Talk:Nightlight Christian Adoptions

Relevance

I deleted the section on the Whatcotts because the section disparages a child and a family, has no relationship to the article, and does not serve any informative purpose.

POV

I flagged this article for POV as it appears to be biased against Nightlight Christian Adoptions.

This article seems to misuse sources to buttress what would otherwise be violations of WP:MOS and WP:weasel (e.g., “At a federally funded conference, most scientists found the religious tenor and belief in the human life of an embryo disturbing.” The source quotes ones nursing professor. This hardly constitutes “most scientists.” The proceeding “Most responsible scientists...” sentence is equally unsupported by by the source.)

The Native American section has similar problems. (e.g., “Nightlight contacted the Cherokee Nation, but the agency misspelled Brown’s name and gave a wrong birth date for him.” This is untrue, as the SC state supreme court case, which is used as a citation for this very sentence shows. What happened was an attorney that was hired by adoptive parents to represent the interests of the birth mother. This attorney sent a letter to the Cherokee Nation that included biographical information on the father. The information, provided by the birth mother, included an incorrect first name and birthdate for the father. Nightlight had no part in this.) The Native American section is also outdated and makes no reference to the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the adoptive parents.

The Anti-abortion efforts section states the following: “The lawsuit was stayed at Nightlight's request, but it was noted that the court could have ruled against Nightlight as not being a proper "next friend"or that an embryo was not a person.” Unsupported attributions (..it was noted...) are a violation of wp:weasel. Further, “the court could have ruled against Nightlight...” is speculation as to what may have happened but did not; this is hardly encyclopedic material. Frankly, the court could also have ruled that Nightlight was a proper next friend and that an embryo was a person, setting up a potential overruling of Roe v. Wade. Speculation on either side is just that and should not be on this page.

Footnote 3 misquotes the source it uses to say that “the law is clear” on the subject. The source used in the footnote clearly states that, “Whether Nightlight Christian Adoption is to be considered a proper ‘next friend’ of potential embryo adoptees is a matter for the federal courts to decide.” The source goes on to say that it “appears” that courts would rule that Nightlights is an improper next friend, but that’s speculation and unencyclopedic. Courts have not ruled on this specific point (i.e., whether or not organizations such as Nightlight can serve as next friend to potential embryo adoptees), so we cannot definitely say the “law is clear.” Corpsnake (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the POV problems on this page. It looks like the purpose of this page was to slander an organization, by combing (many local) news stories from an anti-adoption lobby, and using partial statements out of context. This page was not written to describe an organization but to advocate against it. You can tell from the history of editing on this article that a particular user will not allow others to contribute, but immediately reverts changes to his versionDrHaiPham 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been making some edits to see if I can create a more neutral POV. Give me a couple more weeks to see if we can remove the NPOV tag. I'll work on unifying the reference style later. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 04:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe the article contains a relatively balanced POV at this point. Unless another editor can provide compelling evidence to the contrary, I'll remove the POV tag in a few days. I'll also be cleaning up the references for uniformity. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 01:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Since there have been no comments, I removed the POV tag today. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 21:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Edits

I removed this sentence:

As one observer noted, "single mothers, lesbians and unmarried couples need not apply."

This is an opinion. There are lots of opinions that are not encyclopedic. Also working on NPOV in the article. Jppcap (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I also removed this sentence:

In 2004, one woman died from complications from pregnancy while attempting to give birth through the program.

It is NPOV trivial information and misleading. The sentence reads like the program is at fault, when women die regularly in childbirth. Jppcap (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I added a sentence to the International adoptions section for more history. I completed some minor copyedits to the rest of the paragraph. Jppcap (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your deletions. The material was sourced. Please discuss why this material should not be included. It is accurate, verifiable, and sourced. GregJackP Boomer! 03:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Failed verification

A check of a reference added showed a significant problem, in misstating what the source said.

• According to a survey by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 54% of fertility patients want to preserve their remaining embryos for future use. The ASRM did not conduct such a study, or at least it is not documented in the article, and the 54% appears in a UK study, which also showed that 57% would donate the stemcells for research.
• Another 21% want to donate leftover embryos for research. Did not appear anywhere in the article.
• Donating embryos for research may be a good alternative when patients receive proper, honest and clear information about the research project, the procedures and the scientific value of the research. Did not appear anywhere in the article.
• The remaining 7% of those surveyed are willing to donate leftover embryos to another couple. Did not appear anywhere in the article. GregJackP Boomer! 07:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The current refs attached to the above statements in the article aren't the correct ones. I'm working on verifying the source. Please give me a few days. Thanks. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 21:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No prob. GregJackP Boomer! 21:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Correct source identified. One sentence with PMID ref excerpted from In vitro fertilization. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 03:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Advertisement hatnote

I'd like to see some details describing the content within the article that the editor who left that "advert" hatnote feels qualifies as advertising. When I last made changes, I tried very hard to be fair and balanced due to the controversial nature of the business. If you could please be specific, I'll strive to resolve the issue. Otherwise I'll remove the hatnote in a week or two. Thanks. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 00:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

No comments after 2 years. Removing hatnote. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 23:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)