The most authoritative sources must be given the strongest weight, and those sources are not positive. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So your idea of making the article more neutral is removing content cited to reliable secondary sources because you think it makes CPCs look bad, so that a greater proportion of the references will be self-published or otherwise trying to promote CPCs. What makes your proposal any different from any of the other failed proposals? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the tag until the editor points out specific edits/problems that need to be worked on. It is not enough to just state that it seems biased. Gandydancer (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion. The fact that the entire tone of the article is what needs to be changed rather than a few small issues is why I used the article tag rather than say, a section tag. This isn’t about removing sourced material as much as it is about changing this into an encyclopedia article rather than an argument against the subject. Honestly I didn’t place the tag to attract the attention of the same editors who have made this page what this is and “negotiate” with them. My hope is to get some attention from a neutral party. PeRshGo (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If you place a POV tag, you have to identify ways in which the article is deficient so that other editors can fix them. A POV tag isn't meant to be used as a badge of shame; you've got to come up with something better than "it's just not neutral, man! maybe if the tag stays up for a couple of months someone will come along and think of some reasons for me." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The POV tag does not belong if there is no actionable complaint. Binksternet (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that the article is in need of a neutral rewrite. That is most certainly actionable. PeRshGo (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Primary reason for existence

In this edit, BlueMoonlet confronts the question what is the primary reason for the existence of CPCs? BlueMoonlet takes an editorial action which puts the answer as more than stopping abortions. I think the mainstream opinion is that the primary purpose of CPCs is to stop abortions. Are there authoritative sources stating this plainly? Binksternet (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The cited sources should be fine; if you think it's necessary, we could quote (4, for example, has "crisis pregnancy centers...programs explicitly designed to steer women away from abortion") but I think we should avoid that in the lead. I'm more concerned about the repeated attempts to claim (in the lead, no less) that they are formed to, or often do, offer medical services, which is cited mostly to self-published material from individual CPCs but contradicted by real sources (the Cooperman source, which is cited to support the claim, even says that it's only a few hundred out of 3,000 that are doing this). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(And, of course, the repeated attempts to remove the exhaustively cited statement that CPCs regularly give out false medical information about alleged risks that have been disproven.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with your characterization, Binksternet. I found that Roscelese had a valid point in her edit summary, and I changed my edit accordingly. My second edit (the one you diff'ed) no longer makes any changes to the text on "the primary reason for the existence of CPCs". I agree with Roscelese's point that "established to counsel pregnant women against having an abortion" is by itself an appropriate answer to that question. However, by ending the paragraph at that, the article implied (falsely, I think) that that is all that CPCs do. This I addressed by adding "which often offers additional non-medical services". Here I am echoing the statement in the body of the article that "They may also provide STD screening, adoption referrals, religious counseling, financial assistance, prenatal services, child-rearing resources and other services" and am citing the same four references that are cited for that statement. I hope you'll agree that this is a sensible addition, and does not challenge the question that you both have assumed that it challenges.

Roscelese, I also don't agree with your characterization that I removed information. You have not addressed my point that "found" implies some kind of legal finality that is not supported by the cited source. Neither is it at all clear to me that you can source the word "many" instead of "some". And those were the only changes I made on that point. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you just missed the place in the lead where we already mention that some CPCs "provide pregnancy testing, sonograms, and other services"? It's certainly not necessary to talk about services twice in the lead, it makes more sense to do so when talking about what they do in paragraph 2 rather than in the very general paragraph 1, and "often" isn't supported by sources.

I disagree that "found" implies legal finality, but is there another phrasing you would suggest that doesn't imply it's just political opponents throwing out accusations? That is the implication in your present wording. Re "many," the issue with that is that there are dozens of citations about different CPCs all over the world providing false information and no sources at all supporting the claim that any individual CPC has given out accurate medical information. The trick is to find a word that isn't minimizing and doesn't imply that we have material about CPCs that have given out accurate information, which "some" definitely does; in the past, I've been in favor of omitting the quantifier entirely. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't miss it. The line you cite points out medical services that are offered by very few CPCs. This is not at all what I meant, which is why, in response to your excellent point, I modified my text to emphasize that I was referring to "non-medical services". As the body of the article already enumerates (and as I already quoted above), I am referring to counseling, assistance, resources, etc. This is entirely different from what is mentioned in the 2nd pgh, and is also very widespread among CPCs.

Your second point requires a more thoughtful response. More later. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

We still don't have the sources that would allow us to say "often" (or if we do, they're not cited for that statement - we'd need a. reliable sources that b. support the statement, while the current refs for that statement are mostly self-published CPC websites and one reliable news source that doesn't back up "often" - they were fine for where they were cited in the body, where it says that they "may also" without stating or implying that they often do - this is a long parenthetical). And the material would still belong in the second paragraph if it belongs in the lead at all. For comparison, the statements that CPCs proselytize, offer false medical information, and advertise deceptively are much better cited, but are not in the first paragraph of the lead because the first paragraph is a very basic definition of what a CPC is: a nonprofit that tries to get people not to have abortions. I look forward to reading your response to the other part - there's been a lot of discussion over that phrasing so maybe you'll have a new perspective. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Good points. I have changed "often" to "may also". I have also taken all the statements in the Intro of what CPCs do and put them into the first paragraph. This seems a logical way to organize it and avoids the problem I perceived of having the first pgh mention only one thing as if that is all that CPCs do. I hope you like it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That looks better. I may rearrange it slightly to put the non-counseling services in a separate sentence. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, this edit summary criticizes me for implying that "deceptive advertising is confined to CPCs claiming they're abortion clinics". However, my reading of the article indicates that legal action involving CPCs has indeed focused largely on (as my proposed text read) "deceptively advertis[ing] a CPC as an abortion clinic, or [failing] to disclose that they do not offer certain services or possess certain qualifications." Can you please enumerate the additional problems to which you were referring? Thanks, --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

It appears from the sources that the deceptive advertising prohibited by the laws in question also includes saying or implying that they provide X services or are licensed as a medical clinic, whereas your wording separated the two - "making it illegal to deceptively advertise, and also requiring disclosure." I don't object to a rephrase, but let's make sure it conveys the idea that the laws have to do with deceptive advertising in X, Y, and Z ways. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The third is easily fixed by adding "or a medical clinic" to my previous wording. As for the second, it seems to me that not clearing up misunderstandings (which primarily stem from the other two) is not in itself "advertising" and might best be mentioned separately as also something the legislation has addressed. This one is really just a matter of streamlining the language; I don't think we have a substantial disagreement here. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

An editor might believe that presenting oneself as a medical clinic, for example, doesn't constitute false advertising if they don't say they are a medical clinic, but sources would seem to disagree, and that's what we go on. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

My proposed language included "deceptively advertise a CPC as... a medical clinic". How does that not cover what you are saying? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should look at this from another angle - could you explain what you felt was the problem with the current wording, "punished or attempted to preempt deceptive advertising, targeting those that advertise as abortion clinics or requiring centers to disclose that they do not offer certain services or possess certain qualifications"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

For one thing, it uses "advertise" twice in one sentence, and otherwise could use a bit of streamlining. For another, laws do not "punish" things, they make things illegal; punishment may or may not come later, depending on whether there are violations. Finally, while it may be true that CPCs routinely do the scurrilous things implied by the text, saying so is not actually needed here (it duplicates the first pgh, for one thing); I was trying to find text that sidesteps that issue while focusing on the content of the laws. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what you're referring to about duplication - the first paragraph mentions false medical information, while the laws have to do with false advertising. The points about the language are valid; what do you think of the version I put in? I thought about replacing "deceptive advertising" with "deceptive publicity" to avoid repetition, but "deceptive advertising" is actually a phrase, and it sounded weird to replace it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Your edit is mostly fine. How about "present themselves as abortion clinics"? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It works for me - in your opinion, do you think that covers listing themselves under "abortion clinics" in the telephone directory, etc.? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly it includes that. It is, I think, broader than "advertise", which is more or less limited to what you mention. --BlueMoonlet (t/c)

In response to your point regarding "found" and "accuse" and "many" and "some":

Firstly, I don't agree that "accuse" (another option you might prefer is "allege") implies that the claim is mere partisan bickering or otherwise unbelievable. This is standard language in the media for a claim that is one side of a story, even though it may be highly believable, if it has not been established impartially (e.g., in a court of law). Secondly, on the other hand, we should keep in mind that many of the sources cited in this article, including Waxman and Maloney and many in the news media, are in fact quite partisan on this issue. This does not mean that their claims aren't true, but it does mean that (per NPOV) we should be careful about endorsing controversial claims as true without stipulations from the other side of the controversy and/or concrete findings by an impartial source such as a court of law. I am not suggesting that any information be removed, but rather that controversial claims be identified as coming from their source, rather than being simply stated as fact.

Thirdly, I am concerned whether there is really agreement across POVs that the claims are false. For example, not everyone agrees that the lack of a measurable relationship between abortion and poor mental health means it is inappropriate to discuss the spiritual effects of abortion. More could be said about that, but I just mention it as an example that "false" may seem a strong word, at least in some cases. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

We have plenty of newspaper sources finding exactly the same thing. Our writing style and guidelines aren't those of the news media, however, and "accused"/"alleged" does indeed imply baselessness when someone's reading an encyclopedia. In the past, I've used an active voice (eg. "journalists, congressional investigators, etc. have found") to avoid suggesting that the finding was a legal one, but that was thought to be too much detail in the lead or something, I don't remember why it's not there anymore. Again, is there a phrasing you would prefer to "found" that doesn't suggest that the "accusations" are just random? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

How about "Journalists have reported the dissemination of false medical information by CPCs..."? You may want to add some numerical quantifier to "journalists". I think the qualifier is important; if someone shows up and objects, we can discuss that. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think "reported" is a decent alternative. Do you think it should be in passive voice ("CPCs have been reported") or active ("prospective clients, journalists, etc. have reported")? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you found a passive-voice wording that seems pretty neutral to me. I just made the edit. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Super. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you please tell me why you removed the word "some"? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said - it's minimizing in a way that doesn't reflect the sources. Do you have other suggestions for a quantifier? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we need to add more citations for this statement that deal more specifically with the percentage of CPCs that may engage in this practice. As far as I can tell, the one currently cited only has specific information about two or three CPCs. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ohhhh maybe I understand the source of the confusion now. There's a whole section in the body cited to dozens of separate sources; it would just be unsightly and disruptive to put all those sources in the lead. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I should think the two or three best sources should be cited in the Intro, and they should actually support the statement. But I'll take some time to look more closely at the sources cited in the body. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You're joking, right? No, we're not dismissing or watering down a firm scientific consensus to give "equal validity" to the idea that abortion causes "spiritual" problems. "False" is the appropriate word to use for claims that are dismissed by all major medical bodies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that science has disproven the idea that abortion is spiritually harmful? I would suggest that science's ability to address such questions is limited. Much depends on what exactly was said at the CPC: It would be false to say that "A has been proven to be harmful" when no such scientific consensus exists; it would be misleading to say that "studies show A to be harmful" when a minority of studies say so but a majority of studies say otherwise; but it's much more of a gray area to say that "A may be harmful, and has been in many cases", especially when the harm comes in forms that are hard to measure scientifically. But I'm not going to press this point at this time. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)