Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abortion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1 (June - September 2006)


Contents

[edit] Project icon

Many WikiProjects have a thematic logo which is used consistently throughout project templates, such as awareness banners, userboxes, infoboxes, navigation boxes, stub tags, and so forth. However, given the often divisive nature of our project's subject, many of the images which one would immediately associate with abortion would have undesired connotations. I am sure most of us can agree that any image representative of either a fetus or a woman would frame the project, and, thus, its articles, in a manner suggestive of either feminism or the pro-life movement.

However, because at least two Wikipedians have voiced concerns over the appropriateness of the scales/caduceus used in our userbox and stub tags, I feel it would be worthwhile to consider a potential alternative upon which we might all agree. Is there any arragement in which a representation of a fetus, woman, or both could be considered neutral? Or are these destined to be considered inherenthly non-neutral within the context of this WikiProject and the encyclopaedia articles it encompasses? What about representing abortion through surgical instruments which are used in certain procedures — like the curette?

Please feel free to give your ideas, thoughts, and suggestions, in the hope that we might decide upon an icon which would be more reflective of the project as a whole. -Severa (!!!) 03:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

After a little discussion here, I changed many stub templates who used the star of life as an image, because I think it is useful if you can immediately recognise a stub category. I think it is best for them to be as specific as possible, that's why I changed the ones with the star of life. Following the same logic, I prefer anything but the current caduceus, because it is not specific and could be confused with other stub categories in the field of medicine (although currently none of them is using it, I'd still like to use it for a more general category like disease-stub. Actually I liked the balance that was used previously as an image. But please, consider the bigger picture at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Stub_sorting in making the decision.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 15:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
In a discussion thread above, "Abortion stub - POV fetus?", concerns were also raised regarding the scales. I am quite at a loss as to what to do. Some imagery more specific to the subject has been ruled out on NPOV grounds, but, at the same time, more neutral images have been objected to as being too general. I've suggested we choose abortion-specific surgical instruments — but where to find an image with a Wiki-friendly license?
Any suggestions on a solution to be adopted in the interim? Can we have a vote on whether to retain the caduceus or revert back to the scales? -Severa (!!!) 00:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Holy cow, can you imagine the uproar if we switched to a currette? I mean, it's an interesting idea, and somewhat appropriate, but it would be probably the best possible way to incite complaints of a pro-life bias in the WP. The currete is hardly viewed as NPOV. But now we're back right where we started. As I observed when the original userbox was unveiled: It seems to me that it could just as easily be a userbox for any bioethics project. It is too general. Unfortunately, everything even slightly more specific is a part of the most viciously charged semantic battlefield around. My proposed (and defeated) measure to keep the userbox NPOV was to provide one image each to satisfy the two extremes. Unfortunately, with our stub tag, we are only allowed one image. I tend to agree with Booya that the fetus image would be the most on-target; however it would remain impossible to avoid NPOV criticisms. I think the scales portray it as a legal issue to the exclusion of the ethical and medical dimensions; until someone has a better idea, we should stick with the caduceus, which has some implications in all three fields, even if it is not abortion-specific. --BCSWowbagger 05:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Oddly, BCS, I hadn't considered it from that perspective before. I had imagined that some pro-life Wikipedians might object to a curette, as it could be seen as representing abortion in an entirely medical context, thus cutting out all ethical considerations. But, I suppose some pro-choicers might also be concerned by the use of "cold," "clinical," "frightening" medical equipment. I guess that's out of the running now, too, so where does that leave us? An image of protesters might serve, if we could capture both sides at once, but this would only convey the ethical dimension. Image:Silphium.jpg, the abortifacient herb which, as the chief export of Cyrene, was driven to extinction? Historical relation is far too esoteric and herbal abortifacients warrant only a dodgy footnote on the subject of abortion as a whole. Unfortunately, nothing I'm throwing out is sticking, and no one is completely happy with either the scales or the caduceus. Is it possible for a stub template to have no icon? -Severa (!!!) 13:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that's a great idea. Not having an icon would untie our Gordian Knot. --BCSWowbagger 02:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The advantage of having an icon is that you can instantly recognise abortion-stubs. But you guys decide, I'm not a member here.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 13:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This decision doesn't make sense at all. The objection to the caduceus was that it isn't specific enough; but it's a hell of a lot more specific than nothing. ~ Booya Bazooka 01:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have decided to remove the icon for now. Ours is certainly not the first stub template to lack an icon. We are sacrificing immediate identifiability, I know, but in the interest of trying accommodate a number of views. At some point in the future we might conceive of an icon which will manage to address the concerns of everyone. -Severa (!!!) 01:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I must say, Severa, I'm starting to dislike your attitude regarding this project. Edit summary: "RV. BCSWowbagger and I, both being members of WPAbortion, agreed on this. Steven Fruitsmaak said, "you guys decide." I would appreciate if you would participate, rather than second-guess our decisions" ... I don't mean to sound like I'm directing any accusation at you, per se, but could the project members please keep in mind that being a member of WikiProject Abortion doesn't make your view any more important than others? In this case, I think the discussion about this template should be taking place on the template's talk page, not here; this template concerns others that are not abortion-project members (such as stub sorters, or miscellaneous editors like myself). I'm feeling like I'm up against the Abortion Cabal here, and I think this mentality may discourage others' contributions to abortion-project-related efforts. Allowing everyone to second-guess each other is what Wikipedia is all about, and it's harmful when we treat "project decisions" as final. ~ Booya Bazooka 04:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my patience is thin, but I have had to deal with two editorial disputes in the last week, and, now when it at least seems that there might be an agreement in sight — alas! If you have suggestions, feel free to put them forward, but please refrain from dismissing our efforts toward forming a consensus as brusquely as you did in this comment: "...but it's a hell of a lot more specific than 'nothing'".
I'm sorry you feel that you're up against the Abortion Cabal, but, in truth, we aren't much with which to contend. Ideas are in short supply here, being that we only have seven members, but we're doing the best we can (and how often is it that people can agree on abortion?). So, far from wanting to preclude anyone from participating in the project, we're desperate for members, or even outside input on project matters. You don't have to be a member of the project to contribute to its discussions. Nor do you have to have an in-depth involvement in articles related to the project in order become a member. We would appreciate if more people would join, if only to lend insight into decisions regarding project conventions, article categorization, template construction, etc.
Back to the drawing board. -Severa (!!!) 07:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, what if we didn't have an image, but instead an image of text with the word "ABORTION". It wouldn't be friendly to other languages, but it would clearly indicate to english speakers what the stub was about without resorting to images with POV issues.--Andrew c 19:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It's great that you think of new idea's, but I think there's already the word abortion in a wikilink in the text, so that wouldn't add much... I'm still pro-no-image as a consensus.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 20:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a great idea, Andrew! I know it might not be a very distinct logo, but it'll help distinguish the stub template from article content, in places where it might be unclear due to poor formatting. I'll wait for the other users here to contribute their thoughts on this proposal. -Severa (!!!) 04:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm.... I've always found those tags to be ugly and irritating. BUT, it can't possibly be more irritating than the vague symbols or the absence of symbols. Plus, they already use them at my other part-time Project, the Star Trek WikiProject, so what the heck? I give support to Andrew's proposal, on the condition that it does not use the color pink . And, Booya, just sign up! If you can't beat the Cabal, join it! --BCSWowbagger 18:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please get rid of this? There's no point having a little icon if its only going to be text with a word that's in the stub type anyway. eew. Morwen - Talk

Has anyone seen this:

This user is interested in the debate over abortion.

Maybe this could be a pic? I have to say I'm not in favour of the abortion word, then I prefer just having no picture at all.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That picture is unacceptable because it depicts a very pregnant woman. The VAST majority of abortions are on women who don't physically appear pregnant (i.e. before the 12th week). Therefore, showing a woman who is so pregnant in regards to abortion is misleading and clearly suggests the rare and even more so controversial late-term abortion procedures. Seriously, nice try though. I'm still skeptical of having the existence of an image that isn't objectable to at least one side of the debate, which is why I suggested the text in the first place.--Andrew c 15:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Yet another nice try that doesn't quite work out. It does have the advantage of showing both the woman and (kind of) the fetus in the same shot. But Andrew's right; this would still raise POV concerns. --BCSWowbagger 18:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably a terrible idea, but how about: a sylized uterus, like we all saw in high school biology textbooks, with a question mark inside it? I mean very stylized. One problem being how to make it non-medically-graphic but at the same time recognizable. And all this in a small icon. Not being artistically inclined, I won't scupper my suggestion by offering a sample image. jnestorius(talk) 23:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your suggestion. I'm sorry that I missed it until now. This isn't a bad idea, actually, although above it was debated that depictions representing either a woman or a fetus would slant preferrence to one side of the debate. A uterus could be interpreted as being representative of a woman and thus more favourable to the pro-choice side. However, the female reproductive system is distinct enough in appearance that it shouldn't be hard to recognize, even if it's a simplified diagram, like this one. -Severa (!!!) 22:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About this project

  • Why is it not listed in Wikipedia:List_of_WikiProjects?
  • Is this a stand-alone WP or is it a daughter of another project? Most WP are listed in hierarchic form in the list of WP.

--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 15:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a good point. So where would we go? Under Science->Health or Social sciences and Society->Law or Politics and government? --Andrew c 15:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
A WP can be classified under multiple categories, so I'd go for Health and Law.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 15:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a couple articles to watch

There have been some dramatic changes (most of them for the better) over at mifepristone and Depo Provera. However, I have not been able to go over each change with a fine tooth comb, so maybe with the combined efforts by the editors on this project, we may be able to get one or both articles up to GA or FA status, now that we have momentum from a single editor.--Andrew c 22:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Add Misoprostol to the list of pages to watch for recent changes.--Andrew c 20:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of WikiProjects

I noticed that your project is not listed on the Wikipedia:List of WikiProjects. It might benefit from greater exposure if it were. Badbilltucker 16:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be done. NCurse work 12:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion method infobox

Would it be worthwhile to create an infobox to be used throughout articles in Category:Forms of abortion? This template could provide information such as whether the abortion method is surgical or chemical, in which gestational time frame it is used, when the method first arose and/or when it approximately fell out of favour. Potential risks and the national accessibility and/or legality of various methods are further information which could be quickly conveyed in this format. Is there a formalised protocol for proposing and creating an infobox? Is anyone here familiar with it? -Severa (!!!) 01:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any protocol other than needing someone who understands the code involved in writing a template with variables in it. I think it's more of a "be bold" sort of thing. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I just didn't want a repeat of the stub incident, so I thought I'd err on the side of caution. I suppose we could model our infobox off the one used throughout articles related to specific methods of contraception (eg., IUD). -Severa (!!!) 06:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. As for borrowing code: Picasso said it best. "Good artists borrow; great artists steal!" -GTBacchus(talk) 07:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that the wonderful thing about GNU? :-) -Severa (!!!) 09:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Protocol at Template:BirthControl infobox seems to be complex and rather technical. I believe that this is not the sort of venture which we should approach without consulting an expert. -Severa (!!!) 09:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project watchlist

Would it be useful for us to create a sort of "watchlist" for this project? This would include a list of the most vandalism-prone articles — our own take on Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol. It could also feature a "Current disputes" noticeboard where users could post information on active editorial disputes in articles. Hopefully, this would aid in dispute resolution by attracting outside opinions, as well as keeping users abreast of project happenings. -Severa (!!!) 21:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

How do you see this happening technically? Would it be a section of the project page, or a subpage, or what? I like the idea, but I'm not sure about the details. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I envision it as a supbage, Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion/Watchlist, which could be linked from the main project page or from this talk page. Where it was linked from would depend upon whether we deemed it a part of the project, like the Tast List or Category Tree, or an extension of the discussion page. Thoughts? -Severa (!!!) 07:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
And pages would be added to and and removed... manually? Based on people deciding to add or remove them? I see no harm in giving it a try. Sounds like sort of a noticeboard, letting project members know where their attention may be needed. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea. Editing it manually can't be too different from adding and removing {disputed} tags, and we do that all the time. --BCSWowbagger 05:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit-warring and sockpuppetry on Abortion?

There has been an ongoing dispute between User:Cindery and I on Abortion. Now, however, I believe that Cindery has resorted to the use of a sockpuppet account, User:Mumblio. Observe the almost identical caricaturization of East-coast intellectual types on both Cindery's and Mumblio's user pages. Also, see Mumblio's edit history, which largely consists of agreeing with or praising Cindery, aside from a few dabblings in boxing-related topics. I am reminded of our dealings with User:Pro-Lick. However, I am unsure of how to approach the situation. -Severa (!!!) 08:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

i openly invite you to submit a check user request. meanwhile, as i said on the abortion talkpage, calling people who disagree with you vandals and sockpuppets is a violation of WP:NPA, defending your own wording at all costs against all reasonable arguments is a violation of [[WP:OWN}} and making edits to content during an accuracy dispute claiming consensus you don't have is not appropriate. i think it may be time for the intervention of an admin.
Cindery 08:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Mind if I tab you, Cindery? Thanks. Obviously, Cindery and Mumblio are close friends (spouses? Mind if I keep referring to you in the 3rd person? Wonderful). They share many of the same user page characteristics, and Mumblio's talk page is exclusively correspondance from Cindery. I would suggest that Mumblio is not a sockpuppet, but that he (she?) is going to go along with Cindery in pretty much every edit dispute--which seems to me like somewhat unfair play, since it's essentially an extra vote for whatever either of them wants to do, but there's no rule about it that I am aware of. And, if there were, how could it possibly be enforced? People have a right to agree. It's 1 AM out here, so I don't know how much sense I'm making, and I hope I've offended no one with this post.
The edit-warring, on the other hand, is definitely getting out of hand. On the other hand (I have three hands), admin intervention is an extremely unpalatable idea. --BCSWowbagger 05:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
This sort of situation, were it the case, could be covered by WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets. And by "admin intervention," we mean RfC or another formalized dispute resolution process, right? Because GTBacchus is an admin. If he, or another admin, chose to comment informally in this matter, would that qualify as admin involvement?-Severa (!!!) 09:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

mumblio is his own man, and if you think he takes my side in every argument you have not had a look at my edit history. being nasty to a newbie like mumblio and calling him names is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:DBTN, however. the sad thing is that poor mumblio has barely participated at all in talk:abortion. Mksaksone, Talv, Andrewc, and Umdunno and i all support moving PAS out of the mental health section or at least not using it to frame the section. severa, however, has continually reverted compromise changes against consensus. i think an admin should be involved. Cindery 06:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Your original concern was that there was insufficient distiction between "PAS" and other, independent disorders, and that, as such, such conditions were being conflated with PAS. This concern has been addressed by adding a definition from Post-abortion syndrome and and restructuring the paragraphs. Your caveat that women did not need a PAS diagnosis to receive another one, like depression, was incorporated into the new version. However, you insisted upon adding it again, creating a version where the same information was duplicated twice, but in different words (see diff).
There is no logical justifiation for completely removing discussion of PAS out of the "Mental health" section. PAS is a proposed to be a mental health disorder which can result from induced abortion, so, where would be a more appropriate place for coverage than in the "Mental health" sub-section of Abortion? Our goal is to build article cohesion, solidifying related content into logical sections, not arbitrarily diffuse information in a manner detrimental to reader accessibility.
For the record, here's the actual opinion count:
Also, Cindery, if you are concerned that Mumblio is being treated uncivilly, perhaps you shouldn't insult him yourself. Even the sort of bizarre in-jokes which familiarity can breed could be considered violations of NPA. The sockpuppet accusation was not an insult, as I believe that it was (and is) a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence, but I nonetheless appologize if it resulted in offense. -Severa (!!!) 08:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

in order for the old SNL joke between dan akroyd and jane curtin to be an insult, mumblio would have to think so. [1] regarding your violations of NPA and DBNC--apologize to him yourslef. meanwhile, the real issue is that not only are you disruptively edit warring--against consensus, without any discussion--but have you violated 3RR in the last few hours. you went up to 6. and i'm reporting it, so that hopefully a break will help you get some perspective. Cindery 09:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. The fact is that we have both crossed the three-revert line. This tends to happen in an edit war. I tried to stop it, by introducing a version which accommodated your concerns, but you then made an edit which duplicated content, and this needed to be addressed, because it was effecting the readability of the article. I suggest we both refrain from reactionary editing, admit we were wrong, and pursue discussion, because, ultimately, filing contradictory 3RR reports against each other will serve as little more than an extension of this dispute. -Severa (!!!) 09:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

no, only you crossed it--6x. (although your last four reverts had more misleading edit summaries--claiming you were doing something other than reverting-- than the first two). you made no attempt to discuss anything--you haven't posted on talkpage all day. you invested your energy instead in personally attacking a new user, and continuing the same reverts you made yesterday. you need to cool off. Cindery 09:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"Hello, Winhunter. I am willing to admit that I may have crossed the 3RR line in an editorial conflict with Cindery. However, Cindery has also crossed this line, and in addition there is reason to suspect that she may be relying upon a sockpuppet account, or engaging in "meatpuppetry," as defined by WP:SOCK. Please refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abortion. Thank you. -Severa (!!!) 09:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)"

(so much for being "apologetic" that you personally attacked him--or me.)

the abortion page is now protected, with instructions to discuss changes on the talkpage. i think this is a good thing, but that severa should still take some time to cool off--so that she can return to the discussion able to participate instead of WP:OWN ing the page, personally attacking people who disagree with her, and refusing to generate or respect consensus. Cindery 10:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That's three times if you don't count Mumblio. The point is that we've made the same mistake. Neither of us is on higher ground here. As for the misleading use of edit summaries, both you and Mumblio claimed the backing of several users, when this is clearly not the case as outlined in this edit. -Severa (!!!) 10:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

as we have already established, mumblio is not a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet--he is a new user whom you personally attacked, and continue to personally attack. [2] he made two edits to the abortion article, during a span of time in which the edit history and the talk page grew several pages longer. you and you alone crossed 3RR --6x in only a few hours, with no discussion on the talkpage, during an accuracy dispute. when there was clear consensus for a compromise. cool off, and start thinking about how you can contribute constructively to the article, not how you can wikilawyer your bad faith actions as justified. Cindery 10:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Please provide diffs, Cindery, or otherwise it seems like you're pulling a number out of the air. You can claim I was the only one in the wrong in this dispute, but, the diffs above hold otherwise. "Sockpuppet" and "meatpuppet" are accepted terms, defined in an official WikiPolicy here, and are no more of a personal attack than "wikilawyer." Certainly, both are less personally insulting than what you called Mumblio. Of course, playful hostility between friends is no defense, because what matters is how it looks to the outside observer, not how it looks to those who are inside on the joke. It's all well and good for you to repeatedly tell me to "cool down," but it was full steam ahead for you with the 3RR report, and, even now, you continue to deny the fact that you also trangressed 3RR. I have tried to remain levelheaded and cooperative. I relaxed my former adherance to the ungainly, one-size-fits-all source bias precedent on Abortion and accommodated Mkaksone's source; I incorporated the information you believed was important. However, wherever I've stumbled, I'm willing to admit having made a mistake. My only request of other editors is that they strive for the same. -Severa (!!!) 11:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • calling people vandals and sockpuppets is a violation of [[WP:NPA}}. in the case of mumblio, you also violated "please do not bite the newcomers."
  • everyone can see in the edit history that you and you alone violated 3RR--6x in a few hours.
  • i am not the only one who thought your edit warring was becoming a serious problem. it is a good thing the page is protected, and you should use this break to cool down, and think about how to contribute contructively to the article-- not how you can make up more and more arguments to justify all your policy violations. remember meatballwiki: "fighting is boring."

Cindery 11:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-abortion violence tagged

I just created a pro-abortion violence article, as has been disccussed off-and-on here for a while, and tagged it with the WP:Abortion tag. Reviews of the article (well, stub), are requested, but, more urgently, does anyone know anything about adding an article to the WP:Abortion category tree? Thanks. --BCSWowbagger 03:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Gah. Scatterbrained. I could also use some help updated the various See Also sections of the relevant articles. And perhaps the pro-choice article could use a section comparable to the one about anti-abortion violence in the pro-life movement. --BCSWowbagger 03:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Mind if I merge this with Anti-abortion violence to create Violence in the abortion movement? Thus, our coverage would be in one comprehensive article, which would help to avoid POV-forking and asymmetric wikilinking issues. -Severa (!!!) 14:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. That's a solid article, and the right way to handle POV forking. Thanks! --BCSWowbagger 21:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another CfD

I have nominated Category:Abortion and reproductive rights advocacy groups in the United States for renaming as Category:United States pro-choice organizations in order to maintain consistency with the titling of other categories in this project. Please go to the CfD nomination page if you would like to lend your input. -Severa (!!!) 16:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This proposal failed due to no consensus. I initially weighed in, but never was too busy to check in on how the discussion was going. Some people ignored the existing structure of our category tree and made political comments regarding the accuracy of the self-identifying term "pro-choice". I have reposted this move request. Someone has suggested that "United States" is ackward as an adjective. Would "American" work better? And should we rename the "US pro-life organizations" to "American pro-life organizations" as well? I think so, but I wanted to run it by the project first.--Andrew c 14:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Activist categories

A number of celebrities and politicians have recently been added to both Category:Pro-choice activists and Category:Pro-life activists. Pro-choice and pro-life celebrity categories were deleted in a CfD in November 2005. Similar politician categories were also recently deleted as the result of a a CfD nomination in October 2006. The original intent of the "activist" categories was to create categories into which we could sort articles relating to individuals whose primary claim to notability is or was their involvement in the abortion movement. In light of this, and the both CFDs, should we take action to prevent these two categories from becoming a laundry list of celebrities and politicians? -Severa (!!!) 21:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a list was ever created, but that was what a number of voters at the CfD suggested. Maybe now would be a good time to create that list? I agree with the CfD. We don't need to fill these categories with people who are not primarially notable due to their abortion related activism.--Andrew c 22:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
We can always revert this, but I added a little clarifying text on the category pages.--Andrew c 22:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The caveat should serve. However, do you think we should go through the categories and thin out inappropriate articles? A "List of anti-abortion people" was deleted in December 2005 because it was largely unsourced. The nominator of the article also noted: "These aren't people specifically known for their stance on the question of abortion, but rather instead celebrities, politicians and 'other' who have at some point given an opinion." If we were to create List of pro-choice celebrities, or List of pro-life celebrities, both would need to be properly sourced. I would hate to create listcruft that were on the fasttrack to AfD. -Severa (!!!) 23:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
How about the following breakdown?
Actors and musicians seem to be the primary claims to notability of celebrities in these categories. There is the potential that we would be creating yet another unencyclopaedic category, but, Category:Bisexual musicians, Category:Jewish actors, Category:Feminist artists suggest encylopaedic content is broadly defined. Perhaps we could post sources for a person's categorization as pro-life or pro-choice on the discussion page of the category? Rock for Life has a list of pro-life bands. But I wouldn't trust their list of "pro-abort" bands without secondary verification. -Severa (!!!) 23:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Categories were CfD'd. Guess it's back to constantly policing Category:Pro-life activists and Category:Pro-choice activists for inappropriate additions. *sigh* -Severa (!!!) 03:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parental notification (abortion)

I encourage everyone to consider a new name for Parental notification (abortion) over at Talk:Parental notification (abortion). One editor made an out of process move to Parental involvement (abortion), and I reverted that. Let's try to build consensus for a new title before making bold moves. The issue is that this article covers not only parental notification, but also parental consent laws. (also, it seems like the editor made a find and replace in the actual article text to introduce a term that is not the most commonly used term, which I feel violated the naming conventions).--Andrew c 22:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New CfD

User:Piccadilly has created a number of national subcategories under Category:Pro-life activists. However, some of these new categories are redundant, or do not comply with our WikiProject Abortion titling conventions. Please feel free to comment at the renaming nomination I have begun here. -Severa (!!!) 03:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Any other volunteers for handling CfD nominations from now on? -Severa (!!!) 07:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CfD, again

I have nominated Category:Pro-life commentators, which was overlooked in the recent CfD, for deletion in an effort to clean up my error in judgment in creating the new Activist by profession categories. Please feel to comment here. -Severa (!!!) 04:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WVWP

Should we become involved in WVWP? We would go through all of the articles within our project and assess their quality. This would help us to determine the strongest articles within our project and those which are still in need of improvement. Perhaps we could break down articles alphabetically in order to avoid concerns of favouritism in review selection. We could also each post a list of articles of which we'd like to opt out of reviewing due to our own in-depth involvement in them. Please let me know your thoughts on this. I am eager to see this project move forward. Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 10:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have (hopefully!) set up our Assessment Department. Please let me know if you are interested in participating so that we can begin the task of assessing our articles. -Severa (!!!) 09:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Violence in the abortion movement

Violence in the abortion movement has been home to a number of problematic recent changes. Monitoring and input from other users would be appreciated. -Severa (!!!) 09:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Abortion and Evangelical Christians has been nominated for deletion. Please see the discussion page to comment. -Severa (!!!) 03:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Abortion_515a.html"