Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::::::::::These issues of "context" exist on other issues but have not been used to encumber other articles. This is a poor excuse to censor an article. - ] (]) 00:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::These issues of "context" exist on other issues but have not been used to encumber other articles. This is a poor excuse to censor an article. - ] (]) 00:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::lol censorship. You're really disappointed that NPOV is a core policy, aren't you? ] (] ⋅ ]) 00:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::lol censorship. You're really disappointed that NPOV is a core policy, aren't you? ] (] ⋅ ]) 00:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::You still haven't explained why that would apply here. - ] (]) 00:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Of course it's relevant and also needed to break up the long text. I don't see how it could possibly violate NPOV. Although obviously such images are used by anti-abortion propagandists, it's like saying a picture of a sick puppy is NPOV because such pictures are used as propaganda by the SPCA, or something. It's just a sonogram of a fetus, for pete's sake. ] (]) 17:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Of course it's relevant and also needed to break up the long text. I don't see how it could possibly violate NPOV. Although obviously such images are used by anti-abortion propagandists, it's like saying a picture of a sick puppy is NPOV because such pictures are used as propaganda by the SPCA, or something. It's just a sonogram of a fetus, for pete's sake. ] (]) 17:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
:Is there a sizable contingent intent on denying that puppies deserve better? Which is to say, is there an actual political debate that would make the inclusion of a puppy image have the effect of Misplaced Pages's advertising for one side? ] (] ⋅ ]) 20:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
:Is there a sizable contingent intent on denying that puppies deserve better? Which is to say, is there an actual political debate that would make the inclusion of a puppy image have the effect of Misplaced Pages's advertising for one side? ] (] ⋅ ]) 20:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion
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.
Reversion discussion
I don't have any problems with this. The clarification regarding volunteers was good, and the sentence about services does need citations (although, since Schrandit originated it, I'll be glad to let him provide those). My only question is whether, once he provides the citations, the sentence would work better at the beginning or end of the paragraph. What's your thinking? DylanFlaherty01:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the part about false medical information is the logical thing to immediately follow a generic statement about them giving information. Or do you mean that the adoption referrals etc. should come before the "information related to..."? Because that wouldn't seem to make sense, as all CPCs presumably give information, while not all do other things. (For what it's worth, I moved the other services statement to the end of the paragraph only so that it would be clear what the "citation needed" was referring to - I think it works better there, but don't have strong feelings about it.)
Incidentally, we do have a source to the effect that they sometimes give out baby clothes or something like that. I found it in one of the previously cited sources when I was editing a few days ago, and added the cited statement to the body of the article somewhere. Other things still need citations though. Roscelese (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
No, I definitely agree that the mention of false information must come immediately after the list of information they give out. I was talking about the list coming before. Let me paste here for clarity.
CPCs offer peer counseling and may provide adoption referrals, pregnancy testing, STD screening and other services. While they provide women with information related to abortion, pregnancy and childbirth, investigations have routinely found that they disseminate false medical information. (approx 10^14 citations here)
First, the two sentences specifically about medical information are now joined, making them flow together more tightly.
Second, the structure is now general-to-specific. We start off by briefly listing some of the services offered, all of which are more general than providing information.
Keep in mind that, when CPCs do provide information, it's not just through counseling, so we wouldn't want to commit to that. Medical information is often provided through hand-outs, posters, videos and audios. It's also provided in the course of performing medical services.
I took that to mean that you agree with my suggested edit. If not, I apologize for any misunderstanding and would be entirely willing to revert that part of my change. DylanFlaherty20:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Schrandit 2010-12-19 changes
a) "about the health risks of abortion" - We have citations regarding other medical errors, including statements about when a urine test should be taken, as well as unsupported claims regarding the health of a fetus. Removed.
b) "Many CPCs also provide" - Changed the order to move more common items up front, and made it clear that the only service guaranteed to be provided is the non-medical counseling.
c) "many require their staff to be Christian" - Restored this fact. Also altered the next sentence to clarify the nature of the statement.
d) "In 2006 a New York abortion-provider" - For reasons stated many times, there is no consensus for inclusion. Do not reinsert. Removed.
e) "(D-CA)" - This is blatently pointy. If anyone wants to know Mr. Waxman's party affiliation or home state, they're free to click. Removed.
a. Since we have over a dozen sources reporting false information and no sources reporting real information (also, since you can actually go to major CPC websites and see for yourself, but we don't have that in the article right now), I think "routinely" is accurate. I would also be cool with "consistently."
c. Is your problem with "many"? Because Care Net and CAPSS are the largest CPC networks in the USA and Canada, Care Net accounts for over a thousand centers, and other unaffiliated CPCs also make such a requirement. Is your problem with "require"? "You can't work here unless you are Christian" absolutely warrants the word "require." Is your problem with "Christian"? Because you've already given your spiel about how we can't knoooooow they're Christian because Christianity is undefinable, and it was rejected as a stupid argument.
d. No, you haven't. You've still only provided local coverage of one incident in which no fault was found, meaning that inclusion would violate WP:UNDUE.
a. - We have over a dozen sources complaining of untimely urine tests?
c. - I don't care about the term "many". The previous wording was inaccurate to the point of being potentially legally problematic.
d. - I have provided more than local coverage and I accurately summarized the case in a section full of other cases.
f. - Dylan and I both agreed that the post-abortion counseling section should be split. Why do you keep posting it back together? - Schrandit (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
a. Hence my addition of "usually but not exclusively."
c. Could you explain in what way it is inaccurate and/or legally problematic? The centers require their staff to be Christian. We know they require their staff to be Christian (not only Christian, but Christian in a specific way) because if they didn't, they wouldn't be Care Net or CAPSS affiliates. (If you want to split off the first sentence, "CPCs do not turn away customers on the basis of religion," into another paragraph, by all means do - I'd love it if your contributions to this article consisted of things other than removing citations that we agreed should remain and restoring things that we agreed should stay out. One-sentence paragraphs are frowned upon, though, so you'd actually have to do a bit of research.)
d. Uh-huh, that's clearly a credible, non-partisan source.
f. Because it's simply not criticism. There is nothing critical about it; it's not critical of CPCs, it's not critical of post-abortion counseling, there is nothing in that sentence that could possibly be construed as belonging in a criticism section. If you have a problem with it in its current location, by all means find somewhere else to put it that makes sense, but this just looks like a desperate attempt to avoid mentioning CPC political activity anywhere near their services. (Also, as Dylan can't speak for himself at the moment, I'm afraid I have to be the one to point out that lack of reversion - particularly when he didn't revert my placement of it either - is very unlike "agreement." Don't lie and say people support you when they don't. It just makes your position look weaker.)
a. - 1 report out of 2,500 CPCs in 40 years? Thats undue in a big way and unsuitable for the lead.
c. - I'd be fine without that first sentence. CPCs don't require their staff to be Christian though for some affiliations they have to be able to sign a statement of faith. This is what our sources say and to revert to the previous phrasing would be legally questionable.
d. - Cool.
f. - Please take a deep breath and comment on actions, not users. Dylan stated his support for the movement on this talk page.
a. We can't imply that it's exclusively about the supposed health risks, because that isn't the case. Also, more than one source attests other false information. (Would you support creating a subsection that details the type of false information? Then we could just say "false medical information" in the lead, and elaborate in the subsection.)
c. Yes, they do require their staff to be Christian. We know that affiliates of Care Net and CAPSS require every employee and every volunteer to comply with a statement of faith (which I really doubt is the shahada). We know that this is true because if it wasn't true, the center could not be an affiliate. If you think it's "legally questionable," please explain why as I have asked you to do - assertion is not explanation, much less argument - and do not continue removing material against consensus.
g. Only tangentially related to article, lends bias. Do we have a picture of a CPC that we could use? That would seem to be the most suitable illustration.
a. - We use the word routinely the only thing that is remotely reoutinly mentioned is abortion.
c. - Legally, it is not. CPCs do not require their staff to be Christian, though if they want to apply for affiliation for some organizations their staff must be prepared to sign a statement of faith. This is analogous to affirmative action or title X or what ever other preference system you want to compare it to in America. Now there is whatever truth you wish to see in any of those systems but the law (and our sources) do not support the text as you would have it. We can enter into a legally slanderous position by alleging workplace discrimination.
f. - Convenient...but fine.
g. - Its a sonogram of a baby in a section about sonograms of babies.
a. We use the word "routinely" to describe their provision of false medical information. Are you having trouble parsing that sentence? I can break it down for you, if you don't know what it means.
c. It's not a "preference system." Without getting into a tangent that would display just how little you seem to know about affirmative action in the United States, quotas are unconstitutional - a business can't say "We will only hire black applicants." On the other hand, that's exactly what these CPCs do say, substituting "Christian" (sometimes a specific sort of Christian) for "black." To repeat, for the third or fourth time: We know they require personnel to be Christian. We know this because if they didn't require personnel to be Christian, they could not be affiliates under the conditions of affiliation, and they are indeed affiliates. Care Net and the other centers we cited don't seem to have a problem declaring openly that they are committing "workplace discrimination" (which I suspect they're exempt from laws on, as they are religious organizations), so your solicitousness is pretty useless.
g. So I'm sure you'd support the inclusion of a picture of a courtroom. That, in no way, prompts the reader to have any opinions on what CPCs do. I'll remove the ultrasound image again, and let you find a nice courtroom image yourself - then, they can both be added together.
h. It's so cute how you keep claiming everyone agrees with you. That's really the sign of a mature contributor.
Two for two is not an overwhelming consensus in your favor, and since yours and Kevin's stated reasons for disposing of a number of the sources are demonstrably (and indeed have been demonstrated to be) false, it might be worth a refresher. I'll let him know on his talk page that we're still on that conversation, and see if he has any response to the comments Dylan made earlier. As for you, would you care to review the sources? Your claims that the sources say nothing about medical information or only quote pro-choice activists are demonstrably and obviously false - do you have any real arguments against keeping the references, or do you just want a statement that might question CPCs' reliability to have fewer sources?
Why don't you ask Binksternet which references ze supports keeping? Are you afraid ze might have changed hir mind? "I support having two or three references" =/= "Schrandit, my man, why don't you remove whatever references you personally dislike?"
Since you claim that your removal of references was based on consensus, I'm sure the removal of Waxman was just an oversight (ha see what I did there).
i. Since our source is from 2006, I think it's probably better to say "CPCs got $60 million by 2006" or "...between 2001 and 2006," rather than extrapolating - particularly since the change of administration. Do we have a more current source on federal funding?
a. - Our sources routinely alledge mispresentation of information about abortion and nothing else.
c. - They do no and our sources do not say that they do. If you have sourced commentary on the secondary effect of this affiliation system feel free to include it, OR on what you think CPC hiring practices are could get us sued.
g. - If there is a picture of a CPCs related court case for a section on CPCs related court cases by all means bring it in. The lack of a such a picture is no reason to exclude another pertinent one.
h. - Do not ever presume to speak for me to other users, use standard English pronouns and frankly no, I don't see what you did there - speak plainly, ditch the sarcasm and commentary on other users.
i. - If you'd like.
j. - Why do you keep removing the court case?
k. - Its a reasonable question about the Irish, the agency explicetly exists to provide women with the resouces to make abortion unconsiderable. - Schrandit (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
a. Then you do need me to parse it for you. It's okay to admit it. "Investigations have routinely found that they disseminate false medical information" - this means that "routinely" applies to "false medical information" as a general category, so that it can encompass the alleged health risks, but also inaccurate descriptions of fetal health, of testing mechanisms, etc. "usually but not exclusively about the health risks of abortion" - this means that most of the false information is about the alleged risks, but not all of it. (I must have missed your response to my suggestion - do you think it would be better to create a subsection on the types of false information they give, source each type separately, and just say "false medical information" in the lead with the understanding that the reader can proceed to the subsection?)
c. You don't need to be Care Net's advocate. I'm sure they pay lawyers for that. If they, or any of these other centers, thought they could get sued from requiring employees to be Christian, they wouldn't put that information out there on the intertubes. Rest easy.
g. Joking aside - like I said, my concern here is POV. "The section is about how CPCs use ultrasound images to try to persuade women not to have abortions...including an ultrasound image couldn't possibly introduce any bias!" I'm sure you're only trying to include the image because you feel it is pertinent, rather than because you want to introduce bias, so why don't you find an image that's even more pertinent - like an image of a CPC?
h. See my response at Kevin's talk page. I don't know if Binksternet is a man or a woman, so I opted to avoid mis-gendering hir, but it's adorable how you think you have the authority to dictate others' use of inclusive language. (The "see what I did there" was in reference to oversight, as the report was issued for the oversight committee. Don't worry too hard about it.)
j. As Binksternet and Dylan said - undue weight. We detail a few cases about CPCs advertising falsely, but our sources say dozens of similar cases exist - on the contrary, yours is the only such case that anyone (Wiki editor or reporter) has managed to dig up, fault was neither found nor admitted, and no non-local sources appear to care.
k. Fair enough. I'll add a bit of info to clarify the difference from American CPCs.
a. - This is an encyclopedia, specificity is a virtue. We could just "false information" with medical information being encompassed in that and the nature of that information further being encompassed in that. As long as "routinely" is going to stay in there is no reason to deprive the reader of what, exactly, is being routinely discussed.
c. - I'm not, but we can't take your synthesis of sources and in turn accuse CPCs affiliated with Care Net of a crime with out it being explicitly stated by our sources.
g. - I actually looked for one first. This was the most pertinent one I could find. In all seriousness I did and am still thinking about putting a picture of Henry Waxman (we do have 2 of those) in the section about Henry Waxman. An article verging on 40 KB should have a few pics. This was the best I could find for now.
a. Exactly - specificity is a virtue. That's why it's good to make sure readers know it's not only false information about risks. Your thoughts on a subsection?
c. I've explained over and over again in all the ways I possibly can. If you think there's a legal issue, take it to noticeboard. Until you have either consensus or outside authority to remove this sourced information, stop.
g. That would be...interesting. But I don't think so. Since anything worth doing is worth doing well, if you insist on including pictures, find neutral pictures. Reverted...again.
h. Making things up out of thin air doesn't make you look smarter, it makes you look stupider. I recommend against it.
j. You're almost there! Including this one case, which by any account is a total outlier, violates WP:UNDUE. If there were more such cases, then it could be included.
k. The difference between American CPCs and Irish CPCs is that the former try to persuade women not to have abortions through counseling, while the latter, according to the cited source, try to achieve the same goal by providing "services and supports which make other options more attractive." We know that some American CPCs provide those things, and it may be the case that some Irish CPCs provide anti-abortion counseling, but it seems like the basic definition differs - can you suggest a phrasing that you'd prefer that still conveys this distinction? I thought mine was pretty good as it referred to the primary method that the centers use, ie. not claiming that "services and supports" aren't in the American arsenal as well.
a. I've already parsed that sentence for you. I won't do so again; just read further up in this section.
c. I've explained over and over again in all the ways I possibly can. If you think there's a legal issue, take it to noticeboard. Until you have either consensus or outside authority to remove this sourced information, stop.
g. No, I'm removing it because I think NPOV is an important standard to adhere to. You may not feel the same, but unfortunately for you, it's one of the core principles of this site.
h. Awwwww, you think you have the authority to fire me now! Have you ever even had a job, to say nothing of underlings? Don't worry, maybe you will one day if you work very very hard.
k. If "most" in America do as well, surely you can prove it with a citation. The citations currently in the article support the claim that some do, or even that many do, but not that most do. Not that it matters, since in order to remove that statement, you'd have to prove that CPCs' primary means of achieving their goal is the provision of services and supports, which is obviously not true.
k. Some options: provide a source that indicates that our present sources (which indicate that American CPCs pursue their goal primarily through counseling) are unreliable, provide a different (reliable) source that indicates that American CPCs pursue their goal primarily through providing "services and supports," or provide a source that indicates that the Irish CPA/CPP website is not telling the truth about the centers' primary MO (you could try Irish newspapers). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
a. - You can't have your cake and eat it too. Our sources do not indicate that anything other than the relationship with breast cancer is routinely discussed.
g. - You have provided no rational for why NPOV would apply to a picture of a sonogram in a section about sonograms.
k. - The first and principle service delivered to Irish women in crisis pregnancies by their government is counseling. Services is not a category from which counseling is excluded. - Haymaker (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
a. Then Jakes can come and discuss in talk like everyone else. No one is special.
g. You may not like the rationale. You may think "oooh, fetus!" overrides all NPOV concerns. But I did provide a rationale, so your assertion that I didn't is obviously false. If you're going to misrepresent things, why don't you misrepresent things that other people can't easily disprove for themselves? Doing what you're doing makes you look lazy as well as dishonest.
k. Unsurprisingly, your link doesn't say what you said it does (couldn't you make an effort and read the site?) but I recognize that you may be a little confused. Irish CPCs do offer counseling, but as is obvious from their counseling leaflet and strategy book, this counseling is not provided with the goal of dissuading women from abortion - that goal appears to be furthered, as the site itself says, through the aforementioned "services and supports." (Hence my referring above to the primary method of pursuing the goal. Maybe you're just confused, instead of deliberately conflating the provision of counseling with the attempt to reduce abortion, but even though they're the same in the USA, you see, it appears to work differently in Ireland.) I welcome your suggestion of better ways of phrasing the sentence that would still convey the idea that Irish and American CPCs operate differently. (We could also mention that Irish CPCs will discuss abortion options and largely reject the American system of directive counseling.)
No, because it's the one sourced to the most news articles, ie., most of the mainstream information we have on CPCs is currently about their false medical information, and it's a major point of the article. Please reread points 2 and 3 (for 3, see also WP:STRUCTURE) as well if you plan to continue advocating that the section be moved. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, not all the news articles have the false information as a focus, of course. If you want to write a section on how CPCs are sometimes seen as constituting a new strategy in the "abortion war," I think that would be a great section. But the point remains that it's the section with the most news support. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
RFC: Statement of faith and workplace discrimination
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
In order to become an affiliate of some CPCs organizations a CPC's staff and volunteers have to be willing to sign a statement of faith. Is it acceptable synthesis that into text that reads that "Many CPCs require their staff to be Christian" and allege work-place discrimination? - Schrandit (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Schrandit fails to mention that the institutions that require this statement of faith are the largest in the USA and Canada respectively, affiliating with well over one thousand centers, and that we also cite unaffiliated centers that require personnel to be Christian. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Those are all volunteer positions and affiliations. Those do not verify the legally weight claims of workplace discrimination. - Schrandit (talk) 23:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Because a company that requires volunteers to be Christian is definitely run by Jews and atheists - but that quibble doesn't really matter, since even without those centers, we still have Care Net and CAPSS, which account for well over a thousand CPCs and which specify that paid workers must also comply with said statement of faith. Care to try another argument? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you have any reason to suppose that Care Net and CAPSS are lying about making every employee and volunteer of every affiliate sign a statement of faith in Jesus? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The staff in question are not employees of Care Net of CAPSS. Our current text states "Many CPCs require their staff to be Christian.". Do you or do you not have a reliable source that can verify that text? - Schrandit (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
If they are representing the CPC, serving its purposes, the question of whether they are volunteers or paid employees is unimportant. The word staff includes both. Binksternet (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
It is me, BTW, I changed usernames in case you didn't know. The question as to whether they are volunteers or paid staff is incredibly important. If Christianity is a requisite for employment this is workplace discrimination. If we allege workplace discrimination without reason (not only would that fail WP:V) that is defamation. Do we have a source which states that Christianity is a requisite for employment? - Haymaker (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Allegations of workplace discrimination will only be placed in the article if there are explicit allegations, not implied allegations. Such allegations do not stop us from saying that staff are required to sign a statement of religious faith. We are not trying to lead the reader to a synthesis; we are simply describing the situation to the reader. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how you could get more explicit than "Many CPCs require their staff to be Christian.". Whats wrong with just spelling out the affiliation process? - Haymaker (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
More explicit is "CPCs have been accused by xx organization or person as violating the laws of workplace discrimination." That's what is needed to place such allegations into the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Schrandit/Haymaker, your advocacy might have a more valid basis if the standards of affiliation didn't explicitly specify that paid staff also had to comply with the statement of faith, and they might be more reasonable if CPCs as religious organizations weren't exempt from workplace discrimination laws. Do you have any real arguments? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
1. - You have a source that says that the CPCs in question are religious organizations under the tax code?
2. - Assuming that said affiliation was the result of, and continuing impetus for religious workplace discrimination without a source is unacceptable OR and borderline defamation. - Haymaker (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm assuming that that's the reason why they feel secure publicly stating that they only allow Christians to work for their centers. But we don't need to know their reasoning. If we find a source that explains their reasoning, we can add it, but knowing the inner workings of their minds isn't necessary in order to add a line about their behavior. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Come on. You're posting unsourced accusations and I'm support to accept that lack of sources because you think they're hiding it. - Haymaker (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not accusing anyone. I'm simply transmitting the content of the sources, which we have no reason to doubt. Why don't you read the sources and then get back to us? Don't worry, you shouldn't have too hard a time - they don't use very big words. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I read all of our sources and none of them say that one has to be a Christian to be hired by a CPC. Do you have such a source? - Haymaker (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Dude, the standards of affiliation are cited in the article and have been for weeks. If you can't read, you shouldn't be editing articles here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Haymaker, we are simply describing how the CPCs conduct themselves. Describing the conduct is not alleging workplace discrimination, even if the kind of conduct described has been prosecuted as workplace discrimination in some times and places. You are getting all balled up worrying about the difference between describing observed behavior and allegations which have not been made. We are free to describe behavior. Binksternet (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
No, you're describing how you think CPCs work. We, at present, have no sources that say that Christianity is a requisite for employment at a CPC. - Haymaker (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
The page Crisis Pregnancy Center is 40 kb long and has no pictures. The article has an entire section on the use of sonograms. I would like to include a picture of a sonogram in that section. I am being opposed by an editor who believe that the inclusion of a picture of a sonogram would be a violation of NPOV. Is it a violation of NPOV to include a picture of a sonogram in a section on the use of sonograms? - Haymaker (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
And Haymaker is omitting information. What a shock!
I oppose the inclusion of the picture because the section is not only about sonograms - it's about how these centers use sonograms to try to persuade women not to have abortions. Given this fact, I think the POV problem in including a picture of a sonogram is obvious. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. The image advances an emotional argument and is not neutral. Its presence would be a political victory by the CPCs which are discussed in the article. It should be removed. Binksternet (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems unlikely to me that such an image would be appropriate per NPOV. However, it's going to be difficult for newcomers to this discussion if they can't see the image in question. --FormerIP (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that the image should be included with a suitable caption, e.g., "CPCs use sonogram images to convince pregnant women that a fetus looks like a baby", or something like that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Opposed Seeing that no one in my country (Canada) would do an elective abortion at 20 weeks this is not really an appropriate image. Linking to the article on ultrasound should be sufficient.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment A better image IMO would be of one of the billboards that this group uses to promote itself with an appropriate caption . People protesting in front of one of these clinics may also be useful . Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Do the owners of those photos say anything about fair use? Before we start debating the individual merits of any picture, we need to make sure we can include it if we decide it's good! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I figured DJ was spinning this off into a larger discussion about pictures for the article. Why does the sonogram section need to be the one to have a picture? Much better to have one that shows a CPC in some way. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
A reasonable enough goal, but not the one that the RFC asks about.
I was just suggesting pictures in general. The US section does not need a picture. Someone said the article did not have any. To get these pictures someone would have to go out with a camera and get it. Not that hard to do.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Other images might be nice, but the RFC is specifically about including an image of a sonogram, in the section about sonograms, so they're not really responsive. Adding other images doesn't resolve the question of whether an image from an ultrasound should be included.
Roscelese, your "aforementioned reason" is that "the POV problem in including a picture of a sonogram is obvious". Please assume that I'm particularly dense this morning, and tell me directly what the POV problem is. Does it violate GEVAL? Does it violate UNDUE? What exactly is the "obvious" POV problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I think including a propaganda image is free advertising for one side. (Although it would be a fascinating thing to include if there was an article on propaganda strategies in the abortion debate - at the moment, that content is spread across a number of articles.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The article abortion contains plenty of images that both sides could think of as (and have accused of being) propaganda. If an image is relevant and informative we should not be constrained from using it because some people don't like it. - Haymaker (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
wikt:propaganda says propaganda is "a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people."
Merriam-Webster says it means "ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause".
How does "this is the kind of thing they're showing to pregnant women" influence anyone's opinions or further a cause? What "set of messages" do you think is present in an ultrasound image? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Er, because context matters, and the "pro-life" movement's use of images of fetuses in CPCs doesn't exist in a vacuum separate from their use of images of fetuses in protests? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
These issues of "context" exist on other issues but have not been used to encumber other articles. This is a poor excuse to censor an article. - Haymaker (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Support Of course it's relevant and also needed to break up the long text. I don't see how it could possibly violate NPOV. Although obviously such images are used by anti-abortion propagandists, it's like saying a picture of a sick puppy is NPOV because such pictures are used as propaganda by the SPCA, or something. It's just a sonogram of a fetus, for pete's sake. Apollo (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there a sizable contingent intent on denying that puppies deserve better? Which is to say, is there an actual political debate that would make the inclusion of a puppy image have the effect of Misplaced Pages's advertising for one side? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Stylistically similar to the above, but ~12 weeks.
Probably the type of ultrasound actually being used in most facilities.
Thinking about Doc James' comment above about abortions being quite rare at 20 weeks, either of these images, which are from about 12 weeks, might be preferable. Something from around 8 weeks since LMP would be even better, since more than half of American abortions take place within six weeks of conception. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I think there clearly is an NPOV thing here which the above support ignores. I don't think you can illustrate a passage about the contentious use of a certain type of image by making use of that type of image. Similarly, we wouldn't put a picture of some pornography at MediaWatch-UK#Pornography or pictures of God all over Aniconism in Islam. It's about what the encyclopedic value is. We've also got the rest of the article to put images in if we want. --FormerIP (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
