Talk:Dying Canadian infant moved to U.S. hospital for medical treatment

POV concerns

This article appears to present a single POV regarding the issues surrounding the story, and may be borderline advocacy of a religious belief as opposed to a balanced and neutral report of the news event. - Amgine | t 05:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. In the feedback, I noted the following: What is MailOnLine? And what is Cnews? Oh, after checking the link I see it's affiliated with Quebecor. Wasn't it worthy enough of a story to put in one of their monopolised newspapers? Also, this doesn't appear to be very balanced. Why are we quoting a priest who is defending the parents, and why don't we have more information about the panel's conclusion? Why are we insinuating that Canada doesn't care about dying babies? What exactly is the child's illness, and what's the percentage chance he/she will survive? Is it just a matter of delaying the inevitable? How much money would Canada be saving by not treating a terminally ill child with this diagnosis? --SweetNightmares (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1195187 [Passed]

Revision 1195187 of this article has been reviewed by Tom Morris (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 12:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: User:Amgine brought up NPOV concerns on the talk page. I've got a pretty strong POV on this story, but I think the article is fine on NPOV. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1195187 of this article has been reviewed by Tom Morris (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 12:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: User:Amgine brought up NPOV concerns on the talk page. I've got a pretty strong POV on this story, but I think the article is fine on NPOV. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Pro-life / individual rights

I'd say Priests for Life and the Terry Schiavo organization are definitely pro-life, and the ACLJ lean towards pro-life. Calling them pro-life doesn't introduce a POV. "Individual rights campaigners" doesn't really tell anyone anything. Pretty much everyone is for individual rights: but there is a difference between the ACLJ and, say, the ACLU. Pro-life also doesn't mean they don't do stuff other than anti-abortion activism. Pro-life groups campaign on anything they consider "anti-life" like euthanasia/DNR: this is a perfect example of one. The "individual rights" phrase is used in the Daily Mail source to describe the ACLJ but not the other two groups. And the Wikipedia entry for American Center for Law & Justice describes it as "pro-Christian and pro-life". Wikipedia says the same about Priests for Life ("a Roman Catholic pro-life organization"). —Tom Morris (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Two separate issues.

• "individual rights". I don't like it either, so have suggested removing it from the article. It's doubtful all the organizations would support an individual's right to choose to die, for example.
• "pro-life". You may have meant "right to life", which is very different from "pro-life" — and indeed, the fact that "pro-life" is correctly used in (at least, US) politics to mean something different from the combination of prefix "pro" with the word "life" is a symptom of its being a means of "spin", to paint those who disagree as "anti-life". I.e., it's used to promote a POV.

--Pi zero (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)