"

Edit that Sparked Controversy

There is no consensus for a reverted edit that I made in this article (hereafter the “reverted edit”).  Therefore, I have not changed this article unilaterally back to my previous version, because that would be against consensus.

This reverted edit was reverted by KillerChihuahua (KC) who not only disagreed with it, but also said (in her edit summary) that the edit was disruptive.  I disagree with KC that the edit should have been reverted, for reasons already explained above.  I also disagree with KC that this edit was disruptive, and I will now fully and carefully explain why, for the record. This edit that KC reverted was clearly not redundant to any previous edits made anywhere else at Wikipedia, and thus this edit was not made by me in bad faith as part of any disruptive “edit war”.

This discussion of RCOG’s position on “choice” started at the article on fetal pain, and I moved it here for valid reasons.  At the fetal pain article, KC wrote: ""Please provide a source that this government institution is 'pro-choice' - abortion is legal in the UK, and that the official govt. chartered college are to make that safe is NOT pro choice.""   I therefore investigated and learned that RCOG is not a government institution, that most of their members live outside the UK, that its governing documents do not specifically limit its activities, that many of its members do not have medical degrees, et cetera.  So, I concluded that the best place to deal with all of this would be here at the article on the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.  Here at the RCOG article, I added quite a bit of info,    in addition to RCOG’s abortion stance. When I was at the fetal pain article and decided to move to this RCOG article, I repeatedly said so in the fetal pain discussion.   I did not sneak over here to try to avoid objections at the fetal pain article.

KC has elsewhere cited five diffs that she says prove this controversial edit was virtually the same as several contested assertions I had made previously. Here are KC’s five diffs: (1) in the fetal pain article, (2) in the fetal pain article, (3) in this RCOG article, (4) in this RCOG article, and (5) in this RCOG article.

None of these five previous edits cited by KC is the same (or virtually the same) as the reverted edit that sparked this controversy.  Both KC’s diff (1) and diff (2) show where I inserted a cite to support another editor’s assertion that RCOG is a “pro-choice group”.  KC pointed out very clearly at the fetal pain article that she did not think RCOG was a “pro-choice group” even though she thought RCOG could have a “pro-choice position” on particular issues:

There is no uncertainty or ambiguity that KC argued RCOG may have a pro-choice