Talk:Feminists for Life
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, which collaborates on articles related to abortion, abortion law, the abortion debate, and the history of abortion. To participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page. |
| B | This article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Two questions
I think that this article should attempt to answer the following two questions:
1. Do "Feminists for Life" want to make abortions illegal, and if so do they believe there should be any exceptions?
2. Do FfL believe that life begins at conception?
- if so do they believe there should be any exceptions? The FFL web page does not appear to answer this question so I doubt they have an official position, and I suspect its members have a diversity of opinions on the matter
No, these questions are irrelevant. The article is a description of Feminists for Life. For you to impose your own questions and categories is original research. We're limited to what they say about themselves, and what reputable critics/supporters say about them.
Pianoman123 05:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism?
I'm surprised to open this article and see no critical remarks on a group that's bound to generate lots of them. I'm hesitatnt of sticking the "neutrality" tag here since it's not *that* obvious, but I still don't think this article is completely neutral -RomeW 09:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Let those who have a negative opinion add a criticism section. Though I think it more likely that the ProChoice Police of Wikipedia will notice that there's a positive article about a prolife group and just sumarily nuke it. ChristinaDunigan 18:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I am a writer on this page (how is that), and have constantly updated it. I would like to point out that it does not need a critism to be factual. The claim that this article is not neutral is not true. Wikipedia isn't a blog and if you disagree with FFL's mission, or weather or not their really feminists, then write it on a blog, essay, ect . . . the only critism that you can include in an enclopedia is controversy, such as if they are accused of making money of their agenda.
Other pro-life and feminist organizations have critism's because NOW has done things like purge lesbians, and NTRL has had open fights with presidential canidates, FFL has managed to avoid these sort of contraversy. 216.201.7.151
- This is not true if your edit history is an indicator. Please get a user name IrnBru001 23:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
To the person that sent me a message, I don't get what your problem is, and I frankly I don't care. I will only say this once, I am not getting into a debate or discussion with anyone over some minor technacality, over the fact that someone wants to argue over something as rediculus as me claiming to have contributed to this page.
I only wrote here simply to make a point that this article is neutral, and no reasonable arguement has been presented otherwise. If you don't belive me about contributing, that your problem, however weather or not you believe me has nothing to do with the point I made. So back off.
At any rate my point is simply that this article is neutral, if your sole objection is that there is no critism of the organizations stance, then that is not reasonable claim. If you have an ideological problem with them then write an essay, or a blog, but unless you see where a scandel involving FFL was intentionally left out, please don't tag this.
If you find out something about FFL that could be included as a critism or scandel about the organization, then please include it, otherwise don't complain.
[edit] links?
I think that there might be too much external links on this article. I mean, there is no link between feminists for life and democrats for life, except that both are pro-life organisations, and I don't think we should list every single organization that share opinions on the external links section.
[edit] Plans to Reorganize & Rework
With all due respect to the original authors, I'm planning to reorganize this article to include a more accurate organizational description, history of the organization, and outline of the organization's major outreach programs, all with reference to original FFL materials (website, magazine, and other publications). Blackcat73
Why would trademarks be removed? Surely if an organization owns a trademark, there should be some notice? Blackcat73
[edit] Description
"Feminists for Life (FFL) is a nonsectarian, nonpartisan, nonprofit, pro-life feminist organization"
Mmmm... non-sectarian seems either POV or redundent, no group would claim to be sectarian its a pajoritive term.
It appears to be non-partisan as in having no party affliation/link but as you can see on partisan page partisan is more broad then this refering to "commitment to one particular party, faction, cause, or person". Seeing as they are commited to one cause (i.e. anti-abortion femininism) seems they aren't non-partisian.
Nonprofit -> fair enough.
Pro-life feminist, as this is a contriversal position I think it shouldn't be presented as a simple fact.--JK the unwise 09:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Dear JK, I think "non-partisan" means "not affiliated to a party", mostly political party. If we take your definition, the word is utterly meaningless, since there is no group that is not commited to a cause (or several causes). Even a choir is commited to a cause, namely singing songs. For these reasons I will include "non-partisan" for the moment. Also, the "non-sectarian" should be included somehow, albeit in a more NPOV manner. Maybe, "religiously and politically unafiliated"? As a matter of fact, I will put in this and see what others have to say on that. Str1977 10:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- The definition is not mine but Wikipedia's (see Partisan). I don't think singing song is the right kind of course. The point about non-sectarian is that it is irrelavant because most groups would claim to be non-sectrain. I would be happy with not affliated to any particular religious group or pollitical party.--JK the unwise 10:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Recent Revert
To explain my revert briefly: "non-sectarian" and "non-denominational" mean the exact same thing (they have identical dictionary entries), but they have different connotations in common use. "Non-sectarian" is more appropriate here. "Non-denominational" is almost always used to categorize a religious organization, and to make it distinct from others. The use of "non-denominational" makes the assumption that a group like Feminists for Life would ordinarily be affiliated officially with a religion. Feminists for Life is not a religious group, so "non-sectarian" is the best bet.
Also, regarding the problems asserted above about the term, "non-sectarian", I think it is abundantly clear that it is neutral. After all, if we were to write: "not affliated to any particular religious group or pollitical party," we assume a normativity not consistent with the spirit of neutrality. In other words, we must simply state the facts in the most objective manner possible, not choose our words based on assumptions about what the group might be were it not non-sectarian.
Pianoman123 04:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Too long, tone needs work, heavy on quotes, rewrite
This article is very florid in its wording. I think this article focuses too much on what FFL members say about the organization, rather than just describing the organization objectively. I would like to see the article pared down to a manageable size.
Also, I think the tone is congratulatory towards the organization; it's not as encyclopedic as it could be. I would like to work on the tone so it doesn't sound so much like an informational booklet that members of the organization wrote.
Another problem I see is that this article relies very heavily on quotes made by FFL members to describe not only FFL, but to present their views seamlessly without objective input. I'm adding the rewrite template. Any help would be appreciated. Joie de Vivre 15:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Leave it alone, the article is just fine.
- If you want to add a critism section and some quotes from Planned Parenthood, ect . . . fine but don't mess up this article simply because you don't like it. Furthermore it is not too long and it does not need a re-write.
- Don't fix what is not broken. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.201.33.10 (talk • contribs) 19:20, February 18, 2007 (UTC).
-
- Well, I already stated what I think is broken about the article. It's long, it repeats itself, it wanders topically. It uses FFL's website heavily as a source, it doesn't mention any public criticism, it's not objective in its tone. Saying "it's not broken, it's fine" isn't very helpful. And it isn't very nice to tell others not to edit Wikipedia. Please consider registering a username or at least signing your comments with four tildes ~~~~ in the future, it improves communication between editors. Thank you. Joie de Vivre 16:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
First off I have already stated I don't intend to register, so don't ask again, and secondly I don't care weather you think its not nice to tell someone not to edit or not. So far you haven't provided any substantiated reason for doing so, and I don't think its nice of you to say an article that other people worked on needs to be re-worked for no reason.
As I have stated before on this page there is nothing wrong with it. It does not wander and repeat itself, it gives information and it has a long history, there are countless other pages on wikipedia that are far longer than this one, including the Anarchism, ect . . . furthermore length should never be an issue, the point of wikipedia is to provide extensive information, if you see something overly repeating itself then correct it, but length is no excuse for re-wroking a page.
Furthermore so what if it uses FFL's official website as its source? There's nothing wrong with that given the fact that it is the official website unless they are providing false information which can be established. When it comes down to it, it is extremely helpful to use their organization's website as it is the official information, and it would be rediculus (not to mention legally precarious) to use another source unless it could be verified. Are you saying that there is something on there website that is un-true? If so what? IF not then why are you complaining? There website is just as valid as any other source, at any rate the only reason to attack a source is if it is providing un-true information or is invalid, there website is neither as far as I know.
Furthermore to include infomation or a souce that directly contradicts there official website or makes claims that are un-true without any proof could be considered libel.
And as for a critism section as has been stated above, if you want to include a critism section go ahead, but no one has done so so far because there isn't a lot to criticize. They haven't had any scandels (as far as I know) and the only critism that can be argued is that they take a differant perspective on things. However technically speaking that would be a critism of pro-life feminism and should be included in the pro-life feminist page, not the Feminists for Life organization page.
As for the tone I don't think its overtly biased, show an example of were it is overtly biased.
And again as I originally said if you want to include critism section, such as the fact that Planned Parenthood has placed them on their top ten list of anti-choice organizations, go ahead and include a relevant critism section that supplies the views of its detractors, but don't wine and demand a re-write based on un-substantiated complaints.
