Talk:40 Days for Life

Independent sources

Florida Catholic seems like a perfectly fine reliable secondary source to me. I am not sure why it would be deemed "not independent" of 40DFL (an interfaith org, based in TX). CBN - the Christian Broadcasting Network - seems to be a decent source of news. It is not deprecated. Please explain why it might not be a WP:RS. Elizium23 (talk) 06:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

At a bare minimum it is very unequivocally WP:BIASED when it comes to abortion or religion, so it could only be cited for those things with an in-line citation (ie. "according to the Florida Catholic...") Additionally, we should try to reduce the number of biased sources in the article - citing sources with one particular bias excessively leads to WP:NPOV / WP:WEIGHT issues. Just a glance at this article's sources shows that it has serious WP:BALANCE issues when it comes to sources - we can cite a few Catholic / Christian / anti-abortion sources, in moderation, with in-line citations, in order to present their perspective; but we can't cite them for unqualified statements of fact on a topic that falls under their bias, and we definitely can't base so much of the article on them. --Aquillion (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillion: How about facts like "the group began in Texas" or "The group runs campaigns during Lent"? I don't see how a source's bias would lead it to misrepresent these points, or why they would need in-text attribution. Cheers, gnu57 19:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Those still require in-line citations when cited to an unequivocally WP:BIASED source, for several reasons. First, if a fact is citeable only to such sources, we should be seriously considering omitting it entirely. Second, those sources can, collectively, form a narrative about the organization that doesn't match or reflect how it's usually covered in more neutral sources. For instance, "this is just a mom-and-pop business founded in the basement" or "this is a grassroots campaign that began with one person's desire for change" are things that can be less neutral in context than they seem on the surface and which organizations frequently use to downplay problems that have dominated coverage (a major reason why WP:PROMOTIONAL articles are often filled with such random inoffensive trivia.) It's better for us to find more neutral sources and base the overarching structure and history as described in the article on those, confining WP:BIASED sources to opinions; random factoids that are only citeable to biased sources should be viewed with suspicion at best and should generally just be omitted to avoid a situation where (as is the case now) large parts of the article end up structured around a narrative set by people with a vested interest in portraying the topic in a particular way. Consider: If you look at the sources now in the article, we have neutral, mainstream news sources describing the organization as highly-controversial (one source in the lead actually only brings it up in reference to inspiring abortion-clinic shooters!) combined with WP:BIASED sources painting this inoffensive picture of how David Bereit and Shawn Carney greased up their arms and pushed for change. That isn't WP:NPOV - if reliable sources take a largely critical view, we need to reflect that, rather than "balancing" it out with a lot of factoids from biased sources. In fact, I would argue that biased sources are better used for overt, strident arguments in favor of the organization (with an in-line citation); facts should be cited to more neutral sources when available, and left out as WP:UNDUE when no neutral sources are available. Otherwise we end up with things like "Richard Nixon was well-known for doing crimes and also for his cute dog, Checkers." --Aquillion (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

one source in the lead actually only brings it up in reference to inspiring abortion-clinic shooters! Sorry, which source do you mean? I don't have access to the Times one, but I've checked all the others and don't see that.

I agree that trivial factoids should generally be omitted, but I don't agree that if reliable sources take a largely critical view, we need to reflect that. There is no requirement or guarantee that a reliable source be an impartial one. Trusting a source for facts doesn't mean adopting its editorial line. (This applies to both religious and secular publications.)

If you're looking for a secular source for the history of the group's founding, here's something from a local newspaper: [1]. Cheers, gnu57 20:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I would hesitate long and hard about describing "news sources" as "neutral". In fact, most news sources such as CNN are heavily WP:BIASED in favor of abortion, and their stories tend to be WP:PROMOTIONAL of Planned Parenthood and political candidates who support them. Not to mention actresses and musicians who support Planned Parenthood and contraception by activism, the arts and other efforts. So it's hilarious to me that once we find a couple of tenable WP:IS independent sources that they'd be dismissed out-of-hand as biased. Face it: every source on abortion is biased. It's a polarizing topic. There is no source that's going to sit there and go "meh, abortion is ok, but kinda avoid it if you can..." if that's what you expect out of a neutral source. That's not CNN or MSNBC, who are more like "abortion! rah rah rah! go PP!" Elizium23 (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Fallacies in Avatar317's reasoning

1. A source does not need to be listed in WP:RS/P in order to be considered reliable. In fact, it's best if it isn't found there, as RS/P is chiefly for deprecating bad sources.
2. A source that opposes abortion is not an independent source? What kind of crack are you smoking? There are thousands of independent pro-life organizations, and plenty of news sources that are pro-life, pro-choice, and pro-abortion. It only serves neutrality if we are able to use all of those which are reliable. Also, you're an anti-Catholic bigot for saying that Catholic sources can't be used.

This article is under WP:Discretionary sanctions so I'd advise, rather than reverting again, to discuss here. If you'd like, we can go to WP:RSN about the reliability of sources you question, but I'm afraid you wouldn't like the answers. Elizium23 (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Anti-Abortion

IP, the terminology on Wikipedia has been discussed and editor consensus has been reached as to the language used in articles relating to abortion. Please see the Anti-Abortion Movements and associated Talk page, and the linked discussion on that page. Please do not outright revert again, without first discussing here. Consensus can change, but only if you talk it out. King keudo (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Funding

How are the funds received used for salaries/administration, advertising, campaigns, etc. ? Would appreciate a percentage breakdown of categories. 35.134.242.56 (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

First sentence of "Opposition" section

Recently, King keudo reverted changes I made to the sentence referred to above. I suspect keudo might not have read the source article [2] carefully. It's author, Holly Baxter, does use the word "harass" in her article, but does not accuse the anti-abortion protesters of "regularly harassing women and pregnant children as young as 12 years old trying to access vital healthcare, photograph them as they enter sexual health or maternity clinics, and provide these vulnerable people with leaflets disguised as NHS literature, which health professionals describe as 'pseudo-medical' and 'misleading".

Baxter does mention one protester who claims to have "saved" a twelve-year-old girl, but does not describe this presumed interaction as either "regular" or as "harassment". She does relate a story from the clinic supervisor about "a particularly threatening man" who, "last year", took photos of clients at the clinic door, but the supervisor goes on to say that the protesters claimed the man had nothing to do with their group. While Baxter might well agree that health care at this particular clinic is "vital" she doesn't actually use that adjective, nor does she call the clients "vulnerable" although she would probably agree that they are. Finally, while most health professionals probably would agree that the information in the leaflets handed out by the protesters was "misleading" and "pseudo-scientific" these particular descriptions actually come from a clinic "spokesperson".

In short, the Wikipedia editor who used this Guardian article embellished it, by trying to cross all the t's and dot all the i's, or at least the t's and i's, which would cast 40 Days in a worse light, and that is not acceptable. Goodtablemanners (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Correct. The article does not describe "regular" harassment. It relates the story of one 12 year old who chose not to have an abortion, and the story of "one particularly intimidating" man who took photos. The phrase claiming they "regularly" harass twelve-years olds and take photos can of women entering/exiting clinics simply not be substantiated by this source. –Zfish118^⋉talk 16:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

There is currently no content that is disproportionately praising or reading like advertisement copy. The article is pretty barebone facts, each directly attributed by citation and in most cases in text attribution. I am removing the neutrality tag (but not the reliable source tag). The sources are transparently used in the current state, but other mainstream sources may be available for further context and commentary. –Zfish118^⋉talk 17:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)