Talk:Americans United for Life

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Abortion This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. 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 articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

ProLifeDC (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC) I am making Wikipedia contributions and edits on this page on behalf of Americans United for Life. I will do my best to make all contributions and edits comply with the spirit of Wikipedia's guidelines, especially relating to COI and NPOV.[reply]

I made changes (including a subheading title change to make this section more neutral.ProLifeDC (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• the group aims to protect the
  in utero

Wouldn't it be smoother to say that the group advocates fetal rights? Everyone known that the fetus (or "unborn child" lives in the uterus). Why have three different linked terms, one of them hiding "fetal"? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I work for AUL in DC, and I've made some edits to this article before in order to try to make it more reliable. But I'd like the article to be a lot better, so I reached out to a friend who is an editor here and understands Wikipedia better than me to help write a version of this article. My version is now posted here:

The CSM is a great source. You probably need 2 more independent sources. I notice Catholic Online did an interview, but it might not count toward notability. The confirmation hearings don't count. Do you have 2 more sources? – Lionel ^(talk) 11:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Catholic Register did a profile piece. However, not to get too wrapped up in OTHERSTUFF - in an argument that ensued over a possible removal of the Dannenfelser page (initiated by the same editor I believe) right after the Yoest one was redirected to this page, it was decided that the one profile (that one in WaPo) was enough to keep the Dannenfelser page. Just using that as an example of determining notability.ProLifeDC (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and restore the article. The worst that will is a certain editor will AFD it. Who knows what will happen at AFD.– Lionel ^(talk) 07:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your advice shortly, will also be adding the edits to reflect more recent coverage. ProLifeDC (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charmaine Yoest, feel free to bring more reliable sources. Note that you are operating under conflict of interest guidelines at that article, too. Binksternet (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have doubts about the reliability of some of the sourcing in this article. For example, the