This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofAbortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofFeminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofconservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
The following Wikipediacontributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may includeconflict of interest,autobiography, andneutral point of view.
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Mlup,Emilysmall6.
Instaurare,also known as NYyankees51, BS24 and others – an editor with a declaredconflict of interest with regard to SBA List – has been editing the article extensively in the past week. I have reverted his changes twice, Roscelese has reverted him once, and somebody using the Cleveland IP6 range2600:1700:B7A1:9A30:0:0:0:0/64 has also reverted him once. Joel B. Lewis also made smaller reversions.
Some of the changes are non-neutral and should not be allowed to stand in the article. Other changes could be considered updates, and could be allowed with adjustments. I will attempt to break down the recent edits here to see what can be kept.Binksternet (talk)05:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional text gives too much emphasis to the group's announcements and activities. Wikipedia should summarize the more important points for the reader, not give the political activists a platform.Binksternet (talk)19:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This removal of scholars isexactly the wrong thing for the article. For political purposes, SBA List has decided to fabricate a new version of the women's rights activist Susan B. Anthony, one where she is actively pro-life. Expert scholars and authors have shown this to be wrong, and our readers must be made aware of the truth. Instaurare and other SBA List people would prefer this article show a false equivalence, where declarations by SBA List political activists are given equal footing with respected topic scholars.
You know perfectly well why afalse equivalence cannot be considered. SeeWP:FALSEBALANCE. And you know perfectly well that there are more scholars who have spoken on the issue, and that there aren't any opposing scholars. So there's no chance we will be "letting the reader decide" between something that's true and something that's 100% fabricated for political purposes.Binksternet (talk)19:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This removal with the edit summary "random opinion piece by random blogger" ishorribly non-neutral.The piece appeared in the well-known online magazineIn These Times. The author,Sady Doyle, is an established writer who has written books and contributed to other magazines and newspapers. The edit summary is false and the removal is in the "I don't like it" category.
This addition is promotional, seeing as how the Charlotte Lozier Institute bit in the article body is not supported byWP:SECONDARY sources. If secondary sources cannot be brought to bear, then the CLI is not important enough to mention in the lead section.
Though the inclusion of another random author's opinion about the group is dubious, I included the bit in later edits without its own section. That's howWP:BRD is supposed to work.Instaurare (talk)08:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that the level of success reported back then is now considered not-quite-so-successful by SBA List. I don't know. I would want to call up the source and read it to see whether it's being represented neutrally.Binksternet (talk)19:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This new "Advocacy" section misrepresents a cited source – Politico – which talks about how the goal of defunding Planned Parenthood through federal legislation has disappeared with a Democrat-held House. Nothing about that is brought up here.
"Groups including Susan B. Anthony List, the Heritage Foundation and Students for Life in America met Wednesday at the White House with Strategic Communications Adviser Mercedes Schlapp and other officials to urge them to flex their administrative powers and take a hard line with Congress."Instaurare (talk)08:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's too much voice given to Dannenfelser, too much of a platform for her views. And to me it seems that she's trying to straddle a fence, trying to distance her group from Trump while also serving him as chair of his anti-abortion committee. I don't see why this article should help her achieve that aim, especially since the media are not reporting it as such.Binksternet (talk)19:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This shift of text is neutral, but the text has problems described above.
Since it doesn't appear that there's any scholarly debate about this issue, adding "some" to cast doubt is inappropriate, and "humandefense" is obviously an unusable source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅contribs)16:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):Mlup,Emilysmall6.
