Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:59, 4 February 2011

Abortion Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Politics Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology: Social Movements Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

United States abortion-rights movement received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives

Begin. of time. – May 2006 August 2006 – August 2006 October 2006 -

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Pro-choicer terminology preferences

Do pro-choicers prefer to use words like "embryo" and "fetus"? The cited sources only talk about the terms we already quote: "unborn child" and such. We should not give the reader the impression that these sources also talk about other things. If there are other sources to be cited in regards to pro-choice terminology preference, then please cite them. Otherwise, we cannot add unsourced content to the article (especially if it's placed in front of a footnote that doesn't reference that content). I hope this explains my last revert. Please feel free to discuss further if there are any more issues.-Andrew c  22:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to learn more about how reliable sources work so I was wondering what you think of the the link to http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v14n1/ReproPatriarch-07.html in reference to "baby". Does it count as a reliable source? Alec Fischer (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks a fairly solid source: informed articles, written in academic style, by named individuals. However, it is openly articulated from a specific ideological viewpoint (that of 'progressive changemakers') and doesn't appear to be peer reviewed, meaning that it may be difficult to separate fact from opinion. Use with care as a source for anything controversial. --Nick Boalch\ 09:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Does a source need to be peer-reviewed to be reliable? I can understand how this might be a reasonable requirement for scientific articles, but this just about the political use of words. I also wonder if we distinguish between genuinely controversial issues and sources intended to support what we all pretty much know. As much as I appreciate your answer, I was hoping Andrew would chime in, since he's the one who made the change, and he's an administrator. Alec Fischer (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be, but publication after a peer review process is a very good way to help establish reliability. For academic writing, citation of a particular source by other authors (as recorded, for instance, in the Web of Science which despite the name indexes arts, humanities and social sciences citations too) is another useful criterion. We also don't draw any distinctions between scientific research and other kinds of research: we must maintain an expectation for sources to be reliable, even if they are 'just about the political use of words'.

In my original reply I missed the specific case you were asking about, sorry. This source looks like an adequate one for the specific claim made by our article, namely that 'pro-life advocates tend to use terms such as "unborn baby," "unborn child," or "pre-born child"'. The source makes that specific claim and it provides a reference to support it (to a document that uses the term 'unborn baby', although it doesn't back up its claim regarding any of the other terms). So there are lots of ways this source could be more reliable (it could be published in a peer reviewed journal, it could be extensively cited by other writers, it could back up its own claims more fully), and I would be more comfortable if we had a more reliable source, but for now it seems ok.

Things that we genuinely 'all pretty much know' don't need sources. We don't need to provide a source, for instance, for our article's opening claim that 'pro-choice describes the political and ethical view that a woman should have complete control over her fertility and the choice to continue or terminate a pregnancy'. --Nick Boalch\ 08:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree with Nick, and not sure what else I can contribute to the conversation. Is there something specific you want to ask me, Alexc?-Andrew c  14:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's Alec, and yes. I think the easiest way to explain is by example, so please bear with me.

If an article says "over 2,000 people were killed", we'd expect a reliable source for this number, so we know it wasn't just made up.

If an article says "where he was seen with a hooker", we'd demand a reliable source for this potentially libelous claim about criminal activity.

If an article says "and he is the one who actually shot JFK!", we'd raise the bar so high that it's unlikely anyone could meet it unless it first became generally accepted. After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If an article says "and Southerners say y'all, while Northerners typically do not", we'd still want a reliable source, but it's not as if it's saying anything that anyone vaguely informed about the the topic wouldn't already know. The source is there to document it, but I would think it would effectively be held to a lower standard, since ordinary claims require only ordinary evidence.

Based on this logic, how high a bar should we set for "an pro-lifers talk about innocent unborn babies while pro-choicers use medical terms such as fetus".

Thanks for your patience. Alec Fischer (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So your concern is with my deletion of the unsourced material, more than the source we have currently for the pro-life side of things? The article used to list a set of terms that both sides leaned towards. Some of the pro-life terms (such as "mother") have been removed because neither source mentioned that term. All of the pro-choice terms were removed likewise for not having a source. I think the issue is two fold. How do we not know that the ardent pro-choicers don't prefer terms like "blob of tissue" or "tumor"? Furthermore, are doctors being pro-choice when they write about fetal development instead of unborn child development? My final issue is one of original research. If we don't have a published source already going into detail discussing the preferred terminology, we should not be the first place to publish such information. Perhaps this is just common knowledge, or maybe it's an incorrect preconceived notion, but having a source that we can attribute the claim to would help. I hope this explains why I removed the unsourced content (and I hope I answered the question you seemed to be trying to get at without saying as much). -Andrew c  00:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've now provided a source - an example, not a peer-reviewed article on the topic. As a naive contributor, I'd welcome help with formatting and placement, if these are objected to. I shall be interested to see if this is now considered acceptable. Frankly I'm amazed that (source or not) you couldn't see that the original content was unbalanced. Twr57 (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Ha! I see it didn't last two minutes! Do I get the courtesy of an explanation? Twr57 (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You haven't made any edits to this article since the 18th. I'm not sure what edit you are referring to that provided a source and then was reverted two minutes later. Perhaps there was an error and the server didn't save, or maybe you forgot to hit save? Check the "history" tab on the article or check your contributions to verify that you haven't edited this article. Perhaps you could try making your edit again, or if you are worried it may be reverted or isn't properly formatted, you could post it here to the talk page and let other editors review it and help you out. -Andrew c  13:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think you must be right - I may have forgotten to hit "Save". Apologies (somewhat belated, I fear) for an intemperate reaction. I don't think you've taken my point that the requirement for a reference distorts the balance of the article. Surely it's better to maintain balance than to require a reference for something completely obvious?Twr57 (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Change to pro-choice movement?

The "pro-life" article was renamed pro-life movement this summer, for reasons stated here , principally: Adjective titles generally make for bad encyclopedia entries. It makes sense to me, as it seems easier to delimitate what the article is really about with "pro-choice movement" as the title. Any opinions?--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to move pro-life back. :D -Andrew c  20:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I just posted on that topic on the pro-life movement talk page: moving it one way or the other is no small deal, as it does shift the focus of the whole article (I wasn't party to the change this summer, btw). I believe that "pro-xxx movement" is more encyclopedic, since it tends to incite to a more delimited, measurable approach. I don't think any one the two pro-life/choice articles is too great right now (no offense to anyone, of course) in part because of this problem in focus.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap. I'll get that out of the way. But it seems unlikely that someone searching will type in "pro-choice movement". Simply "pro-choice" seems to me to be the most common search phrase, but I don't have facts and figures to back that up off hand (ha). So if people are really searching for "pro-choice", and it is the most common term, why not name it as such? I guess the flip side is "pro-choice" is just a position someone may hold. You can be "pro-choice" and not involved at all in the "movement". Could there be two different articles on these topics? Possibly, though I'd personally argue against that. Anyway, just my thoughts. I agree completely (and mentioned it way back when) that the articles pro-life/choice should have consistent naming schemes, which they currently do not. I'd much rather prefer changing this to pro-choice movement, than keeping them unequal. -Andrew c  23:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This has gone too long. The lack of parity is upsetting to me. What is the consensus? move this, or move pro-life back? -Andrew c  03:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course we should move it to a noun. Searches for the adjectives "Pro-choice" or "prochoice" or "pro choice" should all find redirects to it (after the double redirects are repaired). I was rather startled to find this pair of articles exists, though I suppose it is fundamentally similar to the pair for Democratic Party and Republican Party.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"forced" abortion

Someone removed the word "forced" from the lede where it said that the pro-choice movement works for "legal protection from forced abortion". The idea here is that one of the goals of the pro-choice movement is to prevent governments from mandating abortions, as for example may happen with the one-child policy. Removing the word "forced" makes it mean that the pro-choice movement wishes to "protect" women from abortion itself. However, the word "forced" clearly should not have been linked to a physics article. The Wednesday Island (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You may want to explain it better in the article itself. "Forced abortion" would not be a familiar term to most people. (Huey45 (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC))

Is it really fair to say that is part of the movement? - Schrandit (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)We use the term compulsory abortion in another article. -Andrew c  03:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Picking up on Schrandit's point, though protecting women from "forced abortion" sounds "pro-choice," and a decent thing to do, is there any reliably sourced information indicating that the movement is devoting a significant amount of energy in this endeavor? Badmintonhist (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence of the lead certainly implies that "pro-choice" would mean opposition to compulsory abortion, however, specifically listing "legal protection from forced abortion" as one of the basic tenets of the pro-choice movement is quite misleading because, practically speaking, the leading pro-choice organizations have done very little to oppose it. Their overwhelming emphasis has been on legalizing, or maintaining the legality of, abortion, not on preventing it in situations where it becomes coercive. If someone can produce reliable sources that demonstrate otherwise I stand corrected. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess this is long the lines of including cloning, stem cells, death penalty, and euthanasia in the lead of the pro-life article. I did find this source which says pro-choice people oppose forced abortion. I think this is a position that no only pro-choice individuals take, but most everyone (except, you know, Nazi Germany and Communist China). But I'll agree that I haven't found it in the core mission of any pro-choice organization, not that I have read every mission statement from every organization. It may be a position the pro-choice individuals hold, but maybe not the center of campaigns from pro-choice organizations. -Andrew c  20:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is an issue here: I know some pro-choice individuals (and organizations?) are actively opposed to, say, the coercive policies in China. In the case of others, the issue is contentious at best . I believe the statement should therefore be qualified.--Matthew Moorhead (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, most pro-life organizations would support a "right" to abortion when a pregnant woman's life is seriously in danger, but we probably wouldn't make this stance a major tenet in the lead paragraph of the article on "Pro-life." Pretending that pro-choice organizations, on the whole, make opposition to compulsory abortion a significant part of their program would seem to be at least equally dubious. Badmintonhist (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

But the lead isn't describing pro-choice organization's activism, but the general ethical view "pro-choice". There is a difference. I am leaning towards deletion myself, don't get me wrong. -Andrew c  13:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

True, Andrew, but as I said, the first sentence in the lead basically denotes "pro-choice's" theoretical opposition to compulsory abortion. However, emphasizing that theoretical but often practically ignored opposition by specifically listing "legal protection from forced abortion" as a major part of this "general ethical view" seems pretty misleading to me. Badmintonhist (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between holding an ethical position, and activism. Does Operation Rescue do sidewalk counseling outside of IVF clincis? Hold daily vigils outside research institutions and hospitals using stem cells? I'm not sure we need to require action based on belief in order to include content in the lead. I think it's important to emphasize "choice" here, in that forcing someone to give birth, and forcing to have an abortion is against the "pro-choice" ethos, even if there aren't organized campaigns against either. Should we remove the mention of the consistent life ethic from the pro-life article because it is just a moral position, not action? Hmmm... maybe I'm coming around again. -Andrew c  19:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

But again, the lead sentence already says that "pro-choice describes the . . . view that a woman should have control over . . . the choice to continue or terminate a pregnancy," so the theoretical opposition to compulsory abortion is already stated. Why give readers the misimpression that opposition to forced abortion is an emphasized component of that ethos by adding more specific language, when the opposite is true? In point of fact, a significant number of people who consider themselves "pro-choice" don't oppose, even in theory, compulsory abortion in the parts of the world where it is an issue. A significant number of pro-choicers are also population control advocates who are sympathetic with the use of this tool in reversing population growth. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The map again

Germany should be light blue, see discussion section of the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.189.95.223 (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am not actually in favor of this move, I am making this suggestion as numerous opposition voters have stated that should that Pro-life be renamed Anti-abortion then they feel Pro-choice should be renamed in a similar manner, I am starting this discussion to allow them to support both, if they so choose. _WikiMan 06:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose and close If you don't agree with it, it's purely a pointy nomination. I'd advise this be speedily closed. Dayewalker (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• I personally do not agree with it, but there are those that have clearly stated that they would support it at Talk:Pro-life, I am giving them an opportunity to do so and see where the community stands on it. (The argument is, if Pro-life is to be moved, so should Pro-choice, so let it be discussed then is my view) _WikiMan 06:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close. WP:POINT nomination being used to justify or excuse bad behavior at an equally bad move discussion of Pro-life. Also, nobody at the other discussion has "expressed support" for a proposed title invented just a few minutes ago. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close per clear WP:POINT. I suggest the nominating editor step away from the keyboard for a second and consider what he or she is actually trying to achieve with these discussions. Because whatever it is, it isn't working and you are doing your cause more harm than good. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Start-Class Abortion articles
• Unknown-importance Abortion articles
• WikiProject Abortion articles
• Start-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Unassessed sociology articles
• Unknown-importance sociology articles
• Unassessed social movements task force articles
• Social movements task force articles
• Old requests for peer review