Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abortion/Archive 3

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Misconduct by Abortionists or Abortion clinics

Where is this topic covered in the Wikiproject Abortion? For example, discussion of abortion clinics or abortionists who fail to follow laws, ethical codes or proper procedures? 84.146.233.113

"By country" categorization

Although it might make sense to retitle Category:Abortion by country to Category:Abortion by region, given the regional subcategories, "...by country" is the naming convention recommended by WP:NCCAT. It also isn't necessary to sort an article into both Category:Abortion by country and one of its subcategories, because, if it's listed in a subcategory of Abortion by country, then it's already listed in Abortion by country. Articles are only listed in two subcategories of Category:Abortion at the same time if two completely different categories apply to the same topic (for example, Richard Starkie in both Category:Abortion in the United Kingdom and Category:Abortion providers, or LifeNews.com in both Category:Pro-life organizations in the United States and Category:Abortion in media). Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 23:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Class categories

Is there an established protocol for the kinds of pages which should be sorted into Category:WikiProject Abortion articles? Can images, categories, and templates be included, or are such categories strictly limited to encyclopedia articles (e.g. Abortion, Pro-life, Planned Parenthood, etc.)? If you look at other WikiProjects, some, such as WikiProject Novels, have "articles" categories which include non-article content, while others do not. Also, should non-article class categories (Template, Category, and Non-article) be sorted as subcategories of Category:Abortion articles by quality, or Category:WikiProject Abortion articles? -Severa (!!!) 04:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Resignment.

This has been a long time coming, but I'm formally leaving WP:Abortion. There just isn't the slightest morsel of time anymore. Even here, while I'm on break, I'm barely able to scratch out enough time to leave a paragraph-long goodbye message. Thanks to everyone in this project; although I've seen eye-to-eye with exactly no one, I respect all of you, and my fondest and strongest memories of Wikipedia are of working on this project. Perhaps someday I shall return. Good luck to the project. --BCSWowbagger 18:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to see you go, but I can completely understand. I very much appreciate having had you onboard for as long as we did, and also everything you've put into this project. Good luck in the future! -Severa (!!!) 23:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style

Should this WikiProject perhaps have its own Manual of Style, as in the case of Manual of Style (Islam-related articles), Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles), or Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)? We could use our own MoS to formally outline conventions in terminology which already have precedent throughout the project, such as "pro-life"/"pro-choice" over "anti-abortion"/"pro-abortion", and so forth. I'm not really sure if there's a formal process to creating a specialized MoS, but, it seems like a good idea. Let me know what you think. -Severa (!!!) 08:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade FAR

Roe v. Wade is up for Feature Article Review. Please feel free to drop by if you would like to comment. Thank you! -Severa (!!!)

Roe v. Wade has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Abortion-related violence

Abortion-related violence has a small dispute, and I do not want it to be just between me and the other editor, so I am asking members of this project to review the dispute and comment either way. For the most part, it involves sourcing and what is verifiable, reliable, and notable (i.e. a college newspaper, and lifesite.net).-Andrew c 15:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Andrew. I tried my hand at addressing some of the issues on Abortion-related violence. Also, I created a noticeboard for use in this project a while back, but it's currently not getting much use. Maybe consider posting your input requests there in the future. :-) -Severa (!!!) 10:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Infobox proposal

User:Severa approached me re developing an infobox for abortion. Following brief discussion on what this might entail on my talk page, I have now added a draft version to Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed at Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox Abortion. Discussion on the proposal should be helpd at Wikipedia talk:List of infoboxes/Proposed/Infobox Abortion.

Obvious point is that this applies only to induced abortions (i.e. deliberate terminations) rather than spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) (e.g. complete miscarriage, incomplete miscariage, threatened miscariage David Ruben ^Talk 03:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Terminology of miscarriage vs. abortion procedures

A definition concern was raised by an anonymous poster whose wife had a D&E to complete a miscarriage. Trying to find more information on how the term is defined, I just became more confused. I'm hoping others can provide more insight to the discussion Talk:Dilation and evacuation#A bit of a problem. Lyrl ^Talk _C 16:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Methods of abortion

Please see Category talk:Methods of abortion for a new proposed organizational hierarchy. Comments would be appreciated. -Severa (!!!) 19:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been going on at way too many pages, IMO. So for those trying to keep up, new proposals have been suggested at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 19#Category:Surgical abortion and Category:Medical abortion. Members' imput would be appreciated.-Andrew c 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Categorization

I've been informed there are "too many articles in general Abortion cat", while I don't think that is remotely the case I could suggest some sub cats. "Abortion in society" or "Abortion debate" category could take 3-4 articles, I'll be bold and do it, moving ABC to that cat as well. But I'd reiterate 17/18 articles in the main cat weren't that many to begin with. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquote

I gather from a brief browse through the Wikiquote Abortion page that it is something of a no man's land. I believe that this page could benefit from a little attention and an even hand. Would anyone be willing to review this page to ensure that the selected quotations are relevant and that it reflects the same standards of notability and neutrality expected here on Wikipedia? -Severa (!!!) 12:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

I recently placed an RFC regarding terminology regarding the organism/child which develops in the womb. The request does not spring from a particular lack of consensus, but from the desire for discussion regarding the basic need to have a single NPOV term which seems to be lacking. Please take a moment to make your suggestions, the discussion is at the Talk:Abortion_debate.—Red Baron 16:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Biography stub?

Does anyone else think that there are now enough articles in Category:Abortion providers, Category:Pro-life activists, Category:Pro-choice activists, and Category:Abortion-related violence to warrant the creation of a biographical stub tag? I am beginning to wonder if "This abortion-related article is a stub" is a bit of an awkward fit when applied to an article about a person. "This biographical article related to abortion is a stub" would seem a more suitable description. -Severa (!!!) 08:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

A WikiProject for pregnancy and childbirth related articles has been proposed. For more information and to express interest, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Pregnancy_and_childbirth. Thanks! --Ginkgo100^talk 23:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROD nominations

• 22 August Leslee Unruh --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

New article alert: Colorado Right to Life

Just wanted to alert members of the project of Colorado Right to Life. At first glace, it seems to be a bit too detailed/verbose for an encyclopedia entry, and of course needs sources. Just wanted to see if anyone wanted to give the article a once over.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, anyone want to look at this diff? Probably could be summed up in a few sentences, if it's notable in the first place.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I overhauled the Colorado Right to Life article and attempted to source most of the information in it. The split between Colorado Right to Life and National Right to Life seems to have produced a fair amount of press coverage. -Severa (!!!) 16:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Converted maps

I've just converted Image:USMinorAbortionLawsMap.png to svg but I couldn't make out what colour D.C. had. If anyone knows can you please drop a line here or on my talk page or on the image talk page. The same goes for Image:USMandatoryWaitingPeriodLaws.png although I haven't converted that one yet. /Lokal_Profil 19:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:USMinorAbortionLawsMap.png fixed. Other map still needs D.C. though. /Lokal_Profil 12:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Same thing goes for D.C.'s colour in Image:USPreAbortionCounsellingLaws.png. /Lokal_Profil 03:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

And image:Map of US feticide laws.png (previously FETICIDEMAP.png) /Lokal_Profil 03:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Student LifeNet

Members of this project may be interested in this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student LifeNet (3rd nomination). --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Needing Sources/References

I would be interested in creating the following articles: Abortion in China, Abortion in Japan, Abortion in Indonesia, Abortion in Singapore, and Abortion in Thailand. However, I need sources/references. If somebody could list some references or sources for me to use for the articles, I would gladly create the articles. Thanks! --Grrrlriot (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate categories

The following categories seem to cover the same thing:

• Category:NA-Class Abortion articles
• Category:NA-Class Abortion pages
• Category:Non-article Abortion pages

For Project-related subcategories, I suggest deleting two of the above categories and forming the following hierarchy:

Category:NA-Class Abortion articles

Category:Category-Class Abortion articles

Category:Disambig-Class Abortion articles

Category:Image-Class Abortion articles

Category:List-Class Abortion articles

Category:Portal-Class Abortion articles

Category:Redirect-Class Abortion articles

Category:Template-Class Abortion articles

-- GregManninLB (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a distinction being made between articles and pages, where the latter would refer to images, templates, categories, etc? If not, then it seems those categories really are redundant. Even if that distinction is being made, surely only two categories would be necessary, unless there's supposed to be a hierarchy where "NA-Class Abortion articles" and "NA-Class Abortion pages both are subcategories of "Non-article Abortion pages". -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Merger of this project

Merging the activities of this project into a task force on reproductive medicine has been suggested. Please comment in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces#Reproductive medicine. Lyrl^Talk _C 21:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The new task force for WikiProject Medicine on reproductive medicine has been created. The task force's page is here and all interested editors are welcome. Please also consider listing this as a related project/task force on your main page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it notable if a contraception charity shared a building with a eugenics charity eighty years ago?

Someone has put a note in at Family Planning Association saying that they shared a headquarters with a eugenics association in the 1930s. Do any of you have an opinion as to whether this is notable? I'd have thought sharing a building was hardly a big deal, and even if it was I think anyone interested in social welfare was interested in eugenics in the 1930s, and it sounds like a way to smear the modern organisation. We don't go around making as much of a deal that the Royal Society started out by talking about alchemy. The Wednesday Island (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Abortion

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles tagged by their banner enter a workflow such as Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, and Peer review (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found at here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features.

The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts".

This is an automated message sent out by Addbot to all wikiprojects per request ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Germany in map

Why is Germany in map not in blue ? Here in Germany abortion is legal on request. I live in Germany and women have the right to have an abortion on request. GLGermann (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Simple English?

Hello there, I know that many editors have an ambivalent standing towards Simple English Wikipedia. With hopefully simpler sentences and easier vocabulary SEWP caters for a possibly wider audience than EnWP. I am leaving a message here because SEWP also has an article on abortion, and I intend to get that article the status of Good Article there (the lesser of the two better-quality article categories). I would therefore invite editors that are interested in working with us to have a look at the article on SEWP. I am sorry if this message turns out to be a little off-topic here. --Eptalon (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#PLOT

Apologies for the notice, but this is being posted to every WikiProject to avoid accusations of systemic bias. Hiding T 13:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

'Pro-death'

Pro-death is not the same as pro-choice, Pro-choice advocates are people who believe in the choice of having an abortion and the choice of having a child. Pro-death advocates, although scarce, are people in support of the death penalty and other means of ending life. The Squicks (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It now gose to Abortion debate. 24.252.84.238 (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under its scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Official Members List

Is there an official members list? If there isn't we should make one. -Words in sanskrit (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not that active of a WikiProject, but we do have Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion/Participants.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

George Tiller: Assassination or Murder?

I'm asking for some input over at the talk page for the Murder of George Tiller article. The article was originally "Murder of George Tiller", but was changed to "Assassination of George Tiller" a few months ago. Recently, a user changed it back to "Murder", which has led to a debate between that user and myself over which title is most appropriate. The two of us have debated the issue at the talk page, but so far we're the only ones to participate in the discussion, so I'd appreciate it if anybody would like to visit there and provide their own feedback. I'd like to establish some sort of consensus one way or the other... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"Mother" vs. "Pregnant woman"

I am one of the people who has made an effort to ensure WP:NPOV by using the term "pregnant woman" when referring to women who are pregnant and may or may not ever become mothers. While there does appear to be a consensus for this, there is also discussion in various venues. Rather than demanding that people bounce around article and editor talk pages to follow the thread of conversation, I'd like to centralize the discussion here, so that we don't have to repeat ourselves.

Briefly, my argument is that "mother" is neither accurate nor neutral, while "pregnant woman" is demonstrably both. As such, WP:NPOV requires us to avoid the former consistently. I recognize that this restriction of neutrality applies to Wikipedia, not to our sources, so we should expect to see "mother" pop up in some direct quotes, but that's not an argument for using it ourselves.

I welcome reasoned discussion regarding this topic, but have little interest in discussing my own personal views, as they are immaterial. CarolineWH (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Insisting that the term mother be expunged in favor of the term "pregnant woman" is decidedly not neutral. Mother is used in conversation, in literature, in religion, in academia, in medicine and by the law. The term mother is used by many pro-choice people, even by our extremely pro-choice President, we do not need to censor its use in order to ensure NPOV. - Schrandit (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

When a woman becomes pregnant, calling her a "pregnant woman" is neutral and uncontroversial. If she carries her pregnancy to term and has a live birth, calling her a "mother" is neutral and uncontroversial. However, using "mother" to refer to pregnant women is neither neutral nor uncontroversial. In fact, we have reliable sources in the medical community that recognize it as biased, so no original research is required by us. All that's required is that we follow WP:NPOV, which means we cannot call pregnant women "mothers". CarolineWH (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

What about a compromise? How about we don't use the word "mother" alone to refer to pregnant women in articles about abortion, but if we are citing sources (such as laws), that speak of common phrases like "health of the mother" or "life of the mother", we allow the use of "mother", as long as it is in that context and used in the source? -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be down, my rule of thumb has always been that when ever a source uses mother we should use mother for that text. - Schrandit (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If we're literally quoting sources, then we have no choice but to use whatever terminology they use, regardless of bias. However, this doesn't apply to paraphrasing. This is, in itself, a motivation for paraphrasing when dealing with a source whose language is biased. CarolineWH (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, when President Obama, a man who as a State Senator voted to table a partial-birth abortion ban, a man who as a presidential candidate won the endorsement of NOW, EMILY's list, and NARAL Pro-Choice America uses the word mother when discussing abortion I am in no way convinced that it is a POV term. When dealing with sources, particularly with religious, medical and legal sources, that use the word "mother" then there is no legitimate reason that we should not as well. Let our sources distinguish between when we should use one and not the other. - Schrandit (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

And if any of them were bound by WP:NPOV, you might have a point. But, as I explained before, no amount of sloppy language use by others justifies the same by us.

For a parallel, consider the standard fallacy in which a young child complains to mommy that their older sibling is allowed to stay up, so it's unfair that they have to go to bed early. While it looks on the surface like a simple plea for equal treatment, the fallacy is that it ignores the reason that children of different ages have different bedtimes.

In the same way, your plea ignores the fact that we are bound by WP:NPOV while all of these people are not. As for motivation, I suggest that people do not always speak precisely or honestly; some have been known to pander to those whose positions they do not support so as to soften the blow and perhaps maintain popularity. CarolineWH (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the editor who initiated this conversation could provide a link for the assertion that there was ever any semblance of consensus on this issue, so that we could inform ourselves as to the previous course of discussion. It would also be nice for those of us who have recently been engaged in the conversation elsewhere to be informed when it is moved to yet another new forum. --Paularblaster (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The way we determine the current existence of a consensus is to look at the articles. For example, in Pro-life, there was a bit of back and forth after this edit, but it resolved itself to the current version, which intentionally avoids applying "mother" to non-mothers. If you survey other abortion-related articles, you'll see the same pattern repeat itself. There have also been a number of discussions, much like the current one, with the same result: the article winds up trimmed of inappropriate "mothers".

Now, if you have some argument for why we should change the consensus, preferably one that has not been refuted soundly and repeatedly, this would be the place to share it. But please understand that, while your thoughts deserve their due consideration, there is no guarantee that they will be convincing.

Finally, nobody has excluded you or anyone else. There's a clear trail of breadcrumbs that anyone can follow. CarolineWH (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No. There currently exists no project-wide consensus. Many abortion related articles used mother (until you changed them) and many still do. - Schrandit (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's be frank here. If it was a matter of my changing a few articles against consensus, then they would have been changed right back. Instead, whenever you tried to, people jumped in to stop you. That's the actual consensus, and you'd like to undermine it.

The problem for you is that you don't have any strong arguments. CarolineWH (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, no project-wide consensus currently exists. Have no fear, if one does not emerge I'll revisit all the pages you initially changed and we do this dance again there. - Schrandit (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Disagreeing with something does not prevent it from existing. The last time you pretended there was no consensus simply because it opposed your view and you went around changing articles, you got reverted again and again, and not just by me. This shows where the consensus rests, and I'm fine with that. CarolineWH (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Our debates were on individual pages, that was not project-wide. - Schrandit (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)Gays are not technically a collection of very happy people, they are homosexuals. The term gay, particularly in issues like gay-marriage is used in the common language, encoded in law and even used by opponents of gay-marriage so we say gay-marriage even though it is technically not gay-marriage. Assault weapons, in the American context, are not actually assault weapons, they are semi-automatic rifles with a magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds and a bayonet lug. The term assault rifle, particularly in issues like gun-control and assault weapons bans, is used in the common language, is encoded in law and even used by proponents of legalized assault weapons so we say assault weapons even though they are not technically assault weapons. Mothers, in the abortion context, may not technically be mothers. The term mother, particularly in the context of issues like health of the mother, life of the mother, wellbeing of the mother is used in the common language, is encoded in law and is even used by the most vigorous proponents of abortion. There is no more a POV issue here than there is with calling homosexual marriage gay-marriage or referring to a law which restricts rifles with a bayonet lug and a magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds an assault rifle. When our sources say mother, we should say mother. - Schrandit (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Our sources are not obligated to be WP:NPOV, but we are, so none of this constitutes a viable argument. Repeating a refuted argument at length and with extra examples does not make it any less refuted. CarolineWH (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Shouting NPOV over and over again without explaining why doesn't make a particularly convincing argument. - Schrandit (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you disagree with my explanation, but disagreement is not an argument, nor does disagreeing with something mean it doesn't exist. I look forward to an unrefuted argument. CarolineWH (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

So again, if reliable sources of opposing points of view and reliable sources of no discernible bias all freely use a term, how do we establish that it is "not NPOV" except by some arbitrary and/or synthetic criteria of our own? You keep asserting that it is not a neutral term, but you have so far signally failed to demonstrate that it is not a neutral term. You have cited one RS that says the term is sometimes abused so should be avoided in diagnostic contexts (while the context of that very text shows that this does not extend to non-diagnostic contexts); but have you considered that if we are to prohibit from wikipedia all terms for which we can cite reliable sources alleging abuse we would find our vocabulary restricted indeed? You cite the OED to say that a woman is not a mother until her child is born, but the same dictionary defines "child" as "The unborn or newly born human being; foetus, infant", and then gives the meaning of "with child" as "pregnant". Will you now say that the OED is careless and/or biased, and our usage has to be purer than the dictionary's? --Paularblaster (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

While you can debate endlessly about how neutral "mother" is when applied to women who are not mothers, this is not a persuasive reason for us to violate WP:NPOV by using it in this inaccurate way. On the other hand, calling pregnant women "pregnant women" is absolutely safe, which is why we should stick to it. In short, you're repeating yourself without adding anything. CarolineWH (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You have failed to convince me (or by the looks of it, any one else) that the word mother is a violation of NPOV. - Schrandit (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any references for their position? Caroline keeps talking about a "neutral" position, but has so far offered nothing but her own opinion. I do understand why using the term mother is unacceptable to a pro-choice advocate, but that is why it can so easily be identified as POV also. What is a fact is that mother is used regularly, if not more commonly, than "pregnant woman" in English today. Attempting to censor its use comes across as highly POV. Where are your references? -^StormRider 22:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Planned parenthood has used the mother 1, 2 and President Obama even used it while defending partial-birth abortion3. I can also dig up where it has been used in conversation, medicine, religion and the law. - Schrandit (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(←) Coming to this cold, I am very puzzled. Is mother a loaded term in this context? I see it used all the time to refer to a pregnant female (human or otherwise), in all sorts of contexts, biological, medical, legal, sociological, popular press, serious journalism ... Where is the evidence that it is considered non-neutral, or that it is avoided, by "pro-choice" people? All I see here is one editor who doesn't like the word used in this context, for reasons that are abundantly unclear. If some evidence could be produced, that would help the debate! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Snalwibma, that's an entirely reasonable question. I think you might want to look at Pro-life#Term_controversy to see our own summary of the issue. Included is a link to a medical article explaining why it's a bad idea to prematurely call women "mothers", showing that this not original research. As for the notion that it's a lone editor, the edit history makes it abundantly clear that this is not the case. I've sampled a few abortion-related articles, and the historical pattern I'm finding are clean-ups followed by slow re-inclusion of the controversial terminology until another clean-up. Most recently, I performed a clean-up and the immediate attempts to reverse it have been stopped due to a quiet consensus. CarolineWH (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Clean-ups...by you. You have changed the text on a few abortion articles over the last month and many of them were uncontested because they are under-watched or were contested by me. Most of them used mother since their inception, unhampered until you came along. I've put out the invite on every abortion related article that I can think of, including all the ones that you and I have squabbled over and none of the contributors who have cared to comment have found your comments particularly persuasive. - Schrandit (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, this version of history does not match the facts. The relevant detail is that you personally contested the most recent clean-up, reverting it across the board, and yet your reversions were themselves contested, and not just by a single person. You then declared that, against all evidence, you had some sort of consensus behind you, which is what sparked this policy discussion. CarolineWH (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted them across the board after you got banned but now that you are back, rather than edit war I'm having it out on this page and incase you didn't notice it appears that their is a fairly solid consensus that sees no need to censor the term "mother" from abortion related articles. - Schrandit (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to be a stickler, but this is not at all accurate. For example, it ignores the role you played in getting me banned for a few weeks on false charges, or the fact that most of your desired changes were reverted in my absence. CarolineWH (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If you read the next heading down you might get some idea (it's a new topic heading that isn't really a new topic). The same claims have been repeated on a number of talkpages now, and whenever they've been replied to they start again somewhere else - I don't know whether it's forum shopping, or some sort of hit-and-run trolling, or a genuine old-fashioned guardian of liberty, but it is certainly getting repetitive. --Paularblaster (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, but it's vital that you get the facts straight, first. Unfortunately, your description is in no way accurate. CarolineWH (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see! Still no evidence produced, though - just assertion. I'll move down there to make my next comment... SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you jumped the gun a bit here, which is funny, since that's exactly what the issue is with the terminology. CarolineWH (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What kind of evidence do you need? The definition of mother is "female parent". Since when does "pregnant" equal "parent"? A simple dictionary will suffice. I don't see what NPOV has to do with it. Anyone who calls a pregnant woman a mother simply doesn't have command of the English language. Kaldari (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question, the issue is not merely that "mother" is imprecise, if not simply inaccurate. It is that this inaccuracy has a political element: it is associated with pro-life rhetoric, in which a woman with a late period is a "mother" and a fertilized egg is a "beautiful unborn baby". :-) CarolineWH (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

To excise the mother from this encyclopedia when it is so widely used by persons and organizations of all stripes would be far more unbalanced. - Schrandit (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please address the topic at hand. Nobody is excising "mother", we are simply avoiding its use when applied to non-mothers, which is as it should be. My own edits have carefully left intact all the cases where the term was used to refer to women who have had live births, as well as all of the direct quotes. CarolineWH (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

So do the laws that permit abortion for the sake of "the health and well-being of the mother" not apply to pregnant women? Or the legislators and their medical advisers have no command of the English language? Or the writers of textbooks on law and medicine, such as this one simply don't know what the correct terminology is in their field of expertise? One of the dictionary definitions of "child" is "foetus" (OED), so if all we need is to consult a dictionary rather than expert sources in the field we write on, we can presumably simply use "child" and "foetus" interchangeably? These are questions that one might consider. --Paularblaster (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

In an interview this week with Relevant, a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain "a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother." oh how I would love to be able to agree with you on that command of the English language bit. - Schrandit (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As explained below, President Obama is not required to follow WP:NPOV, but we are. CarolineWH (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If the term is used by both sides in an argument doesn't that rather undercut your NPOV argument? - Schrandit (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel your repeated calls on Obama feel a bit fallacious (argument from authority), not to mention that Obama, while pro-choice, is hardly the poster boy of the pro-choice movement that some would make him out to be, especially as a politician often has to tread lightly, worry about his approval ratings, and strive towards bi-partisan appearances, walking a middle road. Just thought that I should mention I'm tired of hearing "but look what Obama wrote", and wanted to mention, in a friendly, constructive manner, I don't think that helps your argument.-Andrew c ^[talk] 19:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair point, though I would argue that with the early pro-choice endorsements in the primaries and the President's promise to bring back partial-birth abortion he is as close to a poster boy as the pro-choice political establishment has ever had. With that in mind, I'll try to bring in more pro-choicers who have used the word. Did you see the quotes from the planned parenthood material? - Schrandit (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw them, felt they were relatively weak because they were obscure pages dedicated to local chapters, not necessarily material endorsed by the international parent organization. But with that said, you don't have to convince me. I proposed a compromise above, and I feel it has been established that the use of the mother, in the context of phrases such as "life of the mother", is quite normal and commonplace. Suggesting phrasing such as "life of the pregnant woman" if not found in the source, seems a bit stretched (but I'd also argue that open use of "mother" to generally refer to women considering abortion, outside the context of these common phrases, might be going too far the other way).-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, I appreciate that you're trying hard to compromise here, but my concern is that this compromise would be untenable because it will only lead to the issue being reopened again and again. To make this concrete, please consider this diff. I'm absolutely certain that, if your compromise were accepted, Schrandit and I would disagree over which of these uses of "mother" is acceptable. As a result, this agreement would be unenforceable. CarolineWH (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

After further consideration, I decided I really ought to directly address your example. You mention that "life of the mother" is a phrase we will find in many reliable sources, and I agree. However, "life of the pregnant woman" is not a stretch or PC bowdlerization, but a phrase we can find just as easily [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. As such, under your recommendation, we can pick which term gets used by carefully choosing a source that favors the version we prefer. It's a safe bet that Schrandit and Paul will somehow manage to find only sources with "mother" while I find sources with "pregnant woman". The end result is that your recommendation allows both possibilities, and therefore does nothing to settle matters. CarolineWH (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've yet to see a source used for non-opinion purposes that uses "mother" outside of those contexts so I'm in line with you there. - Schrandit (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The link I just posted in response to Andrew shows many uses of "mother" without an explicit source, so that line of reasoning simply doesn't pan out. CarolineWH (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow. - Schrandit (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what the issue here is. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "mother" as a female parent, "parent" as one who as offspring, and "offspring" as the product of reproduction. The word mother is an English word for a woman who has concieved. Both sides of the abortion debate regularly use the word "mother" to refer to a woman who has concieved. The fact that it does not jibe with one editor's personal viewpoint is no reason to cite one source and ignore the rest of the world. Miriyana (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Communicating

The stereotypical American tourist, when confronted with someone who speaks no English, simply repeats himself more loudly, as if the foreigner is merely hard of hearing. In the same way, whenever we see repetition without change, we can be sure that there is a failure to communicate, which is the sort of thing that is not improved by repetition, no matter how emphatic.

This has clearly happened here, partially because the thread keeps getting moved, but also because people are just talking past each other. In an effort to communicate more clearly, and to bring newcomers up to date, I'm going to try to break this down into small pieces that can be individually disputed and acknowledged.

1. For some things, there are proper terms that, while not unique, have the advantage of being precise, accurate and undeniable. If a term is proper, there can be no sound argument against its use, even by those who might prefer other terms.
2. There are also terms that, while in active use and fully comprehensible, in some way fall short of being proper. For example, they may be ambiguous, euphemistic, overly emotional or simply biased.
3. Some nonproper terms are harmless. Others fall so short that they become controversial; people actively find them offensive for good reason.
4. When the nonproper term is notably controversial, we should always avoid using it here, instead favoring the proper term. (The obvious exceptions are direct quotes and when speaking about the term itself.)
5. Properly, when a woman becomes pregnant, she becomes a "pregnant woman".
6. Properly, when a pregnant woman has a live birth, she becomes a "mother".
7. Of course, it is always possible that a woman was a mother to begin with, but a pregnancy that does not lead to a live birth cannot make her become a mother. This appears to have no bearing on the discussion, so I will acknowledge it and move on.
8. Properly, a pregnant woman who decides not to carry that pregnancy to term does not become a "mother" as a result of that pregnancy, unless someone forces her to carry that pregnancy to term and she has a live birth.
9. Properly, a pregnant woman who intends to carry her pregnancy to term may be called a "mother-to-be", "expectant mother" or other term that speaks of motherhood in the future tense or otherwise qualifies it so that it may be understood as something other than motherhood proper.
10. Nonproperly, a pregnant woman's future state can be referred to as if it were her present state: she can be called a "mother" even when she has not had a live birth. This confusion of the present with the anticipated future is a grammatical fudging or euphemism.
11. As a matter of reliably sourced medical fact, the majority of pregnancies do not end in live birth, so it cannot be said that this euphemism is a neutral generalization that nonjudgementally goes with the odds.
12. This euphemism is generally uncontroversial in the case of a woman who is pregnant and plans to carry that pregnancy to term. It's still not quite accurate, and there's some risk of increased emotional trauma should the pregnancy not result in live birth, so it's not as good as the proper term, but it may well be acceptable in some cases.
13. When applied to a woman who is pregnant but has explictly chosen not to carry that pregnancy to term, this euphemism is controversial and associated with bias. Besides common sense, there are reliable medical sources which state that this preferential usage by those who call themselves pro-life is not merely inaccurate but motivated by a dishonest desire to blur reality.
14. Many reliable sources use nonproper and controversial terms, but they have no obligation to follow the neutral point of view, and quite often make no attempt to do so. Therefore, the fact that a controversial term is used does not permit us to use it, except when reporting what terms are used.
15. A controversial term is rarely controversial universally and in all contexts. This means that the existence of people with a pro-choice view who see nothing odd about calling pregnant women "mothers" merely indicates that they are being imprecise in their language, not that the term is neutral. Consider that there is a term which Mark Fuhrman is infamous for using as a pejorative that is nonetheless used neutrally in some contexts; this doesn't make it any less of an ethnic slur.
16. As it turns out, the three people who have thus far argued here for the use of "mother" by claiming it is neutral are themselves religious conservatives who would call themselves pro-life. They are therefore from the partisan group that is notable for abusing this term. While I AGF, of course, this would suffice to explain why they don't recognize how controversial this usage is, as it is likely commonplace among their fellow churchgoers and activists. It is in some ways akin to Klansmen who see nothing improper with Mr. Fuhrman's vocabulary (but not akin to Klansmen in most other ways, and no insult is intended by the comparison)

My goal here was to try to get all the participants to consider their own backgrounds and how it might affect their viewpoints. It has become abundantly clear that this has misfired, leading only to some people taking offense and feeling insulted. I apologize for my error and wish to express regret at any hurt feelings that I have unintentionally caused. CarolineWH (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

1. For the reasons stated above, none of which have been successfully disputed, we ought to avoid applying the term term "mother" in the context where it is controversial: a pregnant woman who does not necessarily intend to carry her pregnancy to term. We should use it sparingly, when direct quotes force us to or when the term itself is under discussion, but avoid it otherwise. We may even wish to choose to paraphrase or substitute with square brackets, as appropriate.

If you wish to dispute any of these points, or argue that the conclusion does not follow, you are free to do so. However, merely disagreeing with or ignoring any of these points amounts to walking away from this discussion and therefore becoming irrelevant to the consensus. I've thrown down the gauntlet. CarolineWH (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"whenever we see repetition without change, we can be sure that there is a failure to communicate, which is the sort of thing that is not improved by repetition, no matter how emphatic."

"As such, WP:NPOV requires us to avoid the former consistently." CarolineWH (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"we follow WP:NPOV, which means we cannot call pregnant women "mothers"." CarolineWH (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"we are bound by WP:NPOV" CarolineWH (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"Our sources are not obligated to be WP:NPOV, but we are" CarolineWH (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

" this is not a persuasive reason for us to violate WP:NPOV" CarolineWH (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That being said -

1. We use less than proper terms all the time - gay-marriage, for instance.

11. I can has sources?

13. This term is used by people like planned parenthood and President Obama to refer to women who are about to have abortions, it really isn't that big a deal.

16. Christians are people too, making analogies comparing Christian contributers to klansmen isn't going to win you anything. Christians are prefactly capable of appreciating a good argument, you just havn't made a particularly good one. - Schrandit (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out how I was forced to repeat myself again and again. I'm glad I took the opportunity to break the cycle by laying out these points here.

1. And thank you again, this time for bringing up "gay marriage". If you type that into Wikipedia, you get redirected to "same-sex marriage", which is the Proper Term. The article helpfully mentions that same-sex marriage is also called gay marriage, and then goes on to explain why this usage is considered improper by such reliable sources as the AP. In other words, this is a fine example of how to handle nonproper terms: we acknowledge their existence but do not ourselves use them. For additional food for thought, consider the fact that there are almost certainly more gays in traditional marriages than same-sex ones, particularly if you count bisexuals.

11. This.

13. Not a single one of them is obligated to follow WP:NPOV, so what is a small deal for them is a big deal for us. If you disagree, justify this disagreement. By analogy, repeating that your older brother is allowed to stay up late is unconvincing unless you can explain why you deserve the same treatment as someone who needs less sleep and is more mature.

16. Klansmen are people too, and would tell you that they are good Christians to boot. I'm sorry you dislike my analogy, but I suspect that this just shows that you understood it.

Let me remind you that unsupported conclusions are unconvincing. For example, simply saying that I don't have a good argument in no way supports the claim it makes, so the most charitable reaction is to laugh it off. CarolineWH (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Allow me, Carol, to offer a slight correction. You have not been forced to repeat yourself. You have been asked (repeatedly) to substantiate your assertions, and have instead chosen to repeat yourself (with increasing amplification, much like a stereotypical American tourist). As conversational gambits go, it isn't usually a winning one. While opening with the statement that you "have little interest in discussing my own personal views, as they are immaterial", you are now

1. dragging in what you take other people's personal views to be
2. likening Catholics to Klansmen (which perhaps shows a weak grasp of the history of mutual relations between those two bodies), and the use of the word "mother" (as used, for instance, by Barack Obama) to what I take to be a coy and circumlocutious reference (forgive me if I am mistaken) to the deeply offensive word "nigger". Having initially taken you for a rather over-eager editor with a blindspot about her own POV, I am increasingly finding it difficult to recognize anything but a troll. --Paularblaster (talk) 11:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If you have something to say about the issue, I welcome it. Thank you. CarolineWH (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no axe to grind, or dog in this fight, or whatever the appropriate phrase is - but please, people, calm down and address the issues. The ratio of heat to light is far too high in this discussion. I asked above whether there was any evidence that the "pro-choice" people disliked or avoided the word mother, and CarolineWH kindly provided a link to Pro-life#Term_controversy, which does indeed contain a reference to an article in which the author offers a personal opinion that the word should not be used until a woman has given birth. But that looks like pretty weak evidence to me - basically, just an opinion piece by one writer. What do the organisations concerned with the topic say and do? Can anyone produce any hard facts on this? In the absence of any such, I would conclude that this is a storm in a teacup. If there is an edict that mother is not be used to refer to a pregnant female, then I am left with one further difficulty: When describing something from the point of view of the embryo or fetus, what word do I put after the possessive "its" to refer to the adult female in which the fetus is developing? In a sentence like "The mammalian fetus receives all its nourishment from its mother, via the placenta" - what word should I insert in place of the M-word? Or how about some Shakespeare: "Macduff was from his pregnant woman's womb untimely ripped"? Sorry - but it is a serious question. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out on one of the other talkpages that this conversation has sprawled across, the source being used to enforce this change explicitly states that "The language proposed is not intended to be rigidly adhered to in all situations" (it's about usage in diagnostic settings), and furthermore it was published in a Textbook of Perinatal Medicine in which the editors do not enforce this as a stylistic requirement on the other contributors (presumably since writing textbooks, like writing encyclopedias, is not a diagnostic setting). --Paularblaster (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but has nothing to do with the argument at hand. The medical article is brought in to show that the recognition of "mother" as biased is not original research. You do not seem to be disputing this. CarolineWH (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has suggested that you have any strong bias here, and I appreciate any calm voice at this point, even if it doesn't happen to agree with me at this time. If you get the impression that this issue is confined to the editors currently discussing it here, the fact that Schrandit's edits were reverted even while I was unable to edit should show otherwise.

As for the medical article, it was referenced to show that the issue of bias in using "mother" has been recognized in the medical community, hence it is not our original research. As for your practical question regarding such phrases, it simply hasn't come up, and doesn't seem likely to. If it does, I'm sure we can find clear ways of expressing the facts. The usual way is to qualify "mother". For example, "The mammalian fetus receives all of its nourishment from its biological mother via the placenta". CarolineWH (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that a Shakespeare quote, like any direct quote, would not be affected by this. If we were to paraphrase the Bard, then perhaps it might matter, but I'm not one to try to improve on Shakespeare in the original Klingon. CarolineWH (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As you pointed out, mother is used in everyday conversation as well as in biology. It is also used by religion, academia and byt the law. On top of that Planned parenthood has used the mother 1, 2 and President Obama even used it while defending partial-birth abortion3. - Schrandit (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

And the moment they agree to follow WP:NPOV, this will become significant. Until then, not so much. Unfortunately, you're repeating a refuted point. If you wish to dispute it, you are free to do so, but ignoring an argument that undermines your conclusion leaves you with an unpersuasive viewpoint. CarolineWH (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

And all you are doing is screaming NPOV over and over again, if the abortion debate has a pro-life side and a pro-choice side and both of them say mother whose POV are we indulging in?- Schrandit (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody here is screaming, so please calm down. What's happened is that we have good reason to avoid using a controversial term, but you keep insisting upon it. Coincidentally, this term is associated in one of our sources with bias towards your political view. CarolineWH (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add that, if you are here to discuss the consensus in good faith, it would help if you didn't jump the gun by edit-warring over Christianity and abortion. Thank you. CarolineWH (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

While the discussion isn't over yet and I'm still trying to get more people to comment on it, it has been 3 days and with 5 editors leaning yes and 1 editor leaning no I think the gun has pretty well sounded. - Schrandit (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting viewpoint. It would be more interesting if you were to address the argument. CarolineWH (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

All those involved in this discussion are hereby given notice of the institution of Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:CarolineWH. --Paularblaster (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This goes even further away from any attempt at building a consensus. It seems highly counterproductive. CarolineWH (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just an outside opinion here after seeing this at WQA - Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far only one link has been given in support of changing "mother" to "pregnant woman" whereas multiple links have been given in evidence for not changing the current usage. Evidence is what is needed here; Wikipedia doesn't change words or any other content based on our personal opinions. Regardless of how we feel about the word "mother" and its appropriateness, if its used by the majority of reliable sources, then its used here. Shell ^babelfish 23:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for participating. I can totally see how it might appear that way at first glance, but none of these links establish neutrality, just typical usage. To prove a point, I randomly googled this link, which is from the Republican National Coalition for Life. It's full of language, such as "unborn baby", that is deeply biased and would never be acceptable in Wikipedia due to WP:NPOV, but its talking points have dropped from the lips of Republicans speaking in Congress. And, yes, it consistently and quite intentionally refers to pregnant women as "mothers", just as the medical article suggests (which is to say that this is not WP:OR on my part).

The trouble with "mother" is that, depending on the context, there may be nothing wrong with it. I have absolutely no problem with using it to refer to actual mothers, and have carefully left those lines intact. Once a woman has a live birth, calling her a mother is just plain English, and nobody here has opposed it. The issue, as pointed out by that medical source, is that it can also be used to blur reality to introduce bias. For this reason, I am one of at least half a dozen individual editors who has gone on record against the use of "mother" when speaking of pregnant women. I'm fine with it otherwise, of course.

I realize I haven't communicated as clearly as I might have liked and hope I've made my view understandable here. CarolineWH (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV is not the same as the usual definition of neutrality; this is a common misconception. Instead, NPOV means representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Our opinion of whether or not mother is neutral doesn't count, what does count is the common usage. I sympathize with your point, but one medical article isn't enough to support wide-scale changes in usage. Perhaps just as "unborn child" went out of favor, "mother" will eventually be limited to the context you describe; remember, Wikipedia follows, it doesn't lead. Shell ^babelfish 00:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't wish to suppress these views; I just don't want to tacitly endorse them by casually using biased terms. I assure you that the term "unborn baby" has not gone out of favor, it has simply been recognized as unacceptable in Wikipedia. CarolineWH (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, but that's a pro-life site, isn't it? Its unsurprising that the term would still be in use in particular arenas. Granted, I haven't done any research here recently, so I could be wrong, but it was my impression that "unborn child" was no longer the most commonly used term. Shell ^babelfish 00:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, now if the term unborn-baby were used by both pro-lifers and pro-choicers as well as in common use in our language, religion, schools and laws then I would argue that it was no longer a POV term but it is not. On the other hand, mother is used by both sides in this debate, both pro-lifers and pro-choicers are OK with mother so whose POV would we be endorsing any way? - Schrandit (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't so much whether the usage is common, but whether it's significant. I'm sure we can find cases of Obama using sloppy language by calling pregnant women "mothers", but if we go to a site for any pro-life organization, you can reasonably expect that "mothers" will be used consistently so as to frame the issue favorably to their view. After all, if a pregnant woman is a mother, then even an embryo is a baby, albeit an unborn one, and killing babies is obviously bad. So while lots of people casually speak of pregnant women as mothers, in the pro-life world, there are no pregnant women, just mothers. This disparity in usage is significant, and has been picked up on by the medical establishment as an issue.

I do not in any way wish to substitute original research for reliable sources, I'm just offering insight. For the actual question of whether "mother" has been seen as biased for the sorts of reasons I've gone over, we do have sufficient reliable secondary sources. I'm not claiming we should never use "mother", only that we should use uncontroversial terms when possible, since we do have a choice. After all, we're not politicians who are allowed to pander and ambiguate: we're essentially journalists. CarolineWH (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Because the term "mother" is used so widely by some many people in so many contexts reliable sources is a false canard here. Either viewpoint can undoubtedly find oodles of references to one usage or the other. Citing these will not address the underlying issue, merely shift the Tempest_in_a_teapot from arguing about the word to arguing about the sources. Furthermore, claiming that it is up the opposing viewpoint to prove their viewpoint is counterproductive. I think WP:IAR applies here and posit this question: what harm is there in using the term "pregnant woman"? Gerardw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC). Forgot to include the comment that walking in here cold it strikes me there's a Let_That_Be_Your_Last_Battlefield nature of the discussion here. Has a WP:RFC been attempted? Gerardw (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Censoring the word mother from this encyclopedia is a distortion; it ignores our sources, our language and our laws to deliberately cater to the preferred language of one political viewpoint rather than using the term embraced by both sides of the abortion debate.- Schrandit (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm already on record as saying that this may well end in an RfC. Otherwise, the current pattern is likely to continue, with the primary abortion-related articles carefully avoiding the term while forks involving religion use it exclusively. CarolineWH (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. My own view is that there is no harm in using "pregnant woman", but there is certainly harm in censoring the use of "mother" without better grounds than are being offered. I have to admit to not really getting the Star Trek reference (even after skimming the article linked to). It was bad enough having to try to decode "Fuhrman". Not all of us have speech-patterns so heavily indebted to Los Angeles. :) --Paularblaster (talk) 12:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

To amplify Gerard's point, if we agree that "pregnant woman" is just fine but cannot find any such agreement on "mother", I see this as reason in and of itself to stick to the former. Avoiding controversial terms is not censorship; it is neutrality.

Can you offer us any reason why we should use "mother" when we can use terms that nobody sees any problem with? CarolineWH (talk) 14:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the notion that the censoring of "mother" in favor of "pregnant woman" is "just fine". - Schrandit (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If I call my shirt "teal" instead of "blue," I'm not censoring the use of the word blue, I'm just saying teal is a better fit. Schrandit, do you have an objection to the use of the terms "pregnant woman," or "woman"? Gerardw (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

When our sources, particularly when they are laws or religious writings say "mother", yes, I do. - Schrandit (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If somebody with a rice allergy comes along and said we're only allowed to eat potatoes, would only those with a potato allergy think it was a problem? --Paularblaster (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Just checked the RfC link, though - and that says it's not for discussion of content. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure it is. Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content... I just didn't want to be initiating one if it's been done in the last year or so. Gerardw (talk) 14:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I think an RfC may well be necessary, and not one on conduct, either. CarolineWH (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If you can write out a neutrally worded one I'll be happy to second it. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This feels very much like censorship and a method for promoting a single POV. This consistent use of NPOV to cover personal preference is getting a bit tiresome. I react more to the censorship of terms, excising all use of the term mother, the using the term pregnant woman.

IF someone was writing a new article and used the term, pregnant woman, I would find no issue. However, the same can be said for a using mother. It is clear that both terms are used inter-changeably. If either term is used exclusively, then only one side of the agenda is satisfied.

The problem is when an editor scours articles and excises specific terminology to meet their political agenda while cloaking their actions in NPOV. I reject the claim that mother violates NPOV; that is a canard. Wikipedia does not take a position either way; we are neutral and neutrality demands the use of both terms. Neither word is better than the other and both are acceptable. No editor should be censoring terms and no editor is designated our PC police. -^StormRider 19:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As a point of clarification, my stance is that we should continue to use mother whenever it is strictly accurate, which is to say, when dealing with women who have had live births. We should also continue to use it in direct quotes. I explain this so that it's clear that there is no attempt at a wholesale removal of "mother", only at avoiding its use where it is not strictly accurate or entirely neutral, such as when it's used to describe women who are merely pregnant.

Generally speaking, Wikipedia is "censored" in that it must stick to the neutral point of view. This is not a negotiable policy. CarolineWH (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Mother is routinely used in medical, biological and legal texts to refer to a pregnant female (of any species), and as far as I can see it is an entirely neutral and accurate term in those contexts. Against that we have one wikipedia editor who has decided that it's a loaded term, and who is redefining WP:NPOV to suit. Once more I ask - where is the evidence that there is any substantial perception of a problem with the use of mother in this sense? Regardless of whether an article is directly quoting or simply referring to a source, we should not be amending perfectly standard terminology to suit one person's perception of what is "neutral" and "acceptable". SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 22:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside your conclusions for a moment, are you saying that there are no other editors here who share my concerns about the use of "mother" for pregnant women? Please look around for a moment before answering. CarolineWH (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Caroline is perfectly aware that mother and pregnant woman is used inter-changeably in English. The problem is that she does not like it. Using the terms inter-changeably does not meet her POV and therefore there is a problem....for her and her POV. She wants to censor all other editors and purify the language so that her political agenda can more easily be met. The waving of the flay of neutrality is a canard and does not apply in any degree except that it is precisely what she is ignoring in her ongoing censorship. -^StormRider 22:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Assessing what Caroline is aware and not aware of is not helpful. Additionally your statement the words are interchangeable is not reasonable contention. Many woman are mothers but not called pregnant women.Gerardw (talk) 23:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Storm Rider, as a point of clarification, do you consider it entirely neutral to refer to a woman who has an abortion as soon as she can after she finds out she's pregnant a "mother"? CarolineWH (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur, the term "mother" is accurate outside those strict parameters laid out by Caroline. When our third-party sources say mother, notably in phrases like “life of the mother”, it is appropriate for our text to do so as well. - Schrandit (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

We have third-party sources for all sorts of things that violate WP:NPOV, so how is that relevant? CarolineWH (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

We have third parties that state their opinions in terms that would be considered NPOV. When reliable sources on both sides of a deabate use a single phrase ("gay" in stead of "homosexual" for instance) you can't really accuse it of having a POV. - Schrandit (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that conclusion is supported by the premises. You'll have to explain the connection. While doing so, consider that a number of people do see the term as POV, regardless of who has used it. CarolineWH (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I can make it any simpler. Rest assured, I have considered them. - Schrandit (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I've commented on this issue previously (see here), and I'm going to rehash some of the points I made there, since they haven't necessarily been brought up explicitly in the current conversation.

In my opinion, use of the phrase "pregnant woman" rather than "mother" seems in keeping with Wikipedia's general practice of referring to individuals or groups as they self-identify. For instance, in the context of abortion-related articles, we use "pro-life" instead of "anti-abortion" or "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion." My trouble with the word "mother," specifically in abortion-related articles, is that many women to whom that label would apply have specifically decided that they do not wish to self-identify as mothers. On the other hand, almost any person who considers and/or obtains an abortion would presumably (though perhaps begrudgingly) acknowledge that she is a pregnant woman.

Based in large part on this point, it is preferable in my opinion to use "pregnant woman" instead of "mother" in abortion-related Wikipedia articles. On top of that, it doesn't strike me as an unreasonably unwieldy phrase, and it is not likely to lead to confusion (exceptions like Snalwibma's example notwithstanding). If there are particular instances where use of "pregnant woman" instead of "mother" would be too awkward or confusing, perhaps use of "mother" would be appropriate, but I would hope that this would be the limited exception and not the rule. Tropaeolum majus (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Two thoughts - out of curiosity do we have any sources that say women would rather not be called "mothers"? The other - "mother" is being used in the context of phrases like "life of the mother" and "health of the mother", would you object to it inside phrases like that? - Schrandit (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Your curiosity would be immediately satisfied if you took the time to read the medical article, which does explain why it's offensive to call pregnant women mothers unless we're confident that they do not intent to abort. The remainder of your curiosity would be sated if you scrolled up and read my conversation with Andrew_c, in which I explained why the existence of these idioms is not a good reason to violate NPOV here. If you'll pardon my saying so, it almost seems as if you are responding without first looking to see if your questions have already been answered. CarolineWH (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Caroline, I wasn't asking you, don't try to speak for others. - Schrandit (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Schrandit - I'm still following the discussion, but I'm in the midst of Thanksgiving holiday-related travel and family visits. I can give a real reply when things have quieted down. - Tropaeolum majus (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Schrandit I should not need to point out to you that this is an open forum for discussion on the content of the article. Anyone is entitled to post a comment here on any part of the discussion, You do not have the right to try to exclude any party from making comment in response to anything you post. Your response here is rude and you owe an apology. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter what sources say in this case, it is a question of whether the use of a particular term, no matter how widely used in the literature or in common usage, is likely to cause offence if used in a particular way on Wikipedia. Neither you nor Paularblaster have addressed this point, although it has been pointed out to you several times. The question is whether it is appropriate to use the term mother in articles relating to abortion. Given that this word is clearly likely to cause offence to a significant proportion of those people it is being used to refer to and that there is an alternative term - pregnant woman - that is not likely to cause that offence, I fail to see why you object to the use of this alternative. I hope it is not because causing offence is your aim. I prefer to assume good faith, so I must assume it is because you do not understand the hurt your continued insistence on using the word mother causes in this context that you are holding to this postition. The hurt has been explained to you now, so you cannot expect others to assume good faith on your part if you fail to adequately address why you think it is ok to use a term that in this context will knowingly cause offence to some people. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tropaeolum majus. It is fairly obvious to me that the use of the term "mother" in lieu of "pregnant woman" in the context of a discussion about abortion may well cause offence to some people. Given that the term "pregnant woman" is completely understandable and is actually factually more correct (whatever common usage may be) and does not carry the emotive overtones of the word "mother" which are at least in part the cause of the potential offence, it seems like a no brainer to me that in abortion related articles "pregnant woman" is the neutral term and should be one that we use. There is no loss of meaning by adopting this term, nor is it a clumsy term to use. In truth it seems to me that those advocating the retention of "mother" are in danger of being perceived as engaging in not so subtle POV pushing. - Nick Thorne ^talk 01:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Discounting the now banned Caroline, I see 4 in favor of removing the word "mother" and 6 opposed. - Schrandit (talk) 11:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Count the banned Caroline and add me. Seems that's 6 in favor of not using mother when it doesn't make any sense, and 6 in favor of being nonsensical. And honestly, after reading this whole talk page, you should relax against Caroline. You seem angry. Beam 06:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis

Just wanted to mention the ABC article has had GA status for a while now. Could it be upgraded from B? - RoyBoy 16:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Done and done. - Schrandit (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thx! - RoyBoy 03:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC

User:CarolineWH has repeatedly said that this should go to RfC. I heartily encourage her to draft a neutrally-worded request for comment, which I will be happy to second. In the meantime, it might be best if a pattern of what are clearly not uncontroversial edits should stop. --Paularblaster (talk) 08:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And I heartily encourage you to draft one yourself. In the meantime, it might be best if Caroline continued to grow as good bold Wikipedian. Gerardw (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be absurd to file a content-based RfC when your conduct-based one against me is pending. When it closes, we'll see.

As for editing in the interim, I see no reason to stop. If there is one, I'm sure you can explain it to me clearly. CarolineWH (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one here concerned that the lone source provided for this sweeping change, Lachlan de Crespigny, has shown signs of pro-abortion activism, and in changing the use of terms to favor the abortion industry? Indeed, as de Crespigny himself put it in the previously linked article, "Women considering abortion face what must be one of the most emotive personal issues. Yet it is common to see mother and baby used during pregnancy, including in the press and by professionals." As Wikipedians, this admission itself should be enough to allow use of the word mother, as do we not typically follow the precedent set by the 'press and by professionals'? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

"Pregnant woman" is simply more accurate, and more encyclopedic in tone, than "mother". There is always the possibility of spontaneous abortion/miscarriage. In other words, "mother" is premature, as is "baby"/"child", etc. (Moreover, such premature use of these terms can be insensitive to women with intended pregnancies, i.e. in case they experience a spontaneous abortion).--TyrS (talk) 06:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

We should also beware of not "favoring" the human reproduction industry (by the use of emotive terms like "mother", "baby", etc) over our own imperative to treat all topics in a neutral manner. -- TyrS  chatties  06:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, many wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have Cleanup listings, Cleanup listings is a bot which collects all tagged unreferenced biographies of living people, plus other lists onto one page in your project.

It is very easy to add to your project: simply add a template to a page of your project! Instructions

A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles that your project covers, to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 09:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Abortion Polling Data

I recently created a new section, Pro-life_movement#Polling. It contains extensive info on Gallup polling of abortion that is not truly addressed anywhere else on Wikipedia, although the Societal_attitudes_towards_abortion#North_.26_Central_America page appears to touch on one of the polls briefly. At any rate, Andrew c suggested I keep this in a central location (a good suggestion), and I am considering now adding this into the Societal attitudes page, or else creating a new page on U.S. abortion polling, but am concerned there is no section specifically for U.S. abortion polling there. Plus, given the worldwide emphasis, this valuable information could be easily overlooked, as it would lie further down the page.

At any rate, I'm thinking this might be useful information for the abortion Wiki project, not just for this page but possibly for citation on other abortion-related pages as well. Perhaps a U.S. abortion polling page could be created, with a summary mentioned on the Societal attitudes page? The information really well illustrates where American attitudes on abortion lie, however, in revealing that most support abortion only in cases like life of the mother or rape/incest. I'm looking for input on how to go about organizing this data on Wikipedia. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Abortion articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Abortion articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I agree that we should be careful to be seen to be balanced; we will definitely add in Pro-Choice to balance with Pro-Life. Regarding something to balance Papa Don't Preach, however, If These Walls Could Talk (ITWCT) is a Start-Class article with cleanup tags, so I feel reluctant to select it. Would Vera Drake suffice? That's B-Class, and it gets almost twice the page views of ITWCT, and there are 11 other language versions for Vera Drake vs. only 5 for ITWCT. Please let me know. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Getting more eyes on an ongoing RfC under this project's scope

Hello there! Replies to an ongoing RfC at Talk:Crisis pregnancy center have been sparser than might be helpful, so I thought I should mention it over here. We're trying to decide whether, based on our sources' description of CPCs' religious affiliation, personnel, and behavior (detailed in a paragraph in the article for your easy consumption) it is best to describe them as "Christian," "run by Christians," or "affiliated with a Christian organization." Thanks! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed MOS for Religion

There is now a proposed general Manual of Style for Religion and other articles relating to ethoses or belief systems at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style. Any input would be welcome. I personally believe at least one of the reasons why many articles in this field have been as contentious as they have been is because of lack of such guidelines, and would very much welcome any input from others to help come up with some generally acceptable solutions to some of these problems. John Carter (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Abortion in Sweden

If anyone is familiar with Swedish abortion law, please contribute at that article on the situation post-22-weeks. 84.203.34.111 (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage ready for community feedback

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, an RFC that will affect the title of the articles currently titled Support for the legalization of abortion and Opposition to legal abortion if consensus is found in favor of its conclusions, is now in its community feedback phase and ready for editors to register opinions and arguments. Please add your feedback; thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Abortion articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I have proposed merging this project into Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's Health. See discussion here. Harej (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

NARAL Pro-Choice America listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for NARAL Pro-Choice America to be moved to NARAL. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy to be moved to Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos hoax. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion/Archive 3/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Abortion.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Abortion, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Abortion law listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Abortion law to be moved to Legality of abortion. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

List of anti-abortion organizations in the United States listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for List of anti-abortion organizations in the United States to be moved to List of pro-life organizations in the United States. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2002 (Ireland) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 2002 (Ireland) to be moved to Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) Bill, 2001. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

United States pro-life movement listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for United States pro-life movement to be moved to United_States_anti-abortion_movement. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

United States pro-choice movement listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for United States pro-choice movement to be moved to United_States_abortion_rights_movement. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Anti-abortion movements listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Anti-abortion movements to be moved to Pro-life movement. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

United States abortion-rights movement listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for United States abortion-rights movement to be moved to United States pro-abortion movement. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Anti-abortion movement listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Anti-abortion movement to be moved to Anti-abortion movements. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Six-week abortion ban listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Six-week abortion ban to be moved to Early pregnancy abortion bans. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Medical abortion listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Medical abortion to be moved to Medication abortion. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Gershon Fuentes sexual assault case listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Gershon Fuentes sexual assault case to be moved to 2022 Ohio sexual assault case. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022 listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022 to be moved to 2022 Ohio abortion. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Anti-abortion violence listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Anti-abortion violence to be moved to Abortion and violence. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022 listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022 to be moved to 2022 pregnancy of a 10-year-old in Ohio. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

2022 pregnancy of a 10-year-old in Ohio listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2022 pregnancy of a 10-year-old in Ohio to be moved to 2022 pregnancy of a 9-year-old in Ohio. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Discussion at Talk:Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act. Wes sideman (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Abortion-rights movements listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Abortion-rights movements to be moved to Pro-abortion movements. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Good article reassessment for Forced abortion of Feng Jianmei

Forced abortion of Feng Jianmei has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

2022 Ohio child-rape and Indiana abortion case listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2022 Ohio child-rape and Indiana abortion case to be moved to Gerson Fuentes sexual assault case. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Credibility bot

I am contacting this project as it uses {{Load WikiProject Modules}}. I am working on a new project to make it easier to set up WikiProjects with built-in bot reports. As a proof of concept, see Wikipedia:Vaccine safety/Sources. If this is something you might find useful, your support at User:Credibility bot would be appreciated. Thank you. Harej (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)