Revision as of 01:53, 3 January 2008 editBlackworm (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers4,646 edits →Feedback: Comment on Pigman's comment.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:54, 2 December 2024 edit undoSpookyaki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,105 edits Assessment: banner shell, Human rights (Top), Women's Health (Low), Abortion (Low) (Rater) | ||
(224 intermediate revisions by 72 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Talk header}} | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1= | |||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Gender |
{{WikiProject Gender studies|importance=mid}} | ||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Low|reproductive=yes}} | ||
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=Top}} | |||
{{WikiProject International development|importance=high}} | |||
{{WikiProject Women's Health|importance = Low }} | |||
{{WikiProject Abortion |importance=Low}} | |||
}} | |||
{{ course assignment | course = Education Program:Drake University/Global Youth Studies (Spring 2013) | term = 2013 Q1 }} | |||
{{Archive box|search=yes| | |||
* ] <small>(2004–2008)</small> | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{archivebox|image=]|box-width=12em|]}} | |||
__TOC__ | |||
== Suggestions for expansion == | |||
{{Clear}} | |||
Per international aspects of reproductive rights: | |||
*Some reference to the ] | |||
*The international effects of the MCP - the Guttmacher Institute has some useful info to that end. | |||
*International response to the MCP | |||
*Beijing Conference on Women http://www.reproductiverights.org/ww_adv_beijing.html | |||
*Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN, based in Nigeria, http://dawnnet.org but I think I have a good article for them) | |||
== NPOV == | |||
In a slightly different direction, this article has some decent legal content relating to the US but little critical (as in academic and cultural discourse) content. Some nice additions might include | |||
The article has become significantly more neutral in the last few months, but the ] still is generally favorable to the subject matter. ] (]) 18:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
*reproductive rights as they relate to general health | |||
*reproductive rights and feminism, ] and ] come to mind | |||
*particular aspects of rr, like the critical discussions of fetal rights v. women's rights as well the dangers of fetal rights - the notion of the public fetus and the objectified mother. Anne Balsamo is a great source for that particular discourse. | |||
Any thoughts? ] 08:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I've taken the liberty of doing some serious editing, including adding res and removing the ref tag, since the Supreme Court decisions don't need additional citation - that Kirk ref could use some work. It's not perfect, but I think it's an improvement. I hope to be adding a History section in the next few days. Comments? ] 20:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
"Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Misplaced Pages articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." | |||
==Criticism== | |||
It would be helpful if you point out examples of where this is a problem, rather than saying there is a general problem with the article... overall the article is extremely factual, and well referenced. I read it again and cant see any case of the position included in the article being presented in a biased way.--] (]) 18:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
I am removing the crit section, again. The sources are two partisan websites with no known reputation of fact-checking. This info if relvant to RR should be gotten from a peer-review .journal or other reliable source. I'm not even sure what the relvancy is here. This is not an abortion debate. It covers much more than abortion and seems to give undue weight to pro-lifers. PL's do not criticize reproductive rights, ''per se''. They crit. abortion. Not the same thing. Besides, then we have to get into definitions of "reproduction" (which would be okay if sourced appropriately). Technically, while ''reproductive processes'' start at implantation, reproduction does not occur until a woman produces a live baby. I am open to argument to the contrary. I would just like to see it on the talk page. ] (]) 21:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I also don't see any obvious POV problems with the article. | |||
OK, removing the Times piece because it is not about reproductive rights nor does it characterize men in terms of ''reproductive rights''. Random pieces about men and abortion are not applicable to this article. It would be a good addition for the ] page. Also removing info sourced by wwwall.org - not reliable, same with pro-life.com. Again, this is not an abortion debate, please use reliable materials dealing with the greater (and explicit) topic of reproductive rights. ] (]) 02:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I am removing the POV-check like box that was added because it was subst'd (which that template is not supposed to be, see the documentation), and it appears to be using some non-standard version of the template (puts it into a category that isn't used, so won't help attract people to fix POV problem). | |||
:If you still feel there are POV problems, please give more specifics so that article can be improved. (And if you feel that the template is needed, please use regulation one so it gets categorized correctly). ] (]) 04:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
::The entire article is written in a tone that is highly favorable to its subject matter; however, the overall trend is improvement, with most individual instances of specific POV having been removed. ] (]) 23:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::What does "favorable to the subject matter" mean? Can you give a concrete example (specific sentence, pharsing, etc.) that think questionable and specific example of how it might be improved? ] (]) 05:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
:Far from being a random piece about men and abortion, the info I added is directly relevant to the subject, which is reproductive rights. Also, your removal of pro-life links and keeping pro-choice links is inexplicable -- reproductive rights are DEBATED and pro-life organizations are part of the debate. Finally, your attempts to turn "reproductive rights" into "women's reproductive rights, which are really human rights since the UN says so, and include FGM and anything else that affects women" is not welcome. It may need to be refactored. ] (]) 03:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::maybe there is a "misunderstanding"... the article is about "reproductive rights", so it will naturally deal mostly with those developments and international standards that enshrine such rights. The article does not contain a criticism section (although it does cover some of the controversy surrounding reproductive rights, e.g. in the men's rights article). All ]s article are "screwed" in this way. However, the article is not POV, as it presents all positions included in the article in a balanced way. | |||
::No, I have not tried to do what you allege. By all means, if you can find discussion of the material you'd like to include that occurs within the ''specific context'' of "reproductive rights" and not the limited aspect of abortion, please bring it to the table. I surely support inclusion of appropriate material relating to men, however, random discussions of men and abortion without the explicit context of RR are not relevant. | |||
:::the article certainly needs extension, and almost every single issue that comes under the heading reproductive rights is controversial (see population control in China), so as long as those issues covered in the article are presented in a balanced manner, I think there is no POV problem. | |||
:::You say "most individual instances of specific POV have been removed", indicating there are still some remaining, I cant see them, so help would be appreciated.--] (]) 07:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::I think the point of view of the article is obvious on its face. However, the last time I pointed this out, all of the specific examples of POV (for example, the assertion that the UDHR "failed" to include reprodutive rights) were removed. The only thing left is the fact that the article, as a whole (rather than any specific sentence), assumes the validity of the rights in question, which is itself a POV. ] (]) 09:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::: The article does not assume the validity of reproductive rights, far from it, it documents on what basis groups or agencies have claimed or defined reproductive rights, that it is regarded as a subset of human rights, and that reproductive rights may be defined to include different issues, as well as pointing out that reproductive rights may be regarded primarily as women's rights or men’s' rights. | |||
:::: This article does not simply state "reproductive rights exist and include z, y and z"... this would be POV... instead it states "the WHO defines reproductive rights as..." etc. Please refer to Misplaced Pages policy on POV if you still think there is an issue.--] (]) 10:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::::I am very familiar with the Misplaced Pages policy on POV. The article assumes the truth of the subject matter, without question, but uses proper sources to describe and explain it. Thus, it adheres to the requirement of ], but according to ], "verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it." The fact that the article uses reliable sources to document the point of view denoted by the term "reproductive rights" does not guarantee its neutrality. For it to be neutral it must also be ]. ] (]) 11:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::::Yes, and if you would be so kind to point out where we could make improvements... this is getting boring, you obviously appear to know what you are talking about (I don’t), so why don’t you have a go and make the article less POV... I really fail to see where the article is not impartial in tone, really sorry. While you at it, please have a look at the ] article as well, I assume you would judge this article to be POV as well, oh, ya and the ] article, how POV is that....--] (]) 15:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
:I kept links relating specifically to the greater category of reproductive rights and removed those limited to pro-life attitudes about abortion. I did keep parental leave and added links to other more appropriate links. Your reversion has removed these.] (]) 04:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
What "significant views that have been published by reliable sources"] on the material being covered do you feel are not presented or are underrepresented? | |||
It sounds like there may be confusion about the topic of the article vs. its content. ] If the topic of an article is a POV, that does not make the content of the article not NPOV. Consider also: ] ] (]) 19:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
::(Edit conflict.) | |||
::I invite you to perform a Google search on | |||
"reproductive rights" men | |||
::and read several Web pages. Notice that the National Center for Men, whose position was discussed in the cited ''Time Magazine'' article, is hit number 5 on that list. Read in particular this St. Petersburg Times article ] that clearly and specifically discusses men's reproductive rights. The case for a section on the matter is strong. I have noticed that most if not all of your recent edits move the POV of this stub toward a primary focus on the reproductive rights of women. Men reproduce, in roughly equal numbers to women (I admit I'm guessing), and thus if reproductive rights are a women's issue, they are also a men's issue. Are you hostile to this idea? Are you attacking the material on ] grounds (in a stub, no less)? On other grounds? Please cite relevant policy. I don't question your good faith, but your instantaneous and blunt dismissal and reversion of my cited edit, especially in a stub article, seems inappropriate. Discussion surrounding the subject of reproductive rights demonstrably includes a discussion of the relationship between parents and unconceived (e.g., potential), ''in utero'', and born offspring (the ] of ]) -- that relationship clearly being the subject of the cited ''Time Magazine'' article. The reproductive rights (and accompanying responsibilities) of both women and men are discussed prominently. The inclusion seems legitimate. | |||
::I can't help but feel a sense of ]. You deleted the tiny "Criticism" section. What material was unacceptable? Is it the material presenting cited information that certain groups claim "reproductive rights" is a euphemism for abortion? The opinion seems to be rendered fact through its being '''attributed''' to "some ]." It seems appropriate. It's in the "criticism" section, however; I oppose this. I doubt people calling themselves "Pro-life" would necessarily describe themselves as critics of reproductive rights; they perhaps simply do not believe that such rights exist to the same extent as certain others, or perhaps that other reproductive rights exist that certain others deny, or perhaps that certain other rights trump certain reproductive rights claimed by others. Their opinions should be presented along with other material in the relevant sections of the article. You seem to suggest that their arguments are not on-topic; but this seems indefensible. | |||
::Similarly, your removal targeting pro-life links is misguided, and unfortunately violates ]. Pro-life organizations are prominent, even popular in certain regions, and have the primary goal of advocacy (some may call it 'anti-advocacy', but that displays a non-]) regarding reproductive rights. To omit them from this article seems to violate policy. | |||
::Your deletion of certain "See Also" links (to ], ], and ]) from this stub is also unexplained, although I actually applaud them. It's unfortunate I reverted them in a summary reversion of other violations. The links should perhaps be removed, per ]. Unfortunately, you must justify new additions, however, such as ]. Remember also that ] may also be appropriate (]). | |||
::I have several questions. First, forgive me, but why did you appear to pounce on this edit in particular, when <s>the entire article is unsourced</s> the edit I added was cited, but the majority of the article has been sitting for weeks, unsourced? That seems curious. Secondly, I look forward to discussing this article's ] issues, if any; its ] including the ] of the term; and the other relevant section headings. Perhaps a general outline of the article could be discussed. This article being a stub, the potential is great. I suggest that before discussing '''context,''' we should agree on a definition; anything else seems a grave error. I suggest that this article be reviewed top to bottom, by both of us, done right. Care to work with me on this? While you are of course free to make many edits in a short time, as you have demonstrated you are motivated to do, it is extremely time consuming to respond, so discussion may proceed at a slower pace than you might prefer. On my part, I will make an effort not to take lack of response for agreement. You have to understand, however, that it is good for editors to remove unsourced or otherwise unacceptable material, or article content derived from same. That is just how Misplaced Pages must work -- slowly but surely. This can be frustrating for all of us, but it makes Misplaced Pages better. ] (]) 07:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::I have restored your addition of ] and added other categories, and alphabetized the list. I personally believe there is widespread misuse of certain templates and categories on Misplaced Pages to serve certain ]. However, you seem to wish to work on this section, and they are quick to add and remove, unlike other article material. Under those conditions consensus may be more likely to emerge. ] (]) 10:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Good NPOV edit, Blackworm! "none, some or all of the following rights" <span style="color:Red; font-size:1.5em;">☺</span> ] (]) 13:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
:Blackworm, real quick - you didn't care about this article until I started editing it. This article sat here for 3 years with most people agreeing with the basic scope of RR as a health issue. If you want to come in and radically alter the scope of this article, please provide explicit peer-review content that supports this significant departure from 3 yr status-quo. Let's stick to the content and skip the lengthy editorializing, this may shorten the time it takes you respond. | |||
::Thanks. :) But then this one was stlll necessary. I instantly realized that it's ] to recognize that inherently every WP article leads the reader to some degree. ] (]) 23:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
:*Please do not remove peer-reviewed citations. You asked for the citation, got it, didn't like it. You can't just remove it without discussing why on the talk page. | |||
:*I checked the ref you questioned and added relevant quote and stable link. | |||
:*Argument against content in ] - Fringe american arguments for male "financial abortions" in an article that is predominantly related to reproductive health (please read the two cited peer-reviewed articles on the subject) are not relevant. Also, male reproductive rights are more along the lines of not being sterilized. ] (]) 19:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
So.... can we remove the neutrality tag? Either that or make suggestions (Specific) on what needs to be changed.--] (]) 12:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
::If you are implying that I followed you here, that is false. I am also, like you, interested in sex and gender issues. What "most people agree" on is irrelevant in the context of a stub article with no sources and dozens of policy violations. I have provided appropriate sources for the material I added. | |||
:Okay, let's consider the second paragraph, which sets the tone for the rest of the article. How about changing it something along these lines? | |||
::As I stated in the edit summary, the reference did not support the claim in the article. If you could quote a specific passage that validates the claim, please do so, and also remember to attribute opinions to those taking that view, per ] and ]]. | |||
:<blockquote>According to ______, (or ______ believe that) the realisation of reproductive rights is interlinked with the realisation of a series of recognised international human rights, including the right to health, the right to freedom from discrimination, the right to privacy, and the right not to be subjected to torture or ill-treatment. The <s>basic</s> right of parents to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and a right to adequate education and information in this respect <s>has been</s> was recognised as a subset of human rights in the 1968 Proclamation of Teheran. This right is however not recognised in international human rights <s>law</s> treaties. | |||
::Your assertions as to what reproductive rights are, are irrelevant. ] (]) 20:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
</blockquote> | |||
::I claimed nothing about you following me here. You have not provided appropriate sources as they do not contextualize "financial abortions" as part of the international human rights discourse. I provided two peer-review articles for my assertions that reproductive rights are human rights as they pertain to sexual reproduction/sexual health as you requested, please have the courtesy to do the same. Until then, your argument is OR/SYN. If you can find material that contextualizes the "financial abortion" as a human rights issue pertaining to reproductive rights (health) as discussed in international discourses, by all means, bring it forward. Until then it should go, it is harmful to the article as it distorts the discussion, giving undue weight to a single fringe American perspective. ] (]) 20:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:In this regard, I know that the first sentence already cites the statement to its source, but ] is not a substitute for ]; I propose (above) to word it in a way that merely describes the viewpoint without advocating it. (How to fill in the blank remains to be discussed; although Amnesty International clearly advocates for reproductive rights now, in the past it was scrupulously impartial regarding the matter.) Continuing to the next sentence, I am striking out the word "basic" because that is an editorial comment; if it is to be retained then maybe it can be phrased in a more neutral manner: "the 1968 Proclamation of Tehran declared that parents have the basic right to decide freely and responsibility on the number and spacing of their children...." The goal is for the article to describe the viewpoint without assuming its truth (and also to include ''some'' information about all major controversies regarding the subject). ] (]) 21:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::Again. your desire to frame the "reproductive rights" article in terms of international human rights discourse (which I presume you mean the United Nations and its agencies) or exclusively in terms of "health" is misguided and inappropriate, violating ]. Please quote directly the sections of your sources that you believe validate the article material, then attribute the material to the sources, per ]. ] (]) 21:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Uff... you know there is an ] article that could do with a section on how they have changed their position on women’s rights and reproductive right over the years (and the associated controversy), but lets focus on the reproductive rights article. | |||
==Reproductive rights as a men's issue== | |||
Blackworm, I would appreciate if you would provide sources that contextualize the material within the specific discourse of health. The material you have included does not relate to reproductive health, nor does the source contextualize the material within a reproductive rights discourse. If reliable sources cannot show how this material relates to reproductive health and actually discuss men's rights within an explicit reproductive rights context. It should be removed. ] (]) 06:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:This article is about reproductive rights, not reproductive health. Again, perhaps the problem lies in defining the term, and whose definition is taken as binding. Is the definition of "reproductive rights" self-evident? Does "the topic of article no name," and is the "title simply descriptive," (in the language of ])? I'm inclined to say yes. In any case, the source describes what self-described "reproductive rights" advocates believe. Its relevance to this stub, at least for the moment, is clear. ] (]) 07:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Reproductive rights are about reproductive health. The article has a 3 yr status quo as such. I have provided two peer-review articles that discuss this. All I'm asking for is a citation that contextualizes "financial abortions" as part of the Reproductive Rights (as in health) debate. Abortion as one particular reproductive right in an Western context is already discussed in ]. As the current material/source only actually responds to this and ''Roe v Wade'', it is not appropriate to characterize American men's desire for "financial abortions" as an international issue in men's reproductive rights. The article is about the overall international context of reproductive rights as human rights and this is what your material must be contextualized as in order to not be ]/]. ] (]) 19:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:How about the following: | |||
:::Stop reverting material you asked me to provide. I added citations, you removed them which left the article lacking peer-review citation. Your willful inability to read and comprehend what is a basic concept is disruptive. I then reintroduced the material adding additional quotes. You reverted multiple edits, one of which corrected a date in a citation. Please stop - if you find something missing - ADD IT. Do not remove reliable citations just because you don't like them. ] (]) 21:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
"Reproductive rights are rights relating to reproduction and reproductive health. The World Health Organisation defines reproductive rights as follows: | |||
::::As stated in the edit summary, your sources have not been shown to support the article text. Also, I am afraid it is you who are being incivil and disruptive. Please review ] and ]. ] (]) 21:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
"Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence." | |||
:::::Shown where? You have voiced your opinion and failed to provide examples or support as I requested (here and on your talk page - which you deleted). I think you need to step back, read the articles, (maybe think about actually typing out the short paragraph on pg 20 as requested) and show where I have allegedly misused my sources. As yet you have done nothing other than make allegations, revert citations and add inappropriate info (NCM and their "financial abortions"). You have failed to provide peer-review sources, failed to explicate or support accusations and failed to follow WP policy (3RR violation). I believe you are the disruptive one. ] (]) 23:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
According to ] the realisation of reproductive rights is interlinked with the realisation of a series of recognised international human rights, including the right to health, the right to freedom from discrimination, the right to privacy, and the right not to be subjected to torture or ill-treatment. According to the 1968 Proclamation of Teheran "parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children". Reproductive rights are not recognised in international human rights law." | |||
== Continued incivility and inappropriate article content == | |||
:I had a look at the proclamation and the education bit was not mentioned in connection to the number of children thing, so it should not be in the intro. | |||
Phyesalis, I have deleted your incivil personal attack from my Talk page. Your approach, asking me to prove that I read the articles is misguided and unwelcome. I have challenged the material. You must both show that the cited source supports the article material (preferably by quoting the statement or statements from the source that support it), and ensure that any challenged views are attributed to the source. That means, instead of asserting "X" in the article, we assert "Y says, X." Don't take my word for it, read ]: "This page in a nutshell: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." I have pointed out to you before, you must "'''Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.'''" ]. That same policy also says, "To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups." All notable views are notable for inclusion, and no challenged view should be represented as absolute truth. It is not Misplaced Pages's job to push a particular point of view, instead, we must "Let the facts speak for themselves."] ] (]) 18:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
: also, please feel free to contribute to the article if you believe it needs extending... there are a lot of people of have POV issues with this article (obviously), but hardly any editors who actually contribute some referenced content. If anything the article is suffering from that, not NPOV.--] (]) 21:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
===3RR violation=== | |||
You have reverted this page 5 times in a 24 hour period. This is a violation of 3RR. I have made continued efforts to address your concerns. The material in question is a couple of facts which I supported with citations when you asked for them. These citations came from peer-reviewed secondary sources. When you reverted my citations, I added quotes. When you reverted the citations and the quotes, I started expressing concerns about your behavior. I do not believe that you have read the articles you are objecting to, since the articles clearly cover the material. '''The fact that reproductive rights first became internationally recognized as a subset of human rights with the Tehran conference in 1968 is not an opinion. It is a fact and I let it speak for itself.''' There are no leading views that contradict this. Your objections are unreasonable and disruptive. Your contribution of "financial abortions" from NCM is your POV unsupported by peer-reviewed sources. I left a note on your talk page in order to address what seem to be another set of personal issues you have with my contributions to yet another page. I stated that given our editing history here and on another page left me with little good faith. I suggested an option that you could accomplish with little difficulty if you had actually read the article in an effort to give you a chance to restore good faith. You chose to interpret this as a personal attack. I am posting this here now instead because it relates to your edits on this page. ] (]) 23:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I did an edit which I hope encorporates the ideas suggested above. | |||
:I have reverted the page 4 times (not 5) in a 24 hour period. I agree this violates ], and for that I apologize -- I was under the mistaken impression that only the same reversion counted. I stand corrected and I will be more careful in the future. Note, however, that you have reverted the page 7 times in a 24-hour period: | |||
::* Since the Proclamation of Teheran was covered twice in the lead, I used the copy which quoted the text. "Basic" was in the original, so seemed reasonable to keep it. | |||
::* The part about the realization of reproductive rights being linked to rights recognised by intl. human rights law made more sense coming after the observation that the right to determine # children isn't recognized by said law. So I rearranged the order a little. | |||
::The POV-check tag was removed because there had been no responses to the requests for clarification/specifics here for over a month. Discussing, contributing, offering specifics is far more likely to produce improvement than just tagging. (Especially since the back-log on POV-check appears to be considerable.) | |||
] | |||
::As noted above, the tone of the article being favorable to the topic is not clearly an NPOV problem. (As long as it doesn't favor any particular view on the topic.) | |||
] | |||
::Phrasing problems in terms of tone, etc. may tend to confuse, whereas if you say this view needs attribution to who holds it, that is specific and something can be done about it. ] (]) 08:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
] | |||
:::good edits, I will try and find a reference for the international law statement. | |||
:Secondly, you continue to misunderstand Misplaced Pages policy. The sentence which begins "Reproductive rights first became an internationally-recognized subset of human rights..." has for its cite a source which does not appear to contain the phrase "reproductive rights." Thus, the sentence seems not supported by the source. If you can quote material from the source which validates the article sentence, please do so. Otherwise, the phrase remains ]. ] (]) 00:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::so, unless any other specifics are forthcoming (anybody??) I suggest we remove the NPOV tag.--] (]) 11:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
::Okay, at this point it seems the only POV problem left is the word "established" in the first sentence of the second paragraph. Although the word can mean "to bring into existence," it has a connotation of permanence and stability. This is mitigated, somewhat, by the first sentence of the following paragraph. Nevertheless, I would re-word the second paragraph to read: "The ] first considered reproductive rights to be a subset of human rights at its 1968 International Conference on Human Rights. The sixteenth article of the resulting Proclamation of Tehran states, 'Parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children.'" ] (]) 15:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Ok, this is ridiculous. You argue that my source does not contain the phrase "''reproductive rights''" and thus seems to not support the cited sentence. Oh really? Have you read the citation quote (that you reverted) that states "The first comprehensive statement of human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, failed to mention ''reproductive rights'' at all. It was not until 20 years later, at the international human rights conference held in Teheran in 1968, that human reproduction became a subject of international legal concern." I've tried to extend good faith, but even if you only read the first page, you would have noticed the phrase "''reproductive rights''" in the intro summary . I think I can reasonably conclude that you have not read the cited sources and suggest you cease objecting to that which you cannot take the time to read. It appears as if you are baselessly persecuting my contributions. One might think it was personal. | |||
:::I would not use the word "considered" in this context. At the 1968 International Conference on Human Rights many concepts and aspects were "considered" and discussed. Also, it was not the United Nations that considered or established anything at that conference, it was the UN member states present at the conference, which have adopted the Proclamation of Tehran. | |||
::As for your allegations, I did not revert your material. I made continued efforts to address your challenges. You asked for citations, I gave them. You reverted my citations claiming they were unsupported, I added citation quotes in support. You reverted those. I reintroduced them because of your revert abuse. ] (]) 01:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::To be honest connotations are something very subjective (different people will read it differently). So that in itself is not a reason to change it.--] (]) 15:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Parental law in Canada == | |||
:::I applaud your finally providing, after multiple requests, a quote from the source which you believe supports the Misplaced Pages article sentence. Your citation quote, however, does not support the article sentence. If the sentence said, "According to (author), human reproduction first became a subject of international legal concern in 1968," it would be much more defensible. Attention to detail in these matters is extremely important. | |||
:::It is clear from the history that your edits were reverts, your defense of them being irrelevant to the question. | |||
:::I'd also ask you again to please stop the incivility, and stop making personal attacks. Thank you. ] (]) 02:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Next 2 paragraphs are a recent addition to article, moved here for discussion. | |||
:"Finally providing"? This is insane, the quote has been in the citation for a while - YOU removed it at least once. The cited source has been present since before you even started editing the article. I don't think you understand what "support" means. UN/1968 is a fact - it doesn't have to be attributed (since that seems to be what you are arguing). But really, how controversial is the date of the first international discussion of reproductive rights as human rights? Don't you think your behavior is a bit excessive? I'm done discussing this with you on the talk page. I've moved this discussion over to your talk page where it belongs. ] (]) 03:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:In Canada, a different legal approach has been taken by the ] - Conseil canadien des droits des enfants. According to family law in Canada, a biological father can't be forced by the biological mother to parent the child if he alone chooses not to be a parent to that particular biological child. In a Calgary, Alberta legal case currently before the courts in late 2008, the man (a biological father) seeks to not pay child support for his biological child on the basis of equality of sex (gender equality) a provision of the ]. A pregnant woman in Canada can't be forces to pay financial child support if she chooses to not parent her biological child. She alone can choose abortion, abandonment to the government who will adopt the baby out, or abandonment through private adoption agencies. In all 3 choices, she avoids paying child support to the biological father if she knows that he wishes to parent his own biological child. The case is seeking equality of outcome for males. | |||
::It's not a question of being controversial, it's a question of properly reflecting the source. You can't take a sentence in a source that says "human reproduction first became a subject of international legal concern..." and summarize it, without attribution, as "Reproductive rights first became an internationally-recognized subset of human rights..." The latter is an interpretation, involving assumptions -- not a proper reflection of the source. One way to resolve these types of conflicts is to quote the source directly -- I highly recommend it in this case. ] (]) 04:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:In Canada, a biological father doesn't have the right to raise his own child when the mother wishes to have the baby adopted out. One famous national case is that of the | |||
== Comments == | |||
This material about paternity law in Canada was added to the reproductive rights as men's rights section. I don't think it is appropriate in this article. It isn't clear that the question of whether to parent after a child is produced (reproduction has taken place in the biological sense) is a question of reproductive rights. It seems more apropos of Parents' rights, Fathers' right, or child custody, or laws relating to said (e.g. ] or some other area of ]). ] (]) 07:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
=== Veering off-topic in the leadin === | |||
This seems off-topic to me: ''"In addition, reproductive rights advocates endeavor to protect all women from harmful gender-based practices. Examples include cultural practices such as female genital cutting, or FGC, as well as state, customary and religious laws that contribute to women's political and economic disenfranchisment."'' (in the leadin). I'm sure many advocates of reproductive rights also advocate for other rights too, but that isn't really relevant here. | |||
== Add Connection between Reproductive Rights and Family Rights/Responsability == | |||
:I'm not sure what you are objecting to, info regarding advocacy or specific examples? I'm in the process of expanding this article (no ownership) but as you can see, it's been a bit slow going. If it is the specific mention of FGC in the lead, I'd have no problem with creating a section and moving it down there (honestly, I can't remember if I intro'd that or if it pre-existed). I would have an issue with expunging of coverage of the most basic aspects of RR, particularly since I plan on giving these their own subsections. Thoughts? ] (]) 02:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
It might be worth adding something noting the connection/segue between reproductive rights and parent/child rights & responsabilities. When does it occur, provide pointer to coverage/issues that come after reproductive rights. | |||
::I have no objection to mention of FGC etc. provided what is claimed about it is supportable and relevant. The problem here is that apparently a claim is being made that everyone who supports reproductive rights also advocates certain other things. That's very hard to believe. Or, maybe it means that the term "reproductive rights" is used only to refer to people who also advocate those other things. That's also somewhat hard to believe -- I mean, some people might use the term that way, but I doubt that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources do that, which is what would be required to make such a statement in the leadin. I don't see any footnote to support this hard-to-believe claim. Maybe it needs to be reworded, deleted and/or supported with ]. --] (]) 01:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
It might include things like links to ] and ]. And address issues like the question of legal vs. biological reproduction. (biological reproduction = having a child, legal reproduction = making or changing legal determination of who's child it is). e.g., Do "reproductive rights" include questions of legal reproduction, or just those of biological reproduction? | |||
:::Ok, I see your point. However, the claim is that "advocates", not "supporters" or "proponents", endeavor to protect women from gender discrimination - this is the basic thrust of reproductive rights, they are not two different things. Actually the overwhelming majority of reliable sources do claim this, as it is the most basic precept of the discourse. But I surely invite you to provide reliable evidence to the contrary. I'm thinking in this context, advocacy would be understood as a particular type of action. Perhaps you are not familiar with the topic? If so, I highly recommend reading the 2 cited peer-review articles on the subject covering the basic history of reproductive rights. Would "activists" solve the issue? Like to get rid of "all"? Maybe "In addition"? Personally, I think "activists" is a bit loaded for the discussion (most people in the discussion agree that women should be protected from harmful discrimination, they disagree on what constitutes "harmful" - predominantly in terms of moral and cultural relativism). I'll spend some more time adding more cited material. Thoughts? ] (]) 20:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
This was brought to mind most recently by the recent additions on Canadian parental law, although similar questions arose about the "Male abortion." Coverage of this might help build the web, and clarify where material such as this is most appropriate. ] (]) 08:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
=== Imbalance re countries === | |||
There is a section on reproductive rights in one country, the United States, but no similar sections on any other countries. | |||
:I suspect this is because of the US abortion issue (it was here before I was). Personally, I think RR has a clearly established international context as a subset of human rights - tons of top tier sources on this. I wouldn't mind c&ping it here until we could develop other sections. ] (]) 02:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
==UN Charter== | |||
=== Undue weight re men's versus women's rights === | |||
I don't think these ''rights'' are included in the original 1948 charter. Anybody have a clue on why it was not included ? ] (]) 15:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Undue weight: I'm guessing that the vast majority of sources discussing "reproductive rights" are talking about rights of women, right to contraception, right to abortion etc., not about the right of men to avoid becoming parents. If so, then the article should give a lot less space to discussion of the rights of men than to discussion of other reproductive rights. On a google search, the whole first page of hits all seemed to be about women and contraception and stuff, not about men's rights. The women's rights section has major organizations cited such as WHO and doesn't even provide quotes of them, while the men's section has only some lesser-known organization(s) cited and I think (unless the other sections of the article are greatly expanded) it gives much too much space on those quotes. --] (]) 01:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Eugenics == | |||
:You are correct - the overwhelming focus of RR is women's reproductive health. Honestly, I have objected to the material in the men's section (but not the presence of a men's section) because issues of men's RR are actually ''health'' issues like forced sterilization. Also, the source cites a fringe position relating to one fringe org and one dismissed lawsuit (hardly a mainstream position) in the abortion debate having nothing to do with reproductive health and the RR debate. I have asked for peer-review sources that establish "financial abortions" as a recognized issue of RR (since I haven't found any) but none have been forthcoming. | |||
:*Salon.com does not present the issue as an RR issue - it is somewhat dismissive of NCM and only mentions the phrase "reproductive rights" in terms of Feit's self-described "reproductive rights affidavit" | |||
:*NCM's self-published press release notes that such an idea has been dismissed legally | |||
:*Time does not mention the phrase "reproductive rights" - since Blakworm finds such a lack a reason to object to sources, I think his logic ought to be applied across the board. | |||
:I think this is a combo of SYN/OR. Unrelated sources on US abortion issues are being used to establish a fringe opinion as a relevant and weighty opinion in RR discourses. It ought to be removed and replaced with info relating to reproductive health and RR (like forced sterilization). However, if peer-review sources are produced to contextualize this info, I will rescind my objections. Thoughts? ] (]) 02:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
How can this article not mention eugenics and its relationship to "reproductive rights"? ] (]) 20:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Coppertwig: When I added some material on men's reproductive rights, this article was flagged as a "stub." By all means, other sections should be expanded -- but don't start talking about removing cited, relevant material just because the rest of the article hasn't been written yet. "Undue weight" refers to competing views, not disproportionate public interest. Note, also, that this article does not provide sources for its notability, its definition, nor its arguments. Note that opposing views and links have been deleted from this article, by Phyesalis, on the supposed grounds that "pro-life" arguments specifically addressing "reproductive rights," are irrelevant to reproductive rights. I invite editors to properly write this article, cited sources supporting the text, and attributing views, per Misplaced Pages policies ], ], and ]. ] (]) 02:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Article title== | |||
::Phyesalis: If you can phrase your objection while adhering to ] and ], I invite you to do so; but your assertions regarding what reproductive rights "are," "actually," are irrelevant. ] (]) 02:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Calling "abortion rights" "reproductive rights" seems perilously close to ]. No one (in the US or the western world) that I know of has ever questioned a woman's right to "reproduce." I am aware of attempts of various states and nations to prevent women from terminating a pregnancy, rather the opposite of "reproductive rights." And other nations to force abortion on unwilling women. Euphemisms are fine, as are politically correct wording, but calling abortion "reproductive rights" is a bit much IMO.] (]) 00:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC) | |||
:"Reproductive rights" does not refer merely to the choice of whether to reproduce. It refers also to the choices of how and under what circumstances to reproduce. Access to abortion is an aspect of this right because it is the only available option when other forms of birth control fail. ] (]) 00:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
:Not a weasel word, but loaded language. The term is used exclusively by "pro-choice" activists, and is thus POV. Unfortunately, I can't think of a neutral article title. Perhaps the article can be rephrased to be about the ''term'' "reproductive rights" instead of saying "Reproductive rights are legal rights and freedoms..." ] (]) 06:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
::{{quotation|'''''reproductive rights.''''' A person's constitutionally protected rights relating to the control of his or her procreative activities; specif., the cluster of civil liberties relating to pregnancy, abortion, and sterilization, esp. the personal bodily rights of a woman in her decision whether to become pregnant or bear a child. &bull The phrase includes the idea of being able to make reproductive decisions free from discrimination, coercion, or violence. Human-rights scholars increasingly consider many reproductive rights to be protected by international human-rights law.<br/>{{mdash}}{{cite book| last = Garner| first = Bryan A.| authorlink = Bryan A. Garner| title = ]| edition = 9th| year = 2009| month = June| publisher = Thomson West| isbn = 9780314199492}}}} | |||
::I'm open to ideas but I have not seen any sources that use a different label when discussing this set of rights as a whole. ] (]) 09:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
The sources use the term "reproductive rights", and - as the article indicates - it is defined as "reproductive rights are legal rights and freedoms relating to reproduction and reproductive health". The article title is neutral and reflects the sources. --] (]) 17:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
:It is defined that way ''by supporters of legalized abortion''. That's why there are four "pro-choice" organizations listed under "see also". That's why refers to 'the fudge term "reproductive rights"' and refers to 'so-called reproductive-rights groups'. The article treats the term as if it were universally accepted when it's not. In contrast, Misplaced Pages says that the "] is ''a phrase that describes the belief that'' (emphasis mine) a human being has an essential right to live", and describes it as a "pro-life" rhetorical device in contrast to opponents' framing of "choice". I think that's much more balanced. ] (]) 07:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
Is everyone OK with my rewording of the definition? ] (]) 08:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
:I'm not. The definition given in ''Black's'' does explicitly state these are ''"constitutionally protected rights"'' not just wishful thinking. I'd also say that a ''human being'' does have a constitutionally protected right to life. The ''pro-life belief'' seems to be that those rights should extend to zygotes, fetuses, the unborn, etc. as they currently do not. ] (]) 09:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
::@DanBishop - Could we see some other definitions of "reproductive rights" from sources like other encyclopedias, federal U. S. legislation, United Nations, NGOs, and - most importantly - scholars that write on the topic. That would be the best path forward do determining the best definition for this article. --] (]) 15:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::I reverted the 3 December re-wording of the lead, in the spirit of ]. I think we need to see some more definitions of "reproductive rights" from important sources before we make any changes. --15:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
::::For reference, other WP articles on rights, such as ], ], and ] all begin with a definition, and do not use the word "term" in their lead. That is, they do not say: " rights is a ''term'' ..." but instead say " rights are rights that ...." --] (]) 16:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
@Noleander- some consistency, please. | |||
http://en.wikipedia.org/Fetal_rights | |||
If it's NPOV to say that "fetal rights is a term..." then to be NPOV here we also must say that "reproductive rights is a term..." <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:That a ''person'' has reproductive rights is well established in law. So called "fetal rights", where they exist, protect a woman ''and'' her fetus... they are not rights granted to a person. I.e. It's a ''term''. {{mdash}}] (]) 05:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
::"Reproductive rights" is a rhetorical device, and a recent addition to the legal vocabulary. The term wasn't even INVENTED until after the death of Margaret Sanger, for crying out loud! How can it be "well established" in law if it wasn't even invented until the 1970's, and has been hotly contested ever since? And as to the personhood of the fetus, I see no consistently applied set of criteria that one could use to grant personhood to infants and the mentally handicapped without granting personhood to a fetus. If the concept of fetal rights is valid (which it may well be, and it may well not be), then the fetus is, in fact, a person. The point is that the debate over fetal rights and reproductive rights (unlike, say, the rights to life, liberty, and property of those already born) is not yet over, and no universal consensus has yet been established. Therefore, neither fetal rights nor reproductive rights should be treated as true rights by an encyclopedia... yet. I say that for the time being, the most reasonable thing to do with this as yet undecided issue would be to say that "reproductive rights is a term..." just like "fetal rights is a term..." I also say that we should wait '''several decades''' before rewording the definition in either article to "______ rights are rights that..." because anyone with a lick of sense can see that this debate will last well into the twenty-first century, and quite probably well into the twenty-second as well. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:::I have yet to see a ], ''Black's Law Dictionary'' for example, that lists reproductive rights as a "rhetorical device". The OED has a definition for reproductive rights: "''n. orig. U.S.'' the rights of women as individuals to control and make decisions relating to reproduction, esp. with regard to contraception and abortion." ''"Fetal rights"'' is absent from both. {{mdash}}] (]) 17:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
::::I agree with those who have objected to the euphemistic, biased language of the title and of the article. I find it outrageously POV. "Reproductive rights" is a loaded political term that implies that abortion is some kind of basic human right. This itself, as everyone knows, is hotly contested! Some say that on the contrary, abortion is the ultimate violation of human rights, as one thereby murders an unborn child! The same goes for contraception: Some say universal access to it is good, because they believe that promiscuity is okay. Others, who think that promiscuity is not okay, opposing essentially encouraging it by making contraception available to one and all. The POV wording in this article essentially brands opponents of abortion on demand and contraception on demand as "violators of basic human rights" on a par with those who deprive people of food and water! What nonsense! I tried to somewhat improve the article, but I have been repeatedly reverted. Could others please comment here so consensus can be reached. ] (]) 04:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::::Since the sources that discuss the topic use this term for their cold, clinical analysis, there's not really a better term to use as the title. An analogy would be the term ''economic rights'' - many would "hotly contest" the notion that a company should be able to, say, park revenue in offshore ]s; but since laws vary greatly between countries, this is an option available to them and any analysis of comparative economics discusses this as an ability or a "right." Similarly, even if you do not agree that reproductive health services (which, by the way, encompass more than just contraception and abortion) should be available to all who want them, it's still the case that the most dispassionate way to describe varying levels of access to them is the term "reproductive rights." Some countries or sub-national regions grant more than others, and this page is an attempt to describe that. If Misplaced Pages were trying to advocate for their expansion, this page would be called something like "]." <span style="font-family:Garamond;">]]]</span> 15:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Youth Access/Rights == | |||
:::They're not mine - they are the UN's and those of the international academic discourses on RR (substantiated by multiple peer-reviews sources). Secondly, NPOV applies to article pages, not talk pages. And frankly Scarlett, I can frame my objections any way I want (but I, and you, have to support them with reliable sources which I, but not you, have done) as long as I avoid slurs (not a problem). If you can't provide peer-review sources to contradict those that I have provided, you are merely steam rolling. Until such a time, please stop tossing NPOV and V around. Your objections have thus far been supported solely by your opinion. It is disruptive - for someone who refuses to read provided quotes, let alone whole articles, you really need to show a little more good faith. | |||
I am considering adding a section for youth reproductive rights, particularly access to birth control through the legal system. We are doing Misplaced Pages edits through at class at the university level, so I am really new to Misplaced Pages. Would it be appropriate to add a section for youth rights, including subsections for rights in different countries? More research needs to be done on my end before contributing anything to the page (there is nothing in my sandbox yet), but I wanted to get feedback on my ideas. At the moment, there is nothing in the existing article about youth access to contraception or abortion services and these vary greatly across countries, from developing nations to developed nations. Youth is an important demographic to look at when discussing reproductive rights because minors can be treated differently under the law than adults and may have less access to contraceptive services due to economic and legal reasons. These rights vary greatly across the world and are definitely worth looking into. Thoughts? Is this topic something that belongs on this page? ] (]) 01:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:::I removed pro-life material cited from completely unreliable sources. Since the overall focus is a) international and b) on reproductive health as a human right, US pro-life abortion commentary from fringe amateur cites doesn't actually cut it. For someone who wants to keep such high standards I'm surprised that Blackworm defends info from http://www.prolife.com/ABORMETH.html (no really, take a moment to check this out, edifying stuff here - glad to know that Blackworm finds this acceptable but chooses to repeatedly revert peer-review citations.) ] (]) 04:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Clearly there's a lot of unexamined information out there that needs adding to this article. Youth access to reproductive health services, and its costs (both economic and social), vary greatly even within countries. I would say ], and any number of editors, myself included, will be happy to give feedback. <span style="font-family:Garamond;">]]]</span> 03:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
===Feedback=== | |||
:::If the assertions are from specific agencies of the UN, then let's say so. Let's also allow room for other significant viewpoints. | |||
Great additions Court caitlin! I'm reviewing this article as the online ambassador for ]. I think there is potential for the 'Youth rights and access' section to be split off to another article at some point. Overall I think the emphasis placed on reproductive health should be shifted to an emphasis on legalities; a stronger connection needs to be made between the reproductive health statistics and the legal environment for minors. I'll make some specific observations below. | |||
:::Your assertions regarding the "focus" of this article are irrelevant. The focus of this article is simply "reproductive rights." | |||
:::I believe it is clear to any unbiased editor reading this discussion that your behaviour toward me is much less acceptable than vice-versa. In every post you make, you make a personal attack. This must stop. If you object to the sources on ] grounds, that is one thing; but you originally removed the "Criticism" section with the edit summary, and I quote, "removing inappropriate links to pro-life websites about abortion, not having to do with reproductive rights." That leaves the impression that you are editing in support of a particular non-neutral point of view, which, as I don't need to remind you, violates ]. ] (]) 04:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
*Do you have page numbers for the Knudson 2006 references? | |||
::::What other significant view points? You haven't provided a single peer-reviewed source that states anything differently. And my comments on your behavior are appropriate given the behavior's disruptive nature. I've tried to discuss this on your talk page but you keep removing it and refuse to address my concerns. And yes, I used shorthand in my ''edit summary'' but you managed to leave out my somewhat lengthy discussion of the source quality issues under ] on November 25th; you were actually the only other person to respond, which you did on December 8th, so it's odd that you would characterize my actions as you have. You might want to pay a little more attention to discussions so that you don't appear as if you are willfully misrepresenting others' words, edits, and actions. | |||
*I think that it is important that everything in the youth section is directly relevant to reproductive rights. The primary definition of reproductive rights refers to ''legal rights'' and ''freedoms''. The section on youth rights should directly address the ''legality'' of abortion for youth, the ''legality'' of accessing birth control and reproductive healthcare for youth, the ''right'' to education, and ''freedom'' from coercive processes such as sterilization and FGM. The new section does a great job on the right to education, but is weaker in the other areas. | |||
*I see that you've structured the subsections 'Rates of contraceptive use and common contraception', 'Youth knowledge and sex education', and 'Consequences of reproductive health problems'. While rates of contraceptive use can be indicative of the success of sex education, they are not in themselves directly under the umbrella of 'reproductive rights'. As a reader, I'm looking for information on whether or not birth control is legal for minors and whether ] is a factor. | |||
*It would be good to have a lead paragraph at the beginning of the section that addresses the youth reproductive rights landscape and the overall trends and common issues that are shared across the world. | |||
*Africa: Rather than saying that youth sex education in Uganda is 'low', maybe it could be worded to say that it is uncommon or not comprehensive or that rates of adoption of sex education curriculum are low. | |||
*Sweden: It says that there is a high rate of emergency contraception in Sweden, where it is presumably legal for minors to access it. Is it also legal throughout Europe? | |||
*] isn't mentioned, but this is a reproductive rights topic that directly affects girls and young women in many countries. | |||
Youth rights are an important part of reproductive rights and I was surprised that this article previously made little mention of them. Thank you for taking on such a difficult and controversial topic. ] ] ] 18:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Especially since I wrote (typos and all): "I am removing the crit section, again. The sources are two partisan websites with no known reputation of fact-checking. ''This info if relvant to RR should be gotten from a peer-review .journal or other reliable source.'' I'm not even sure what the relvancy is here. This is not an abortion debate. It covers much more than abortion and seems to give undue weight to pro-lifers. PL's do not criticize reproductive rights, per se. They crit. abortion. Not the same thing." | |||
From an anonymous editor: | |||
::::And you are correct. This must stop. If you want the info from the 1968 UN discussion attributed, I have already suggested you go ahead and do it (in the stuff you removed), although I don't see how. It states a fact "Reproductive rights first became an internationally-recognized subset of human rights at the United Nations' 1968 International Conference on Human Rights" the UN is already contextualized in the sentence and is cited by a UN copy of the proclamation ''and'' a peer-reviewed secondary source to support it. What do you want to say "The UN states that it first recognized reproductive rights as a subset of international human rights at its 1968 International conference on Human Rights"? I mean, do you see how little that changes things. Again, I obviously don't think it needs to be changed and I'm not going to change it. If you want to add excess verbiage to establish UN attribution, '''do it yourself'''. ] (]) 05:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
I made a minor change to the youth section, as I felt it was somewhat biased. | |||
:::::Again, this "fact" you repeatedly claim as such is not evident, and not directly claimed by the source. The modified sentence you present above still is not claimed by the source. There is no onus on other editors to correct violating material; since it is presently ], it may simply be removed until someone willing and able to properly summarize the source steps forward. ] (]) 05:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::I'm not sure I understand you. Do you deny that there could possibly be other significant viewpoints on reproductive rights, besides those from conferences sponsored by the UN? (I admit I am assuming, since the link between that conference and the UN is not clear from the source.) The possibility is all that I'm claiming, and emphasizing that these viewpoints, if found and properly sourced, are to be included in this article. I support your removal of the criticism section on ] grounds. For it to be reinstated, it should be better sourced. Your removal of all pro-life links, while retaining sites such as NARAL Pro-Choice America, however, seems more dubious. ] (]) 05:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
1) Not all health workers who decline to provide services to youth do so because they believe that youth sexual activity is unacceptable. Some of them do so because they believe treating a youth without knowledge and consent from a parent or guardian is unacceptable. | |||
::::::'''Are you telling me that you don't understand how the 1968 Proclamation of Tehran (A UN document from a UN conference) relates to the UN? You have put me through all this and you couldn't even check the sources to determine that the Proclamation of Tehran (sourced by a UN hosted UN document of the actual proclamation and an additional peer-review journal) was the product of a UN conference? THERE IS NO WAY YOU HAVE READ THE SOURCED ARTICLES.''' | |||
::::::*I removed pro-life sources because (as I remember) they were unreliable sources with no reputation for fact checking, NARAL and Planned Parenthood do have reputations for fact checking. Again, if you think their presence is inappropriate, I invite you to remove them. | |||
::::::*If you are unwilling to make the smallest effort to attribute a sentence or fix something, stop complaining about it. If you don't like something, the onus is on you to fix it - it is uncivil and unreasonable to expect others to do your work for you. | |||
::::::*All sorts of things are possible, this doesn't mean we have to account for them in WP articles. As I have stated many times, I am '''always''' open to the introduction of peer-reviewed material. Perhaps you could a) provide peer-reviewed material or b) clarify what aspects you think could be disputed? That UN proclamations are not evidence of reproductive rights being introduced as a subset of international human rights? The fact that RR are a sub-set of human rights, or that its primary focus is women and reproductive health? Because that's about all I have asserted with my cited references. If so, good luck. If you think it's out there, you're the one that has to do the legwork to prove your case. I'm no expert but I studied this discourse for 4 years. I was able to easily provide excellent sources to support the facts. As no reliable evidence of disputation has been provided (though repeatedly requested), I see no reason to provide for the possibility. You are the only person who finds the facts to be particularly controversial. If material does appear, we can easily change the article then - this is a wiki after all. | |||
::::::*As for your absurd assertion of OR - get real. I'm tired of addressing your allegations (on yet another page) when you have OBVIOUSLY not read the articles. Your argument that the article couldn't source the sentence because it didn't contain the phrase "reproductive rights" has been shown to be baseless (it does) and has proven that you have not read the article and the citation quote (either that or you are just being difficult). The material is cited, I have gone above and beyond reasonable expectation to establish this. If you remove the cited material again, I will RfC you. You admit that you are unfamiliar with the topic, assume a little good faith: the person who can easily provide good sources might just know what they are talking about. | |||
::::::Blackworm, your behavior has been most unjustified. I'm going to step back to get over the fact that you have engaged in disruptive and mendacious wikilawyering. I seriously recommend you reassess your interactions with me and begin to assume good faith, '''lots''' of good faith. ] (]) 07:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
2) I find the assertion that all people have a right to medical services to be inflammatory, and changed the wording from stating that the youth are denied their rights to say that they are denied access. I could go into a long rant on why I don't believe healthcare is a right, but let's just agree to disagree on that. Suffice to say, I believe the edits I made present a less biased perspective. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:::::::The document was hosted by a UN-affiliated web site, but there is no mention of the UN in the document. The article statement is vague, not reflected by the source, and biased (since using the term "recognized" implies a truth). For example, if we said "The Nazis recognized Jews as evil," we are agreeing the Jews were evil, which does not conform to ]. If we say, "The Nazis considered Jews as evil," then we are '''rendering opinion fact through attribution.''' Further, it would really lend weight to your case if the 1968 document would have been ratified by the General Assembly (like the 1948 International Bill of Human Rights was), but I see no evidence of that, or in fact any binding international agreement on the subject of reproductive rights. | |||
== New contributor looking for advice on creating a new article looking to link back to this article == | |||
:::::::Your expressed reason for deleting pro-life links and retaining pro-choice links is invalid. Even if you could provide evidence from a reliable source that NARAL Pro-Choice and Planned Parenthood have better fact-checking than the pro-life sites you removed (which you haven't, and I suspect, cannot), this is a "Links" section, where groups holding viewpoints on the subject are linked to. Their fact-checking and reliablility is to be assessed by the reader, not you. | |||
Hello all, I am required to contribute to Wiki for my class Gender and Economics in the Third World and have been designated to work on El Salvador. I am working on an article to be called Reproductive rights in El Salvador. I am looking at covering topics including things like history, abortion, sexual violence/crime, legal and/or religious issues, education, activism, prenatal care and other issues surrounding pregnancy. Other than the Wiki article creation links and basic available information; Does anyone have any suggestions on the best way to structure an article? What about content? Is there something within this topic I should focus on more than another? For example, if you were reading an article, called Reproductive rights in El Salvador, what would you like and/or expect to see? What advice can you offer to a first time contributor? Thank you all for your time. ] (]) 23:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::::On, the contrary, I've been making a HUGE effort here -- rather than simply fix the sentence, to teach you why it violates policy in hopes that the remainder of the article can be so repaired. Your demands are inappropriate -- material violating policy is to be removed. It may be re-added if it is made to conform to policy. Changing material to conform is preferable, but infinitely more time consuming, and removing material is perfectly acceptable, in fact called for by ]. | |||
Based on what I have seen, I was thinking of something like this: | |||
:::::::Your argument is backwards. You can't write up an incorrect and unattributed summary of a source ("Reproductive rights first became an internationally-recognized subset of human rights at the United Nations' 1968 International Conference on Human Rights") then, when challenged, demand to see reliable sources that contradict your interpretation. I have already shown how your interpretation does not necessarily follow from the quoted source. | |||
Contents | |||
1 History – A short overview of El Salvador and significant events that changed reproductive laws, rights, and policies | |||
2 Human rights – El Salvador’s stance on world policies and a look at their own laws – like their stance on the Programme of Action of the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development, etc. | |||
3 Women's rights – El Salvador’s stance on world policies for women and a look at their own laws – like prenatal care, family planning education, birth control access | |||
4 Men's rights – El Salvador’s stance on world policies for men and a look at their own laws – things like family planning education, access to condoms and spermicides, sperm donation | |||
5 Youth rights and access – Education – Sexual education policies – What information, if any, do children receive and at what age? Contraceptive policies and availability | |||
6 Gender equality and violence against women – What forms of gender-based violence are happening? – Rape | |||
7 STD’s/STI’s/HIV/AIDS – Practices, polices, education, prevention | |||
8 Issues | |||
8.1 Family rights, laws, and polices | |||
8.2 Abortion rights, laws, and policies | |||
8.3 Religious beliefs and issues | |||
9 See also | |||
The Center for Reproductive Rights, Human sexuality, Planned Parenthood, Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition, Roe v. Wade, Reproductive rights | |||
10 References - I don't want to spam up this page by listing them all here but I do have a lot of them. | |||
11 External links - Again, I have plenty but don't want to spam this up by listing them all here. | |||
] (]) 06:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I invite you to "RfC" me -- in fact I encourage it. From the very beginning your attitude toward me has been unacceptable, and public scrutiny and a round denunciation of your behaviour may assist in getting you to rethink your attitude and continually expressed hostility; it might also allow editors who follow and understand Misplaced Pages policy to edit certain articles. ] (]) 16:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Yes, your plan for the construction of the article is fine. It's important that you use very new sources, because El Salvador (like many other Latin American countries) has made major advances in regard to legislation on violence against women during the last few years. | |||
:::::::::Well the authoritarian approach is a bit lost on me. I'm not sure it's really your job to teach me a lesson. Perhaps it would be better if you decided to teach by example (as in attempt to fix that which you otherwise only revert and complain about). I cited the material. Your objection is not supported by any source, mine is. It's in the article you haven't read. If you remove the citations again, I will proceed with alternate methods of recourse. Pretty simple. ] (]) 04:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
*Here are links to the 2011 law on violence against women/domestic violence: , <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
Thank you for your input. ] (]) 23:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::If it's in the article, quote the relevant section. The article text does not follow from the section you have previously quoted. And, I repeat: you can't write up an incorrect and unattributed summary of a source, then, when challenged, demand to see reliable sources that contradict your interpretation. Per ], the onus is on you to show that the source supports the article material. ] (]) 06:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Empty citation == | |||
==LGBT Reproductive Rights?== | |||
I see no mention of lesbian struggles to insure that they have access to ] as one area of reproductive rights, nor any awareness related to lesbian, gay and transgender parenting and family formation issues. This needs to be remedied. | |||
The citation labelled links to the WHO's reproductive rights page, and implies that the text contained here is pulled from a WHO source. While this may be the case, the cited link does not connect to a document relevant to the passage or support the claims made. Clicking on the citation simply dumps you at the WHO's front page on reproductive rights. I'm not clear on what to do with an irrelevant or non-supporting citation like this. Should it simply be removed? I'd like to have some feedback before modifying a page about an issue as sensitive as this one. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
] (]) 23:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Calibanu | |||
== Gender Equality == | |||
:I agree - the article just recently came off of stub status, so it's missing a lot of things! If you would like to add some material, it would be a great contribution. ] (]) 00:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Hey, just observing that it's apparently unpopular for me to be adding information about men's reproductive rights in the introduction, where my only intention is to strive for a little balance - women's reproductive rights are afforded a full paragraph in the introduction, after all. It appears that my edits are being reverted by people with non-neutral agendas who wish to promote a gender-neutral article towards a sexist purpose. ] (]) 14:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC) | |||
::There's also no mention of male castrati having the basic human right of free reproductive technology -- this also needs to be addressed. ] (]) 03:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:As noted in both the edit/revert summaries and your talk page, the removed additions are statements/views that were unreferenced. They appear to be ] or personal opinion.--] ] 15:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC) | |||
== External links modified == | |||
:::I'm not sure what ] has to do with modern reproductive rights. But hey, if you can find some peer-reviewed sources that contextualize it specifically within the reproductive rights discourse, add it to the mix. ] (]) 17:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
== What the "attribution needed" tag means == | |||
I have just modified 11 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
It means, "this statement needs to be attributed to the people who claim it." It doesn't mean "this statement needs more cites from people with the same views." The first sentence of this article is an opinion, not a fact. No amount of evidence from the UN, AI, or any other groups will make it a "fact." | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090726150133/http://www.who.int//reproductive-health/gender/index.html to http://who.int/reproductive-health/gender/index.html | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304122237/http://www.yogyakartaprinciples.org/principles_en_about.htm to http://www.yogyakartaprinciples.org/principles_en_about.htm | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515111556/http://www.ishr.ch/archive-general-assembly/933-majority-of-ga-third-committee-unable-to-accept-report-on-the-human-right-to-sexual-education to http://www.ishr.ch/archive-general-assembly/933-majority-of-ga-third-committee-unable-to-accept-report-on-the-human-right-to-sexual-education | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304093634/https://www.oas.org/es/mesecvi/docs/CSW-SideEvent2014-Flyer-EN.pdf to https://www.oas.org/es/mesecvi/docs/CSW-SideEvent2014-Flyer-EN.pdf | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160708000957/https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168046031c to https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168046031c | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080120140923/http://www.amnestyusa.org/Stop_Violence_Against_Women_SVAW/Reproductive_Rights/page.do?id=1108242&n1=3&n2=39&n3=1101 to http://www.amnestyusa.org/Stop_Violence_Against_Women_SVAW/Reproductive_Rights/page.do?id=1108242&n1=3&n2=39&n3=1101 | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150319014005/http://www.utexas.edu/cola/orgs/txpep/_files/pdf/Grossman%2CWhite%2CHopkins%2CPotter-PublicHealthThreatofAnti-abortionLegislation-Contraception-2014.pdf to http://www.utexas.edu/cola/orgs/txpep/_files/pdf/Grossman%2CWhite%2CHopkins%2CPotter-PublicHealthThreatofAnti-abortionLegislation-Contraception-2014.pdf | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150305060244/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/14/supreme-court-texas_n_5986244.html to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/14/supreme-court-texas_n_5986244.html | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100113104553/http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/unsafe_abortion/ua_paper/en/index.html to http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/unsafe_abortion/ua_paper/en/index.html | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170531114057/https://rm.coe.int/168046031c to https://rm.coe.int/168046031c | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140301223751/http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-107364 to http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-107364 | |||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
What you are doing in this article Phyesalis, is writing unattributed "facts" which are challenged by other editors. In response to the challenge, you demand to see evidence to the contrary -- this is not a correct approach. If the views you wish to present are those of a majority, or even universal, you need to find a source that says so, then specifically write that in the article text. For at least the fourth time, you cannot present opinion as fact in this encyclopedia. | |||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
You write that (all unattributed "facts"): | |||
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 10:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC) | |||
* Reproductive rights are a subset of human rights | |||
* Reproductive rights includes the right to abortion | |||
== External links modified == | |||
By making these claims without attribution, you are making the Misplaced Pages article claim that abortion is a human right. Clearly this is not a universal view -- do you agree or disagree? Do you, Phyesalis, believe that it is a universal view that abortion is a human right? Because that's what the article says right now. ] (]) 16:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
*Since you are not familiar with the topic, I will point out that International Reproductive rights/Human rights discourses are ''not'' US abortion discourses (give it a commutation test). In Intenrational reproductive rights discourses, abortion is considered to be part of women's inalienable human rights. As this is the majority view (I have yet to see any mention to the contrary in the numerous legal documents (some cited in article), in ] the ratified human rights treaty, and in various academic RR discourses) I'm thinking you're going to have to do a lot of leg work to prove otherwise. As I have provided secondary and tertiary sources that establish this, and you have provided none, you need to provide evidence for your claim. Misplaced Pages is not about "truth" it is about verifiability. Until the time that you have provided evidence of your POV, please refrain from slapping attribution tags on basic facts. I will repeat this one more time for emphasis: Get some sources or stop being disruptive. If you keep tagging cited material I will RfC this. ] (]) 17:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
I have just modified 6 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
:Since you appear to believe it legitimate and correct for Misplaced Pages to claim, without attributing the claim to any party (paraphasing): "Reproductive rights, including the right to abortion, are a subset of basic human rights," then I rest my case here. ] (]) 17:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://populationmatters.org/search_results.php?q=%22reproductive+rights%22 | |||
::Please stop. Get a source. Or attribute it yourself. ] (]) 18:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120927135721/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/576/53/PDF/N0957653.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/576/53/PDF/N0957653.pdf?OpenElement | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002004052/http://www.amnesty.org/en/human-rights-defenders/issues/challenges/srr-defenders to https://www.amnesty.org/en/human-rights-defenders/issues/challenges/srr-defenders | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304022604/http://aladinrc.wrlc.org/bitstream/handle/1961/15158/Smith,%20Angela%20-%20Spring%202013.pdf?sequence=1 to http://aladinrc.wrlc.org/bitstream/handle/1961/15158/Smith%2c%20Angela%20-%20Spring%202013.pdf?sequence=1 | |||
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR27/002/2007/en/71da229c-d39d-11dd-a329-2f46302a8cc6/eur270022007en.pdf | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130804230201/http://www.nrlc.org/news/2003/NRL02/pres.html to http://www.nrlc.org/news/2003/NRL02/pres.html | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060217123302/http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Reproductive_Choice&Template=%2FTaggedPage%2FTaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=23&ContentID=991 to http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Reproductive_Choice&Template=%2FTaggedPage%2FTaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=23&ContentID=991 | |||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
==Lead== | |||
Regarding "human rights", first, thanks Coppertwig, I really appreciate you taking the time to bring about a solution. It's nice to see someone take a constructive and pro-active approach to the dispute. This is my issue: there are three sources which state that RR are HR, I don't think that removing the citation and mention of human rights is productive, as so far, no one has provided citations to support the contrary. Until the time that someone does provide citations, I'm thinking it would be counterproductive to remove the mention of human rights or the citations. I'm all for ] as for as general rewording, but I think the human rights aspect is well-documented. For the time being, I'm fine with the addition of "often held to include", though I think this might be more appropriate when discussing advocates. | |||
As far as the attribution for the first sentence of the second paragraph, does any editor honestly dispute that reproductive rights are associated with the pro-choice position? I added this sentence in an effort to start to differentiate general reproductive rights discourses and the more specific abortion debate. If you feel that the lead would be better without it, we can remove it or reword it. I think that if an editor does actively dispute this, I'd appreciate some kind of statement as to the logic for this, otherwise I'm going to remove the tag. Sound good? ] (]) 22:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
:The criteria for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is ]. Find a source making the ''exact'' claim you wish to include, then attribute the claim to that source, especially if the claim is challenged. That is how Misplaced Pages works. ] (]) 22:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 21:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
===Documentation for RR as human rights=== | |||
So, in addition to the footnote I added to the citation for the article "Advancing Reproductive Rights Beyond Cairo and Beijing", Cook and Fathalla use the terms "human rights" and "reproductive rights" virtually interchangeably (HR is the greater category and RR is the subset). For example, they state: | |||
:*Meticulous documentation can show that human rights abuses represent systematic state policies rather than merely individual abberations. Evidence in court cases can show that a government has failed to eliminate and remedy reproductive rights abuses, and such evidence can be used to analyze conscious patterns over time. Complaints before national, regional and international legal tribunals and incidents publicized by nongovernmental human rights organizations can also be used to direct attention beyond the facts to the underlying conditions of abuse of reproductive rights for which states are legally answerable. (pg 117) | |||
:*Under the subsection "Applying Human Rights", first sentence: "Reproductive rights may be protected through specific legal rights. Which rights are invoked and how they are shown to have been violated depend on the particular facts of an alleged violation and on the underlying causes of reproductive ill-health. The rights addressed here are not exhaustive, but only suggest some of the approaches that may be developed to advance reproductive interests. Table 1 shows the relevant provisions of the respective international instruments that relate to each right. Moreover, we indicate only certain ways in which specific rights may be applied to reproductive interests and how the Cairo Program and Beijing Platform can be used to add meaning to them. As human rights laws are applied more vigorously to reproductive interests, a variety of ways of applying them will emerge to serve reproductive interests. (end paragraph,pg 117) | |||
:*The Cairo and Beijing texts suggest a variety of strategies for effectively protecting and promoting reproductive rights at every government level, from local government to international agencies. The Beijing Platform recognizes that legal literacy and legal service programs are required to ensure that women understand their human rights, how to use them and how to gain access to courts to enforce their rights . Moreover, the Beijing text recommends support of those who try to uphold human rights, sometimes at great odds Important efforts towards this end include hearings held at Cairo and Beijing nongovernmental forums, where women testified about violations of their reproductive rights. (pg 120) | |||
:*The Cairo and Beijing documents recommend that the health professions develop, disseminate and implement ethics codes to ensure practitioners' conformity with human rights, ethical and professional standards...Overall, the Cairo and Beijing documents develop the content and meaning of reproductive rights. (p 121) | |||
Response? ] (]) 22:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Multiple issues == | |||
::Find a source saying "Reproductive rights are a subset of human rights." Then we can say, "This source claims that reproductive rights are a subset of human rights." Until then, all you have presented is an argument in support of that claim, which by definition is ]. ] (]) 22:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
This article isn't neutral, because it includes abortion in its topic with a title that is an expression used only by abortion activists. Aside of this obvious issue, there are other multiple issues with this article which deepen in its lack of neutrality: it focuses too much on abortion, as if it was the main topic and the others were secondary, when abortion is a topic already treated extensively in its own article. Also, the entire article seems written by pro-abortion activists, with almost every statement made by institutions favorable to abortion and birth control and no counterarguments made by oppositors to considering abortion a right. By quoting only those sources, regardless of their relevance internationally, Misplaced Pages is only showing one side of the coin and dismissing the other, which is against neutrality. | |||
Also, racial eugenic abortion is not a "conspiracy theory" as the article states when it's a verifiable fact that 79% of abortion clinics in the US are placed in or near neighborhoods with high percentages of african and latin american people <ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/16/79-of-planned-parenthood-abortion-clinics-target-blacks-hispanics</ref> and their pro-abortion ads also concentrate in those neighborhoods. It's significant that african americans have 31% of the total abortions in the US when they only represent 13% of the total population of the country. Furthermore, the very same ], founder of Planned Parenthood, defended this policy stating that is was a tool to prevent the "forming and reproducing of a race of degenerate people" (in reference to non-white and disabled people).--] (]) 02:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
::I did, check out the Amnesty international citation: "'''Reproductive rights - access to sexual and reproductive healthcare and autonomy in sexual and reproductive decision-making - are human rights'''; they are universal, indivisible, and undeniable. These rights are founded upon principles of human dignity and equality, and have been enshrined in international human rights documents. Reproductive rights embrace core human rights, including the right to health, the right to be free from discrimination, the right to privacy, the right not to be subjected to torture or ill-treatment, the right to determine the number and spacing of one's children, and the right to be free from sexual violence. Reproductive rights include the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children, and the right to have the information and means to implement those decisions free from discrimination, coercion, and violence. Reproductive rights also include the right to the highest standards of sexual and reproductive healthcare." ] (]) 22:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
{{talk-reflist}} | |||
:We already have an ] article. LifeNews appears to not be a reliable source (]). —]] – 08:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
:::The Amnesty Internation citation is fine -- attribute the view to them, and all is well. You may not, however, claim that because AI claims reproductive rights are human rights, that it is a fact that reproductive rights are human rights. Clearly groups opposed to certain practices claimed as reproductive rights (e.g., abortion) disagree that they are human rights, thus the claim is not fact but opinion, which must be attributed. ] (]) 00:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== To maintain a NPOV the scientifically accurate "post-reproductive" should be used rather than "reproductive right" to describe abortion. == | |||
==Reverting== | |||
Coppertwig made changes and invited users to revert them as he had not discussed them on the page. I made this edit ] in which I added additional footnotes as requested by Coppertwig. I posted much discussion and additional citation (above). The problems with the subsequent revert ] are these: | |||
*revert removed cited material and disrupted a constructive and good faith attempt between two editors to solve the dispute, while making no attempt to ameliorate the problems | |||
*revert of disputed material, though not done in response to vandalism, was not accompanied by a discussion on talk | |||
*revert asserts OR, while removing citation, but does not support contention with any source or argument | |||
I'm going to reinstate my edit and request that further reverts be discussed on talk as this is part of an ongoing dispute. I'd like to request that editors follow ], with emphasis on the (D)iscussion. ] (]) 22:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
To maintain an objective scientific NPOV, given that medically speaking abortion is a procedure that occurs after biological reproduction has taken place, abortion should be described as post-reproductive on the page, while mentioning that it is labeled as a "reproductive right" due to being closely associated with other rights that are reproductive rather than post-reproductive. Without this clarification it would generate confusion around the term "reproductive" which would be easily understood as either editorializing or constituting of the Orwellian-type political language, both of which we want to avoid to maintain Misplaced Pages's neutrality.] (]) 20:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
:Material violating Misplaced Pages policy is to be removed. Your edit claiming without attribution that "reproductive rights are a subset of human rights" violates ]. As I have told you in the past, there is no requirement for editors to cite sources contradicting original research. If you wish to include a claim, you must cite reliable sources making the ''exact'' claim, which may then be required to be attributed to the source should they be challenged in any way. ] (]) 23:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Misplaced Pages operates according to verifiability in reliable sources. Neutrality is about neutrally summarizing what reliable sources say. The content you changed starts with "Women's reproductive rights may include some or all of the following" and there are plenty of sources backing up its inclusion as such. Could you highlight the sources on which you're basing your arguments? — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 21:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
::Go down to "when does life begin" on this genetics education site and it explains that life is reproduced during the process of fertilization: https://lagenetica.info/en/life/origin-of-life/ I believe an science education site should be a sufficient source. | |||
::As far as the scientific literature goes there is the following:''“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”''<ref>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221715537_Kinases_phosphatases_and_proteases_during_sperm_capacitation</ref> | |||
I'm not going to comment on the content of this debate. I'm going to say that both of you need to stop the edit warring, or else risk having this article protected in the wrong version. One of you be the bigger party and let the other side "win" for the time being. Thanks.-] </sup>]] 00:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
::And then from a med school textbook: ''“Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”'' <ref>Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.</ref> | |||
:I would rather see it protected, even in what I consider the "wrong" version, than allow ] to remain and grow in this article. Perhaps page protection would draw attention to this article; attention it desperately needs to be made ], free of ], and ]. As of now, it fails miserably in all three aspects. ] (]) 00:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
::And again from the National Institutes of Health: ''“Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.”'' <ref>Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013). National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013).</ref> | |||
:I'm happy to stop editing the article for a few days. I only started now because Coppertwig and I were moving things forward. He asked for the additional info and I asked him to offer up a suggestion. When I saw the revert, I did not address anyone directly and kept my comments to the material and the effect on the article, as well as a general request to follow BDR. Do we think discussion can take place over this period of time, or should we both step back and then discuss the issues. ] (]) 02:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Any of these are scholarly and could be used. Perhaps the science education one you could dispute as being a science education site rather than a scholarly source, but the other three still work. ] (]) 20:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
::We've discussed this at length, and cannot seem to move past fundamental issues. You believe that Misplaced Pages should assert as unattributed fact that reproductive rights, and by extension abortion, are "human rights." I believe that violates ] and ]. Impasse. If you have other suggested edits, I invite you to present them. ] (]) 02:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
<references /> | |||
:::These sources are useful for the biological process of reproduction. They are not useful for describing the social and political ramifications of reproduction, which is what this article is about. Preceding the language you want to change is this very clear description of what the article is about (citations omitted): | |||
::::'''Reproductive rights''' are ]s and freedoms relating to ] and ] that vary amongst countries around the world. The ] defines reproductive rights as follows: | |||
::::Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of ], ] and ]. | |||
:::I've actually tried really hard to create space for the abortion issue. I didn't start this stub, and was working The sentence that keeps getting reverted is sourced by 2 peer-review sources (Cook and Freedman) and Amnesty International (which states flat out "Reproductive rights are human rights" ). It doesn't say anything about abortion. It is difficult for me to understand what the issue is. The statement is sourced per R and V, it contains no weasel words, yet it repeatedly gets reverted because of "OR". How OR can it be if I can cite it almost word for word from reliable sources? As for NPOV, I have repeatedly asked for sources and/or suggestions regarding the wording of both the opening sentence and the lines that deal with abortion. It is terribly discouraging to repeatedly add footnotes and citations only to have them reverted edit summary "rv WP:OR", es: "revert original research again". | |||
:::What you would need to come back with to support your desired change is a list of reliable, and reputable, sources saying that when reproductive rights are under discussion, it's only a technical contingency that it '''happens''' to include abortion. And those sources frankly don't exist. <span style="font-family:Garamond;">]]]</span> 14:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
And yes, I stated that I believed (when asked) that abortion is a reproductive right. I have a POV, I'm fine with the transparency, it keeps me honest. I am not trying to push a pro-choice POV. I have no problem with an editor going in and trying to clarify the relationship between abortion and RR. I've been trying to work from the lead and the history on down, so I haven't gotten to it yet. The first constructive edit offered by Coppertwig yielded some good results. I added more footnotes, we moved forward on "often held to include" I like the phrase, but I think that it should be applied to the section talking about advocates to specifically qualify abortion. ] (]) 03:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I sympathize both with your difficulty in understanding, and your discouragement. Coppertwig's edits indeed yielded some good results, especially his reversion of " is a subset of human rights" which was clearly ''challenged opinion not attributed to any source.'' No one disputes that the right to have an abortion is widely regarded as an inseparable part of the concept presented as "reproductive rights," therefore, it is grossly unacceptable that this encyclopedia state that "reproductive rights are a subset of human rights," since those who may fully support even the broadest opinions regarding what human rights exist, do not necessarily believe that the right to have an abortion at will exists. More specifically, the "right to life" is cited universally as an example of a "human right," and yet the phrase "right to life" is more commonly associated with the ''pro-life'' movement than "reproductive rights" advocates. Some notable groups (for example, ]) believe the opposite of your assertion, namely, that "reproductive rights" stand in opposition to "human rights." Clearly the view that the rejection of any reproductive rights is a rejection of some human rights (logically implied by the phrase, "reproductive rights are a subset of human rights") is just that -- a view, not shared by all and contradicted by a significant minority (at least). Certain groups that express a belief in a specific set of reproductive rights and claiming them to be human rights is notable, as at least several prominent organizations have done so. But the article, with your edits, begins by simply asserting that abortion is a human right (since abortion is listed as a reproductive right), despite the existence of notable contrary opinion from a not-tiny group. This violates ], which states, "'''Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.'''" (Emphasis in original.) (The debate as what opinion is in the "majority" is irrelevant, per ], other than dealing with ] issues, which this is not). | |||
:Coppertwig's edit is how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. Someone makes an edit, which better conforms to policy than the previous edit. Finally, remember that "of course, others here will edit what you write. Do not take it personally." (].) Also, "it is important that contributors do not edit recklessly. 'Being Bold' does not excuse a disregard for verifiability, neutrality, and the other guidelines/policies that comprise the five pillars of Misplaced Pages." (].) | |||
:Another good one I'll throw out there is, "when you see a conflict in a talk page, do not be just a 'mute spectator'. Be bold and drop your opinion there" (].) ] (]) 10:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Requesting copy edit help == | |||
:Re "additional citations as requested by Coppertwig": this may be based on a misunderstanding, or possibly I'm forgetting something. I don't remember asking for any additional citations, except via a citation-needed tag for the phrase "While the term is often associated with the pro-choice position", which I am asking to be either deleted or have a citation provided to support it; and I don't think the footnotes Phyesalis provided address that particular phrase. The misunderstanding seems to be that Phyesalis believes that "reproductive rights are human rights" is a fact and that it can be supported by citations and that perhaps if we have a problem with it, more citations will help. Actually, more citations are not likely to be of help there. To me, the words "reproductive rights are human rights" have the meaning of a normative statement, equivalent to a statement containing the word "should". Organizations such as ] or the ] make those kinds of statements. Misplaced Pages does not, regardless of how many reliable sources can be found which support the statement. The fact that the words mean something different to Phyesalis is not enough reason to keep them. Instead, words should be found which are unambiguous, which mean the proper meaning to all readers or practically all readers. I don't think I'm by any means the only person in the world to interpret those words in that way. | |||
:I agree with Blackworm that there is also still a problem with the treatment of abortion in the lead. It does seem to be implying or stating that abortion is a human right. Misplaced Pages certainly does not make statements like that. Misplaced Pages can make statements (if they are true) like "Organization X has declared abortion to be a human right." Not "Abortion is a human right" nor "reproductive rights are human rights" nor "reproductive rights are a subset of human rights." --] (]) 13:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Hi, | |||
:Re by Phyesalis: I invited people to ''"Feel free to revert and discuss on talk."'' I may not have made it clear, but that was supposed to apply to both (or all three) of my edits -- i.e. I was not intending to invite anyone to revert without explanation. Phyesalis, you have reverted as I invited you to, but you have not, as far I as see, explained on this talk page the reason for reverting. Please explain -- why do you think the article is better the way you changed it back to? I don't think your post above addresses this at all. Maybe I'm missing something. I need to see it stated clearly. --] (]) 13:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
In draft namespace I created a new article relating to one of well known feminist ] namely ] to be included in category ]. It is far from complete and needs proactive copy edit support to include related remaining aspects. | |||
::Please see the above section for my comments and arguments. Please provide a source that contradicts the sourced fact that reproductive rights are human rights. I have provided sources, neither you nor Blackworm have provided a single source. I'm having a hard time assuming good faith in light of this. ] (]) 19:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Suggestions about suitable references are welcome on ] | |||
:::You haven't added anything that hasn't been responded to. ] (]) 20:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Thanks in advance. Warm regards | |||
:::<s> I've already explained to you, Phyesalis, that "reproductive rights are human rights" is not a fact, but an opinion. </s> There is no problem if the article says something like that as a quote, or with prose attribution as in "Organization X says that ..." There is no requirement for us to provide any source other than to refer to ]. --] (]) 23:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::I understand that in your opinion, Phyesalis, it's a ] fact that "reproductive rights are human rights". However, in my opinion, it's not the kind of thing that can be verified as fact. It's a statement like "chocolate ice cream tastes better than strawberry ice cream" or "the tax rate should be high enough to avoid a deficit," -- the type of statement that Misplaced Pages doesn't assert. --] (]) 00:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 10:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::The facticity of reproductive rights as human rights passes the duck test. Sources like the UN and WHO call reproductive rights a set of human rights. Reproductive rights were ratified in a human rights convention, CEDAW. There were sources that discussed them but they have been repeatedly removed by Blackworm. My sources are peer-reviewed journals and books by authors from a bibliography on Human Rights from the . Like I said, I have challenged your assertion of "opinion" and have politely asked you and Blackworm to provide documentation to support your argument. You seem to be refusing to do so. Do I understand this correctly? ] (]) 00:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Reproductive Rights in Islam == | |||
::::Also, I don't understand your argument about verifiability. They were ratified in a human rights convention - how much more verifiable do you need? Your argument would hold that human rights are merely an opinion held by the majority of people and not verifiable. I'm thinking it seems like unsubstantiated POV, and WP definitely isn't supposed to support that. ] (]) 00:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Hi! In the issues section (14) of this article, there is a subsection about the Roman Catholic Church (14.8) but nothing on other religions. I am planning on focusing on what other religions have to say about the topic, mostly about what Islam says, how it is interpreted and how it affects women in Muslim majority countries. I am still learning how Misplaced Pages works so let me know if you have any advice. --] (]) 21:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::::I apologize if my objection has cited the wrong policy. If they were ratified in a human rights convention, it's appropriate to mention what convention, when, and where. If that is done, it meets ]. If the edit states more than the undisputed facts, such as the unattributed idea that "reproductive rights are a subset of human rights" is an undisputed fact, it fails ]. My objection has nothing to do with whether "human rights are merely an opinion." ] (]) 03:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Requesting some help== | |||
I appreciate the apology. Thank you. I still don't understand your argument about unattributed facts. | |||
Hi, | |||
*] states "''The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.''" I did this, but you have removed my inline citations and yet you repeatedly tell me I have to attribute it. I don't understand the divergence in your use of "attribution". WP says to attribute statements with inline citations, how do you mean "attribution" and where are you getting this in policy? If you would provide me with a quote or two from a policy, that would be most helpful. | |||
*] states that "''The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with '''conflicting verifiable perspectives''' on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.''" I still don't see a conflicting ''verifiable'' perspective from a reliable source. This would be the hypothetical source I have been asking for over the last few weeks. | |||
*NPOV on facts v. opinions is primarily discussing superlative commentary, not whether or not a fact is a fact. Your argument would make sense if I were positing that "Reproductive rights are the most important human rights" or "The violation of reproductive rights is the worst human rights abuse." Those statements contain superlative opinions. "Reproductive rights are a subset of human rights" on the other hand, is about as basic and fact based as one can get on the subject without obfuscating the subject's predominant context - international human rights discourses. ] (]) 06:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Recently initiated a new ] and looking for proactive help in updating and expanding the article. Please do see if contributing to ] would interest you. | |||
::I'll address your three points in order below. If, during the course of my reasoning, I make any claims you dispute, please point them out specifically, and preferably one by one. | |||
::* You don't need to explicitly (in the prose) attribute the view to a source because of ]. If the source was merely making a non-controversial statement, or at least, a self-referential statement, such as "we view reproductive rights as human rights," that requirement of ] would also be met, and it would also pass ]. I view ] as a minimum standard, a pre-test. ] seems to indicate that if one can show a reasonable prevalence of doubt or disagreement on the assertions made by the article text, then the text must be treated as an opinion, a point of view: "''None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.''" Now again, see the link to the Catholic News -- here, I'll ] some: | |||
Thanks and regards | |||
::{{quotation|"Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, has called the naming of the new Chair ] “deeply disturbing” and “hypocritical.” The university has established a human rights chair “in the name of a heretical priest who has spent much of his lifetime advocating for the most heinous of human rights violations: abortion,” he said in a statement."<br>"Fr. Drinan has been a strong supporter of abortion rights "<br>"However, many say the priest’s human rights work is all for not, due to his work against the fundamental right to life."|Catholic News Agency}} | |||
] (]) 02:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC) | |||
::Since the "fundamental right to life" is a generally recognized human right, and many seem to believe abortion, something universally associated with the phrase "reproductive rights," conflicts with human rights, then the view that "reproductive rights are a subset of human rights" is clearly disputed. Since there is a dispute, there is clearly a difference of opinion. Opinions must be attributed explicitly to the source, per ]: "'''Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves.'''" (Emph. in original.) | |||
==Legislation on human reproduction== | |||
::The beauty of Misplaced Pages, when it works according to its ], is that all notable views have a place, and the reader is left to form their own opinion. Says ]: "Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." Next point. | |||
I made the article "] and just implemented a redirect to here. | |||
I do think that it needs to be worked out as an own article though. Perhaps some wikipedians are interested in working it out ? | |||
It seems important because the Reproductive rights article doesn't cover it. It does not discuss the exact laws that are put in place per country on this. | |||
::* One source is quoted above. Next point. | |||
--] (]) 11:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
::* You seem to begin your argument that reproductive rights are human rights, based on the assumption that a consensus in an international discourse (that ''did not'' specifically mention abortion) '''proves that''' "reproductive rights" (a phrase ''usually'' taken to include abortion) are human rights. I dispute your primary assumption. <small>Gotta run, have to Skype my friend in Australia. I love international discourse, and we agree on a lot of things.</small> ] (]) 07:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:You created a redirect, not an article. At the moment, I don't have thoughts any thoughts on creating an article for that topic. ] (]) 00:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC) | |||
:::Whiskey tango foxtrot? I am not trying to argue that abortion is a ratified human right (because it is not and because there is a significant debate about its role in reproductive rights), that would be why I have no problem with Coppertwig's edit that added "often held to include" to the lead. Your continual interjection of the abortion issue is somewhat confusing. I'm just talking about the phrase "Reproductive rights are a sub-set of human rights". Abortion is a separate issue to be dealt with once we can get past the first 8 words of the article. My argument is that reproductive rights are human rights because they have been internationally ratified by human rights organizations and governments. Your narrow argument about abortion does not apply to the general category of reproductive rights. ] (]) 08:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::But to take your points in order: | |||
* You have to have reliable sources (that would be at least two sources that disagree) to have NPOV issues. | |||
* Your quote disputes that abortion is a human right. It does not dispute the fact that reproductive rights are human rights, rather it argues that abortion is not a human right. Your logic that because one aspect of reproductive rights is disputed, all reproductive rights are disputed and therefore a matter of opinion is fallacious. | |||
* Given the level of semantic exactitude that you have held me to, I must point out that your source does not state "reproductive rights are not human rights". To paraphrase you, find a source that states it that explicitly. But it might be a useful quote in a section dealing with abortion as a disputed reproductive right. So, still, provide me with one source that states that the set of reproductive rights are not human rights (because your SYN logic does not suffice, nor is it in accordance with the expectations to which you've held me). If you cannot provide me with a reliable source disputing this, there can be no NPOV dispute, as this is about facts, not superlative opinion. ] (]) 08:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I specifically asked that you point me to the first claim I make that you dispute, and quote the words you dispute directly. Since my argument seems to logically follow, perhaps if you could point out the specific moment I make a logical mistake, either in my assumptions, or my proceeding from my assumptions to my conclusions, it would be much more helpful. The best I can deduce at the current time is that you disagree with the statement, "abortion is a reproductive right." If you wish to state explicitly, in the article, that "abortion is not necessarily a reproductive right" then this would make your argument stronger; however I doubt that is acceptable to you, and I would disagree with its inclusion regardless, also on ] grounds. The important (and yes, challenging) task we have is to present an undisputed treatment of the subject, which leaves room for the "truth" of several views. | |||
:Your claim regarding the number of sources needed to disprove your assertion is untrue. On multiple occasions, you have used the word "majority" seemingly in an argument that the view you wish to present should be the only view presented; I remind you again that is a fallacious argument, directly contradicting ]. ] (]) 09:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Re this wording: ''"Reproductive rights have been established as human rights in international human rights documents"'' in edit by Phyesalis. Thank you for paying attention to concerns that were raised, Phyesalis. This wording is much better, in my opinion, than some previous wordings. However, I'm not sure that it is supported by the footnotes. If only the AI supports it, then "international human rights documents" would seem to mislead the reader into thinking it's the UN or something. But the (first page that I'm able to read of the) other reference given does not seem to me to state that reproductive rights are human rights. It lists certain reproductive rights of women specifically (a pretty comprehensive list, but it states women, it does not mention men at that point) and calls them human rights; however, it does not state that all reproductive rights of women are human rights, it only mentions the ones listed. It also points out that protecting human rights is necessary to achieve reproductive health, but I think that is referring to normal human rights like rights to be free of things like unfair imprisonment, violence etc.; it does not seem to me to be stating that reproductive rights are human rights. Maybe you could quote the part that you see as saying that. --] (]) 14:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Thank you. I'm not sure I understand your first point. Are you disputing that there are international human rights documents regarding reproductive rights? There are cited sources regarding Cairo and Beijing. Are you disputing that Amnesty International is asserting a basic fact? Clearly AI is not the only organization that sees it this way (the UN sees it this way per CEDAW, Vienna, Cairo, Beijing). Numerous other NGOs see it that way. This is all basic info in the discourse of reproductive rights that is documented in the article (except CEDAW and Vienna, haven't added them in yet.). | |||
:As for the wording, good point, how about "Certain RR" or "A number of RR". Maybe this would mitigate the first issue? | |||
:If we could come to an agreement or compromise about a few basic aspects of this topic, I think it would really move things along. 1)RR are predominantly related to women (as women are the ones who do 99% of the biological reproduction). 2) Reproductive rights have been defined as human rights by international consensus (with dissenting opinions) and a number of them have been ratified as such. There is some debate over contraception and abortion as "rights". What do you think? ] (]) 17:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
===Arbitrary section break=== | |||
(I added this section break to make it easier to edit.) No, I'm not disputing that there are international human rights documents regarding reproductive rights. I recognize that there are international human rights documents regarding reproductive rights, and thank you for finding references to some. I'm disputing that ''"reproductive rights have been established as human rights in international human rights documents."'' | |||
I would appreciate it if you would revert this back to the earlier wording while we discuss it. Please re-read my previous comment now that I've clarified what I'm disputing. Note that I asked you for quotes supporting the material you wish to add, and you haven't provided any quotes. ] says, ''"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material."'' The reason you need to provide quotes and try to convince me that the reliable sources support the sentence you're trying to add is that you're trying to add a disputed sentence. As far as I know, I'm not trying to add any material at the moment which anyone is disputing, i.e. which anyone is saying is not supported by the reliable sources; that's why I don't have to provide any sources at this moment. | |||
I think that from your point of view, the sources support what you're saying, but that there are other ways of interpreting the words in the sources and not everyone sees them as supporting exactly what you're saying. Since you think of reproductive rights as facts and I think of them as normative things (sort-of like values, not like facts,) it's not surprising that we'll interpret the same words differently. Usually in such a dispute, the best thing to do is to have this article use words that are closer to the exact words in the source, possibly even as a quote, rather than a paraphrase that can be interpreted differently by different people. | |||
It could be that I just didn't notice the particular sentence in the source that supports the material you want to add. If you quote the sentence(s) here on this talk page, that may help. On the other hand, it may be that you and I are interpreting things differently, which is why when I look at the source, I don't see support for what you want to add, although you do see it. It's also possible that the materials is past page 1 and I can only see page 1, in which case it will help if you quote the material here on the talk page. | |||
Re your comment on my talk page: Thank you very much. However, I think it would probably not be a good idea to mention abortion in the lead. I'm not trying to mention abortion in the lead -- I'm sorry if what I said about that wasn't clear. I want to mention abortion, and also property rights, here on this talk page in arguments about the wording of the lead. I don't want to mention either abortion or property rights in the lead itself -- I think they would probably be out-of-place in the lead. The lead needs to be neutral, to be acceptable to people with a broad range of views on abortion, property rights, etc. That doesn't mean it has to mention either abortion or property rights. By the way, from my point of view, abortion is not a "small" controversy and therefore cannot be a "small" part of a set of rights. Also, from some points of view men are equally, or almost equally, involved in or affected by reproduction as women. | |||
There's one further way that I dispute the wording you want to add. Suppose we vind a UN (or similar) document (not just AI) that declares that reproductive rights are human rights. I don't accept that we can necessarily conclude from this that reproductive rights have been established as human rights. I think we can conclude (if we find such a source) that reproductive rights have been declared to be human rights by the UN (or whatever organization the source is from). That's not the same thing. Whether reproductive rights are human rights or not remains an opinion, (from my point of view,) even if there are declarations to that effect. | |||
As I see it, we have three options: | |||
*(1) Have the article state that reproductive rights are human rights or that reproductive rights have been established as human rights (Phyesalis' most recent edit) or similar wording. | |||
*(2) Not state something directly as in option 1, but have the article state something with prose attribution, for example that the UN has stated that reproductive rights are human rights (if we can find a document that supports such a statement.) | |||
*(3) Other. | |||
As I see it, the status of these options is: | |||
*Status of option 1: | |||
**Blackworm and Coppertwig have objected and provided arguments citing ] and ]. Phyesalis is not convinced by the arguments. | |||
**Phyesalis has provided counter-arguments to argue that the arguments of Blackworm and Coppertwig are not valid. Blackworm and Coppertwig are not convinced by the counter-arguments. | |||
*Status of option 2: | |||
**No-one has provided any arguments against option 2. | |||
*Status of option 3: | |||
**No-one has made any alternative suggestions. | |||
Given this status, it seems reasonable at least until there is further discussion to keep the article in a state that conforms to option 2. --] (]) 15:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
::Outside view. Go with option 2. While Phyesalis is not completely wrong to say that reproductive rights are human rights it is more appropriate for encyclopedic writing to attribute a claim of reproductive rights as human rights to Amnesty International and the Cairo and Beijing UN conferences. | |||
::The problem with claiming straight out that reproductive rights are human rights is the compromise at the heart of ]. It says something other to what many people mean by reproductive rights. <blockquote>Artcle 11 <br />1. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of employment in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, the same rights, in particular: f) The right to protection of health and to safety in working conditions, including the safeguarding of the function of reproduction. -from ] </blockquote> Go with attribution it's better from the point of view of fact checking--] <sup>]</sup> 16:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::First, thanks for joining the discussion. The fact that certain reproductive rights have been ratified as human rights is exactly that, a fact. WP policy states that facts are equitably "attributed" with an inline citation (as noted previously). The statement is attributed per WP policy. I think edits that attempt to diminish due weight seem like censorship. | |||
:::I have already suggested an alternate wording but no discussion of this compromise has taken place. I went ahead and changed the wording of the second sentence, in an attempt to move this issue forward. I am not going to revert the statement that "Various reproductive rights have been ratified as human rights in international human rights documents," over an unsupported assertion of POV. The statement itself is documented and supported by the majority of the ref'd content in the article. Nothing in the body of the article contradicts this statement and no relevant documentation has been provided to dispute the fact that (certain) reproductive rights have been ratified in international human rights documents. Mostly, because it is a fact. There is plenty of room in this article to discuss the contraversial nature of contraception and abortion, but disputing basic facts it is not conducive to WP goals. | |||
:::I have made a number of attempts to compromise on this issue. I think moving treatment of human rights to the second sentence and changing wording for clarity to be a reasonable and productive compromise. I'm going for one, per my most recent . <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
::::Phyesalis, I understand your position but I think it does no harm to the article to attribute statements - even in the lede. Also the point I'm making above about CEDAW is that its mention of reproduction is limited to a provision for maternity leave and access to proper health care. The statement it makes is exceptionally flimsy due to the compromise it takes to write such a document, and honestly it leaves out more of what many people (myself included) understand as reproductive rights than it includes. To my mind something like stating ''when'' the UN stated reproductive rights are human rights would provide context here as well as being a thoroughly verifiable statement--] <sup>]</sup> 19:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::::The harm is a perceived skewing of weight. Also, if anybody could start objecting to basic facts and could demand and occupy large amounts of time, think about how disruptive that would be on a WP-wide scale. This is a general statement about documents in general. This is the beginning of a stub on its way (hopefully) to a GA article. Seriously, this seems pretty straight forward. I've made my compromise, but I see no need to cave to what are (in my estimation) unsupported POV pushes. Considerations to Pro-life POV, while no material is in the article is a lead violation (no unique content in lead). If there is no content in the article, there is no need to treat it or consider it in the lead (right, Coppertwig? I believe we agreed on that on your talk page.) ] (]) 21:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
(undent) I've dropped a line to ] for input from people involved in human rights articles--] <sup>]</sup> 01:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
:Thank you. ] (]) 03:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
==Outside opinions== | |||
The debate surrounds several issues: | |||
*# Is the statement "Various reproductive rights have been established as human rights in international human rights documents" as sourced by Amnesty International in the lead (a general statement covering material cited in body of article - also previously sourced by Cook) a fact or an opinion? | |||
*# If it is a fact, as it is attributed per WP policy with an inline citation and covering other material in the document, does it need additional attribution/contextualization (as in the suggested "Amnesty International holds that reproductive rights are human rights" regardless of the fact that various rights have been ratified by the UN)? | |||
*# Does requiring additional contextualization as suggested skew the weight of a documented fact in a fashion that reflects Pro-life ideology so as to suggest the fact is an opinion? | |||
*# If yes, does the fact that article contains no content (documented or otherwise) expressing Pro-life criticisms mean that treatment of a Pro-life perspective is a lead violation (no unique content) and/or a POV violation (favoring editorial opinions without documented sources)? | |||
*# Is the section "Abortion as a men's issue" on one organization's fringe position on "financial abortions" for men in the US based on one court case a valid contribution to an article on sexual and reproductive health? | |||
Thank you. ] (]) 03:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
===Feedback=== | |||
] asked me to come by and see if I could help out as an outside observer of the discussion here. I'm '''not''' here as her ally or to support one side or the other. | |||
== Not all governmental interventions against high fertility rates are universally regarded as 'abuse' / Policies affecting only certain ethnicities are not eugenic bust racist. == | |||
First I think the article needs to be focussed better and organized accordingly. I'm particularly thinking of the lede section. Ideally, the lede should '''summarize the contents of the article.''' It shouldn't be the place where arguments over content are wrestled. Please look at ] for some tips on this. In ''general'', citations are discouraged in the lede to aid in making it more generally accessable. This isn't an absolute rule but it is recommended, particularly for featured articles. | |||
While I agree that forcing people no have children is abuse, I changed the word state abuse to state intervention, because abuse suggests 'universally regarded as morally wrong' when actually attempts of lowering the fertility rate, like China did, could be morally supported by avoidance of famines. Not enforcing birth policies might lead to weak result. Also, the policies that targeted minorities, no matter their abilities, are better described as racist than eugenic. | |||
By focussed, I mean specifying '''exactly''' what is to be covered in the article. As it stands now, it apparently encompasses RR worldwide and this means it needs to represent that perspective. Unless sections are begun on at least '''some''' other countries, representing just the US views seems like, in my opinion, an ] presentation. If the article is international in scope, an international perspective is called for. Since many of the current sources cite international organizations like Amnesty International or the UN, it would be helpful if additional sources do the same unless dealing with specific countries' views of RR. Otherwise, it's comparing apples to oranges. For example, '''official''' Catholic views on RR would be appropriate since the church obviously has international scope, reach, and influence. Note my emphasis though: A bishop's pronouncements would probably only be applicable to his diocese. (Is that the right jurisdiction for a bishop? I'm a little unclear on that.) | |||
Eugenic = good genes, is in theory affecting all people willing to have children. | |||
Also by focusing, I mean it ''might'' be a good idea to change the title of the article to reflect the content more accurately. Maybe not. Just a suggestion. | |||
If policies affect ethnic minorities exclusively, they are not really eugenic but just racist. | |||
== Claim that vast majority of the population does not know the law == | |||
I have more to say but I've got to run right now. I'll be back later. Cheers, ]] 20:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
In the section ] (content added in the ]), it is claimed that one of the reasons that reproductive rights are poor is that "the vast majority of the population does not know what the law is". This is followed by several examples of specific countries and facts about the limitations on knowledge of specific reproductive rights by specific segments. (As a counterpoint, in the U.S. as of April 2023, the issue is not about knowing what the reproductive rights are, but rather that the reproductive rights have in fact been restricted.) | |||
:Thank you, Pigman. Perhaps you could give a suggestion or two on the renaming? Personally, I think the current title is the best, but I'm certainly open to new and different information. My plan for bringing this from a stub to GA was to start with the broadest context (international) and work down to various national or sub-cultural debates. Perhaps we could c&p the US text here until future expansion makes it more applicable? Looking forward to more of your input. ] (]) 22:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
In any case, while lack of knowledge may be a contributing factor for reproductive rights being poor, I don't think "vast majority" of the population is justified based on the citations provided. ] (]) 06:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC) | |||
:Pigman, ] seems to say that we shouldn't give ] to one view. In the case of this article, I also take this as meaning that we cannot cover a topic in an ethnocentric manner. That does ''not'' indicate to me that a group's international reach deserves any special status, or that a group prominent enough to warrant mention in reliable sources is to be excluded because it lacks international reach. It may indeed be cited, and in fact may ''need'' to be cited in order to present a more neutral point of view. In any case, if the context of this article topic is going to be "international discourse," the title definitely needs to change. I do not believe that necessary or desirable, as it seems like an unnecessary POV-fork -- the other issues would indeed need to be presented elsewhere. ] (]) 01:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 22:54, 2 December 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reproductive rights article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q1. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Drake University/Global Youth Studies (Spring 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
Archives |
|
NPOV
The article has become significantly more neutral in the last few months, but the overall tone of the writing still is generally favorable to the subject matter. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 18:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
"Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Misplaced Pages articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view." It would be helpful if you point out examples of where this is a problem, rather than saying there is a general problem with the article... overall the article is extremely factual, and well referenced. I read it again and cant see any case of the position included in the article being presented in a biased way.--SasiSasi (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- I also don't see any obvious POV problems with the article.
- I am removing the POV-check like box that was added because it was subst'd (which that template is not supposed to be, see the documentation), and it appears to be using some non-standard version of the template (puts it into a category that isn't used, so won't help attract people to fix POV problem).
- If you still feel there are POV problems, please give more specifics so that article can be improved. (And if you feel that the template is needed, please use regulation one so it gets categorized correctly). Zodon (talk) 04:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- The entire article is written in a tone that is highly favorable to its subject matter; however, the overall trend is improvement, with most individual instances of specific POV having been removed. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- What does "favorable to the subject matter" mean? Can you give a concrete example (specific sentence, pharsing, etc.) that think questionable and specific example of how it might be improved? Zodon (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- maybe there is a "misunderstanding"... the article is about "reproductive rights", so it will naturally deal mostly with those developments and international standards that enshrine such rights. The article does not contain a criticism section (although it does cover some of the controversy surrounding reproductive rights, e.g. in the men's rights article). All human rights article are "screwed" in this way. However, the article is not POV, as it presents all positions included in the article in a balanced way.
- the article certainly needs extension, and almost every single issue that comes under the heading reproductive rights is controversial (see population control in China), so as long as those issues covered in the article are presented in a balanced manner, I think there is no POV problem.
- You say "most individual instances of specific POV have been removed", indicating there are still some remaining, I cant see them, so help would be appreciated.--SasiSasi (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think the point of view of the article is obvious on its face. However, the last time I pointed this out, all of the specific examples of POV (for example, the assertion that the UDHR "failed" to include reprodutive rights) were removed. The only thing left is the fact that the article, as a whole (rather than any specific sentence), assumes the validity of the rights in question, which is itself a POV. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- The article does not assume the validity of reproductive rights, far from it, it documents on what basis groups or agencies have claimed or defined reproductive rights, that it is regarded as a subset of human rights, and that reproductive rights may be defined to include different issues, as well as pointing out that reproductive rights may be regarded primarily as women's rights or men’s' rights.
- This article does not simply state "reproductive rights exist and include z, y and z"... this would be POV... instead it states "the WHO defines reproductive rights as..." etc. Please refer to Misplaced Pages policy on POV if you still think there is an issue.--SasiSasi (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am very familiar with the Misplaced Pages policy on POV. The article assumes the truth of the subject matter, without question, but uses proper sources to describe and explain it. Thus, it adheres to the requirement of verifiability, but according to WP:NPOV, "verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it." The fact that the article uses reliable sources to document the point of view denoted by the term "reproductive rights" does not guarantee its neutrality. For it to be neutral it must also be impartial in tone. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and if you would be so kind to point out where we could make improvements... this is getting boring, you obviously appear to know what you are talking about (I don’t), so why don’t you have a go and make the article less POV... I really fail to see where the article is not impartial in tone, really sorry. While you at it, please have a look at the human rights article as well, I assume you would judge this article to be POV as well, oh, ya and the United States Constitution article, how POV is that....--SasiSasi (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- I am very familiar with the Misplaced Pages policy on POV. The article assumes the truth of the subject matter, without question, but uses proper sources to describe and explain it. Thus, it adheres to the requirement of verifiability, but according to WP:NPOV, "verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it." The fact that the article uses reliable sources to document the point of view denoted by the term "reproductive rights" does not guarantee its neutrality. For it to be neutral it must also be impartial in tone. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
What "significant views that have been published by reliable sources"Misplaced Pages:NPOV dispute on the material being covered do you feel are not presented or are underrepresented?
It sounds like there may be confusion about the topic of the article vs. its content. Subject-object problem If the topic of an article is a POV, that does not make the content of the article not NPOV. Consider also: Meta:Positive tone Zodon (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Good NPOV edit, Blackworm! "none, some or all of the following rights" ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. :) But then this one was stlll necessary. I instantly realized that it's up to the reader to recognize that inherently every WP article leads the reader to some degree. Blackworm (talk) 23:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
So.... can we remove the neutrality tag? Either that or make suggestions (Specific) on what needs to be changed.--SasiSasi (talk) 12:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, let's consider the second paragraph, which sets the tone for the rest of the article. How about changing it something along these lines?
According to ______, (or ______ believe that) the realisation of reproductive rights is interlinked with the realisation of a series of recognised international human rights, including the right to health, the right to freedom from discrimination, the right to privacy, and the right not to be subjected to torture or ill-treatment. The
basicright of parents to decide freely and responsibly on the number and spacing of their children and a right to adequate education and information in this respecthas beenwas recognised as a subset of human rights in the 1968 Proclamation of Teheran. This right is however not recognised in international human rightslawtreaties.
- In this regard, I know that the first sentence already cites the statement to its source, but WP:V is not a substitute for WP:NPOV; I propose (above) to word it in a way that merely describes the viewpoint without advocating it. (How to fill in the blank remains to be discussed; although Amnesty International clearly advocates for reproductive rights now, in the past it was scrupulously impartial regarding the matter.) Continuing to the next sentence, I am striking out the word "basic" because that is an editorial comment; if it is to be retained then maybe it can be phrased in a more neutral manner: "the 1968 Proclamation of Tehran declared that parents have the basic right to decide freely and responsibility on the number and spacing of their children...." The goal is for the article to describe the viewpoint without assuming its truth (and also to include some information about all major controversies regarding the subject). 69.140.152.55 (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Uff... you know there is an Amnesty International article that could do with a section on how they have changed their position on women’s rights and reproductive right over the years (and the associated controversy), but lets focus on the reproductive rights article.
- How about the following:
"Reproductive rights are rights relating to reproduction and reproductive health. The World Health Organisation defines reproductive rights as follows:
"Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence."
According to Amnesty International the realisation of reproductive rights is interlinked with the realisation of a series of recognised international human rights, including the right to health, the right to freedom from discrimination, the right to privacy, and the right not to be subjected to torture or ill-treatment. According to the 1968 Proclamation of Teheran "parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children". Reproductive rights are not recognised in international human rights law."
- I had a look at the proclamation and the education bit was not mentioned in connection to the number of children thing, so it should not be in the intro.
- also, please feel free to contribute to the article if you believe it needs extending... there are a lot of people of have POV issues with this article (obviously), but hardly any editors who actually contribute some referenced content. If anything the article is suffering from that, not NPOV.--SasiSasi (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- I did an edit which I hope encorporates the ideas suggested above.
- Since the Proclamation of Teheran was covered twice in the lead, I used the copy which quoted the text. "Basic" was in the original, so seemed reasonable to keep it.
- The part about the realization of reproductive rights being linked to rights recognised by intl. human rights law made more sense coming after the observation that the right to determine # children isn't recognized by said law. So I rearranged the order a little.
- I did an edit which I hope encorporates the ideas suggested above.
- The POV-check tag was removed because there had been no responses to the requests for clarification/specifics here for over a month. Discussing, contributing, offering specifics is far more likely to produce improvement than just tagging. (Especially since the back-log on POV-check appears to be considerable.)
- As noted above, the tone of the article being favorable to the topic is not clearly an NPOV problem. (As long as it doesn't favor any particular view on the topic.)
- Phrasing problems in terms of tone, etc. may tend to confuse, whereas if you say this view needs attribution to who holds it, that is specific and something can be done about it. Zodon (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- good edits, I will try and find a reference for the international law statement.
- so, unless any other specifics are forthcoming (anybody??) I suggest we remove the NPOV tag.--SasiSasi (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, at this point it seems the only POV problem left is the word "established" in the first sentence of the second paragraph. Although the word can mean "to bring into existence," it has a connotation of permanence and stability. This is mitigated, somewhat, by the first sentence of the following paragraph. Nevertheless, I would re-word the second paragraph to read: "The United Nations first considered reproductive rights to be a subset of human rights at its 1968 International Conference on Human Rights. The sixteenth article of the resulting Proclamation of Tehran states, 'Parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children.'" 69.140.153.142 (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- I would not use the word "considered" in this context. At the 1968 International Conference on Human Rights many concepts and aspects were "considered" and discussed. Also, it was not the United Nations that considered or established anything at that conference, it was the UN member states present at the conference, which have adopted the Proclamation of Tehran.
- To be honest connotations are something very subjective (different people will read it differently). So that in itself is not a reason to change it.--SasiSasi (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Parental law in Canada
Next 2 paragraphs are a recent addition to article, moved here for discussion.
- In Canada, a different legal approach has been taken by the Canadian Children's Rights Council - Conseil canadien des droits des enfants. According to family law in Canada, a biological father can't be forced by the biological mother to parent the child if he alone chooses not to be a parent to that particular biological child. In a Calgary, Alberta legal case currently before the courts in late 2008, the man (a biological father) seeks to not pay child support for his biological child on the basis of equality of sex (gender equality) a provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A pregnant woman in Canada can't be forces to pay financial child support if she chooses to not parent her biological child. She alone can choose abortion, abandonment to the government who will adopt the baby out, or abandonment through private adoption agencies. In all 3 choices, she avoids paying child support to the biological father if she knows that he wishes to parent his own biological child. The case is seeking equality of outcome for males. Parenting Choice for Men
- In Canada, a biological father doesn't have the right to raise his own child when the mother wishes to have the baby adopted out. One famous national case is that of the "Saskatoon Dad"
This material about paternity law in Canada was added to the reproductive rights as men's rights section. I don't think it is appropriate in this article. It isn't clear that the question of whether to parent after a child is produced (reproduction has taken place in the biological sense) is a question of reproductive rights. It seems more apropos of Parents' rights, Fathers' right, or child custody, or laws relating to said (e.g. Parental responsibility (access and custody) or some other area of Family law). Zodon (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Add Connection between Reproductive Rights and Family Rights/Responsability
It might be worth adding something noting the connection/segue between reproductive rights and parent/child rights & responsabilities. When does it occur, provide pointer to coverage/issues that come after reproductive rights.
It might include things like links to Family law and Parental responsibility. And address issues like the question of legal vs. biological reproduction. (biological reproduction = having a child, legal reproduction = making or changing legal determination of who's child it is). e.g., Do "reproductive rights" include questions of legal reproduction, or just those of biological reproduction?
This was brought to mind most recently by the recent additions on Canadian parental law, although similar questions arose about the "Male abortion." Coverage of this might help build the web, and clarify where material such as this is most appropriate. Zodon (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
UN Charter
I don't think these rights are included in the original 1948 charter. Anybody have a clue on why it was not included ? ADM (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Eugenics
How can this article not mention eugenics and its relationship to "reproductive rights"? 173.2.20.232 (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Article title
Calling "abortion rights" "reproductive rights" seems perilously close to WP:WEASEL. No one (in the US or the western world) that I know of has ever questioned a woman's right to "reproduce." I am aware of attempts of various states and nations to prevent women from terminating a pregnancy, rather the opposite of "reproductive rights." And other nations to force abortion on unwilling women. Euphemisms are fine, as are politically correct wording, but calling abortion "reproductive rights" is a bit much IMO.Student7 (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Reproductive rights" does not refer merely to the choice of whether to reproduce. It refers also to the choices of how and under what circumstances to reproduce. Access to abortion is an aspect of this right because it is the only available option when other forms of birth control fail. Ermadog (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Not a weasel word, but loaded language. The term is used exclusively by "pro-choice" activists, and is thus POV. Unfortunately, I can't think of a neutral article title. Perhaps the article can be rephrased to be about the term "reproductive rights" instead of saying "Reproductive rights are legal rights and freedoms..." DanBishop (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
reproductive rights. A person's constitutionally protected rights relating to the control of his or her procreative activities; specif., the cluster of civil liberties relating to pregnancy, abortion, and sterilization, esp. the personal bodily rights of a woman in her decision whether to become pregnant or bear a child. &bull The phrase includes the idea of being able to make reproductive decisions free from discrimination, coercion, or violence. Human-rights scholars increasingly consider many reproductive rights to be protected by international human-rights law.
—Garner, Bryan A. (2009). Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.). Thomson West. ISBN 9780314199492.{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)- I'm open to ideas but I have not seen any sources that use a different label when discussing this set of rights as a whole. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The sources use the term "reproductive rights", and - as the article indicates - it is defined as "reproductive rights are legal rights and freedoms relating to reproduction and reproductive health". The article title is neutral and reflects the sources. --Noleander (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- It is defined that way by supporters of legalized abortion. That's why there are four "pro-choice" organizations listed under "see also". That's why NRLC refers to 'the fudge term "reproductive rights"' and NPRC refers to 'so-called reproductive-rights groups'. The article treats the term as if it were universally accepted when it's not. In contrast, Misplaced Pages says that the "Right to life is a phrase that describes the belief that (emphasis mine) a human being has an essential right to live", and describes it as a "pro-life" rhetorical device in contrast to opponents' framing of "choice". I think that's much more balanced. DanBishop (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Is everyone OK with my rewording of the definition? DanBishop (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not. The definition given in Black's does explicitly state these are "constitutionally protected rights" not just wishful thinking. I'd also say that a human being does have a constitutionally protected right to life. The pro-life belief seems to be that those rights should extend to zygotes, fetuses, the unborn, etc. as they currently do not. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- @DanBishop - Could we see some other definitions of "reproductive rights" from sources like other encyclopedias, federal U. S. legislation, United Nations, NGOs, and - most importantly - scholars that write on the topic. That would be the best path forward do determining the best definition for this article. --Noleander (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I reverted the 3 December re-wording of the lead, in the spirit of WP:BRD. I think we need to see some more definitions of "reproductive rights" from important sources before we make any changes. --15:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- For reference, other WP articles on rights, such as Voting rights, Civil rights, and Minority rights all begin with a definition, and do not use the word "term" in their lead. That is, they do not say: " rights is a term ..." but instead say " rights are rights that ...." --Noleander (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I reverted the 3 December re-wording of the lead, in the spirit of WP:BRD. I think we need to see some more definitions of "reproductive rights" from important sources before we make any changes. --15:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- @DanBishop - Could we see some other definitions of "reproductive rights" from sources like other encyclopedias, federal U. S. legislation, United Nations, NGOs, and - most importantly - scholars that write on the topic. That would be the best path forward do determining the best definition for this article. --Noleander (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
@Noleander- some consistency, please. http://en.wikipedia.org/Fetal_rights If it's NPOV to say that "fetal rights is a term..." then to be NPOV here we also must say that "reproductive rights is a term..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.237.225 (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- That a person has reproductive rights is well established in law. So called "fetal rights", where they exist, protect a woman and her fetus... they are not rights granted to a person. I.e. It's a term. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- "Reproductive rights" is a rhetorical device, and a recent addition to the legal vocabulary. The term wasn't even INVENTED until after the death of Margaret Sanger, for crying out loud! How can it be "well established" in law if it wasn't even invented until the 1970's, and has been hotly contested ever since? And as to the personhood of the fetus, I see no consistently applied set of criteria that one could use to grant personhood to infants and the mentally handicapped without granting personhood to a fetus. If the concept of fetal rights is valid (which it may well be, and it may well not be), then the fetus is, in fact, a person. The point is that the debate over fetal rights and reproductive rights (unlike, say, the rights to life, liberty, and property of those already born) is not yet over, and no universal consensus has yet been established. Therefore, neither fetal rights nor reproductive rights should be treated as true rights by an encyclopedia... yet. I say that for the time being, the most reasonable thing to do with this as yet undecided issue would be to say that "reproductive rights is a term..." just like "fetal rights is a term..." I also say that we should wait several decades before rewording the definition in either article to "______ rights are rights that..." because anyone with a lick of sense can see that this debate will last well into the twenty-first century, and quite probably well into the twenty-second as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.237.225 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have yet to see a reliable source, Black's Law Dictionary for example, that lists reproductive rights as a "rhetorical device". The OED has a definition for reproductive rights: "n. orig. U.S. the rights of women as individuals to control and make decisions relating to reproduction, esp. with regard to contraception and abortion." "Fetal rights" is absent from both. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with those who have objected to the euphemistic, biased language of the title and of the article. I find it outrageously POV. "Reproductive rights" is a loaded political term that implies that abortion is some kind of basic human right. This itself, as everyone knows, is hotly contested! Some say that on the contrary, abortion is the ultimate violation of human rights, as one thereby murders an unborn child! The same goes for contraception: Some say universal access to it is good, because they believe that promiscuity is okay. Others, who think that promiscuity is not okay, opposing essentially encouraging it by making contraception available to one and all. The POV wording in this article essentially brands opponents of abortion on demand and contraception on demand as "violators of basic human rights" on a par with those who deprive people of food and water! What nonsense! I tried to somewhat improve the article, but I have been repeatedly reverted. Could others please comment here so consensus can be reached. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- Since the sources that discuss the topic use this term for their cold, clinical analysis, there's not really a better term to use as the title. An analogy would be the term economic rights - many would "hotly contest" the notion that a company should be able to, say, park revenue in offshore tax havens; but since laws vary greatly between countries, this is an option available to them and any analysis of comparative economics discusses this as an ability or a "right." Similarly, even if you do not agree that reproductive health services (which, by the way, encompass more than just contraception and abortion) should be available to all who want them, it's still the case that the most dispassionate way to describe varying levels of access to them is the term "reproductive rights." Some countries or sub-national regions grant more than others, and this page is an attempt to describe that. If Misplaced Pages were trying to advocate for their expansion, this page would be called something like "Sexual civil liberties and freedoms." ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with those who have objected to the euphemistic, biased language of the title and of the article. I find it outrageously POV. "Reproductive rights" is a loaded political term that implies that abortion is some kind of basic human right. This itself, as everyone knows, is hotly contested! Some say that on the contrary, abortion is the ultimate violation of human rights, as one thereby murders an unborn child! The same goes for contraception: Some say universal access to it is good, because they believe that promiscuity is okay. Others, who think that promiscuity is not okay, opposing essentially encouraging it by making contraception available to one and all. The POV wording in this article essentially brands opponents of abortion on demand and contraception on demand as "violators of basic human rights" on a par with those who deprive people of food and water! What nonsense! I tried to somewhat improve the article, but I have been repeatedly reverted. Could others please comment here so consensus can be reached. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have yet to see a reliable source, Black's Law Dictionary for example, that lists reproductive rights as a "rhetorical device". The OED has a definition for reproductive rights: "n. orig. U.S. the rights of women as individuals to control and make decisions relating to reproduction, esp. with regard to contraception and abortion." "Fetal rights" is absent from both. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- "Reproductive rights" is a rhetorical device, and a recent addition to the legal vocabulary. The term wasn't even INVENTED until after the death of Margaret Sanger, for crying out loud! How can it be "well established" in law if it wasn't even invented until the 1970's, and has been hotly contested ever since? And as to the personhood of the fetus, I see no consistently applied set of criteria that one could use to grant personhood to infants and the mentally handicapped without granting personhood to a fetus. If the concept of fetal rights is valid (which it may well be, and it may well not be), then the fetus is, in fact, a person. The point is that the debate over fetal rights and reproductive rights (unlike, say, the rights to life, liberty, and property of those already born) is not yet over, and no universal consensus has yet been established. Therefore, neither fetal rights nor reproductive rights should be treated as true rights by an encyclopedia... yet. I say that for the time being, the most reasonable thing to do with this as yet undecided issue would be to say that "reproductive rights is a term..." just like "fetal rights is a term..." I also say that we should wait several decades before rewording the definition in either article to "______ rights are rights that..." because anyone with a lick of sense can see that this debate will last well into the twenty-first century, and quite probably well into the twenty-second as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.237.225 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Youth Access/Rights
I am considering adding a section for youth reproductive rights, particularly access to birth control through the legal system. We are doing Misplaced Pages edits through at class at the university level, so I am really new to Misplaced Pages. Would it be appropriate to add a section for youth rights, including subsections for rights in different countries? More research needs to be done on my end before contributing anything to the page (there is nothing in my sandbox yet), but I wanted to get feedback on my ideas. At the moment, there is nothing in the existing article about youth access to contraception or abortion services and these vary greatly across countries, from developing nations to developed nations. Youth is an important demographic to look at when discussing reproductive rights because minors can be treated differently under the law than adults and may have less access to contraceptive services due to economic and legal reasons. These rights vary greatly across the world and are definitely worth looking into. Thoughts? Is this topic something that belongs on this page? Court caitlin (talk) 01:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Court caitlin (talk • contribs) 04:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Clearly there's a lot of unexamined information out there that needs adding to this article. Youth access to reproductive health services, and its costs (both economic and social), vary greatly even within countries. I would say go for it, and any number of editors, myself included, will be happy to give feedback. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 03:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Feedback
Great additions Court caitlin! I'm reviewing this article as the online ambassador for Global Youth Studies (Spring 2013). I think there is potential for the 'Youth rights and access' section to be split off to another article at some point. Overall I think the emphasis placed on reproductive health should be shifted to an emphasis on legalities; a stronger connection needs to be made between the reproductive health statistics and the legal environment for minors. I'll make some specific observations below.
- Do you have page numbers for the Knudson 2006 references?
- I think that it is important that everything in the youth section is directly relevant to reproductive rights. The primary definition of reproductive rights refers to legal rights and freedoms. The section on youth rights should directly address the legality of abortion for youth, the legality of accessing birth control and reproductive healthcare for youth, the right to education, and freedom from coercive processes such as sterilization and FGM. The new section does a great job on the right to education, but is weaker in the other areas.
- I see that you've structured the subsections 'Rates of contraceptive use and common contraception', 'Youth knowledge and sex education', and 'Consequences of reproductive health problems'. While rates of contraceptive use can be indicative of the success of sex education, they are not in themselves directly under the umbrella of 'reproductive rights'. As a reader, I'm looking for information on whether or not birth control is legal for minors and whether parental consent is a factor.
- It would be good to have a lead paragraph at the beginning of the section that addresses the youth reproductive rights landscape and the overall trends and common issues that are shared across the world.
- Africa: Rather than saying that youth sex education in Uganda is 'low', maybe it could be worded to say that it is uncommon or not comprehensive or that rates of adoption of sex education curriculum are low.
- Sweden: It says that there is a high rate of emergency contraception in Sweden, where it is presumably legal for minors to access it. Is it also legal throughout Europe?
- Female genital mutilation isn't mentioned, but this is a reproductive rights topic that directly affects girls and young women in many countries.
Youth rights are an important part of reproductive rights and I was surprised that this article previously made little mention of them. Thank you for taking on such a difficult and controversial topic. Gobōnobō 18:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
From an anonymous editor:
I made a minor change to the youth section, as I felt it was somewhat biased.
1) Not all health workers who decline to provide services to youth do so because they believe that youth sexual activity is unacceptable. Some of them do so because they believe treating a youth without knowledge and consent from a parent or guardian is unacceptable.
2) I find the assertion that all people have a right to medical services to be inflammatory, and changed the wording from stating that the youth are denied their rights to say that they are denied access. I could go into a long rant on why I don't believe healthcare is a right, but let's just agree to disagree on that. Suffice to say, I believe the edits I made present a less biased perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.97.51.249 (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
New contributor looking for advice on creating a new article looking to link back to this article
Hello all, I am required to contribute to Wiki for my class Gender and Economics in the Third World and have been designated to work on El Salvador. I am working on an article to be called Reproductive rights in El Salvador. I am looking at covering topics including things like history, abortion, sexual violence/crime, legal and/or religious issues, education, activism, prenatal care and other issues surrounding pregnancy. Other than the Wiki article creation links and basic available information; Does anyone have any suggestions on the best way to structure an article? What about content? Is there something within this topic I should focus on more than another? For example, if you were reading an article, called Reproductive rights in El Salvador, what would you like and/or expect to see? What advice can you offer to a first time contributor? Thank you all for your time. TINGLED1 (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Based on what I have seen, I was thinking of something like this: Contents 1 History – A short overview of El Salvador and significant events that changed reproductive laws, rights, and policies 2 Human rights – El Salvador’s stance on world policies and a look at their own laws – like their stance on the Programme of Action of the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development, etc. 3 Women's rights – El Salvador’s stance on world policies for women and a look at their own laws – like prenatal care, family planning education, birth control access 4 Men's rights – El Salvador’s stance on world policies for men and a look at their own laws – things like family planning education, access to condoms and spermicides, sperm donation 5 Youth rights and access – Education – Sexual education policies – What information, if any, do children receive and at what age? Contraceptive policies and availability 6 Gender equality and violence against women – What forms of gender-based violence are happening? – Rape 7 STD’s/STI’s/HIV/AIDS – Practices, polices, education, prevention 8 Issues
8.1 Family rights, laws, and polices 8.2 Abortion rights, laws, and policies 8.3 Religious beliefs and issues
9 See also The Center for Reproductive Rights, Human sexuality, Planned Parenthood, Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition, Roe v. Wade, Reproductive rights 10 References - I don't want to spam up this page by listing them all here but I do have a lot of them. 11 External links - Again, I have plenty but don't want to spam this up by listing them all here.
TINGLED1 (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, your plan for the construction of the article is fine. It's important that you use very new sources, because El Salvador (like many other Latin American countries) has made major advances in regard to legislation on violence against women during the last few years.
- Here are links to the 2011 law on violence against women/domestic violence: , — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:509F:FFFF:0:0:50C:9108 (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. TINGLED1 (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Empty citation
The citation labelled links to the WHO's reproductive rights page, and implies that the text contained here is pulled from a WHO source. While this may be the case, the cited link does not connect to a document relevant to the passage or support the claims made. Clicking on the citation simply dumps you at the WHO's front page on reproductive rights. I'm not clear on what to do with an irrelevant or non-supporting citation like this. Should it simply be removed? I'd like to have some feedback before modifying a page about an issue as sensitive as this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njzinck (talk • contribs) 22:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Gender Equality
Hey, just observing that it's apparently unpopular for me to be adding information about men's reproductive rights in the introduction, where my only intention is to strive for a little balance - women's reproductive rights are afforded a full paragraph in the introduction, after all. It appears that my edits are being reverted by people with non-neutral agendas who wish to promote a gender-neutral article towards a sexist purpose. 115.64.159.41 (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- As noted in both the edit/revert summaries and your talk page, the removed additions are statements/views that were unreferenced. They appear to be original reasearch or personal opinion.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Reproductive rights. 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/20090726150133/http://www.who.int//reproductive-health/gender/index.html to http://who.int/reproductive-health/gender/index.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304122237/http://www.yogyakartaprinciples.org/principles_en_about.htm to http://www.yogyakartaprinciples.org/principles_en_about.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515111556/http://www.ishr.ch/archive-general-assembly/933-majority-of-ga-third-committee-unable-to-accept-report-on-the-human-right-to-sexual-education to http://www.ishr.ch/archive-general-assembly/933-majority-of-ga-third-committee-unable-to-accept-report-on-the-human-right-to-sexual-education
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304093634/https://www.oas.org/es/mesecvi/docs/CSW-SideEvent2014-Flyer-EN.pdf to https://www.oas.org/es/mesecvi/docs/CSW-SideEvent2014-Flyer-EN.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160708000957/https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168046031c to https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168046031c
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080120140923/http://www.amnestyusa.org/Stop_Violence_Against_Women_SVAW/Reproductive_Rights/page.do?id=1108242&n1=3&n2=39&n3=1101 to http://www.amnestyusa.org/Stop_Violence_Against_Women_SVAW/Reproductive_Rights/page.do?id=1108242&n1=3&n2=39&n3=1101
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150319014005/http://www.utexas.edu/cola/orgs/txpep/_files/pdf/Grossman%2CWhite%2CHopkins%2CPotter-PublicHealthThreatofAnti-abortionLegislation-Contraception-2014.pdf to http://www.utexas.edu/cola/orgs/txpep/_files/pdf/Grossman%2CWhite%2CHopkins%2CPotter-PublicHealthThreatofAnti-abortionLegislation-Contraception-2014.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150305060244/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/14/supreme-court-texas_n_5986244.html to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/14/supreme-court-texas_n_5986244.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100113104553/http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/unsafe_abortion/ua_paper/en/index.html to http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/unsafe_abortion/ua_paper/en/index.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170531114057/https://rm.coe.int/168046031c to https://rm.coe.int/168046031c
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140301223751/http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-107364 to http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-107364
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) 10:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Reproductive rights. 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
{{dead link}}
tag to http://populationmatters.org/search_results.php?q=%22reproductive+rights%22 - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120927135721/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/576/53/PDF/N0957653.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/576/53/PDF/N0957653.pdf?OpenElement
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002004052/http://www.amnesty.org/en/human-rights-defenders/issues/challenges/srr-defenders to https://www.amnesty.org/en/human-rights-defenders/issues/challenges/srr-defenders
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304022604/http://aladinrc.wrlc.org/bitstream/handle/1961/15158/Smith,%20Angela%20-%20Spring%202013.pdf?sequence=1 to http://aladinrc.wrlc.org/bitstream/handle/1961/15158/Smith%2c%20Angela%20-%20Spring%202013.pdf?sequence=1
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR27/002/2007/en/71da229c-d39d-11dd-a329-2f46302a8cc6/eur270022007en.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130804230201/http://www.nrlc.org/news/2003/NRL02/pres.html to http://www.nrlc.org/news/2003/NRL02/pres.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060217123302/http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Reproductive_Choice&Template=%2FTaggedPage%2FTaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=23&ContentID=991 to http://www.lwv.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Reproductive_Choice&Template=%2FTaggedPage%2FTaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=23&ContentID=991
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) 21:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Multiple issues
This article isn't neutral, because it includes abortion in its topic with a title that is an expression used only by abortion activists. Aside of this obvious issue, there are other multiple issues with this article which deepen in its lack of neutrality: it focuses too much on abortion, as if it was the main topic and the others were secondary, when abortion is a topic already treated extensively in its own article. Also, the entire article seems written by pro-abortion activists, with almost every statement made by institutions favorable to abortion and birth control and no counterarguments made by oppositors to considering abortion a right. By quoting only those sources, regardless of their relevance internationally, Misplaced Pages is only showing one side of the coin and dismissing the other, which is against neutrality.
Also, racial eugenic abortion is not a "conspiracy theory" as the article states when it's a verifiable fact that 79% of abortion clinics in the US are placed in or near neighborhoods with high percentages of african and latin american people and their pro-abortion ads also concentrate in those neighborhoods. It's significant that african americans have 31% of the total abortions in the US when they only represent 13% of the total population of the country. Furthermore, the very same Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, defended this policy stating that is was a tool to prevent the "forming and reproducing of a race of degenerate people" (in reference to non-white and disabled people).--37.133.216.10 (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
References
- http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/16/79-of-planned-parenthood-abortion-clinics-target-blacks-hispanics
- We already have an abortion debate article. LifeNews appears to not be a reliable source (WP:RS). —PaleoNeonate – 08:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
To maintain a NPOV the scientifically accurate "post-reproductive" should be used rather than "reproductive right" to describe abortion.
To maintain an objective scientific NPOV, given that medically speaking abortion is a procedure that occurs after biological reproduction has taken place, abortion should be described as post-reproductive on the page, while mentioning that it is labeled as a "reproductive right" due to being closely associated with other rights that are reproductive rather than post-reproductive. Without this clarification it would generate confusion around the term "reproductive" which would be easily understood as either editorializing or constituting of the Orwellian-type political language, both of which we want to avoid to maintain Misplaced Pages's neutrality.Jfraatz (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages operates according to verifiability in reliable sources. Neutrality is about neutrally summarizing what reliable sources say. The content you changed starts with "Women's reproductive rights may include some or all of the following" and there are plenty of sources backing up its inclusion as such. Could you highlight the sources on which you're basing your arguments? — Rhododendrites \\ 21:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Go down to "when does life begin" on this genetics education site and it explains that life is reproduced during the process of fertilization: https://lagenetica.info/en/life/origin-of-life/ I believe an science education site should be a sufficient source.
- As far as the scientific literature goes there is the following:“Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”
- And then from a med school textbook: “Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”
- And again from the National Institutes of Health: “Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.”
- Any of these are scholarly and could be used. Perhaps the science education one you could dispute as being a science education site rather than a scholarly source, but the other three still work. Jfraatz (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- ^ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221715537_Kinases_phosphatases_and_proteases_during_sperm_capacitation
- Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.
- Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013). National Institutes of Health, Medline Plus Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary (2013).
- These sources are useful for the biological process of reproduction. They are not useful for describing the social and political ramifications of reproduction, which is what this article is about. Preceding the language you want to change is this very clear description of what the article is about (citations omitted):
- Reproductive rights are legal rights and freedoms relating to reproduction and reproductive health that vary amongst countries around the world. The World Health Organization defines reproductive rights as follows:
- These sources are useful for the biological process of reproduction. They are not useful for describing the social and political ramifications of reproduction, which is what this article is about. Preceding the language you want to change is this very clear description of what the article is about (citations omitted):
- Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.
- What you would need to come back with to support your desired change is a list of reliable, and reputable, sources saying that when reproductive rights are under discussion, it's only a technical contingency that it happens to include abortion. And those sources frankly don't exist. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 14:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Requesting copy edit help
Hi,
In draft namespace I created a new article relating to one of well known feminist Category:Catchphrases namely Draft:My body my choice (Feminism) to be included in category Category:Feminist terminology. It is far from complete and needs proactive copy edit support to include related remaining aspects.
Suggestions about suitable references are welcome on Draft talk:My body my choice (Feminism)
Thanks in advance. Warm regards
Bookku (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Reproductive Rights in Islam
Hi! In the issues section (14) of this article, there is a subsection about the Roman Catholic Church (14.8) but nothing on other religions. I am planning on focusing on what other religions have to say about the topic, mostly about what Islam says, how it is interpreted and how it affects women in Muslim majority countries. I am still learning how Misplaced Pages works so let me know if you have any advice. --VickiPattyWerf (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Requesting some help
Hi,
Recently initiated a new Draft:Sexual politics and looking for proactive help in updating and expanding the article. Please do see if contributing to Draft:Sexual politics would interest you.
Thanks and regards
Bookku (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Legislation on human reproduction
I made the article "Legislation on human reproduction and just implemented a redirect to here. I do think that it needs to be worked out as an own article though. Perhaps some wikipedians are interested in working it out ?
It seems important because the Reproductive rights article doesn't cover it. It does not discuss the exact laws that are put in place per country on this. --Genetics4good (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- You created a redirect, not an article. At the moment, I don't have thoughts any thoughts on creating an article for that topic. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Not all governmental interventions against high fertility rates are universally regarded as 'abuse' / Policies affecting only certain ethnicities are not eugenic bust racist.
While I agree that forcing people no have children is abuse, I changed the word state abuse to state intervention, because abuse suggests 'universally regarded as morally wrong' when actually attempts of lowering the fertility rate, like China did, could be morally supported by avoidance of famines. Not enforcing birth policies might lead to weak result. Also, the policies that targeted minorities, no matter their abilities, are better described as racist than eugenic.
Eugenic = good genes, is in theory affecting all people willing to have children. If policies affect ethnic minorities exclusively, they are not really eugenic but just racist.
Claim that vast majority of the population does not know the law
In the section Lack of knowledge about rights (content added in the edit of 20 November 2017), it is claimed that one of the reasons that reproductive rights are poor is that "the vast majority of the population does not know what the law is". This is followed by several examples of specific countries and facts about the limitations on knowledge of specific reproductive rights by specific segments. (As a counterpoint, in the U.S. as of April 2023, the issue is not about knowing what the reproductive rights are, but rather that the reproductive rights have in fact been restricted.)
In any case, while lack of knowledge may be a contributing factor for reproductive rights being poor, I don't think "vast majority" of the population is justified based on the citations provided. Fabrickator (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Categories:- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Misplaced Pages level-5 vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences
- C-Class Gender studies articles
- Mid-importance Gender studies articles
- WikiProject Gender studies articles
- C-Class medicine articles
- Low-importance medicine articles
- C-Class reproductive medicine articles
- Low-importance reproductive medicine articles
- Reproductive medicine task force articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- C-Class Human rights articles
- Top-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- C-Class International development articles
- High-importance International development articles
- WikiProject International development articles
- C-Class women's health articles
- Low-importance women's health articles
- WikiProject Women's Health articles
- C-Class Abortion articles
- Low-importance Abortion articles
- WikiProject Abortion articles