Talk:Jill Stanek

NPOV

Some of the sources don't appear to verify the content properly, in particular some of the things it is claimed that Stanek has said appear to be misinterpreted, as a result this article may be biased against Stanek. Also I can't access the Chicago Sun-Times site in reference #4, and I'm not sure if the references are all reliable sources, so I've added {{Citecheck}} and {{POV-check}} templates. —Snigbrook 21:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I added back the material on the birth control pill "killing" children. It is taken verbatim from the article referenced in the text. ChooseReality (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not think the article is sufficiently neutral for Wikipedia. It asserts that the Illinois Department of Public Health found her statements about abandoned fœtuses to be "without merit" (citing to a progressive website) and then goes on to say that she was fired "for these false claims," thus adopting as its own the viewpoint that her claims are false. We should not assert that her claims are false unless we can prove it. 69.143.223.157 (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A good number of these sources did not pan out when checked on. - Schrandit (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Need the reference checked

Regarding this statement: However, many pro-life activists have also criticised Stanek for painstakingly avoiding arrest or jail time for her anti-abortion activities. I don't have access to the Chicago Sun-Times from February 14 2002, but I'd like more info on this statement. How does one avoid arrest/jail time for something? Did her actions justify arrest/jail, or not? - Brian Kendig (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a number of mistakes that need to be corrected:

I will start with this one:

Scott Swenson misunderstood Stanek on what the ‘a mistake’ was referring to. Stanek corrected Swenson on her blog

"We were wrong that the bill was "held" in committee. In fact Born Alive was actually amended to contain the identical language of the federal BAIPA and then voted down in committee with Obama as chairman leading the way."

[1]

--OxAO (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that now and just removed the erroneous claim. Stanek continues to accuse Obama of infanticide, per here and here. I mean, come on, her last blog post mentions it. What she retracted was, as you said, the specific details of how Obama opposed the born alive bill. While she admitted being wrong about him rejecting the amendment, she recognizes he supported amending the bill so he could then vote against it in committee. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Support for domestic violence as a response to abortion

Jill's support for domestic violence is not just an "assertion" by MediaMatters; it's right there in her blog archives, for all to see. I have quoted and linked. SingingZombie (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I read the quote and I can't really see that as an acceptance of domestic violence by Mrs. Stanek. - Schrandit (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Realllllly? She glorifies an act of domestic violence (slap) and says it's the appropriate response which a "real" man should make, and says that it endears the Corleones to us, and you don't think that's an acceptance of domestic violence? How not? What else is it? What WOULD you consider an acceptance of domestic violence??? SingingZombie (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Really. She put the word "real" in quotation marks noting contempt at the idea that Corleone is a real man. It is your opinion that she glorified that act. She noted the actions of a fictional character that an audience is meant to despise. She glorified nothing. To take that sentence fragment and synthesize a support for domestic abuse is ludicrous and a dangerous violation of WP:BLP. - Schrandit (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No, she did NOT put the word "real" in quotation marks; she italicised it. And she immediately followed by contrasting Pacino's character with an hypothetical man who hypothetically supports the woman's decision to abort, and she writes about that hypothetical man with extreme contempt. And she clearly states that the slap is one of the things that "endears" the Corleones to us IN SPITE OF their other dispicable traits.

Bah. Do wiki editors have to pass a reading-comprehension test? If yes, than I think you may have a problem, Schrandit. Just sayin'. SingingZombie (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well thank you for your concern on the state of my ability to comprehend the English language, I assure you it is adequate. I also possess a decent comprehension of Wikipedia guidelines and under the current standards for Biographies of Living Persons your synthesized text cannot stay without the present lack of explicit citation. - Schrandit (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Schrandit, you do not seem to be able to read Stanek's writing. For instance, you say she put the word "real" in quotation marks, but she didn't; she italicised it, which anyone who reads her piece can see. Therefore, I am not accepting your correction, and I will relentlessly re-post Stanek's support for dv until I see a correction from someone other than you, and the correction must clearly show how and why Jill's article does NOT support dv. SingingZombie (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I just saw the edit and read the blog, its fairly clear that Jill does indeed condone the slap, to the point of stating that the alternative is cowardly. That said, considering the severity of the issue, the solution must be to state her own words. For example: Commenting on a scene in Godfather II where Michael Corleone slaps his wife upon learning that she had an abortion, Stanek writes:

“ That spontaneous slap was the reaction of a real man who a woman had just told she aborted his baby. Compare that to the modern day cowardly male response, "It's your choice. Whatever you decide, I'll support you." ”

my 0.2 cents Unomi (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree, commentary on the post regarding the actions of the characters is appropriate but we can't synthesize that in stated support for an illegal act. - Schrandit (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the section in its current state, as at least it cites her words exactly rather than trying to frame them as domestic violence without perspective. However, to be notable, it should be mentioning major coverage about the event and, if the only source is going to be Media Matters, then we should consider whether this section is newsworthy enough to be included. Do you see what I'm saying? Right now, it just mentions this happened, without really citing "why" it's worthy of a mention on her page. If this is an accusation of domestic violence, it should be cited by reliable sources, and right now, that's not being done. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I don't feel too strongly about it but it would probably be for the best if it went. - Schrandit (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Non notable material

I removed some non notable material, ie Keith Oberman(sp) naming her worst person in the world and also her views on the Godfather. Anyways, another trainwreck article, go figure :) --Tom (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Corrected non-neutral language

I have corrected a non-neutral description of Dr. Tiller's work in the section on Stanek's views on Scott Roeder's trial. Tiller did not abort "pre-term infants" or whatever it said; he aborted FETUSES late in pregnancy. WP:NPOV requires the use of accurate, technical medical language. Goblinshark17 (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: It is also wrong to refer to Dr. Tiller as a "late-term abortionist". He did abortions early in pregnancy as well as late-term ones. Goblinshark17 (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)