User talk:CommonwealthCitizen

June 2013

Hello, I'm Roscelese. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Thanks for the note, Roscelese. The intention was not to be promotional but to update with additional citations and remove language that appears to be violate Wikipedia "WP:NPOV" standards. Hopefully, consensus can be reached that eliminates any appearance of either bias or promotional activity. talk. Best regards, CommonwealthCitizen

Thanks for your response - I appreciate it. I understand that you want to update the article - however, it needs to be updated with reliable sources. For instance, our policy on reliable sources identifies self-published sources, like the press release that you added, as problematic - since they have no editorial oversight or reputation for accuracy, the situations we can use them in are limited, and we can't use them to make statements about what other people or groups have done. This means that we can't use the press release to state that the government agency has given awards to Care Net. Does that make sense? (I looked around for other sources too in case it had been covered in a reliable source, but I couldn't find anything. If you think there's a reliable source I might be missing - an agency like Reuters or a newspaper like the New York Times or Washington Post, for instance - that has written about the supposed event, rather than just reprinting Care Net's words, we might be able to use it.) Similarly, Americans United for Life is not a reliable source. In the past, your edits have also misrepresented reliable sources, for instance your writing that Care Net's providing clients with false medical information was just an accusation by activists and bloggers, when reliable sources, like newspapers, pointed out that it was fact (in one article, a Care Net official even admitted to it).

Since you're editing in the topic area, you should also know that abortion-related articles are subject to an arbitration decision which states that, among other things, editors must edit with a neutral point of view, base articles on accurate representations of reliable published sources, and not revert more than once in a 24-hour period.

I suggest that if you have new material you wish to add, you visit Talk:Care Net and explain why you think it is suitable and reliable, rather than edit warring. Since you're a new user, this might help you figure out how stuff works here. Right now, even if your aim is not promotional, your misuse of sources and attempts to make the article overwhelmingly favorable to Care Net is giving the impression that you are, if not financially affiliated with the group, at least heavily biased in their favor.

Does all that make sense?

Thanks for clearing up the affiliation issue!

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am new and learning as I go. Thanks for the help. The links to Wikipedia editing standards are helpful. While Americans United for Life (AUL) is clearly an advocacy organization with an agenda, I'm not sure why it can't be cited as a source, even after reading the standards. Can you explain? Would it be better to provide separate links to government websites containing commending resolutions in various states? The American Independent could hardly be considered a neutral source either, being a 501(c)3 and given its stated goal of "impact journalism," and I don't have a problem with them being cited. A fair article should cover both sides, those which might be perceived as favorable or opposed on a subject. Your edits have included citations of NARAL ProChoice NY's website which is surely every bit as biased in one direction as AUL is in another and opinions stated as fact, such as "Clients are also told myths about the supposed health risks of abortion" or "Care Net, like other CPC networks, provides false medical information has been met with criticism for misleadingly advertising its centers in a similar fashion as abortion clinics." While I am sure we both have perspectives, again in a user-edited community like Wikipedia, I am sure we can arrive at a fair resolution. With regard to words like pro-life / pro-choice and anti-abortion is there an editorial ruling somewhere that addresses when it is appropriate to use them? I tend to refer to groups by their preferred terminology when the terms themselves are disputed, such as saying that Planned Parenthood is "pro-choice" and Americans United for Life is "pro-life." While there may be some bias in referring to an organization as it would characterize itself, there is certainly bias involved in an editor ascribing terminology to an organization which it would NOT use to describe itself (such as calling the National Organization for Women "anti-life" or the Christian Medical and Dental Association "anti-abortion."

- CommonwealthCitizen

I'll try to address your points in order - let me know if I miss anything by mistake :)

• I think it would be better to provide sources for the individual governments, yes. That way we at least know that the material is factual. The best thing you could do would be to provide reliable news sources about these events happening, since pages on the government website are primary sources.
• I'm not particularly familiar with the American Independent (newspapers have such similar names!) Looking at its article, I can't tell that it does advocacy journalism as opposed to investigative journalism - but I'm open to being persuaded. It's definitely a verifiable fact, because I remember first learning about it through Care Net's own material, but citing Care Net's website instead just brings us back to the problem of overreliance on primary sources and whether we actually need all the material under "religion." Eh, we'll figure something out.
• Re the idea that it's fairer to cover both sides - if necessary, yes, but I think it's better to have better quality sources all round than to balance inferior sources from one side with inferior sources from another.
• In my own editing of the article, I've tried hard to make sure that anything stated as fact is cited to a non-advocacy source - so I made a point of finding newspaper articles about Care Net and false medical information, rather than documents from organizations (or newspapers that were about false medical info but not about Care Net specifically, which the article used to have - since the article is about Care Net!). Since it wasn't my priority, I left the NARAL source (which was cited for advertising only) framed as "criticism", but have been working behind the scenes to try to find proper sources. It's a problem of specificity to Care Net rather than lack of verifiability for the principle in general. I recently added a mention of a Care Net ad/location from a New York Times article.
• Re pro-life and pro-choice in article text - it seems to be somewhat up to the discretion of the editors, and frankly it's difficult because the terms are not balanced. You offer "anti-life" and "anti-abortion" as the flip side - but "pro-choicers" will deny that they are anti-life, while I think it'd be hard to find a "pro-lifer" who isn't proud to state that they oppose abortion! My own philosophy is generally to leave well enough alone - if I'm writing text from scratch, I'll use "anti-abortion", but I won't revert anyone who changes it to "pro-life" unless that introduces vagueness or neutrality problems. Other editors might, though. And then in some articles you end up with an imbalance for specific reasons - like, it's obviously inappropriate to use "anti-life" or "pro-abortion" as a balance, but no one wants Anti-abortion violence to be called "Pro-life violence" or "Pro-life terrorism" - and article titles are a whole other game that necessitated a huge community discussion. As a general rule, it is not considered inappropriate to describe a group using a term other than its preferred one as long as the term is itself neutral (eg. "pro-abortion-rights" for "pro-choice" or "anti-abortion" for "pro-life"). Anyway, that was a long explanation - welcome to the abortion topic area on Wikipedia. :P Is this about your own edit of the lede specifically? In this case it just got caught in the crossfire of a large revert - "Christian" or "evangelical Christian" is more specific than "faith-based" and there were lots of issues in the body of the article. But as long as we're clear in the lede that the purpose of the centers is to persuade a person not to have an abortion, I'm not fussed about the terminology. What do you think of a combination of your lede and mine: "Care Net is an evangelical Christian pregnancy center organization operating primarily in the United States. As a pro-life organization its centers seek to persuade a person not to have an abortion. Headquartered in Northern Virginia, it is the nation's largest affiliation network of local pregnancy centers." Or something like that.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Have to make this quick but it seems like primary sources might work for the commending resolutions as it is pretty straightforward (not open to interpretation) what a commending resolution is. The resolutions are also mentioned in the press in some, but not all cases. The "Independent" papers are clear enough that they do advocacy journalism (see their "about us" section) and even they mention commending resolutions: http://coloradoindependent.com/113772/crisis-pregnancy-centers-push-anti-abortion-agenda-nationally . As for the lede, I think that can work. The Planned Parenthood wiki article doesn't state in the lede that its purpose is to persuade people TO have abortions, even though there is evidence that they do so, just as there is that pregnancy centers do the opposite. - CommonwealthCitizen 2 July 2013

Well, no, the reason it doesn't state that is because it isn't true. It would be very silly to include something like that! Thanks for the Colorado Independent and for directing me to the right place for that news network's "about us" - I agree. When I have a chance, I'll see if I can find another source for the thing it's cited for. Also, I don't know if you saw my comment on the talk page, but Presidential Volunteer Service Awards, even if they can be appropriately sourced, aren't really something that would belong in the article. There's no selection process involved - all you have to do is satisfy certain criteria (eg. # of volunteer hours and being a citizen). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

CommonwealthCitizen, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi CommonwealthCitizen! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Are you financially affiliated with Care Net? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

(I've raised the question of your affiliation with Care Net at WP:COIN.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Care Net

There is a discussion, of sorts, taking place at the article for "Care Net" that you, as a contributor to the article might find of interest. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)