Talk:Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act/Archive 1

message: I think we can agree that the very title of this page goes against the NPOV policy.  "Reproductive terms" is a buzzword used almost exclusively by those who favor legal abortion.  Therefore, I have changed this page into a redirect to a far less POV title, "South Dakota abortion law controversy".
:That's aboslute anti-choice nonsense, and I thoroughly resent your not signing that comment and arbitrarily making that change.  Make a proposal on the talk page next time. Struct 04:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Title 

message: My comments moved to South Dakota reproductive rights controversy.
Struct 18:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reproductive Rights Controversy (from South Dakota page) 

message: Please note - the discussion at the top of this page, occurring over the last two days, will also be considered in determining if the page move has consensus.
South Dakota reproductive rights controversy → South Dakota H.B. 1215 controversy … Please vote and discuss here.
*Oppose move as proposed target is not the most common name. Might support some other proposal. Jonathunder 14:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, take a look at the discussion already happening closer to the top of this page. You'll find the compromise solution that everybody else has agreed to already. CovenantD 15:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply disagree this is a good name for the article, as it is one that is far from commonly used. Jonathunder 15:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you READ the proposed compromise? It incorporates the "commonly used" phrases in redirect pages. That way the pro-lifers and and the pro-choice people get to use the wording they prefer. I doubt that the two side will agree to anything even remotely seen as biased, which is the claim with the current title. CovenantD 15:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read this entire page, yes, and I disagree that the proposed title comports with Wikipedia naming guidelines and policies. Please do not attack the intellegence or good faith of other editors--it's hardly a way to win them to your point of view. Do not move this page until the requested moves voting process concludes. Jonathunder 20:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: However, no one other than South Dakota policy wonks is going to refer to this debate by a bill number. Wikipedia policy is to name articles under the most common names actually used in English. Jonathunder 22:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are referring to WP:NAME, that policy gives several things we should strive for.  The "most common name" is not the only consideration.  We also have other official policies, which are even more important than WP:NAME.  In the case of a POV title, WP:NPOV is more important. Johntex\talk 22:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the present name is far from optimal. I'm sure we can find one which is both NPOV and non-obscure. This present proposal isn't it. Jonathunder 22:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jonothunder seems to have a problem that the discussion started before he arrived and there were already votes cast at the top of this page. He created this heading and has refused any attempt to bring the two sections together. I've tried to integrate them into this section but they have been reverted. He also removed content that had I added, including a timeline and comments. I urge everybody to scroll up to the top of this and read the section - Proposals - Title change - to get the full course of discussion. In summary, we had agreed the best course would be to rename the page to the less-than-spectacular SD H.B. 1215 controversy with redirects from both SD abortion law controversy and SD reproductive rights controversy, thus hopefully satisfying every viewpoint on the spectrum. CovenantD 22:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem as though consensus was reached above, though it was a smallish number of editors and discussion "ended" so recently that the move has not even taken place yet.  I'm OK with the consensus reached above.  If there is only the one new objection here in this section, then Jonathunder is not enough to undoe the consensus.  We don't need to consolidate the two sections, the consensus remains the same.  Johntex\talk 23:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was only today listed on WP:RM, which is what brought me here. Please let that run its course. We have several people saying such an obscure name is not optimal, and I think the eyes of editors the requested move listing will bring in will help improve the suggestion. Jonathunder 23:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh by all means, we have to go through the 5 day process.  I did not mean otherwise - sorry if my post was unclear.  What I meant was, if we get no other objections.  We may well gets lots of other objections, lots of other supports, lots of new ideas, etc. Johntex\talk 23:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The article already had been moved, but Jonothunder moved it back. That was in one of the talk page comments that he reverted. I wasn't aware of the five day process until after an admin had already approved the move, it happened, and then it was moved back. I, wrongly it appears, assumed that when the admin had declared consensus reached that we had ended the process and that the move could happen. Now I know better. By all means, continue the vote, and I'm very please to see that ALL votes will be counted. CovenantD 23:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Covenent.  What you (and the admin) did was not really wrong.  Policy does say that unopposed moves can be made without posting for 5 days.  However, it is clear that this move has generated some opposition, even if it ends up being just 1 or 2 people.  The safest thing is to let the discussion play out for the 5 days and see what other opinions surface, if anyone changes their opinion. Johntex\talk 19:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the five days are over -- at least based on the listing at WP:RM -- but if you want to continue the discussion, feel free to do so. As it stands now, I'd close as a no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 06:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed page move 

message: ::Um, take a look at the discussion already happening closer to the top of this page. You'll find the compromise solution that everybody else has agreed to already. CovenantD 15:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply disagree this is a good name for the article, as it is one that is far from commonly used. Jonathunder 15:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you READ the proposed compromise? It incorporates the "commonly used" phrases in redirect pages. That way the pro-lifers and and the pro-choice people get to use the wording they prefer. I doubt that the two side will agree to anything even remotely seen as biased, which is the claim with the current title. CovenantD 15:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read this entire page, yes, and I disagree that the proposed title comports with Wikipedia naming guidelines and policies. Please do not attack the intellegence or good faith of other editors--it's hardly a way to win them to your point of view. Do not move this page until the requested moves voting process concludes. Jonathunder 20:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: However, no one other than South Dakota policy wonks is going to refer to this debate by a bill number. Wikipedia policy is to name articles under the most common names actually used in English. Jonathunder 22:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are referring to WP:NAME, that policy gives several things we should strive for.  The "most common name" is not the only consideration.  We also have other official policies, which are even more important than WP:NAME.  In the case of a POV title, WP:NPOV is more important. Johntex\talk 22:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the present name is far from optimal. I'm sure we can find one which is both NPOV and non-obscure. This present proposal isn't it. Jonathunder 22:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jonothunder seems to have a problem that the discussion started before he arrived and there were already votes cast at the top of this page. He created this heading and has refused any attempt to bring the two sections together. I've tried to integrate them into this section but they have been reverted. He also removed content that had I added, including a timeline and comments. I urge everybody to scroll up to the top of this and read the section - Proposals - Title change - to get the full course of discussion. In summary, we had agreed the best course would be to rename the page to the less-than-spectacular SD H.B. 1215 controversy with redirects from both SD abortion law controversy and SD reproductive rights controversy, thus hopefully satisfying every viewpoint on the spectrum. CovenantD 22:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem as though consensus was reached above, though it was a smallish number of editors and discussion "ended" so recently that the move has not even taken place yet.  I'm OK with the consensus reached above.  If there is only the one new objection here in this section, then Jonathunder is not enough to undoe the consensus.  We don't need to consolidate the two sections, the consensus remains the same.  Johntex\talk 23:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was only today listed on WP:RM, which is what brought me here. Please let that run its course. We have several people saying such an obscure name is not optimal, and I think the eyes of editors the requested move listing will bring in will help improve the suggestion. Jonathunder 23:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh by all means, we have to go through the 5 day process.  I did not mean otherwise - sorry if my post was unclear.  What I meant was, if we get no other objections.  We may well gets lots of other objections, lots of other supports, lots of new ideas, etc. Johntex\talk 23:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The article already had been moved, but Jonothunder moved it back. That was in one of the talk page comments that he reverted. I wasn't aware of the five day process until after an admin had already approved the move, it happened, and then it was moved back. I, wrongly it appears, assumed that when the admin had declared consensus reached that we had ended the process and that the move could happen. Now I know better. By all means, continue the vote, and I'm very please to see that ALL votes will be counted. CovenantD 23:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Covenent.  What you (and the admin) did was not really wrong.  Policy does say that unopposed moves can be made without posting for 5 days.  However, it is clear that this move has generated some opposition, even if it ends up being just 1 or 2 people.  The safest thing is to let the discussion play out for the 5 days and see what other opinions surface, if anyone changes their opinion. Johntex\talk 19:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the five days are over -- at least based on the listing at WP:RM -- but if you want to continue the discussion, feel free to do so. As it stands now, I'd close as a no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 06:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I updated the refferendum bit on the page.  It has now been passed and is going on the ballot.  For better or for worse. ch 18:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates 

message: I think most of the readers here, whether supportive of abortion rights or not, can agree that the title of this page uses a blatantly POV term ("reproductive rights").  This is an embarrasment to this site, even if only a small one, and should be changed.  Yet while most of the above thought we should change the title, nobody could agree on what the final title should be.
I'm thinking "South Dakota abortion law controversy".  I do not see anybody's point of view represented in that title, and it is about as succinct and direct as one can be.  I don't understand how it is any less NPOV than "HB 1215 Controversy" or whatsuch, and it is more descriptive.  Anybody agree on a move? --Jakes18 05:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, why not just name the article after the bill? There isn't an article about the bill, so why add "controversy" to the title? (if I were searching for this topic, though, I'd probably type in South Dakota abortion ban). --Andrew c 15:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If all we can agree on is H.B. 1215 Controversy, than let's do that.  I will be satisfied. --Jakes18 19:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "H.B. 1215" is an obscure term which suggests nothing to most readers, and I would strongly oppose titling this article with it, but "South Dakota abortion law" is descriptive, accurate, broadly recognizable, commonly used, and I see no NPOV issue in using it. Jonathunder 03:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move to South Dakota abortion law. —Nightstallion (?) 09:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-Propose Title Change 

message: South Dakota reproductive rights controversy → South Dakota H.B. 1215 controversy
...Rationale: this is the most NPOV name possible for the article … CovenantD 03:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Strongly Support CovenantD 04:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments
*The law covers reproductive rights, which is claimed to be POV, so I don't see how "abortion rights" can be less POV. CovenantD 14:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move: South Dakota H.B. 1215 controversy

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Strongly Support CovenantD 04:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Add any additional comments
*The law covers reproductive rights, which is claimed to be POV, so I don't see how "abortion rights" can be less POV. CovenantD 14:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: # FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: Strongly oppose Voting on the Page Move  to H.B. 1215 wasn't allowed to run it's course. CovenantD 12:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: I propose that, to maintain consistency with the titling conventions employed throughtout :Category:Abortion law, and to avoid confusion with S.D. abortion laws other than HB 1215, the article be moved to "Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act." This is the official name of this legislation according to the text of the Act. -Severa  (!!!) 11:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet Another Retitle Proposal