Jump to content

Talk:Live Action (organization)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WikiManOne (talk | contribs) at 03:58, 2 March 2011 (→Tags: rp). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Weasel words

Examples please?[1] --B (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight and weasel:
"sometimes using questionable practices to achieve this goal" "youth led movement dedicated to building a culture of life and ending abortion, the greatest human rights injustice of our time."
Unsourced and weasel:
"Live Action is best known for..."
Does not clarify that no wrongdoing was found:
"who they say was allegedly offering counseling to a pimp regarding abortions and testing for his alleged underage sex workers."
Undue weight, weasel in "similar" without having source, "failing" is also weasel without a very good source, and again, only one side presented.
"In 2010, a similar sting by Live Action on a Birmingham, Alabama-based Planned Parenthood clinic led to a state investigation and the clinic being placed on probation for failing to obtain parental consent before allowing minors to have abortions, which was described as a "technical violation" by the state."
WMO 22:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Failed to get the signature ..." is in the original AP article. "Similar" I agree could be "another" instead (I will fix it). The next sentence clarifies that PP vehemently objects to the allegations. I don't know that a statement of total exoneration is appropriate since it just happened - the accusation is made, PP denies it, nothing else has happened yet. "Live Action is best known for" I agree should be "Live Action received national attention in February 2011 for" "sometimes using questionable practices to achieve this goal" I'm missing where that is - it sounds familiar - is that from an earlier version of the article? --B (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, wrong copy paste on the first one, I corrected it. WMO 22:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a quote from their website and it's in quotation marks (as opposed to being offered as evidence to prove that they actually are a youth-led movement or that abortion is the greatest human rights injustice of our time - I could think of one or two that are a bit higher up on the scale - like the various genocides). I don't have any strong disagreement with removing it - it was a part of the original (pre-copyvio) article, not something I added. --B (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It just helps in making the article a rosy portrait of a very controversial and misguided (imho) organization that regularly breaks the law, etc. WMO 23:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Are there any other points of contention regarding the "weasel" tag? --B (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the weasel tag. Also, I somewhat undid your second edit because I had worked on editing a bunch of things and didn't want to lose all of it due to an edit conflict. I think we pretty much did the same thin on that sentence but feel free to re do it if you want. (We both changed to whom). I also removed a youtube citation. WMO 23:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This line here - Her work in creating these "stings" have been widely referred to as "hoaxes" perpetuated by "anti-choice groups" "in order to entrap clinic staff."[5][6][7][8] - has several problems. NONE of the four links refer to "anti-choice groups", except in a few user comments, nor, I would imagine, would that be the language of neutral sources in any event. "Widely referred to" is a weasel language that suggests the sentiment has wide acceptance when at most it's the point of view from one side of the political spectrum. The term "hoax" is used, but it describes the fictional scenario (a pimp seeking an abortion for his underage girl), not the videos themselves. The scenario described in the "sting" was a hoax and doesn't purport to be anything other than a hoax. As far as "entrap clinic staff", only one of the four articles uses that language and it's taken out of context here - that is from [2] and they are paraphrasing Planned Parenthood, not offering their viewpoint. While obviously the whole purpose was to entrap clinic staff, this passage puts it in quotes and makes it sound like there are four sources saying something that none of them did. --B (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The word "hoax" is used by aol news, if you would like we could change it to "scam" since it also used that to describe it?
"An anti-abortion group called Live Action has posted video of its scam, in which group members pretend"
that same sentence also uses "anti-abortion group," and it describes the whole incident as a scam/hoax. "Widely referred to" should probably be replaced. "Entrap clinic staff" is also in that article earlier, I don't mind taking it out of quotes and say trick staff or something like that which is clear? WMO 00:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support removal about of said sentence and would like to know more about the reliability of that aol source. - Haymaker (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we remove it? Because it is one of two sentences cites criticism of the subject? Could we also remove all criticism from the Planned Parenthood article?

Because you used non-reliable sources and the text you added does not match what the sources say. - Haymaker (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which source is unreliable according to you? AOL? TPM? Raw Story? All reliable news sources. WMO 00:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the website of People's World; "The PW is known for its partisan coverage. We take sides". - Haymaker (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but that's one non-reliable source. Where are these non-reliable sources you were talking about? WMO 00:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You throw that garbage in this article and expect me not to take pause? TPM and TRS are both leftist and I still want to know more about that aol source. Who is Mary Phillips-Sandy and why is her opinion worth a hoot? - Haymaker (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)This isn't about removing criticism - it's about correcting a completely inaccurate claim. There are numerous problems with the sentence. Not a single one of the four articles says "anti-choice groups". One of the articles - http://peoplesworld.org/republicans-drop-forcible-rape-but-war-on-women-continues/ - is actually published by the Communist Party USA (hardly a reliable source for anything) - and even then only mentions the incident in passing and isn't even relevant. The Talking Points Memo piece refers to the "sex ring" as a hoax, which, of course, it was. The "sex ring" is a hoax - the video depicts a hoax. The video is not a hoax. A movie is a movie. A movie is not the thing it depicts. Had they passed the video off as something it was not, for example, had they rented their own office space, had an actress pretend to be the PP employee, then tried to pass it off as actual video they shot from within a PP office, then the video would be a hoax. Does that make sense? The article needs to be careful not to confuse the two - the video was an authentic depiction of a fictional scenario. The sex ring was a hoax. The video was not a hoax. --B (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The comment about removing criticism wasn't directed at you, like I said, I don't have any special attachment to the wording, reword it however you want, as long as it clearly notes the criticism against it as well. WMO 00:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took a stab at reformulating it. When three quarters of the sentence is quotes that nobody said, I'm not sure how much there is to keep. Other than the communists, they were just reporting Planned Parenthood's position without very much opining of their own. A concern, that I suppose will take care of itself over time, is that the majority of the article is about this one incident and the majority of that is the Planned Parenthood response to that one incident. --B (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salon.com editorials

Why do they mater? - Haymaker (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are a reliable secondary source that substantially reported on the incidents. WMO 23:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are editorials. I do not think you have read RS. - Haymaker (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is also clearly noted as an editorial. Editorials are notable as opinion. WMO 00:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why doens't it say "Alex Pareene criticized..." - Haymaker (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Currently title is POV and inaccurate. Any objections to Live Action (pro-life organization)? Lionel (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The current title in factual. This organization opposes abortion. That's their purpose. They don't oppose the death penalty, or the military, or eating meat, or medical testing of animals, so it is inaccurate to call them 'pro-life' as a general label. We're an encyclopedia: When we use words, we should mean what we say. ("Pro-life" as a euphemism for anti-abortion—since when do you need a euphemism for being against murder??—is also regional; if not specific to the US, at least not reliably understood on a global level.) — kwami (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Kwami here, the organization is anti-abortion, that's what neutral outlets call them, that's what we should call them. WMO 02:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, there's a debate at the pro-life page on which term to use, "anti-abortion" or "pro-life." Currently, the policy is to use the term "pro-life." I hope this helps, AnupamTalk 02:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the current title is inconsistent with related articles such as "Pro-life" and the category "Pro-life movement". Lionel (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is different, the discussion there is whether to rename that article, one of the primary arguments against anti-abortion there is that it is limiting it to only a part of the pro-"life" movement, that is not the case here as this is referring to a specific organization who is in fact, anti-abortion, nice and easy. Look it up in the New York Times, Associated Press, LA Times, anywhere neutral practically, they say the same thing. WMO 02:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since such a move is clearly controversial, it would have to go through the full move discussion process. If you make that suggestion, perhaps you should also request that anti-abortion violence be moved to pro-life violence? WMO 02:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For that article, I would name it either violence against abortion providers or violence by abortion opponents. We have Violence against women, Violence against LGBT people and violence against prostitutes as comparably named articles. We do have Anti-Christian violence in India, but that isn't exactly analogous - the violence in our case is directed against providers of abortions, not against the abortions themselves. --B (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For hard cases like this, this comes in handy. This suggests pro-life. I agree there is a real distinction in the terms with one being a subset of the other. But as both terms are used, logically the superset is more correct (pro-life). Oh and did I mention this? lol Seriously though the guideline seems pretty clear. 96.227.230.57 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Pro-life and anti-abortion are both used in RS. So consistency becomes the deciding factor. The main article and the category are "Pro-life." From WP:TITLE:

Consistency – titles which follow the same pattern as those of similar articles are generally preferred. Many of these patterns are documented in the naming guidelines listed in the Specific-topic naming conventions box above, and ideally indicate titles that are in accordance with the principal criteria above.

I think that settles it. If there are no further objections, I'll move the article. Lionel (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chill, let the discussion have its space. But I agree, it should be moved, as I found pro-life quite easy. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved back. Right under the guideline of using their terminology, there's the guideline to be specific. They are an anti-abortion group: just read their mag. I see no evidence that the are vegetarians or oppose the death penalty or take on pro-life causes in general.

Why you would be embarrassed to admit that you're anti-abortion if you think abortion is murder is beyond me, but it's not up to us to cater to people's insecurities. — kwami (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Live Action identifies itself as "a leading new media, investigative, and educational organization committed to the protection and respect of all human life" and their mission statement is to "build a culture of life". A search of "'live action' pro-life" yields 840,000 Google hits while "'live action' anti-abortion" yields 216,000 results. Let's not impose our agenda here, folks. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The agenda is denying that they're an anti-abortion org. I have no idea why, but anti-abortionists seem to be afraid of their own position. — kwami (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really dumb question: why not just name it Live Action (organization) and worry about an adjective at some point in the future when some other organization called "Live Action" comes along? The whole purpose of disambiguating it in the title is that there is some other thing called "Live Action" and we need a unique title. Any title satisfies the technical need for something unique ... so why not just leave the adjective out of there? --B (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. — kwami (talk) 02:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

After an informal poll at Talk:Lila_Rose#Merge found that there is some general support for this move, I would like to propose that we merge Lila Rose into Live Action (organization). (Lila Rose would become a redirect to this article.) The reason for the merge is that there is really very little meaningful to say about her apart from her work with her organization. While it's technically not WP:BLP1E (since there are multiple events), it's a very similar situation. --B (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - per reasons in previous discussion. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 05:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Both are notable based on reliable sourcing. As long as both are notable, regardless of a merge, eventually someone will come along and expand the redirect. Lionel (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily. Some people have their 15 minutes and we never hear from them again. If we hear from her again, she needs an article. If we don't hear from her again, she doesn't need an article. Either way, RIGHT NOW / TODAY, there is almost nothing to say from her apart from what she did through her organization. --B (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose - There is a lot of ongoing coverage of this organization. I would prefer to wait a few weeks and wait to see how all of the recent (and ongoing) sources get incorporated before we decide whether or not to fold this into another article. - Haymaker (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this article is a bit sparse and the organization was founded by Rose. If anything, wouldn't this article be folded into Rose's? - Haymaker (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Lila Rose is the head of Live Action (organization), a pro-life group that has recently been in the news for its campaign against Planned Parenthood. Her notability is derived primarily from her work with this organization. Should Lila Rose be merged into Live Action (organization)? --B (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Pareene / Salon

For reference: http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/02/01/planned_parenthood_sting/index.html and the diff in question in our article

This passage has been added to multiple articles over the last few weeks and I don't think it has any business in any of them. Even pretending for the moment that this is a reliable source and not a non-notable opinion ... let's look at what the piece actually says:


When the blogger speaks of "in which deceptively edited Internet videos ...", he is describing a "James O'Keefe-style 'sting'". He is saying that when he heard about the men visiting the clinics, his gut reaction was to say, "ah, this is another one of those O'Keefe things with deceptively edited videos". It is completely false to say, "A Salon.com editorial criticized the visit as a 'James O'Keefe-style 'sting', in which deceptively edited Internet videos ... [etc]' ...". This falsely gives the impression that the rest of the whole thing was his description of the Live Action sting. It wasn't. It was his description of the James O'Keefe sting.

Lastly, it is not a "Salon.com editorial". An editorial is an opinion piece written by the editorial board of a newspaper or other publication and signed by the newspaper as a whole, not but an individual person. If you look over to the right of the piece, it says, "War Room is our political news and commentary blog ...". So if it is characterized as anything beyond "Alex Pareene said", it should be a "blog entry", not an "editorial".

I don't think it should be included at all and certainly not without refutation, but if it is in there, it should not mischaracterize the type of piece it is or what he was talking about. --B (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with you on most points above, B, I have to take issue with your characterization of the Salon edits as "completely false". If it's quoted properly, it's hardly false. Misleading perhaps, depending on the exact context, but not "completely false". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By "completely false", I was referring to the misleading/out of context quote. If quoted in context, it is not false ... only tangentially on topic, I suppose, but not false. --B (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm for removal. This editorial has creeped up on a few other pages. Its relevance to them should be reexamined as well. - Haymaker (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, it's WP:UNDUE; one single editorial does not deserve a full paragraph in a short article. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We should include the best source presenting the most accurate response of Planned Abortionhood. This editorial is useless in presenting a meaningful response of PP and is taking up valuable space in the article. Why can't we just quote a PP spokeshole from the NY Times or similiar? Lionel (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can we stop with the name calling? That doesn't seem very civil. The editorial is from a reputable and reliable source, there is no reason for it to not be included. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 06:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Salon.com is a liberal blog, not a reliable source for these sorts of articles. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually Salon.com is a very reliable web magazine and is a reliable source for any claim. Certainly more reliable than Fox News or New York Post and probably on par with the Wall Street Journal. Let's stop attacking sources that disagree with you. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 08:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More reliable by your standards. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears we have consensus for removal. Lionel (talk) 00:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

Can we please stop adding tags without providing reasons or attempting to discuss them? NYyankees51 (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're not mind readers. It's against policy. Everyone has been warned. It's disruptive and will probably end up at AN/I. Lionel (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What policy is it against again? Tags are self-explanatory. Removing tags is disruptive. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 06:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not self-explanatory (except for citation needed tags). That's why all the tags refer the reader to the talk page for discussion. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure "unbalanced opinion" is pretty self explanatory. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 08:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, don't explain the tag. Please note: "Anyone who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag" Per WP:TAGGING I'm going to remove it. Lionel (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious, its simply stating propaganda from the website without counterbalance. Thus, I have readded the tag, do not remove it. I have explained my concerns on this page and you have simply dismissed my concern as out of hand. That does not allow you to then go remove the tag per the essay you cited. Regardless, you are quoting an essay which has no policy value. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 14:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Lila Rose doesn't like Planned Parenthood, but critics say Planned Parenthood is great. Lila Rose likes ice cream, but critics say ice cream is unhealthy." Your approach to "balance" isn't going to fly. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is perfectly acceptable to use an org's own words to describe itself in the lede as long as it is not self-serving. Your objection is preposterous.Lionel (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is self-serving. We all know that Live Action is funded by Morton Blackwell and his "Leadership Institute", "Gerard Health Foundation" and other major "Koch-style" Astroturf organizations, to call it a "youth led movement" while receiving such funding is deceptive. [3] WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 03:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That link starts off, "On a conference call with bloggers convened by Media Matters for America ...". --B (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting reading http://www2.guidestar.org/ReportNonProfit.aspx?ein=42-1764425&name=live-action# (registration required to view irs forms, get a login from bugmenot.com) --B (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Media Matters is a great source, particularly for matters of fact which they research very well. They're on the level of SPLC, etc. in their accuracy. Your bugmenot.com site is awesome though, hadn't seen that before. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 03:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weight tag

I reorganized the article into a criticism section. Since the new section has about as much weight as the rest of the article, I added an undue weight tag. If we can add more on their activities then perhaps the criticism section can grow. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted it -- I don't think there's enough material to support a separate criticism section at the moment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nor do I, I was just moving it to get the undue weight out of the lead before we discussed it more. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Summarized the criticism in the lede. The article is quite heavy with criticism: primarily opinion and editorializing. Lionel (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Live_Action_(organization)&oldid=416677649"