Talk:Care Net

"Come, let us reason together."

Rather than edit war why not use the discussion page for its intended purpose, Roscelese and Commonwealthcitizen? Since Ros's more recent version of the article was so obviously hostile to the subject I reverted it back to Commonwealth's most recent version. However there are likely problems with that one too, though Ros's Lizzy Borden approach is not the best way to solve them. I'll help with this as I have time, but for now I'm signing off. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been trying to salvage what I could from CC's edits, but the material you restored is not among that salvage for a reason. CC's edit flat-out misrepresents sources in claiming that CPCs' provision of false medical information is simply an "accusation" by activists. It added heaps of inadequately sourced self-serving information that, at best, doesn't add anything to the article and at worse, attempts to "correct" reliably sourced information (eg. the claim that their medical information is reviewed by a physician seems to be CC's attempt to refute sourced material about false medical information). Other self-serving information is reliably sourced, but not related to Care Net specifically and cherry-picked from sources that are more balanced than their use in the article would suggest. Etc., etc. Do you actually have any defense of the material you restored, or is it simply a case of "Roscelese made an edit, must revert"? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Ummh . . . what does "Care Net provides clients they wish to persuade away from abortion services like a room with an employee . . . " mean? I can't figure out this one. Sorry, once again Roscelese has made a lot of changes without adequate discussion, so I am going to revert again. Please take proposed changes to TALK. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

That's rich - arguing that maintaining the article in the status-quo ante state is what needs discussion. I've both kept the article at the place where it was and justified my edit - you and CommonwealthCitizen have done neither. I'm not sure you understand how Wikipedia editing works - you don't get to insert content just because you feel like it one day, especially when it flagrantly violates policy in as many ways as CC's/yours did. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I've just made some relatively small changes to CC's earlier version. I suggest that editors relax, think small and incremental, and RESPECTFULLY seek approval of fellow editors on Talk page. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC) PS: The reason I originally reverted back to CC's earlier version is because it didn't seem as openly hostile to the subject of the article as did Roscelese's which used categorizations in Wikipedia's voice such as "false" and "myths" which wouldn't be encyclopedc in any case. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

If you have problems with individual words, it behooves you to change those words rather than to restore en-masse a host of policy violations. "False," however, is a word that you are unjustified in having a problem with; medicine isn't a matter of opinion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

RIGHT! For example, no other bona fide medical doctors question the theories of the 20th century's most famous doctor Sigmund Freud. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't waste my time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

On using CommonwealthCitizen's last edit as starting point

Though it is overly promotional and relies too much on information from Care Net's own website, CommonwealthCitizen's June 26 version of the article should be the starting point from which we seek consensus to make incremental changes. I'm inclined to discount any version thus far formulated by Roscelese. She has quite obviously begun this enterprise full of bile toward both the subject of the article and any editor she perceives as being friendly toward it. This attitude can be seen in these examples of her edit summaries: "Walking back POV edits . . . wow." "May take a look back to see if there's *anything* that can be retained from that [CommonwealthCitizen's edits) but it looks like precious little." "That's one! one piece of usable information from the other edit! a ha ha!" [Unlike other editors, I didn't] "lie about sources."

As for the substance of her edits, Roscelese has routinely deleted any favorable sounding information or opinions about Care Net from reliable third party sources such as Time Magazine supposedly because this material applies to crisis pregnancy centers in general rather than Care Net (the largest national network of crisis pregnancy centers) specifically, however Roscelese's has had no problem including negative sounding information directed toward crisis pregnancy centers in general rather than Care Net specifically. When I first encountered the article in the state that Roscelese had left it the section titled "Activities" read as follows:

Care Net, like other CPC networks, provides clients with myths about the supposed health risks of abortion [3 sources, one not traceable on-line to the Providence Journal], and has been met with criticism for misleadingly advertising its centers in a similar fashion as abortion clinics [2 sources, one of which is a deadlink to NARAL of New York]. It also intentionally positions its centers near college campuses and medical facilities [unsourced]. Some Care Net affiliated clinics offer ultrasound [source].

The main source for the "myth" statement ("myth" being Roscelese's own construction) was a Washington Post article about staffers for Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman who contacted local crisis pregnancy centers posing as potential clients. They are the folks who characterize the information handed out by the CPC's as "false" (though the article's headline does characterize the info as "misleading"), so Roscelese is essentially using partisan staffers as a "reliable source" here. There seems to be no acceptable source at all for the "advertising its centers . . as abortion clinics" statement. the one source here that isn't a deadlink doesn't say this and if the link to NARAl/New York was active it would be an unacceptable source for factual information about Care Net. As for the "intentionally positions" statement, it would seem to be a Roscelese invention.

To sum up, as flawed as the CommonwealthCitizen version of the article may be, Roscelese's poisoning of the wells and poisoning of the article makes her versions unacceptable as points of departure. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of flawed analysis in your comment, to say the least. First of all, it's not true that I've routinely deleted any favorable information about Care Net. In fact, I made a point of adding information about the services they provide: classes, baby supplies, financial help, etc. Secondly, it's not true that I've added negative information about CPCs in general. In fact, I made a point of removing negative sources that were about CPCs generally, like the Irish newspapers that used to be in the article, and using only sources that referred to Care Net specifically. This hasn't been the case for CC's edit, or yours: you've both been perfectly happy to strip out reliably sourced and negative information that's explicitly about Care Net, while adding promotional fluff about CPCs in general. Thirdly, it's not true that the WaPo article relies on Waxman's report and is therefore unusable: it in fact has the comment from a Care Net official that they disseminate information about the incorrect abortion-breast-cancer link. Now, do you have anything to say in defense of the advertising-like content and source misrepresentation that you've added while removing reliably sourced material, or is it, as you suggested, simply that your primary goal is to prevent me from editing this article? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Roscelese was finally goaded (yesterday) into putting tidbits of information into the Activities section that aren't apparently designed to queer the reader against the organization is somewhat commendable, I suppose. Her prose certainly isn't, to wit: "Care Net provides, to clients they wish to persuade away from abortion, services like a room with an employee . . . " GOD, what awful writing. Incidentally where does "employee" come from when the source says "volunteer"? Why would the fact that the CEO of the organization is paid have anything to do with whether or not someone working at an affiliated facility is a a volunteer or an employee? The possible "abortion-breast cancer link," as Roscelese well knows, is still being debated in medical circles. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The source doesn't state "volunteer," which is why, after initially writing "volunteer", I took another look at the source and corrected myself. Rather, the source states the name of the person the client stayed with...the CEO. No major medical organization acknowledges a link between abortion and cancer, and the WHO, NCI, ACS, ACOG, and RCOG explicitly state there is none. I've already asked you not to waste my time with this "all opinions are equally valid in science" rubbish. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Selective inclusion of "general" information

I disagree that it's necessary to include a summary of crisis pregnancy center when it's linked in the first sentence, but if we are to do so, we must certainly not summarize it selectively in order to give a promotional idea of Care Net and we must certainly not misrepresent sources. Gibbs's remark is not a "tribute" but rather an assessment of CPCs' tactics compared to the protesting/lobbying side of the movement. Why include advertising-related legislation that was struck down but not advertising-related court cases that found CPCs doing wrong, if not to imply that CPCs' advertising is all above board? Why not expand on the false medical information and misleading advertising, which are a major focus of news coverage of CPCs? Or on their role as part of their movement, rather than solely as providers of products and services? (Not in the main article, but I've just made myself a note to write that.)

As well, the claim about Care Net centers receiving volunteer awards is not reliably sourced and my searches have been unable to find reliable sources elsewhere. The idea that Wikipedia bases its content on reliable sources is not revolutionary and that principle is not waived just because you have a personal grudge against a particular user who complies with it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Now why would I hold a grudge against such a a gracious, charming, and intelligent person such as you, Ros. Why I'm sure you've been told countless times what an attractive personality you have. As for the substance of your remarks, of course we need to be "selective," just not unfairly or misleadingly selective. For example saying that Care Net Centers "intentionally" locate near colleges and medical centers without any apparent source would certainly be misleadingly selective (actually "misleadingly inventive"), so I scrapped it. Using NARAL, unattributed in-line, as a source for factual information about an opposing group would be unfairly selective, so we don't want to do that. As for the scope of the article, I don't think that it's necessary to include some basic info that pertains to CPC's generally and to Care Net more incidentally, but it wouldn't hurt the article. Obviously such info should be in summary form with the greater detail in the Wiki article on Crisis Pregnancy Centers. Apparently, for example, the majority of those Presidential Volunteer Service Awards (which CommonwealthCitizen didn't make up) did go to Care Net facilities (See [1]). As for the legal challenges and court cases, by all means edit away! Just keep it brief, fair, and pithy. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the removal of unsourced or poorly sourced information. My problem is with your repeated addition of poorly sourced information and removal or misrepresentation of well-sourced information. However, none of this is particularly relevant to my earlier comment, and since you agree that the material you've added is unnecessary as well as misrepresentative, perhaps you won't mind my removing it again and we can end the discussion here.

I'm not sure you understand that we need a reliable source for claims about these awards. (As well, now that I look at the award's website, it's not selective; it seems that one simply needs to fulfill certain criteria for eligibility.) You're not a n00b and you know that press releases from one organization (Care Net) aren't reliable sources for the actions of someone else (Presidential Volunteer Service Award); why are you pretending that you don't know this in order to justify the addition of information without a real source? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm a computer illiterate and found the Care Net website announcement in about 30 seconds. It's covered in other on-line sources such as PR Newswire and Catholic Online. For someone who has placed stuff in this article that seems to have no sourcing at all, Roscelese, you seem to have become quite finicky about sourcing it now. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you or do you not know what a press release is? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

All sorts of bona fide news stories basically come from press releases. A newspaper or an online vehicle have the option of considering them newsworthy or not. If you told a newsservice that you were working some interesting articles in Wikipedia they would shrug their shoulders. If they were convinced that you had received a Presidential award they would probably run the story and you would be entitled to have it mentioned in your Wikipedia biography. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

So that's a "no." Good to know. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I should have realized it earlier. You have Asperger's, Ros. Not that there's anything wrong with that it just means you can't deal constructively with folks who you perceive as oppositional. Good to know.Badmintonhist (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow!

Perhaps all the fuss did some good. The article actually seems quite "fair and balanced" now. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Christian

It's not true that you have to be a Christian to work for Care Net. Could someone please change that. They also do more than just pro- life counseling. It should say so in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougthehomosapien (talk • contribs) 17:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I responded to your concern on my talk page after you posted there - all employees and volunteers have to comply with the statement of faith, meaning not only that they must be Christian but that they must be particular denominations of Christian. And I've already mentioned that it's well documented that Care Net doesn't accurately inform people about all their options. The most we might be able to say is that they say they do, but we can't include outright falsehood simply because it's part of their promotional material. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Criticism

@KatieHepPal: The cited source has someone saying they felt duped by Care Net's locating and advertising near PP. If you don't think that is critical enough, I recommend reworking the sentence in order to preserve the information without a critical spin, rather than removing it entirely, as "they locate near PP in order to pick up PP patients" is still cited information about Care Net that belongs in the article. I can help you if you're not sure how. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it makes perfect sense "businesswise" for them to locate in the same areas as abortion providing clinics. I think what you've just said above is fine. Just put it in some appropriate spot in the article. Thanks. KatieHepPal (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, let me know what you think of the change I made. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

What you put in was fine. KatieHepPal (talk) 16:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Care Net. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229051116/https://www.care-net.org/affiliation/index.php to http://www.care-net.org/affiliation/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)