DOKUMEN123.COM

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment

Project Prevention needs to request funding or similar programs from all the over 100,000 LOCAL governments worldwide for which they only need one bite. This is something Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL, NAF, and Population Connection have all steadfastly refused to do. Some dabble in a monor way on state levels but most are totally fixated and thus dependent on Washington DC, where they only get one chance rather than 100,000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Controversy

Shouldn't the controversy be put in another section? Also seems a little too much information there compared to the rest of the article seems to move a little away from a Neutral POV, there's plenty of references with further information and sources stated for the controversy section so think it should be edited down so it's less messy -Edw400 (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Links

The link to "Woman On a Mission. Eric Gershon,The Hartford Courant, 14 July 2007" is broken. Either the Hartford Courant site is broken (denying deep links, thus negating the main point of a newspaper archive), or the article has been removed. Searching there, I was unable to find it.
78.86.168.228 (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[email protected][reply]

POV?

The article has been tagged NPOV. While not expert on the subject, I can't find either any text which pushes a viewpoint, nor any selective quoting biassed towards a particular POV. I'd suggest that anyone who thinks the article is not a fair description should identify what particular points are disputed, or otherwise that the tag be removed. Better still, remove any bias found. (Clearly points of view, both in favour and against, are described in the article, but that doesn't give the article itself a POV.)Pol098 (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in because I'm a bit concerned that the 'controversy' section is more than half of the article. There's a neutral lead section, then it launches straight into controversy, filled with cherry-picked quotes. I think the article is in danger of leaning a little too far towards covering the controversy, and not enough towards covering the history of the organisation, key supporters, etc. Reprehensible though the subject of the article is, we still need to be wary of WP:UNDUE. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have a look and do some work. I see lots of quotes about the dog comparison. Christopher Connor (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's too many negative quotes from random people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.171.167 (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Project Prevention. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 17:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Project Prevention. 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/20100403062033/http://cwpe.org/node/56 to http://cwpe.org/node/56

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 00:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

I'm having a hard time sourcing some of these numbers -- for instance, the claim that treating an opioid-addicted baby costs $500,000 USD. The source is a news article that does not cite its own sources, and these numbers may have been supplied by the organization being interviewed.

CBS cites the figure as being much lower, at the cost of around $22,500 USD here: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/babies-born-addicted-to-opioids-cost-us-more-than-half-a-billion-dollars-a-year/ and cites the study with this data, which was published in JAMA Pediatrics, a journal of note. ~2025-32056-42 (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]