Talk:American Life League

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. For more information, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

[edit] Concerning the international prespective of ALL's attacks on Bill Gates and others

The views of ALL, such as attacks on Bill Gates [3] and criticisms of British Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, [4] are seen as bizarrely extreme by observers outside the USA.

I removed the above section, which was added by User:Hardcoredemocrat, because if you think about Bill Gates donating money to charities in Africa that promote contraception, it is completely logical. Also it doesn't site a source for the observations of those outside the USA, only ALL's attacks. AND even if it did cite a source there is no need for use of words "extremely bizarre" (for that is what he meant I hope), which seem overly dramatic. Chooserr 23:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Sources

I removed this paragraph from the Controversy section. It's a bald assertion with no source.

American Life League is often controversial, and has been accused of being and divisive within the larger pro-life community. Of particular interest is separate, and often competing events during the weekend of the annual March for Life. In fact, American Life League was formed after Judie Brown disputed with other members of the National Right to Life Organization. Furthermore, ALL often runs advertisements in national newspapers campaigning for policy change and against certain bishops of the Catholic Church.

Even with a source, part of this seems to go against the WP:NPOV standard.

Andrew Flusche 04:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed this paragraph. No source.

ALL was also involved in boycotts of the Disney films in the early 90s, most notably Aladdin [1], The Little Mermaid [2], and The Lion King [3], for what it perceived to be "subliminal sex messages" placed within the films.

Also, the final words seem to violate the WP:NPOV standard - "what it perceived to be," then putting subliminal sex messages in quotes. Perhaps it would be more neutral to say, "for what the group claimed were subliminal sex messages placed within the films."

Andrew Flusche 04:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, the Disney boycott thing is sourced, to Snopes.com (the links following each film name). But maybe what you meant is that you don't consider snopes.com a reliable source; if that's the case, we can use the Washington Post instead ("Group Sees Dirt In Dust"). Either way, the Disney boycott should be included since it's one of the actually notable (in the Wikipedia sense) things about this group. MastCell ^Talk 22:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification here. That was obviously my mistake. I wasn't trying to hide information in any way. I just overlooked the source. Sorry. In the end, I think the Post is definitely a more reliable source and helps give the article more weight. Andrew Flusche 00:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool... sounds good to me. Feel free to edit my paraphrase of the Washington Post article. I wasn't meaning to accuse you of anything; apologies if it came across that way. Anyhoo, the Post is definitely better than snopes.com as a source, so it works out. Welcome again to Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 01:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources.

Can't we find less biased sources than the groups "People For the American Way" and "Center for Media and Democracy", which both have a strong leftist slant, particularly on this issue? Sion 01:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)