Talk:Life (UK organisation)

is it encyclopedic?

Well, "life" is hard to google for, but I do see that the BBC links to www.lifeuk.org in their "Related Links" area of some articles about abortion topics, e.g. [1]. So does the Telegraph: [2] This suggests that they are legitmate and fairly notable. FreplySpang (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

...that aims to help young women and unborn children that need financial and moral help. To accomplish this they often gives [sic] talks about abortion, cloning, IVF, teenage sexual health an [sic] relationships. Could someone explain the connection between "financial and moral help for young women" and cloning? Perhaps low-interest loans for home-cloning businesses? --Calton | Talk 04:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Calton,

Sorry I didn't make it clear. Their main goal is to help women, and unborn children with both financial and moral support. Moral support means they'd help the women through it, tell here she's not bad, and generally give her a shoulder to cry on if need be.

The talks they give are seperate, but also one of their goal. I didn't mean to put "to accomplish this". Chooserr

Neutrality

I've placed a neutrality tag on this article.

1) It is riddled with POV, feel-good statements. To take a single example (of many):

"LIFE was founded to provide a compassionate alternative to those faced with a crisis pregnancy and the charity’s work is informed by the principle of respect for the lives of each human being; both born and unborn. The caring services are delivered for the benefit of mother, father and baby".

The POV implication being that the alternatives are lacking in compassion and of benefit to no-one. While this negative implication may be the case (I personally don't know) the article does not demonstrate it is so.

Another example or pretty blatant POV...

"its views on ethical issues are grounded in principles of justice, anti-discrimination and human rights."

... and "[LIFE's} speakers provide a clear and reasoned articulation of the charity’s principles"

C'mon, that was written by someone in LIFE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.93.235 (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

2) This article reads as if it were largely written by members of LIFE or those strongly approving of LIFE's activities. Again, for all I know it's a terrific organisation, but the article is unbalanced because of this writing style.

3) There is not one single citation from a reliable source!

I realy don't want to get bogged down in a discussion on the rights and wrongs of abortion, but would welcome input from other users on how to improve and balance the article. 86.153.93.235 (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have trimmed the article to a sensible length, hopefully still giving enough info on LIFE's work. There was much repetition, a lot of needless detail and some pretty excruciating self-promotion! The article was subject to a massive re-write and expansion (and, IMHO POV push) in sept 2007: to my mind, the author did LIFE no favours, blurring what seems to be valuable work under a tonne of corporate-sounding happy talk. It was his sole contribution to WP, which is usually indicative.

Removed neutrality tag as (I hope) the POV has been pruned away totally. Citations still needed. 86.153.93.235 (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

We still have the neutrality tag, so I suppose someone's reinserted it. I've done a little more POV pruning. I don't think the tag is now just, but I haven't interfered with it. I'm not neutral, and I'm not sure anyone else is either. You are either for or against organisations like this one - neutrality is a myth here, I think. Feel free to prove me wrong!Twr57 (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding sources. For example, "Nationally, on average, about 1 in 5 couples who use IVF treatment end up with a child. The Life Fertility programme has similar success rates, and has helped more than 100 couples to give birth since its inception in the late 1990s. Many of the people who access the programme have been through repeated unsuccessful IVF treatments." Where does this information come from? I've just been chastised for providing biased sources on an article up for deletion (and rightly so) so this struck me immediately. I would suggest this article needs serious trimming before meeting Wikipedia standards. Jenniferhynes (talk) 14:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?

I am an employee of LIFE and I do make occasional edits to this page and monitor the edits made by others. I believe this is defensible, as many of the edits made by others are misleading or one-sided and we have every right to safeguard our image and ensure that information about LIFE on Wikipedia is correct.

Niallgooch (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)niallgooch

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Life (UK organisation). 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/20120904182157/http://www.lifecharity.org.uk/lifenewssexualhealthforum250511 to http://www.lifecharity.org.uk/lifenewssexualhealthforum250511
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130212155244/http://www.lifecharity.org.uk/gps to http://www.lifecharity.org.uk/gps
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131023092551/http://www.lifecharity.org.uk/mystery-shopper-response to http://www.lifecharity.org.uk/mystery-shopper-response
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/Abortion%20guideline_web_1.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Life (UK organisation). 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/20110528041014/http://www.lifecharity.org.uk/students to http://www.lifecharity.org.uk/students
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091217161646/http://www.lifecharity.org.uk/about to http://www.lifecharity.org.uk/about
• Added archive https://archive.is/20071228210104/http://www.zoesplaceliverpool.org/ to http://www.zoesplaceliverpool.org/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Jacking

If I'm not mistaken there's a partial Wikipedia:Article hijack going on here. Put "Life charity" and "Zoe's Place" into Google to see what I mean.Eichhornia Crassipes (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)