Talk:Feminists for Life/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Everyone out of the pool - Timeout

Resolved

Let's all agree that the article needs help. However, presenting piles of new paragraphs for comment, to me, seems a lot more confusing and is s-l-o-w-i-n-g the process of improvement. I suggest some of the least controversial sections be given a rewrite on these talk pages - each in their own section header so each chunk can be looked at and improved. I did also appreciate dividing up the current text with section headers and would have kept those if they weren't bundled with deletion of content at the same time.

So, if no one objects could we start with 1. adding section headers to divide up the larger sections into parts. 2. starting with the least controversial areas (I know they all have their points of contention) posting proposed new text on these talk pages each in their own sections

Although the above might not be the best efficient process I think it will help keep us more productive and on target. If anyone thinks we should follow any other process for making improvements to the text by all means speak up now. Also as of now all personal jabs and anything as interpreted as less than a good faith effort to improve the article should come to a gracious stop - it isn't helping the article and that's the goal. If you're up for the above simply state sounds good to me or similar. Then let's get started or revisit the process so we can go ahead. FYI, I've added some templates to the article as well as wikilinks and grammar and punctuation clean-up. Benjiboi 23:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Benjiboi. That is exactly what we were doing. We were breaking up "Organization" section so that it would be more readable. --Ladeda76 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You are not simply breaking up "organization", you are deleting large and important chuncks of it. Benjiboi is suggesting we do the split first, then decide what text should be kept, changed, or removed. I agree with that process. Neitherday 23:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me - we are breaking up and consolidating. As I mentioned before, the section rambles.--Ladeda76 23:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That was supposed to be two steps, however in editing I see the logic in doing it in one. I have made an edit (if it is disliked, it can be reverted). I've gone ahead and deleted some material in my edit and attempted to make some NPOV changes. What do people think (and I know more work needs to be done in the article, this is just the beginning. We just need to take this process slowly, so that it is easy to adjust for mistakes or concerns) Neitherday 00:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

A change that I see that could be made to my breakup: the 1970s are rather long and could be broken into "Early years" and "Equal Rights Amendment". Neitherday 00:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the split. If anyone has a problem with my two recent edits, let me know Neitherday 01:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dates needed and different chapters of FfL

Resolved

My hunch is that the article will be greatly helped by bring ing sections into chronological order. Although that seems simply it doesn't always work that way and maybe a couple forms of organizing make sense. If anyone can add dates (years is fine for now) when the different chapters of FfL started, ended or did major accomplishments I think that would be helpful. Benjiboi 01:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to amend myself and suggest that although there should be a history section with items in chronological order I think the following should be the main sections in this order of importance,

• Statement of purpose
• Current issues
• History
• Structure and chapters

as I think the statement of the group's purpose can be edited fine to speak for itself and the current issues are more notable and of interest to WP readers than the history sections and structure. Anyone object (or care that much?)Benjiboi 01:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your proposed reordering. It makes sense. Neitherday 03:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've re-organized the article to the above structure which seems like it will work a bit. We need to add dates to the sections under Projects/activities and the Chapters so we can list those subsections chronologically. I've cleaned up the lede so it at least looks like a lede and added a criticism statement. I think the Susan B Anthony section and the high-profile sections deserve attention as they, to me, are the next must-read sections for the general reader of this article/subject.

References clean-up

Resolved

I think my next sweep will be to clean-up all the references and get them formatted ina user-friendly way and, if easy enough, verify that they indeed cover whatever they are referencing. Benjiboi 10:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk page sections archived

Resolved

FYI, I archived any old threads and the (very long) cut and paste of content/proposed content that made these pages longer than the article itself. Benjiboi 10:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Call for consensus on the reliability of a source

Resolved

 – Item replaced and removed. Banjeboi 23:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, please take a look at this article: Sarah Heath Palin, Middle Class Change or More of The Same. This is currently cited as a source for this article. An editor put it in recently, I took it out, ze put it back in.

It seems to me that this article is very poorly written. It is disorganized. It is a sort of stream-of-consciousness ramble about Sarah Palin, the vice-presidency, JFK, the author's family, Condoleezza Rice, NASA, the colors of the American flag, etc. It makes little sense.

Given this, I believe this article should not be used as a reference. If the author writes so poorly, is it safe to assume she got her facts right?

Note the disclaimer at the end: The American Chronicle and its affiliates have no responsibility for the views, opinions and information communicated here. The contributor(s) and news providers are fully responsible for their content.

Opinions, please. Tualha (Talk) 02:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources are used in context and I see that the information that was to be cited was by yet another source so it would seem that, at least in this case, the source was correct. We don't assume that a less gifted writer is wrong. What we can do is present additional sources that dispute what this one states, if there are any, and then look into what is both true and verifiable. Banjeboi 03:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

We're not getting much input here, so I've moved the discussion to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Tualha (Talk) 18:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)