Talk:Jane Collective

potential research on police, phone book, and telling patients

Several books cover this group as part of reproductive rights history of the late 1960s to early 1970s in the U.S., but I don't recall book titles. I don't recall reading of a Pennsylvania incident or any association with experimental care, but I do recall reading about a police bust. Police officers had apparently referred women they knew to Jane previously, but a new police commander took over, heard about Jane, and ordered the raid. The group was often known simply as "Jane", promoting that you could call Jane, since she was in the phone book. One important feature of its service was that, unlike the back-alley providers, Jane's people (I think all women except the doctor) explained to a patient what was going to happen in the procedure, demystifying it and probably making the experience less scary. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jane Collective. 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/20141105122458/http://www.uic.edu/depts/lib/specialcoll/services/rjd/findingaids/JAbortionf.html to http://www.uic.edu/depts/lib/specialcoll/services/rjd/findingaids/JAbortionf.html

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) 01:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jane Collective/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jami430 (talk · contribs) 15:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

1. Well-written

I made a few copyedits, but it's clearly written (and is quite an enjoyable read). Thank you!

2. Verifiable

Yes. Good find on sources, especially for an underground group that was not covered much during its operations.

3. Broad in its coverage

Yes. It summarizes the relevant background in abortion law during the time period, documents history of the collective, legal ramifications, and legacy. It does an excellent job of adding links for further reading on the background material/history, keeping this article quite focused and succinct.

4. Neutral

Yes. The material is written in a factual way that represents the underlying sources (the ones I was able to access).

5. Stable

Yes. Few editors have contributed to the page since the GA nomination.

6. Illustrated

The nominator did a nice job finding a few images to illustrate the article. The topic is one that doesn't lend itself to photos, especially since the subject was a secret, underground, illegally-operating organization that would not have documented medical procedures in photos.

I think this article is a clear ✓ Pass. Well done; thank you for adding this to the encyclopedia. :) Jami430 (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Jami430 thank you for taking the time to review it! I appreciate the copyediting. Enwebb (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

recent change of "Jane Collective" to "Jane"

@Smrtnz25: If you know someone who wants this info changed, than per Wikipedia policy, they (or you) need to find SOURCES WP:RS which state that this is the name the organization now goes by. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I have a screenshot of the conversation from original Jane member Judith Arcana. This was received in response to an invitation to an event that improperly used "Jane Collective" instead of "Jane", "The Service", or "The Abortion Counseling Service of the Chicago Women’s Liberation Union" as specified by Arcana. Changes should be made to reflect the accurate name as specified by original members. I will resubmit my revisions with this email linked to each one as a primary source. The title of this article should also be amended to reflect this. Smrtnz25 (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Please see my edit summary on my reversion, and also this: WP:COMMONNAME - the paragraph starting with "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used,..." Thanks! ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not know how to view your edit summary. I am doing this for my job on behalf of Judith Arcana. I will be resubmitting my revisions again. Please stop removing them as I have a primary source, an original group member, as cited above, telling me that the name is incorrect. Smrtnz25 (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I have resubmitted my changes and gave credit to the misnomer The Jane Collective so the page is still easily searchable but gives credit to the original name. I have an original member of Jane telling us that the name you are using is incorrect and the least we can do to honor the group is make sure the name is correct and reflects the original group. Smrtnz25 (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

This is what I stated on my previous edit summary: The problem here is that in Wikipedia policy, we don't care what the leader of the organization wants the organization referred to as, we refer to it by the name(s) used in Reliable Sources WP:RS, and WP:IS, which is generally the press and academic research on the subject. Please see this list of RS's WP:RSP.

Additionally, you stated: "I am doing this for my job on behalf of Judith Arcana." - That is what we in Wikipedia call a Conflict of Interest, WP:COI and generally that means that you shouldn't be editing this article directly, but rather asking others to edit it for you on this Talk page through Edit Requests WP:ER. ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

If you click on the "View history" tab next to the "Read" and "Edit" tabs that will allow you to see the edit summaries (including yours). ---Avatar317^(talk) 20:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)