Worklist[edit]

This is my list of stuff to do in the article. Partly for my own reference, but also in case other people want to tackle them, of course.

Here's a great article on that very thing! Shotgun Adoption

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) (not putting a date so this won't be archived)

Lede NPOV issue[edit]

There's a pretty egregious POV issue in the lede of this article that Binksternet and Avatar317 have introduced while acting in good-faith with mostly reliable sourcing (we can ignore my sourcing concerns for this discussion; it's not relevant to the POV issue and is a reasonable judgement call either way per WP:BI). Looking at our articles on the Abortion-rights movements and Anti-abortion movements, it's pretty clear the established deference is towards exclusion of non-neutral terms from the lede sentence of articles on abortion. Concerns about the vitriolic language ("anti-women", "baby-killers", etc.) and more subtle POV'd lingo ("anti-choice", "pro-abortion") have seen these exclusions. Per an ongoing discussion (follow the link above) and Avatar's sourcing (thank you!), "fake abortion clinic" is clearly a term for CPCs among their opponents. However, including obviously POV charged language into the lede sentence on a delicate article is inappropriate. However, it is also obvious that both editors I've mentioned have been working on good-faith, if somewhat out of step with precedent. I hope to see their input and encourage discussion from anyone else who sees this! ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term isn't strictly partisan as you portray it. It's also used by scholarly sources. Here's a scholarly journal that uses it. Here's another from the same author four years earlier. And another journal with "Fake Abortion Clinics" as a sub-heading. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should have asked to be pinged; my bad, please ping me in the future if you want to respond directly to me specifically. Academic sources are swell, but even they use the term in scare quotes for the first few mentions. We could probably find a few scholarly articles that use the terms I mentioned above (not the nastier ones) but that still does not mean that placing them in the lede sentence is any less charged and POV'd. Also, for those who had the same trouble with checking out the first source Binksternet—I am so sorry I almost abbreviated your name in a dreadful way, lmk if there's a way you prefer—the source comes from Women & Health rather than "Women Health" as the .gov website claims. Thanks for the quick reply. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can shorten my username to Bink if you prefer.
The understanding on Wikipedia generally is that the person initiating a talk page discussion will check in to see the responses, if any. Pinging that person isn't required; some folks would consider it pushy or just too much noise. I was responding to the topic, not to you personally.
The scholarly paper "Beyond Bray" has on page 167 a discussion of crisis pregnancy centers under the heading "Fake Abortion Clinics". The first instance of the term crisis pregnancy centers is in quotes while "fake clinics" is never in quotes, flipping the situation you described:

In the 1970s, a Missouri-based anti-abortion organization called the Pearson Foundation issued a ninety-three page manual for setting up "crisis pregnancy centers." National groups such as the Christian Action Council and the National Institute of Family Life, began cooperating with individual operators to set up several thousand anti-abortion centers disguised as women's health clinics.These non-profit organizations call themselves "abortion clinics" or "abortion alternatives" but have no medical staff and do not offer abortions. The staff members use deception and religious threats to convince women not to terminate their pregnancies. Estimates of the number of fake clinics presently in operation in the United States range from 1500 to over 3000.

The author, Rebecca Eisenberg, a Harvard Law School doctoral candidate at the time, continues to call these places "fake clinics" in the remainder of the piece. Binksternet (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bink, fair judgement call on the ping but just a personal preference! Again, we aren't establishing the term as being viable (a matter for the redirect convo linked above) but the inclusion of obvious POV terms in ledes. In each case, we're looking at ideological persuasions resulting in preferred nomenclature used by only one side of a debate (some academic sources might or might not accept as a generic term). Per our last discussion, it's apparent you prefer precedence in other articles and I have presented that. Thanks for clarifying preferred shortening on name; I'll remember it should we get the chance to chat more! ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, a QUALIFIED statement like we currently have in the lead: ..."sometimes called a pregnancy resource center (PRC), and a fake abortion clinic by supporters of abortion rights..." is NPOV. We are explicitly stating who (more often) uses that term.
WP:OTHERNAMES states: "By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can only have one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." ---Avatar317(talk) 05:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Avatar317: Apologies for belated response and ping (unsure if you're still watching this). This policy suggest significant alternative names, but we exclude significant alternative names of a derisive nature (again, see other abortion-related articles; see The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for an example of a potentially derisive name in use). The succeeding sentence of that policy also suggests a terminology section is necessary should we proceed with this third significant name in the lede. I agree on in-text attribution but am very disappointed it took going to the talk page to get that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except this name isn't derogatory; it is accurate: at least for a very high percentage of these clinics as evidenced by the fact that there are many deceptive advertising laws created against them because of their intentional deception. Many (maybe not ALL, but a very high percent) INTENTIONALLY try to deceive women into believing that they are an abortion clinic, so that women will visit them rather than an abortion clinic: so this name isn't derogatory, for the great majority of these centers (maybe all) it is descriptive. ---Avatar317(talk) 06:23, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Should the first sentence list the alternate name "fake abortion clinic"? Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

References

  1. ^ Mertus, J A. "Fake abortion clinics: the threat to reproductive self-determination". Womens Health. doi:10.1300/J013v16n01_07. Retrieved 2022-09-15. The establishment of "fake abortion clinics" poses a great threat to women's ability to make free and informed procreative decisions. Such clinics intentionally deceive pregnant women into believing that they provide a full range of women's health services when, in reality, they provide only a pregnancy test, accompanied by intense anti-abortion propaganda.
  2. ^ Eisenberg, Rebecca (1994). "Beyond Bray: Obtaining Federal Jurisdiction to Stop Anti-Abortion Violence". Yale Journal of Law and Feminism. 6 (1): 167–170. Originally written in late 1992 for Harvard Law School.
Elizium23 (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's an alternative term that is used in enough sources to qualify as significant. WP:OTHERNAMES says the significant alternative names "should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." Binksternet (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline WP:OTHERNAMES allows for any position within the first paragraph. But "critics" is not entirely true; topic scholars have used the term neutrally, positioning the term "crisis pregnancy centers" as biased in the same fashion as "pro-life", which we do not use as a neutral term.
Also, there is no source saying that the term "fake abortion clinics" is used by critics. That is a conclusion we might make as we attempt to summarize the sources. But some of the sources using that term are not simply critics—topic scholars such as Rebecca Eisenberg have used the term. Binksternet (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So how about attributing the term to critics and to topic scholars? The "no" objections being raised here seem primarily concerned with wiki-voice being used.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, again. Hedging would be acceptable, but a better approach is something like "They are also referred to as "fake abortion clinics" by critics" or similar referenced statement. ZimAlakaZam (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Striking the above comment as it is from a user (now blocked) trying to impersonate me (almost certainly connected to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#AnubisIbizu. --ZimZalaBim talk 00:49, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it's not just critics. It's also the media and topic scholars. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish's comments above manage to be wrong on two counts. The lead sentences definitely do not imply that that these are normal medical centers. Saying that a CPR " is a type of nonprofit organization established by anti-abortion groups to persuade pregnant women against having an abortion" clearly establishes it as primarily a social and not primarily as a medical organization. As for saying that "fake abortion clinic" is what "neutral observers" call a CPR, its far less than common usage belies the fact. Goodtablemanners (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I stand by what I said. We can certainly agree to disagree on the current language of the lead section as a whole; these things are subjective. However, your argument about common usage should be tempered by what it says at WP:HITS. (It's written mainly in terms of notability, but it's also useful in the context of what we are discussing here.) The fact that a term gets more or fewer search engine hits has little bearing on its neutrality for purposes of NPOV. I'm not arguing that "fake" is the most common descriptor. (If it were, I'd argue for renaming this page.) I'm arguing that neutral observers consistently treat these centers as being fake. It's not just pro-choice critics who characterize them that way. Our NPOV policy requires that we characterize the page subject according to the preponderance of reliable sources, not according to splitting the difference between those sources and what the page subject would prefer. A neutral and encyclopedic article about these centers will describe them as fake versions of reproductive medicine clinics, intentionally designed to be deceptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. You would be more accurate in saying "I consistently treat these centers as being fake". Where does the notion that "neutral observers consistently" do so come from, other than your wish? They certainly don't seem to use the term all that often; and for "fake abortion clinic" to be used as an alternate name in the first line of the article it really needs to be used either frequently or else formally. It passes neither test. Goodtablemanners (talk) 20:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be accusing me of being a POV pusher. Let's see how the RfC goes. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can observe that some of these sources are from groups that can be regarded as critics, such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL. But even so, these sources include Fortune, The Guardian (looks like a different author, by the way), The Hill, US News & World (by way of the Associated Press), and R29 (part of Vice Media). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some more sources are now listed here, and they include The Washington Post, Stat, CNBC, The LA Times, John Jay College, and USA Today. I think that, taken collectively, clearly takes it out of the narrow categories of critics and topic scholars, and into a significant swath of general use. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive work by Binksternet, but we could find just as many, if not more, usages of the far less hostile term "anti-abortion pregnancy center" in reliable sources. Again, "fake abortion clinic" is not a suitable description in the first line of an encyclopedic article. Goodtablemanners (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat yet again, the number of search engine hits is not the appropriate measure here, nor is the quantity of perceived hostility. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a search on "CPAP", and [9] was on the first page of hits. I also tried a search on "fly Boston to New Haven", and the first page of hits included [10], which recommended train travel. A search on "Avis" got me [11] on the first page. I even tried a search on "pregnancy crisis center", and the second hit was a Planned Parenthood page attacking them.[12] The point is that searches often lead to related information, including from competing people and/or ideas. Adoring nanny (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are looking for CPCs describing themselves as abortion clinics? That's not the issue at hand. You are bringing up quite another matter—the central point of the article—a fact which is thoroughly covered in the article already: CPCs are in the business of tricking pregnant women into thinking they are abortion providers, abortion referral agencies, or at the very least the first step toward getting an abortion. This has been published fact for many decades, not in question. If you would like to challenge this aspect of the article, please start a new talk page topic with its own header. Binksternet (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If an entity is a "fake X", I would expect them to describe themselves as an "X". Adoring nanny (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting expectation, and unrelated to the question at hand. For the purpose of this RfC, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether CPCs have called themselves abortion clinics. Other parties have, and frequently enough to list. Binksternet (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. They have helped to clarify the issue for me. If "other parties" describe them as something, then perhaps the "other parties" are faking, but the CPCs themselves are not. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you've made up your mind, which is fine. But it's untrue to characterize sources that describe them as fake as all being sources that, themselves, are faking. There are clearly some sources that are advocates against CPCs. But if we discount those sources, we still have multiple sources from mainstream news organizations that say the same thing. Our policies on this require us to base what we say on such independent secondary sources, and not on original research based on an editor's interpretation of whether or not the use of particular language in the names of CPCs is or is not intentionally misleading. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is WP:5P2 a Wikipedia policy? Adoring nanny (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's an information page. We have a policy page at WP:NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure we are clear, here. Your position is that, if something is sourced, but inaccurate, it belongs in an article, not withstanding the sentence at WP:5P2 All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is best expressed at the lead section of WP:Verifiability. We go by what reliable sources say is accurate. We do not go by what an editor thinks is accurate or inaccurate, because that would violate WP:No original research. That's what "verifiable accuracy" means. What I'm advocating for this page is accurate, according to reliable sources. Obviously, I would never advocate content that reliable sources characterize as inaccurate. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Adoring nanny you are misunderstanding Wikipedia policy. It doesn't matter whether the Moon Landing and Round Earth are TRUE, Neutrality requires that we accurately summarize what Reliable Sources say about them. Any arguments about whether they are true or not will be ignored. We do not waste time on anyone trying to debate the "truth" of Evolution, Global Warming, or any other topic. Similarly any attempt to argue whether "fake abortion clinic" is true will be ignored. The only thing that matters here is whether "fake abortion clinic" is actually in use as an alternate name, and whether that usage is sufficiently significant to mention. Alsee (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Scorpions13256, provide some sources for that argument like Blinkernet did above. I think you make a great point.Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have only looked at the headlines, but so far I have found this, this this, and this. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, Fox News uses it a lot, but I am not sure if it is reliable enough. Scorpions13256 (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it: [13] (as well as the corresponding redirect). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I guess I am now in favor of the proposal also to include the term "Fake Pregnancy Center" per WP:NPOV. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a bunch of those sources are mainstream media and topic scholars. Some are even pro-life. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should remove almost all, but the majority are pro-choice/femminist, i.e are not "center" I stand by that this should not be in wikipedia voice. Bedfordres (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be fair, nobody else is talking about it because it's not really part of this discussion. I'm happy to wait until the RfC is concluded before we address this issue. StAnselm (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This viewpoint is one-sided and misleading to the reader. If a visit to a medical pregnancy clinic, along with a transcript of an interview perhaps with the CEO or RN's representing said clinic, would show a clearer picture of what pregnancy medical clinics such as these actually represent. This should not be an opinion piece from one viewpoint, but a deep dive on the ins and outs of a functioning pregnancy medical clinic. It does not make sense there are three pregnancy medical clinics and centers in the country for every Planned Parenthood facility, if other options were not needed. 71.9.48.5 (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Views of medical associations

In a lead-related disagreement that is closely intertwined with the discussion above, we have differing views of an attributed opinion that I sourced to two medical professional associations: [14], [15]. In my opinion, it is better to attribute the opinion to the associations, than to say it vaguely in Wikipedia's voice. I also consider the source from the two associations, published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, is a reliable and due-weight source, with an impact factor ranking (per our page) of 9th out of 128 pediatrics journals and 30th out of 193 public health journals. I have notified WikiProject Medicine of this discussion, to get more opinions on the suitability of this material ([16]). --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ATTRIBUTED statement (as you put it) is clearly better than an UNATTRIBUTED "some" which is WP:WEASELWORDS. ---Avatar317(talk) 05:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An attributed quotation is is fine when it has due weight in an article. The quote in question doesn't for a variety of reasons. The lead is supposed to preview the body of the article. While it is true that the body contains criticisms of crisis pregnancy centers, no material from the quoted sources appears in the body. The quote is a throw-in from otherwise unused sources and not especially prominent ones. These are not America's leading obstetric, gynecological, or pediatric societies. Thus to feature their quote in the lead is most definitely giving them undue weight. Perhaps the quote could be placed in an appropriate section in the body of the article. Goodtablemanners (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with including the material in both the lead and farther down on the page. It's an odd criterion to say that only the leading medical society is eligible for us to cite. Ones that are legitimate medical societies that represent medical practice in their indicated fields are reliable sources, as we define RS, for the mainstream views of practitioners in those medical fields. I hope that some editors from WP:MED will be able to advise us about these two societies. I'd also be happy to ask at WP:RSN. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it lower on the page, so that should take care of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate, misinformation[edit]

I don’t see any meaningful connection between the civil, productive discussion below and this rambling wall of baseless transphobic POV Dronebogus (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of a crisis pregnancy center is not as stated. This is a completely blatant example of political misinformation. A crisis pregnancy center is not a trap to torture pregnant "people." Some women have unplanned pregnancies and need help and resources. It seems as if the writer, who's article has been accepted by Wikipedia, is promoting the opinion that if a pregnancy is unplanned the baby should be killed and anyone who thinks otherwise is irresponsible including the mother. This is an example of political campaigning intentionally disguised as information. No one says 'tough luck' to the diabetic who can't afford insulin, "You should have tried making more money while you were eating all those cheeseburgers." 108.17.88.39 (talk) 11:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's much doubt that the basic purpose for their establishment was to persuade women from having abortions. Naturally, they don't just cast these women aside once that has been accomplished. That said, I'm sure that some pregnant women, who never intended to have an abortion in the first place, come to them for assistance, So, I will add the word "primarily" to the sentence in question. Goodtablemanners (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with adding "primarily", although I don't think it's absolutely necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waxman report material[edit]

The Waxman report material, if used at all, should go in the False medical information section of the article rather than the Legality of advertising methods section. One should also keep in mind that this source was not produced by the full Congressional committee that Waxman sat on, but rather by the staff of the minority party members. Goodtablemanners (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with moving it to the other section. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Waxman report has been cited by relatively neutral mainstream media sources who portray Waxman's findings as authoritative and correct.[17][18][19][20][21][22] All of these sources describe the Waxman report as proving that false medical information is being given out by CPCs. So yes, the report should be shifted to the section about false medical information. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it to that section. I also revised it to focus more on the false information, and less on the partisan politics, as well as revising the language so that it is no longer a verbatim copy from the (public domain) source. But I think it is clear that it belongs in the article, and should not be deleted entirely. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unpersuaded by the argument that, because the Waxman report is a primary source, we must present it as "according to": [23], [24]. (I'm also concerned about an appearance of slow edit-warring by staying just outside of the 72-hour restriction, something that will not play well at AE if it continues.) If we had sourcing that cast doubt on the report, that would be another thing. But as Binksternet shows just above, numerous secondary sources cite the Waxman findings as being reliable and meaningful. It is clear to our readers that we are sourcing the content to that source, so there is nothing that would mislead our readers. Instead, treating the content as "according to" comes across as trying to cast doubt on the source in a way that falls afoul of WP:NPOV. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with Avatar's wording here [25]. For me, the Waxman Committee material is excess because there's already plenty of better sources for CPC misinformation. We don't really need to include a partisan political document that bases its conclusions on the responses of twenty-three of the thousands of existing CPCs. However, it isn't worth a battle from this quarter. Goodtablemanners (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also support Avatar's version. I do not object to attribution, only to attribution that implies doubt. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Categories