Talk:Irish Family Planning Association
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 29 October 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was Snow Keep. |
Counseling scandal
editI've removed this disputed section for the moment to allow for discussion. It strikes me that, among other issues, there appears to be some WP:SYNTH. It was stated in the section that "One leading obstetrician, Sam Coulter Smith said that the IFPA were putting women's lives at risk". The accompanying reference does not support this statement. As there are issues of WP:BLP, such serious claims, as an absolute minimum, need to reflect accurately the references on which they are based. RashersTierney (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Clearly you did not take the time to look at the references as that point was from the newspaper report. Before you go removing bona fide edits please do some work,"as an absolute minimum." read the references. 89.204.250.187 (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- The piece from the newspaper source says "At the Dundalk office of the Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA), a client was told she could lie to her doctor about having had an abortion, advice that could put a woman's life at risk, Professor Sam Coulter Smith, the master of Dublin's Rotunda Hospital, has warned." That is not the same as saying "Sam Coulter Smith said that the IFPA were putting women's lives at risk". He didn't, at least according to this reference. The allegations in the paper are in the editorial voice of the paper, and are not quoting the named person. RashersTierney (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- That is your interpretation of the report. Your interpretation is irrelevant in this case. "At the Dundalk office of the Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA), a client was told she could lie to her doctor about having had an abortion, advice that could put a woman's life at risk, Professor Sam Coulter Smith, the master of Dublin's Rotunda Hospital, has warned." He said that the advice could put a woman's life at risk. Pretty clear there. If you don't like the report or if you find fault with the report then say so but stop trying to make it sound as if that is an editorial slant. If the paper misrepresented Coulter Smith don't you think he would have said so and the paper would have taken that down? No, not even that much. 89.204.250.187 (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not saying the paper misrepresented what he said, I'm saying you may have with WP:SYNTH. And please learn to WP:INDENT. RashersTierney (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- That is your interpretation of the report. Your interpretation is irrelevant in this case. "At the Dundalk office of the Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA), a client was told she could lie to her doctor about having had an abortion, advice that could put a woman's life at risk, Professor Sam Coulter Smith, the master of Dublin's Rotunda Hospital, has warned." He said that the advice could put a woman's life at risk. Pretty clear there. If you don't like the report or if you find fault with the report then say so but stop trying to make it sound as if that is an editorial slant. If the paper misrepresented Coulter Smith don't you think he would have said so and the paper would have taken that down? No, not even that much. 89.204.250.187 (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- The piece from the newspaper source says "At the Dundalk office of the Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA), a client was told she could lie to her doctor about having had an abortion, advice that could put a woman's life at risk, Professor Sam Coulter Smith, the master of Dublin's Rotunda Hospital, has warned." That is not the same as saying "Sam Coulter Smith said that the IFPA were putting women's lives at risk". He didn't, at least according to this reference. The allegations in the paper are in the editorial voice of the paper, and are not quoting the named person. RashersTierney (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Apologies for editing the article before checking the talk page, and I inadvertently edited out Rashers amendment. But I want to point out that IP editors have been repeatedly trying to replace a paragraph that WAS NOT REMOVED. The paragraqph was simply moved to the Historical Developments section, which is the proper place for it. In my edit summary I mentioned Weight as the reason - there is no reason for it to be in a stand-alone section. I did NOT censor or remove it. Then IP editor 86.40.225.91 adds the paragraph, which means the same paragraph appears TWICE in the article, and this is followed blindly by IP editor 89.204.250.57 who does the same thing! My latest edit has rectified the situation: the paragraph appears once, and in the correct section. So now anyone who wants to can modify it as they like, but please don't re-add this paragraph! Hohenloh + 15:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- No prob H. I also missed the double entry with all the IP activity. Feel free to amend as you see fit. RashersTierney (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- Apologies for editing the article before checking the talk page, and I inadvertently edited out Rashers amendment. But I want to point out that IP editors have been repeatedly trying to replace a paragraph that WAS NOT REMOVED. The paragraqph was simply moved to the Historical Developments section, which is the proper place for it. In my edit summary I mentioned Weight as the reason - there is no reason for it to be in a stand-alone section. I did NOT censor or remove it. Then IP editor 86.40.225.91 adds the paragraph, which means the same paragraph appears TWICE in the article, and this is followed blindly by IP editor 89.204.250.57 who does the same thing! My latest edit has rectified the situation: the paragraph appears once, and in the correct section. So now anyone who wants to can modify it as they like, but please don't re-add this paragraph! Hohenloh + 15:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Irish Family Planning Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050508030558/http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA20Y1979S4.html to http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA20Y1979S4.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Irish Family Planning Association. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310193451/http://www.ifpa.ie/eng/About-Us to http://www.ifpa.ie/eng/About-Us
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://ifpa.hyperlink.ie/index.php/eng/content/download/371/2519/file/pro-life_irishquestion.pdf - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131102192331/http://www.nuigalway.ie/history/documents/rights_and_wrongs.pdf to http://www.nuigalway.ie/history/documents/rights_and_wrongs.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102082726/http://www.eurongos.org/Default.aspx?ID=1473 to http://www.eurongos.org/Default.aspx?ID=1473
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)