Talk:Lavenski Smith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.


Contents

[edit] Re: Edits of January 07 2007 by Smashingworth

It is inappropriate to refer to Planned-Parenthood as "pro-abortion". The phrase "pro-abortion" is a pejorative term, with an entry in Wikipedia's List of political epithets. By definition, it is a phrase used to mock or insult a certain political view and its supporters. A similar action would be substituting the phrase "anti-woman" for every use of the phrase "pro-life". Another article that addresses this specific issue is Power word. It is POV to describe a pro-choice organization as "pro-abortion".

Also, regarding the citation tags, Wikipedia policy on biographical entries is very strict. Generalized external links are not sufficient, direct citations of specific text are required. Joie de Vivre 21:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The external links provide all the citation necessary. However, if you really are so concerned then please just go ahead and read the links and put in the references. It's too laborious a process for a non-professional like me. Moreover, nearly every bio page on this site is in similar, if not more spartan, condition. Go tag those. But I am aware of your record; you simply go to every page you can find with the phrase "pro-abortion" and switch out the words. Pro-abortion and anti-abortion much more accurately describe the stances taken. Only someone from Planned Parenthood would say that to describe PP as "pro-abortion" would be to insult them.--Smashingworth 22:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Moroeover, your "list of political epithets" is not official Wikipedia policy and therefore not binding on myself or other editors. I would also note that the list itself is apparently biased according to your own, I'm sure, exacting standards, since contrary to your assertion, the term "anti-abortion" is not included on the list, although you apparently consider that to be a "pejorative" term as well. Why, I wonder, do you only bother infiltrating and harrassing pages with the term "pro-abortion" but not "anti-abortion"? And why, I wonder, is "pro-abortion" on your "pejorative list" but not "anti-abortion"?
I think you had better go bias-proof your list before you start waving it around as your sword and shield when messing with the pages of other editors. Maybe next time you'll shill for Planned Parenthood on a page where the editor is too dumb or too lazy to do anything about it.--Smashingworth 22:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a common mistake, but external links do not qualify as references. How to cite sources and Biographies explain how to properly cite sources. It involves quoting specific text and formatting it to create entries in the References or Notes section. It does not belong in the External links section. Moreover, the burden of proof does not lie with me, or with any editor other than the person who included the information. Others are free to add citation tags to unsourced material, or to remove such material outright. Removing it is actually encouraged, especially in the case of biographical articles.
Regarding the terms, I am not aware of any official policy on this matter. "Pro-choice" and "pro-life" are the most neutral, as these are the terms that each group applies to itself. It is similar to referring to a person by the name they wish to be called; it's polite. Anything else places a POV spin, which is inappropriate.
Result: The citation tags need to be there. I'm willing to wait a moment on changing the term. Please be civil. Thank you. Joie de Vivre 13:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Request:

Dispute at Talk:Lavenski_Smith, between myself and User:Smashingworth. Article currently violates Wikipedia:No original research, user deletes citation tags I place, and responds in an inflammatory, uncivil manner in regards to wording. Please advise. 13:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Answer: I added footnotes; these can be clarified if necessary, but for such short web pages it isn't necessary to give more information so long as all the facts are there. The information here isn't OR because it is verifiable in principle. It is inappropriate POV to describe Planned Parenthood as pro-abortion; this description can be easily avoided by just saying "Planned parenthood opposed his nomination", which is neutral POV and verifiable. Deleting citation tags is inappropriate, but it might not be obvious that such a short, obviously verifiable article requires footnotes (see WP:BLP for the justification). There may be a few claims in the article not covered by the references; these can be referenced or removed if no reference can be found. CMummert 14:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: if one party feels that "pro-choice" is POV, and the other party feels "pro-abortion" is POV, then I suggest omitting both descriptions as a reasonable compromise. CMummert 15:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Coming here in response to the RfC, I agree with CMummert. It is not necessary here to describe Planned Parenthood as "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion." Just say Planned Parenthood opposed his nomination and the dispute goes away. If the characterization of Planned Parenthood is a way to get at the grounds of Planned Parenthood's objection to Smith's nomination, we should just state what the grounds are -- e.g., Planned Parenthood opposed the nomination because "the Rutherford Institute supported legal restrictions on abortion during Smith's affiliation with that organization." The cited sources state that. PubliusFL 19:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that suggestion. I will make that edit.--Smashingworth 19:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to come in and share your view, thank you. However, I do not find the proposed solution satisfactory. Deleting a term because one person is offended is not appropriate, for several reasons: international readers may not be immediately familiar with Planned Parenthood; the descriptor "pro-choice" is useful. Also, why should the link to the pro-choice movement be deleted? The Planned Parenthood main article is ponderous in it's description of the organization's history. The pro-choice article is much more current on the political activities of Planned Parenthood, which is relevant to the opposition mentioned in the article.

An interesting point is that clicking on pro-abortion redirects to pro-choice. The epithet is in common usage, but it doesn't mean that it's appropriate. "Pro-choice" and "pro-life" are the well-known terms which commonly frame the abortion debate. The phrase "pro-choice" should not be censored because one person takes offense at its use. What if someone were to go about demanding the removal of the phrase "pro-life" from various articles -- would catering to them be appropriate? Deleting the phrase "pro-choice" doesn't make the problem go away, it creates a new problem. Joie de Vivre 19:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"The phrase "pro-choice" should not be censored because one person takes offense at its use." Really? Wow, what a novel idea! But the phrase "pro-abortion" should be censored because one person takes offense at its use? How about hypocrisy, folks? That's how this whole thing started remember? An pro-abortion crusader crashed this page and started making demands. When that didn't work he/she made complaints. And now you don't accept the solution? Ironic. Now the page says why Planned Parenthood opposed Smith; problem solved.
The fact that "pro-abortion" is on a list of epithets that could have been compiled by anybody lends you no moral support. I don't know who put it there or why. Why should I, or anybody, care about a list of epithets written by anybody? That sounds like one of the most useless pages Wikipedia could possibly maintain. Further, the fact that pro-abortion redirects to pro-choice lends you no moral support either. If anything, it supports my position that pro-choice and pro-abortion are interchangeable despite your moral screeching to the opposite. If they mean the same thing, after all, I should be able to write "pro-abortion" to my heart's content. By all means, put "pro-abortion" back in the article. If it redirects to pro-choice then what complaint can you possibly have?
The fact that you come here, stir up this trouble, will accept no solution but your own confirms you for the Politically Correct Thought Police that your one-track "pro-choice" editing record reveals. My purpose on the page is to present accurate, concise info about Judge Smith, not stage a feel-good publicity campaign for Planned Parenthood and abortion. What's your motive?--Smashingworth 20:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion was not about censoring, it was about trying to find a compromise. If the exact term to use is a matter of dispute, and the only purpose for the term is to hint at the specific grounds of Planned Parenthood's objection, just put in a simple and direct statement of why Planned Parenthood opposed Smith instead. You may think "pro-choice" is better than "pro-abortion," but you don't say why a straightforward statement of the issue is worse than "pro-choice." You state that "The pro-choice article is much more current on the political activities of Planned Parenthood, which is relevant to the opposition mentioned in the article." But the only political activity of Planned Parenthood relevant to this article is its opposition to Smith's appointment, and we can put the reasons for that right in the article. PubliusFL 21:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns regarding POV editing

The hypocrisy of Joie de Vivre is undeniable, and her/his gall in crashing this page and wasting everybody's time is unacceptable. The following demonstrates that her/his own edit record is one of an abortion crusader using Wikipedia to shill for favorite causes. For instance, the following is a small example of what Joie has written on this very Discussion page:
  • "What if someone were to go about demanding the removal of the phrase "pro-life" from various articles -- would catering to them be appropriate?"
  • "[P]ro-life" [is] the well-known term[] which commonly frame[s] the abortion debate."
  • "'Pro-choice' and pro-life are the most neutral, as these are the terms that each group applies to itself ... Anything else places a POV spin, which is inappropriate." (emphasis added)
Those are the lecturing quotes of an editor whose apparent mission is to make us all play nice and be polite. However, Joie's own editing record reveals something else: a disturbing activism. In her/his edits to John Salvi, Joie inserted the following words to the article: "anti-abortion". Also, Joie added the inflammatory term "Christian terrorist". This edit was described as nothing more than "basic cleanup, spelling, adding orphan, unreferenced and stub tags," but clearly much more serious, and questionable, material was added which demonstrated a possible POV spin. Joie added inflammatory material and then attempted to whitewash it with her/his edit description. How does this reconcile with Joie's assertion that the term "anti-abortion" is nothing more than "POV spin, which is inappropriate"? Clearly, Joie's admonitions to us and the guidelines she/he feels free to follow are quite different.
Apparently, despite her/his own assertions, Joie has no problem using the term "anti-abortion" on Wikipeida; the problem is if anybody else dares to write the words "pro-abortion." Not only is Joie not interested in removing that term from this site, Joie actually goes around inserting it on other pages when she/he can. Is that fair and neutral editing? Or is that hypocrisy and agenda-ism of the worst kind?
Joie's edits here (like all of her/his on Wikipedia) are likewise part of an apparent crusade to ensure that all Wikipedia references to pro-abortion interests are presented in as appealing and welcoming a light as possible, while simultaneously attempting to edit "pro-life" into as hard-edged and unappealing a light as possible.
Don't misunderstand me. I have no problem with the description anti-abortion. I think it's a very accurate and unloaded term to describe the position in the debate. But I'm not the one using Wikipedia as a pro-abortion media campaign and causing the rest of us all extra and unnecessary work. I believe using Wikipedia to advance a lobbying agenda should be grounds for discipline and Joie De Vivre should be subject to that.--Smashingworth 21:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL Joie de Vivre 21:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
That's your rebuttal to clear and convincing evidence? There's nothing in that guideline that prevents me from using your own record to expose you for the hypocritical activist you are. And there's nothing in my above post that is "uncivil." Is there anything in the guidelines about using Wikipedia to advance the abortion lobby's agenda? Hmmm, I think there is. Try again, activist.--Smashingworth 22:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not either of you are correct, it is a very good idea to make an increased attempt at civility. If you have a problem with someone's edits, and discussing them in a non-escalative manner does not work, the next step to take would be to ask others' opinions, not pointing fingers. WP:CIVIL is a very good place to start, and WP:NPOV comes highly recommended as well. Heck, while we're in Wikiland, take a break from this article and spend some time perusing the five-pillars-of-the-Wikipedia-building-that-needs-five-pillars. A good lesson to learn about Wikipedia is that when you just walk away from a tense situation and "win by losing," you become better than you were before. V-Man737 09:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "PP press release" ?

I do not understand the label of "press release" for what it is linked to - an archived copy of a planed.org page that does not say "press release" or give a date or in any other way resemble all the press releases I've seen. I think this should be changed to more neutral language, as was there after I fixed the dead link, or an explanation given (here) why "press release" should be used. (If I don't hear anything in the next few days, and no one else acts first, I'll change it back.) John Broughton | Talk 22:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks and acts like a press release, the sort of thing lobbying groups release all the time and hand out all the time at Senate Judiciary Committee hearings and the like. Would you prefer "analysis opposing nomination"? I think it's important to describe it as "opposing" Smith, and it's pretty short for an analysis. Just because PP has not archived it as a press release in this link does not mean that's not what it is. But I see your point.--Smashingworth 22:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for changing the language; I have no problems with it now. (I'm possibly quibling over "press release", but I think it actually improves the credibility of the link - if there is such a thing as link "credibility" - if the reader doesn't find something unexpected when the link is followed.) John Broughton | Talk 00:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The text that was included in this article did not exist on the archive page mentioned; that is, the quote was not accurate as the page did not contain it. I have deleted the link to the archived page, and provided a live link to another site with a cited quote. Joie de Vivre 17:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)