Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abortion/Archive 1

message: The first thing that jumps off that category list is that the pro-choice and pro-life categories are structured somewhat differently.  Is that ok, or needing to be addressed? -GTBacchus(talk) 04:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For uniformity, the "politician," "activist," and "organization" subcategories should nest within a main "abortion rights" or "pro-choice movement" category, as they do in pro-life. -Severa  (!!!) 04:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should those two categories be named :Category:Pro-life movement and :Category:Pro-choice movement, to be quite balanced about it?  After all, if we call pro-life "abortion rights opposition", someone will ask us to call pro-choice "fetal rights opposition". -GTBacchus(talk) 05:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts exactly. But is there some way to easily move both categories? -Severa  (!!!) 05:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it might involve dealing with CfD - maybe we should prepare a list of category changes we can't do without them, and take them all at once?  Actually, creating the pro-choice one isn't a problem, but renaming the pro-life one should be renamed by the book I think, after we make the pro-choice one.  Are there any other category renames or deletions we're looking at? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Y'know - on second thought, we can probably do it all without having to mess around with CfD for renames unless someone says something. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quickly moved everything to :Category:Pro-life movement and :Category:Pro-choice movement. All we'd have to do, now, is CfD the empty categories, :Category: Abortion rights and :Category:Abortion rights opposition. I'll look to see if there are any other category names which might present NPOV issues. -Severa  (!!!) 06:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work.  I'd say this project is a roaring success, so far! -GTBacchus(talk) 06:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I just edit conflicted with you posting about that very category. I guess we should create a new one consistent with the Canadian one and delete the old? I can start the CfD for these three empty categories, no problem. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles moved from United States abortion rights case law to United States abortion case law.  I may give it a day before taking that empty category to CfD, just in case...  It shouldn't bother anyone, making the names consistent, but you never know. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was doing it as you were doing it, actually. Strange. :-) -Severa  (!!!) 06:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 20#Category:Abortion rights opposition. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Political asymmetry

message: I say, yes, give the boot to quinine, at least on the Category Tree. Its place within the spectrum of abortion-related articles is noted by its inclusion in the "abortifacient" sub-category. -Severa  (!!!) 04:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the big politician categories aren't really part of the project either, but we might as well keep links and counts around. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quinine

message: Anyone know how to make a WikiProject talk page tag, as per the ones which appear on the talk pages of articles related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter, etc.? -Severa  (!!!) 06:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Tag is . -Severa  (!!!) 06:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice! -GTBacchus(talk) 06:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Now, how to go about tagging 1,000 pages? -Severa  (!!!) 06:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only about 150 - we don't need to tag those politicians. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: We can also tag pages as we get to them, and allow that others will start, once they see that it's a thing to do. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done tagging everything in the main categories. -Severa  (!!!) 08:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent.  It appears we have just about 184 articles in 15 categories, not counting politicians or pictures. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk page tag

message: Do you think it would be a good idea to alert regular editors at Abortion and related articles to the existence of this Project, and also to invite them to participate, by placing notices on article and user talk pages? -Severa  (!!!) 06:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Article talk pages, yes.  User talk pages, I'd hesitate to plug much.  A few wouldn't go amiss, especially if we're careful to invite people of varying POVs without showing any bias.  If we give people any excuse to claim the project's biased though, you know they will.  I think a few, carefully chosen notices will draw people in at a good rate - not too many all at once, but everyone who should be here, before too long.  Was that vague enough? -GTBacchus(talk) 06:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That tag you just made, applied to the talk pages, is probably all the advertising you'll need. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, actually, I didn't even know I could make one until ten minutes ago, so I suppose I was anticipating a back-up method of getting the word out. The tag will definitely be sufficient notice. -Severa  (!!!) 06:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User invitation drive

message: Might I suggest Religion and abortion for our first improvement drive? -Severa  (!!!) 06:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So that's Miss June, huh?  Well, she's on my watchlist. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, BTW. :-) -Severa  (!!!) 08:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement drive 

message: Ok, I've learned an important lesson.  When you want to delete a category, unless you're prepared to speedy it in the dark, don't depopulate it or assume that it will be uncontroversial, no matter how trivial the issues at hand, until you take it to CfD by the book.  Anyone who's done 100 CfDs knows when it's permissible to break this rule, and should go ahead.  The rest of us haven't done 100 CfDs yet... 
Thus, I'm going to re-populate :Category:United States abortion rights case law, take it to CfD by the book, and then move those articles back into :Category:United States abortion case law.  Then we'll avoid being accused of any French phrases, and everything should be smoother. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 21#Category:United States abortion rights case law to Category:United States abortion case law. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, there's bureaucracy, if ever I saw it. Thanks for taking the initiative in this matter. -Severa  (!!!) 06:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a problem.  I was judging by AfDs, which I have done 100 of, and have enough intuition about to Ignore All Rules.  Turns out CfD is different. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CfD|CfD]] 

message: Should we make it a common goal to successfully nominate one of the articles in WikiProject Abortion as a featured article? Abortion is a likely candidate, but Abortion debate and History of abortion also show promise (but, then again, I'm biased toward the latter, as I've made it something of a pet project). Maybe we should create "Long-term" and "Short-term" divisions on the main "Task list" section. Any thoughts? -Severa  (!!!) 13:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. I haven't read all the way through any of those in a couple months though, so I couldn't say at this point which would be better. I started working on Abortion debate a while ago, and thought it was going in the right direction, but I have noticed that more recently you've been doing a lot of work on History of abortion, so maybe that one would be better to start of with. romarin [talk ] 15:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and added this as a long-term goal on the Task list. Perhaps we should start small, with a good article or two, before we strive to make a featured article? Yeah, I'm probably being overambitious, but it would nice if at least one of the main abortion-related articles (abortion, abortion law, history of abortion, and abortion debate) could be certified as a good article and another as a featured article. -Severa  (!!!) 16:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the tumultuous history of those articles (especially abortion), it'd be great to see them recognized as stable, complete, and brilliantly written.  Great idea. --BCSWowbagger 20:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FA Goal?

message: :Category:Charitable organizations in support of abortion is inherently problematic and has been nominated for deletion. I'm removing it from the Category Tree as such. -Severa  (!!!) 22:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another CfD

message: Hi all, I just came across this userbox: Template:User_abortion, and I find the use of a near-term pregnant woman as the image pretty POV. What does a woman about to give birth have to do with the abortion debate? Is this something we should try to fix, or am I the only one bothered by it? romarin [talk ] 20:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say so. It should be replaced with something a little more topical. However, in my experience, userboxes are the one place on Wikipedia where NPOV doesn't apply. Perhaps a second one should be created to give users a more neutral option? -Severa  (!!!) 12:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree, except I think that the point of this particular userbox, saying "this user is interested in..." rather than "this user is pro-choice/pro-life" is to be neutral itself. If we had another one with the same text but a different picture, everyone would break into camps, using either box A or box B, just as they would with pro-choice/pro-life userboxes. If this box is actually supposed to be neutral, then it should be so all the way, and I think that means changing the picture. romarin [talk ] 13:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason not to have more than one neutral, "This user is interested in..." userbox for this topic. You could pick a different image, color scheme, etc. to make the selection more diverse. Almost 70 users are already using  in its current state, and not a one has in the past ever objected to any aspect of it, so some might object to a complete reworking of the template to something as dramatically different as , though I personally have no strong opinion one way or another on the matter, as I am not using the template myself. I see no potential downsides at all to simply adding another template with a different image or layout to accomodate anyone who objects to the current template, though; it has no possibility to trouble any of the current template-users, and will give anyone in the future who doesn't like the current one another option. We've done the same thing for several other popular user-templates. -Silence 16:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a reason not to have multiple neutral boxes either; the problem is I just don't think this one is neutral. Sure, maybe no one has said anything so far, but most people are not sensitive to the intricacies of abortion debate-related media and the subtle implications an image can have. Different pictures mean different things to different people, and some are bound to be bothered by something that others find acceptable. That's why I originally posted here, because I wasn't sure if I was the only one bothered by it. I would still be very interested to hear more opinions. At any rate, the few boxes I saw on userpages were all substed, so they would not be affected if someone changed the image. romarin [talk ] 16:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, would be interested in hearing more opinions on the matter, to find out if others share your concerns. Incidentally, you are mistaken in saying that there are few non-substed uses of this template; there are numerous. Also, interested users should note the related discussion here. -Silence 17:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said that few userboxes were not substed, I only said that the few I saw were. I have no idea about the rest. Sorry if this was unclear. romarin [talk ] 17:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV userbox 

message: Hi all, there's a bit of a disagreement going on over at the Reproductive rights page, and in trying to avoid a full-blown edit war, I am requesting that some others take a look. The issue, as you will see on the talk page is over the definition of the pro-choice position, and whether it is about more than just abortion. There also seems to be the issue of whether the pro-life position is completely excluded from a discourse of reproductive rights. Thanks for helping, romarin [talk ] 21:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need some more opinions at [[Reproductive rights]] 

message: Hi, I've been helping (hopefully) to build this article, after nominating it for AfD. I am seeking input, as to how the article could be expanded, or how remaining issues might be resolved. Specifically, I desire to seek a consensus on whether the article should be merged to Fetal protection, or vice versa. I believe that the article should be merged to Fetal protection, not the other way around, but would like to invite your opinions here first. -Severa  (!!!) 03:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking input at [[Fetal rights]] 

message: RoyBoy has begun a peer review of the article Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis if you would be interested in participating. -Severa  (!!!) 03:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis/archive1]] 

message: Would it be appropriate to create an infobox to be used in articles throughout WikiProject Abortion. If so, how should it be organized, and what articles should be included within it? Also, are there any official processes which must be seen to first, as we wouldn't want a repeat of the stub debacle? -Severa  (!!!) 14:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From my experience with the BC infobox creation I recall this: Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed. However, I'm not sure if an infobox is exactly what we need for this project.  I think a navigational box, similar to :Category:Religion navigational boxes or :Category:Science navigational boxes, with a format of either a side bar at the top of the articles, or something that stretches the length of the page at the bottom of the articles. We could start listing the categories and most important topics we'd need in a navigational box here if we want.--Andrew c 21:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I now see that there is a difference between a navigation box and an infobox. I intended to propose the creation of the former and thus I've change the title of this section to avoid confusion. I think that our potential navbox should be based upon the project's category tree: it should list abortion methods, under a "medical" topics heading, and then list the three major abortion sub-articles, history of abortion, abortion law, and abortion debate. I would prefer a side-aligned bar at the top of the page, for easy navigation and prominent visibility, but that would prove obtrusive should it have to compete for space with an image at the top of the space. So, I suppose, a length-wise box at the bottom of the page would be preferrable. -Severa  (!!!) 01:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think abortion related articles are image heavy. And if we come across a page that is, we can always use a table to stack the image above the navbox (like we do at Jesus). So I don't think having a vertical box is that problematic. I'll see if I can't throw together a rough draft later tonight or tomorrow.--Andrew c 02:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, here is my sandbox: User:Andrew c/abortion. It seems like there are too many long titles for the vertical template to work. Anyway, its a rough draft. Anyone feel free to edit the sandbox at will. --Andrew c 15:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to amend that issue in the vertical template by shortening the titles down to their essentials. Hope it worked. -Severa  (!!!) 23:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking pretty good. Do you think it's up to snuff, or does it need more work? -Severa  (!!!) 00:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should there be a few more articles on case law, at least from the U.S., which has had an awful lot of it?  Or will the subcategory on U.S. Abortion Case Law do the trick as-is? --BCSWowbagger 04:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean for more articles on U.S. abortion case law to be included in the navbox? If so, space is limited and we want to avoid any national centrism, so only three major cases are included. Or are you suggesting that there have been more abortion-related cases in the U.S. than are currently listed in :Category:United States abortion case law? If so, we could make it a future project goal to create articles for those cases which currently aren't represented. -Severa  (!!!) 14:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to the navbox.  And I see your point now.  --BCSWowbagger 00:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Navigation box?

message: :Ok, here is my sandbox: User:Andrew c/abortion. It seems like there are too many long titles for the vertical template to work. Anyway, its a rough draft. Anyone feel free to edit the sandbox at will. --Andrew c 15:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to amend that issue in the vertical template by shortening the titles down to their essentials. Hope it worked. -Severa  (!!!) 23:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking pretty good. Do you think it's up to snuff, or does it need more work? -Severa  (!!!) 00:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should there be a few more articles on case law, at least from the U.S., which has had an awful lot of it?  Or will the subcategory on U.S. Abortion Case Law do the trick as-is? --BCSWowbagger 04:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean for more articles on U.S. abortion case law to be included in the navbox? If so, space is limited and we want to avoid any national centrism, so only three major cases are included. Or are you suggesting that there have been more abortion-related cases in the U.S. than are currently listed in :Category:United States abortion case law? If so, we could make it a future project goal to create articles for those cases which currently aren't represented. -Severa  (!!!) 14:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to the navbox.  And I see your point now.  --BCSWowbagger 00:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of hierarchy

message: User:ChristinaDunigan created Saline abortion yesterday. I found the content to be copied almost verbatim from a pro-life essay hosted here: http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa063000a.htm. I removed the problematic content, as such, rewrote, sourced, and moved the article to Instillation abortion. ChristinaDunigan claims to be the author of said piece, and, thus, that it does not violate any copyright. She recreated the Saline abortion article. However, I believe it to be redundant, as "Instillation abortion"  is the technical term I have encountered in all the academic sources which I consulted. "Saline abortion," in a Google search, returns only advocacy sites. Aside from the larger issue of offering no functioning sources, the tone of her version is editorialistic, which I believe to be unencyclopaedic:
*"But the Japanese physicians kept news of the trouble among themselves -- until Western nations discovered instillation abortions and embraced them with great enthusiasm."
*"After Roe vs. Wade was handed down, saline and other instillation abortions spread to other areas of the country, despite the dismal goings-on in New York and California."
*"Two Japanese doctors, Takashi Wagatsuma and Yukio Manabe, broke the silence." 
*"For whatever reasons, physicians in the United States were deaf to these warnings."
Further input in this matter would be appreciated. -Severa  (!!!) 00:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the article is rather interesting. However, it is not particularly encylcopedic, somewhat redundant, and the tone's not quite NPOV, so your decision seems right.  Most of the interesting facts could possibly be written into Instillation abortion as a history-of-method section. --BCSWowbagger 04:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was a little hasty in my decision. However, given the fact that methods of instillation abortion are not limited in the use of saline as a solution, it was difficult to rationalize such a fork. Also, many facts remained unsourced, or were sourced from an article on the web site of the article's creator (thus OR). Any facts not currently included on Instillation abortion definitely warrant independent verification. It does strike me as odd to devote so much attention to an outmoded, uncommon method, when the articles for more common ones are neglected. However, it has been a longstanding goal of mine to research the development of modern methods for History of abortion, so any research would have benefits for that article and those in :Category:Forms of abortion. -Severa  (!!!) 14:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Instillation abortion]] vs. [[Saline abortion]]