Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:58, 3 January 2008

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gender studies This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Human rights This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Suggestions for expansion

Per international aspects of reproductive rights:

• Some reference to the Mexico City policy
• 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)

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

• reproductive rights as they relate to general health
• reproductive rights and feminism, Anne Fausto-Sterling and Angela Y. Davis 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? Phyesalis 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? Phyesalis 20:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

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. Phyesalis (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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 Abortion debate 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. Phyesalis (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2007 (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. Blackworm (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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.

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.Phyesalis (talk) 04:07, 8 December 2007 (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 undue weight 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 product of reproduction) -- 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 deja vu. 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 abortion opponents." 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 WP:NPOV. 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-neutral point of view) regarding reproductive rights. To omit them from this article seems to violate policy.

Your deletion of certain "See Also" links (to Bioethics, Procreative beneficence, and Reprogenetics) 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 WP:V. Unfortunately, you must justify new additions, however, such as Women's movement. Remember also that Men's movement may also be appropriate (WP:NPOV).

I have several questions. First, forgive me, but why did you appear to pounce on this edit in particular, when the entire article is unsourced 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 WP:MOSDAB issues, if any; its lead section including the definition 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. Blackworm (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have restored your addition of Women's Movement 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 points of view. 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. Blackworm (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2007 (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.

• 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 Reproductive rights#Reproductive rights as a men's issue - 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. Phyesalis (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2007 (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.

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 WP:V and WP:NPOV].

Your assertions as to what reproductive rights are, are irrelevant. Blackworm (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Phyesalis (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2007 (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 WP:NPOV. Please quote directly the sections of your sources that you believe validate the article material, then attribute the material to the sources, per WP:RS. Blackworm (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Phyesalis (talk) 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 WP:LEAD)? 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. Blackworm (talk) 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 Abortion debate. 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 WP:OR/WP:SYN. Phyesalis (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Phyesalis (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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 WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Blackworm (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Phyesalis (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Continued incivility and inappropriate article content

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 WP:V: "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." WP:NPOV. 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."WP:NPOV Blackworm (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2007 (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. Phyesalis (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the page 4 times (not 5) in a 24 hour period. I agree this violates WP:3RR, 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:

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 WP:OR. Blackworm (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2007 (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.

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. Phyesalis (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Blackworm (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"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. Phyesalis (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Blackworm (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

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.

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? Phyesalis (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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 reliable sources. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

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? Phyesalis (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2007 (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. Phyesalis (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight re men's versus women's rights

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. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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? Phyesalis (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2007 (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 WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Blackworm (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Phyesalis: If you can phrase your objection while adhering to WP:NPOV and WP:V, I invite you to do so; but your assertions regarding what reproductive rights "are," "actually," are irrelevant. Blackworm (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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 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.) Phyesalis (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If the assertions are from specific agencies of the UN, then let's say so. Let's also allow room for other significant viewpoints.

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 WP:RS 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 WP:NPOV. Blackworm (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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 Talk:Reproductive rights#Criticism 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.

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."

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. Phyesalis (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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 original research, it may simply be removed until someone willing and able to properly summarize the source steps forward. Blackworm (talk) 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 WP:RS 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. Blackworm (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Phyesalis (talk) 07:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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 WP:NPOV. 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.

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.

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 WP:V.

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.

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. Blackworm (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Phyesalis (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2007 (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 WP:NOR, the onus is on you to show that the source supports the article material. Blackworm (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

LGBT Reproductive Rights?

I see no mention of lesbian struggles to insure that they have access to reproductive technology 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.

Calibanu (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Calibanu

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. Phyesalis (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There's also no mention of male castrati having the basic human right of free reproductive technology -- this also needs to be addressed. Blackworm (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Farinelli 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. Phyesalis (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What the "attribution needed" tag means

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."

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.

You write that (all unattributed "facts"):

• Reproductive rights are a subset of human rights
• Reproductive rights includes the right to abortion

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. Blackworm (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• 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 CEDAW 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. Phyesalis (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Blackworm (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. Get a source. Or attribute it yourself. Phyesalis (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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 WP:BRD 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? Phyesalis (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. 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. Blackworm (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2007 (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? Phyesalis (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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 original research. Blackworm (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2007 (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." Phyesalis (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2007 (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. Blackworm (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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 WP:BRD, with emphasis on the (D)iscussion. Phyesalis (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2007 (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 Misplaced Pages's "no original research" policy. 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. Blackworm (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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.-Andrew c  00:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I would rather see it protected, even in what I consider the "wrong" version, than allow original research to remain and grow in this article. Perhaps page protection would draw attention to this article; attention it desperately needs to be made verified, free of original research, and neutral. As of now, it fails miserably in all three aspects. Blackworm (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Phyesalis (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2007 (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 WP:NPOV and WP:V. Impasse. If you have other suggested edits, I invite you to present them. Blackworm (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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".

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. Phyesalis (talk) 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 WP:NPOV, 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 WP:NPOV, other than dealing with undue weight 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." (WP:BOLD.) 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." (WP:BOLD.)

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" (WP:BOLD.) Blackworm (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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 AI or the UN 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." --Coppertwig (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Re this edit 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. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Phyesalis (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You haven't added anything that hasn't been responded to. Blackworm (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained to you, Phyesalis, that "reproductive rights are human rights" is not a fact, but an opinion. 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 WP:NPOV. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand that in your opinion, Phyesalis, it's a verifiable 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. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The facticity of reproductive rights as human rights passes the duck test. Sources like the UN see number 216 and 223 and WHO Gender and reproductive rights 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 Human Rights Center, UC Berkley. 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? Phyesalis (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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. Phyesalis (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2007 (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 WP:V. 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 WP:NPOV. My objection has nothing to do with whether "human rights are merely an opinion." Blackworm (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology. Thank you. I still don't understand your argument about unattributed facts.

• WP:V 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.
• WP:NPOV 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. Phyesalis (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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 WP:V. 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 WP:V would also be met, and it would also pass WP:NPOV. I view WP:V as a minimum standard, a pre-test. WP:NPOV 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:

"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."
"Fr. Drinan has been a strong supporter of abortion rights "
"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

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 WP:NPOV: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves." (Emph. in original.)

The beauty of Misplaced Pages, when it works according to its ideals, is that all notable views have a place, and the reader is left to form their own opinion. Says WP:NPOV: "Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." Next point.

• One source is quoted above. Next point.
• 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. Gotta run, have to Skype my friend in Australia. I love international discourse, and we agree on a lot of things. Blackworm (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2007 (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. Phyesalis (talk) 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. Phyesalis (talk) 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 WP:NPOV 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 WP:NPOV. Blackworm (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Re this wording: "Reproductive rights have been established as human rights in international human rights documents" in this 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. --Coppertwig (talk) 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? Phyesalis (talk) 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. WP:V 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 WP:V and WP:NOR. 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. --Coppertwig (talk) 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 CEDAW. It says something other to what many people mean by reproductive rights.

Artcle 11
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 CEDAW

Go with attribution it's better from the point of view of fact checking--Cailil 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 edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phyesalis (talk • contribs) 17:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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--Cailil 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.) Phyesalis (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I've dropped a line to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Human rights for input from people involved in human rights articles--Cailil 01:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Phyesalis (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside opinions

The debate surrounds several issues:

• 1. 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?
  2. 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)?
  3. 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?
  4. 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)?
  5. 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. Phyesalis (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Feedback

Phyesalis 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.

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 Misplaced Pages:Lead section 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.

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 undue weight 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.)

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.

I have more to say but I've got to run right now. I'll be back later. Cheers, Pigman☿ 20:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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. Phyesalis (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Pigman, WP:NPOV seems to say that we shouldn't give undue weight 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. Blackworm (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does the name have to change? They're called reproductive rights. Does someone have a suggestion as to what it would be called? Phyesalis (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Blackworm, the reason why I emphasized the international aspects is because the current sources in most of the article focus on groups and events with international scope and reach. The exception is the info on the USA "men's right to choose". Amnesty's statement and the UN sponsored events do not address a single country but attempt to define RR on a broad scale. This doesn't preclude having individual countries' responses and/or approaches to RR in the article. Indeed, I think that would be a good structure.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand the "...we cannot cover a topic in an ethnocentric manner." comment. I'm certainly not advocating an ethnocentric approach. And, no, organizations don't have to be international in scope to be used as sources and I'm not saying that international organizations are more important than others. I'm particularly wary of focusing overmuch on abortion in this article because that, indeed, would seem to be undue weight when RR seems to encompass a wide range of aspects besides abortion.

Blackworm, you said: It may indeed be cited, and in fact may need to be cited in order to present a more neutral point of view. I believe you're labouring under a misunderstanding of NPOV. That is, that all oppositional views need to be represented equally. This is not true. What is required is "...all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)" be represented (emphasis in original). If WP:V and WP:RS can be found that oppose RR in toto or even in general, of course they should be included. However, if the opposition is specifically to abortion and even more specifically from groups in one country, then I think that needs to be noted in a subsection about that particular aspect. From what sources are currently in the article, RR is apparently a global phenomenon. Opposition to it would have to be shown to be significant and international as well to have proportional representation in the article. I can understand your mistake about NPOV; news organizations in particular these days have a tendency to present two views as equal when there is actually a enormous imbalance between support/opposition viewpoints. But an encyclopedia should attempt to parse out the significance and ratio of differing views. Just because an opposition viewpoint exists, this does not mean it needs to be given equal prominence or space.

I haven't looked carefully at the back history for sources that may have been deleted but I don't see any significant WP:RS so far presenting a counterpoint position to information currently in the article. I noted this one was apparently used at one point: http://www.prolife.com/ABORMETH.html but it doesn't remotely pass muster as a WP:V or RS. Cheers, Pigman☿ 05:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to "structure" the article in such a way to give international sources more weight, especially since the international sources downplay or dilute mention of abortion, the thing most commonly associated with the phrase "reproductive rights" and clearly its most controversial aspect:

• Abortion: At the core of reproductive rights is the principle that a woman has the right to decide whether and when to have a child. When faced with an unwanted pregnancy, only she can decide whether she will carry the pregnancy to term. Governments are bound to respect this basic human right by ensuring that women have access to the full range of quality reproductive health services, including abortion. -

• Abortion-related charges as a means of controlling women's sexuality - In some areas where termination of pregnancy is illegal, marginalized women are sometimes charged with abortion-related offenses as a means of controlling them. Amnesty International condemned these violations of civil rights and noted that international human rights documents which state that women should not be imprisoned for seeking to terminate their pregnancy. -

There seems to be an ongoing attempt to present abortion as a universally-recognized "reproductive right," and in turn as a "human right," seemingly as part of advocacy of legal abortion. This article must not engage in that advocacy. It is not "undue weight" to discuss abortion's characterization as a "reproductive right" since it is clearly RR's most controversial aspect.

I have no misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. There has been no opposing view to the NCM material presented. There may be other discussions of "reproductive rights" that do not include discussion of the rights sought by that group, but that does not change the notability or relevance of this material.

I do not know what specific "information currently in the article" you are referring to in your last paragraph. Blackworm (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point about universally-recognized "reproductive right," and in turn as a "human right,". This wasn't clear to me. You read the phrase "reproductive rights" as almost entirely concerned with pushing abortion as a "human right" whereas I view the phrase as encompassing a broad range of things (contraception, STD and cancer screening, pre-natal care, sex education, etc.) of which abortion is but one aspect. A highly controversial aspect to be sure but not the sole or even the central motivation of RR advocates in my view.

Unfortunately, I suspect that if you want that information and viewpoint presented as a counterpoint, you may have to find reliable sources to do so. The onus is not entirely on those who have shaped the current contents of the article to completely provide for all aspects of balance within the article. Without sources, just inserting the rationale you provided above amounts to OR. The sources in the article on the UN conf. seem solid to me. You can contest the Amnesty source over on Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard but I doubt you'll get much support. AI is a fairly respectable organization with an international reputation and their reports generally get favorable press. It can't just be dismissed.

Re: the NCM material: I don't have a strong opinion on keeping it or not. The independent sources (Salon.com and Time) both indicate the case was filed but I didn't see anything about the outcome. The importance of the case seems limited although I think it's worth including as an unusual and different perspective on RR and it obviously has good WP:V sources. Cheers, Pigman☿ 08:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

RR as men's rights

Would anyone care to discuss the deletion of the cited material in this section? What part was "blatantly sexist"? If editors are going to remove cited material, would they please discuss reasons on for the removal on Talk? I'm going to reinstate the material. Perhaps someone could reword it or give some contextualization? Phyesalis (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the NCM "men's abortion rights" material is part of the current dispute. Moving the explicitly US material on abortion up into the the broader int'l section is counterproductive. In an effort to achieve some kind of productive environment, I'm going to ask Blackworm to revert his edits of the disputed material. Please? Hopefully we can agree to leave the contested material alone until this dispute can be resolved. Phyesalis (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The sexist paragraph implies the logical impossibility that heterosexual men are somehow more responsible for the spread of STD among children and heterosexual women than the women are. It reads like a radical feminist pamphlet bashing men for loose sexual mores, preaching and criticizing along the way. The edit is unacceptable, violated WP:NPOV most blatantly and heinously, and is to be removed on sight. Imagine if someone attempted to add this to the article:

Women's reproductive health status and behavior are critical factors in maintaining standards of men's and children's health. Women who have unsafe sex outside of monogamous relationships can become infected and transmit that infection to their partners. Sexually transmitted pathogens can increase the chance of developing cancer. Most cancers of the penis, anus, vagina, cervix and vulva are now believed to be caused by the human papilloma virus (HPV). The main method for women's prevention of STDs, viral and bacterial, is the latex female condom.

You will not successfully argue that the above is not sexist, because it is; similarly, it is sexist when "men" and "women" and "male" and "female" are reversed -- regardless of who said it or what reasons they had for saying it. If you wish to use this source, you must attribute this (sexist) opinion at the very least, and I would also strongly suggest posting a web link to the source and/or a supporting quote to ensure the author is really as sexist as this text implies.

You have been opposing the NCM paragraph since its inclusion weeks ago, but you have no grounds to oppose it. Also, I've noticed you've been making multiple personal requests to editors you have had contact with in the past to comment on this dispute. I believe you should be aware of WP:CANVAS should you choose to continue in this avenue. Blackworm (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I have grounds to oppose the NCM material because:

• I'm still unsure how it relates to sexual and reproductive health.
• I oppose the US specific info being in a section that has an international context.
• Regardless of the single mention in Time of the lawsuit, it's fringe. As RR are predominantly women's issues, I find this to be included on a basis of undue weight.

I discussed some of the issues with Cailil, he suggested I ask Pigman for an outside opinion. I did. What are you suggesting?

I'm having a hard time AGF when material that is under dispute is repeatedly reverted during the course of the dispute in such a fashion that makes no effort to compromise or move the dispute forward. Phyesalis (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As I have already said, your uncertainty on the material relating to health is irrelevant, since the topic is reproductive rights, not reproductive health. The information documents a group's claim of reproductive rights and a corresponding legal case; the fact it is from the US is irrelevant. It is a view not to be marginalized or suppressed due to its not being "international," for reasons I state above in my response to Pigman. As for the material being "fringe," that seems to be your opinion, as is the opinion that "RR are predominantly women's issues," which seems to be based on your opinion that "women are the ones who do 99% of the biological reproduction." I do not share these opinions, and in fact am offended by their expression, because I believe they are sexist statements.

I am suggesting that you read WP:CANVAS if you have not already done so. Now, are you stating that you have only contacted two editors to comment on disputes you have had with me on this topic, or have you contacted others you have not mentioned as well? The answer is not clear from your response. Blackworm (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to suppress NCM, I was willing to afford the WP process and you a bit of respect and leave it in there during the course of the dispute. I was at least ok with leaving it in a US section, but you've moved it to the international section - this I am not ok with. If you suspect me of canvasing, please take up on my talk page. Phyesalis (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no "international section" in this article. You have no basis to oppose the material.

I note you haven't disputed the fact that the paragraph I deleted is sexist. Please do me the courtesy of either engaging me in that particular discussion, or self-reverting the sexist paragraph I removed and you restored.

I will take the fact you will not directly answer my question regarding the true number of individuals you have contacted regarding this dispute, as evidence you do not wish to discuss that subject. I am not interested in any discussion involving you on either of our User pages. Blackworm (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not answering directly because this isn't the appropriate place for this discussion. If you have an issue, I have invited you to discuss it on my talk page. Do I understand you correctly? You have refused my invitation and feel that the article talk page is a more appropriate place for this discussion?

Regarding your assertion of sexism, I'm not removing the cited material. I don't understand your logic in the substitution of women for men. If you can find a reliable source that states the same thing about women, I invite you to include it in the article. Also, I would suggest (again) that instead of deleting cited material (which if repeated over a prolonged period of time looks like vandalism), you first make some kind of attempt to fix the problem. Fixing issues of purported POV is generally the WP norm as this is much more constructive than deleting material. Perhaps you could explain why you think the statement is sexist in greater detail? Would anyone else like to jump in and opine on the alleged "sexism" of the contested info (above)? Phyesalis (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am done discussing your multiple solicitations of outside opinions to specific individuals for the moment, since you will not directly answer my question. The answer is relevant to this page because you appear to imply on this page that you have only contacted two editors (one, at the suggestion of the other) and have not contacted any other editors to comment on this dispute. I believe this apparent implication may be false, and would rather you clarify in case you did not imply what I inferred.

You say, "I don't understand your logic in the substitution of women for men." That is a real pity. There is no room for asserting someone's sexist opinion as unattributed fact in Misplaced Pages. Again, I am willing to flatly assert that you do not understand policy in this area: Material violating policy may be deleted. It is not my responsibility or any other editor's to make violating material conform to policy rather than simply deleting it, which I will do in this case should the sexist paragraph remain as-is (in violation of policy). Blackworm (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Gender studies articles
• Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• Unassessed Human rights articles
• Unknown-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles