Talk:Abby Johnson (activist)

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 29 July 2016, see discussion.
keep, 30 June 2011, see discussion.

Conservatism C‑class Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal 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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article and its editors are subject to Wikipedia general sanctions. Imposed by community discussion here.

Catholic

Abby and her partner were still waiting for an annulment ruling on 4 August. She was not confirmed as a Catholic at Easter although she has done RCIA. GerixAu (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article is "Dioceses around US welcome new Catholics at Easter" and it says, "In the Diocese Austin, Texas, Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood director in that state who has become pro-life, was becoming a Catholic [on Easter]." NYyankees51 (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that? NYyankees51 (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your article only predicted that Abby would enter the church. A Google search will provide my sources. GerixAu (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

e.g. here GerixAu (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were right, a new source confirms she hasn't yet entered the church [1]. Sorry about that. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable content

While it's not in dispute that she's said things, should her quotes be just, well, quoted? It's not very informative as a biography to just to quote the person's claims verbatim and mostly without context. I think it's important than scammers have pages so people know about them, but their scams should be fairly and divisively put into context, not given without comment. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prayer Warriors

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

In Abby Johnson (activist)#Work at Planned Parenthood:

Please replace "prayer warriors with Prayer Warriors.
Or if you prefer, feel free to create prayer warriors as an {{R from other capitalisation}} to Prayer Warriors

Thanks in advance. 72.244.204.164 (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Anon126 (talk - contribs) 22:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

I was interested in checking the source numbered [10] but the article is not there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:483:4000:F2C7:1875:7EC4:B1A3:1CF (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have now updated the article with the place where the source had migrated to. You can read the source here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Debunked

This is a very biased bio. Her claims were investigated and debunked by numerous sources, including Nate Blakeslee of Texas Monthly. There should be citations to reflect that, at least, and perhaps a section discussing it.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/the-convert/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2010/01/07/abby_johnsons_conversion_story_sounds_great_but_appears_to_be_false.html

https://rewire.news/article/2012/10/19/draft-abby-johnson-defends-statement-that-abortions-are-performed-on-women-who-ar/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pogovasse (talk • contribs) 00:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

Regarding this edit:

1) would you please revert the improper addition of a wikilink inside a direct quotation?

2) supposing we agree that "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" have different meanings, the more precise (and less politically loaded) "anti-abortion" is clearly the correct term here: Johnson's notability derives 100% from her opposition to abortion in particular.

There are other things one could say, but I hope that this will suffice for now. --JBL (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Johnson has taken positions against euthanasia, abortion, and the death penalty. She has professed support for pregnant and post-birth mothers and their born children. She has supported crisis pregnancy centers in their mission to end the demand for abortion. If only one person in these United States could be described as "pro-life", it is Abby Johnson. Elizium23 (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about in (1). It's not in the diff. Elizium23 (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is in the diff; a wikilink ended up within the quote "extremely pro-choice".

Johnson may have taken other positions that one might describe as "pro-life", but her notability seems quite strongly tied to her opposition to abortion, and the blanket replacement of the term "anti-abortion" with "pro-life" in cases where it is clearly addressing opposition to abortion is inappropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I believe that blanket replacement of the term "pro-life" with "anti-abortion" in cases where it is clearly referring to being pro-life is inappropriate. So perhaps we should compromise and only use the clearly applicable terms where appropriate. Offhand, I see zero appropriate places for "anti-abortion" so you'll have to convince me about their presence in this article. Elizium23 (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, "anti-abortion" in your view isn't the obvious term to describe "The organization seeks to help abortion clinic workers leave the industry."? Or the Washington Times source where it describes how her "about-face on abortion prompted her to resign her job, says she’s gotten flack for her decision from an unexpected quarter: her own church" and mentions not a thing about her views on the death penalty, euthanasia, or any other thing that you might want to stuff into the "pro-life" label, that's not describing "her conversion to the anti-abortion position"? --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nat Gertler has expressed what I consider to be obviously right. Sure, for some broader definition of "pro-life" Johnson is that, too; but her notability derives 100% from her abortion-specific activities. By analogy, we don't describe her as "former Baptist" in the lead sentence because, while accurate, it has nothing to with why she's notable. Is there a single source in the article that discusses her other activities in a more than incidental way? I don't see any. I am reverting to the previous version. --JBL (talk) 00:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the article uses the self-description "pro-choice" then it will also have to use the self-description "pro-life". Otherwise there's a POV slant in there. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The unique appearance of "pro-choice" in the article text is a direct quotation. The idea that that is binding on anything else is absurd. --JBL (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that you have no actual arguments to object against the term "pro-life" in general. It certainly is applicable in the subject's case. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the thread in which you are posting? Your behavior so far here is embarrassing. --JBL (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Abortion-rights movements#RFC: parity for abortion activism

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abortion-rights movements#RFC: parity for abortion activism. Elizium23 (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Anti-abortion vs. pro-life

There have been repeated recent IP attempts to replace the header Anti-abortion activism with Pro-Life activism or some slight variant thereof. As the section is solely about anti-abortion activities, the former is appropriate. Additionally, this falls under the general category of what was already discussed above under the Wording discussion. The header should not be changed without a new consensus being reached first. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-abortion is used as a critical and possibly derogatory term for pro-lifers, by those who are pro-choice. For example, an article on purely pro-choice activities can also be characterized as "anti-life", by those are are pro-life. Since the person, Abby Johnson, associates with her activities as pro-life, I believe it is not foul play to change the anti-abortion verbiage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.76 (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, "anti-abortion" is about as clear as neutral a description of opposition to abortion as one gets. "Pro-life" is used as a term that fuzzes the actual matter being addressed, and is used to cast those of opposing views as opposing "life" rather than supporting "legal availability of abortions". The fact that she describes herself as being pro-life is no more vital than if she described herself as a "hero" or a "good person"; what she is known for is her opposition to abortion. (And in balance, you will notice that if you go to pro-choice as an article name here, you end up with an article not under that title, but under Abortion-rights movements.) Just about everyone is in favor of "life" and "choice"; abortion is a more complex question. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree with Nat Gertler, and indeed it was well-stated. StarHOG (Talk) 14:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. It is also super-weird that people can't understand the difference between different kinds of negativity; "anti-death penalty" is a negative construction, and "dumb as a brick" is a negative characterization, but only one of those phrases would be problematic in Wikipedia. (Ok, weird-not-weird, but you know what I mean.) --JBL (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then there should be no problem calling her activities Unborn-rights activities, if you can say that Abortion-rights activities is ok. And that wouldn't be problematic to Wikipedia, either.