Talk:Roe v. Wade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Roe v. Wade is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 22, 2005.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 26, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted February 5, 2007 Featured article review Kept Current Status: Featured article

The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, which collaborates on articles related to abortion, abortion law, the abortion debate, and the history of abortion. For more information, visit the project page.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of top-importance within WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.

This Socsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Archives
Archive 1 (Oct. 2004 - July 2007)

Contents 1 Whoa... 2 Effects and statistics 3 Edit Summary in full: 19:17 PST, 4 Dec 07 4 Liberals legal criticisms 5 Context for poll results 6 "Editorializing" 7 Public opinion poll results table 8 Pro-Choice/Anti-Choice and NPOV 9 NPOV and opinions 10 Liberal criticism 11 Lead paragraph 12 Editing style 13 Nixon & LBJ

[edit] Whoa...

Don't you think Descriptions of this decision range from "thoroughly corrupt,"[2] to a "blow for freedom and equality for women."[3] is a little harsh for an opening commentary? 75.69.110.227 21:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I have moved this topic from the top of the page, to the bottom, as required here.

Regarding the first paragraph of the article, it reflects the passions surrounding this decision, by explaining that "Descriptions of this decision range from 'thoroughly corrupt,'[2] to a 'blow for freedom and equality for women.'[3]" I don't see a problem with this description. Just about everyone's view falls somewhere in between, right?Ferrylodge 22:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Effects and statistics

Shouldn't there be a section here on the effects of Roe v Wade on such things as broken families, number of children, etc.? Or at least the statistics since 1973. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.43.91 (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

We can't just list statistics since 1973, because it would imply a causation, when it may just be a correlation or even a coincidence. Any statistics about the effects of Roe v. Wade need to specifically focus on causation. What I am trying to avoid is the sort of stuff that someone once wanted to add to the abortion article. The incident I am recalling was that the user wanted to add that the abortion rate declined under President Clinton, which obviously implies that Clinton had something to do with it, although the source cited said nothing about Clinton. So, what sort of statistics do you have in mind? Can you mention your sources?-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Summary in full: 19:17 PST, 4 Dec 07

Intro
Re: "Roe critics say the ruling is illegitimate because it strays from the text and history of the Constitution, and imposes abortion policy on the states and Congress contrary to American principles of federalism and democracy."
From Federalism : "Advocates of a weaker federal government and stronger state government are those that generally favor confederation, often related to "anti-federalists"." "federalism" deleted.
If one accepts the existence and role of the Supreme Court, then one would consider their rulings at least democratic. Whatever issue anyone might have with the Supreme Court, or any other part of the US government, as to whether or not it is "contrary to the principles of democracy", expression of that does not belong in this section of the Wiki, if on the Wiki at all. Deleted.
Pursuant to another discussion, personhood vs inviolability, I have -added- the original "inviolability".
Women's equality. Abortion is not a process undergone by men. Women's Rights, which includes women's equality in its scope but also the concept of issues pertaining to women only, or centered on women, is perhaps the word the writer was seeking. Replaced, corresponding link added.
Modified as above; moved this paragraph under the appropriate heading Controversy *

Supreme Court decision
Heading: Completely unnecessary. Misleading. Irrelevant, in that it describes a subject of the subject, rather than the subject itself. Removed.

Controversy *
The writer of the opinion "recognized" the rights of the person in this very article, a few paragraphs up. However, it is considerably improved by adding the word "adequately".
"killing an innocent victim.." All three words unnecessarily charged. The entire phrase is unnecessary to convey the meaning of the sentence. Replaced.
Added human life distinction.
majority of Americans believe as a link? link changed to CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll.

Anarchangel (talk) 03:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies; I got a little carried away with the human life distinction. I was scrupulous with the language, so I challenge the assertion that the tone was not neutral. Similarly, I challenge the assertion that it was original research, inasmuch as that refers to PoV. I agree it lacks sources. Embryos appear non-human in the first trimester; polls tally acceptance of abortions at that time. Foetuses appear more human in the second trimester; polls tally rejection at that time. Unfortunately the general public does not contribute much to the discussion other than their responses to polls; I made the point that it could be coincidental with my choice of the word 'reflected'; I was not seeking to say 'confirmed' or 'proven' or any such word indicating that there was a direct correlation. Pretty sure I will find the distinction of human life as opposed to just life though. Of some note is the fact that the word 'embryo' appeared nowhere on this page, before I added it, and the words killing, and victim, did, before I deleted them in the same edit. Anarchangel (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Anarchangel

I hope my revert didn't seem to bold. I believe you are editing in good faith, and I'm glad you recognize you may have been "a little carried away". While your statements may be true that embryos are more like tadpoles and fetuses are more like babies, and thus this explains the acceptance of 1st trimester abortions and the disapproval of 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions. However, without a specific source to make that claim, it is original research to make the connection. And as you point out, being a poll, the respondents often aren't given a chance to explain their views in more depth. So I think it is best for now, without any further sourcing, to simply state what the poll found, and leave trying to explain those findings to the experts. As for your other edits, thanks for helping improve the article. Just because I disagreed with part of your edit doesn't mean I don't believe you can edit in good faith. I see that you are new to wikipedia as well, so if you have any questions about learning the ropes or anything else, I'd be glad to try and help where I can. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liberals legal criticisms

This paragraph is a tissue of PoV, obfuscation, and misrepresentation wrapped over some out of context quotes, some of which are from nobodies, and some of which are apologists crying over spilt milk, and some of which are from non-liberals. None of those named "argue that the ends achieved by Roe do not justify the means" It is an insult to the Wiki.

richard cohen mentioned ends and means. none of the others are quoted as saying that. this should not be the heading, it should be a sentence about richard cohen.

most arent liberals. a couple or three aren't even close

benjamin witte is a right wing blogger. this link shouldnt be here.

saletan isnt liberal at all.

John Hart Ely's hero, Earl Warren, was a conservative who turned out to be more liberal than people thought he would be. who nonetheless said "The only reason that there has been no sabotage or espionage on the part of Japanese-Americans is that they are waiting for the right moment to strike." Testimony before Congress on the Internment of people of Japanese Ancestry (1941)" hardly a hero for a liberal.

Tribe is big on the Constitution, and Roe is perceived as shaky on the constitution. woot.

Cox' statement has one aspect which is relevant to this Wiki: it is pro-PoV. Yes, relevant, in that we are trying to get -rid- of it. And he is -for- it.

Ginsberg wished things had been different after the fact, and wanted things to go -further- than roe. she was against roe like those who think that we could have won are against the vietnam war. same with michael kinsley.

Lazarus 'no one has produced a convincing defense' tells me a lot more about the writer than it does Roe. He is a law clerk. Discounted.

dershowitz: the quote says 'judges' not 'justices'. it is not apparent that this quote is even about roe v wade. discounted.

sunstein is again voicing concern about opposition, not substantiveness. he is also a contributing editor to a self-described 'centrist' publication, hardly a liberal.

kermit roosevelt is a law clerk. discounted.

I got this just from 15 minutes of searching the links -from this article- on Wiki. Doubtless there is more to uncover. PoV has to be fought, or the Wiki becomes the PoV of whoever has the most time on their hands. People adding 'there is a debate about subject x' and then presenting half of the debate in one sentence filled with loaded words, whole paragraphs on one side of the argument, with the spurious claim to middle ground that they come from the other side of the debate -as the writers define it- I am sick of it, and so should you be.

And finally, pursuant to the above: 'LIBERAL' IS POV. hellooo?

I will give those interested a week to clean this up, and if it is not satisfactorily amended, the whole mess will be deleted. If you revert the deletion, I will appeal. Anarchangel (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Anarchangel, you make some interesting criticisms, although the last couple sentences sound a bit more like an ultimatum than an offer to discuss your concerns. Anyway, maybe your concerns can be turned into improvement to the article, so I'll be glad to discuss it.

First off, I see that you object to characterizing Earl Warren as a "liberal." But surely you would agree that Earl Warren had a different political and judicial philosophy than, say, Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas has. What words would you use to classify Warren, to distinguish him from people like Rehnquist and Alito?

I'm also kind of puzzled why you've quoted Earl Warren at length, when he was not mentioned in the section you criticize. But maybe discussing Earl Warren will be helpful, so we can change the word "liberal" to some more appropriate adjective. I assume that you would object to the word "progressive" as well?

Regarding Kermit Roosevelt, is he really a law clerk? I thought he was a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. But I could be mistaken.

And how about Lawrence Tribe? He is surely no Steve Calabresi, right? Do you think Tribe would object to being called a "liberal" or a "progressive"? What word would you use to describe Tribe's politics and legal philosophy?

Anyway, I'm serious about wanting to discuss this with you. I'm sure there's room for improvement in this section of the article. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Although you haven't responded yet, Anarchangel, I started digging for info. I would support inserting the following info into the footnotes. Saletan: "I am the only liberal Republican I know."[1] Wittes: “I generally favor permissive abortion laws.”[2] Also, Lazarus isn't a clerk anymore, is he? I thought he's been writing for Findlaw and other publications for many years.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

And here are a few more quotes that might usefully be put in the footnotes. What do you think? Benjamin Wittes: "In their quieter moments many liberal scholars recognize that the decision is a mess."[3] Stuart Taylor: "Roe v. Wade was sort of conjured up out of very general phrases and was recorded, even by most liberal scholars like Archibald Cox at the time, John Harvey Link - just to name two Harvard scholars - as kind of made-up constitutional law.”[4] Jack Balkin: “Liberal and feminist legal scholars have spent decades showing that the result was correct even if Justice Blackmun’s opinion seems to have been taken from the Court’s Cubist period.”[5]Ferrylodge (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've made some edits along the lines described above. Do you think that solves some of the problems you mentioned, Anarchangel?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Cubist period! Hilarious. But I don't see how anything has changed. Just look at the California marijuana commerce clause case and the Connecticut eminent domain case. Conservative or liberal, the Supreme Court sure does love to increase (1) its own power, and — what certainly aids the first — (2) the power of the federal government. —Jemmy_tc 17:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, not that it's incredibly relevant, but I have to disagree with you about the Connecticut eminent domain case (Kelo). The Court held that the decision is up to Connecticut, and the Constitution doesn't say one way or the other. That's the opposite of Roe v. Wade. The primary purpose of the Takings Clause is to require just compensation, and no one argued in the Connecticut case that the compensation was insufficient.

In the California marijuana case (Raich), the Court deferred to Congress, rather than overturning what Congress had done. So, again, that's the opposite of Roe. But I agree that it was a stretch for the Court to say in Raich that growing pot in your back yard for your personal use can be banned by Congress under the commerce clause.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[I'm sorry to go off topic even more, but I am still going to do it!] As a state/federal matter you're right, but that's not what I meant. In the Raich case the court actually ruled that regulation of non-commercial intrastate activity which has a potential effect on supply and demand falls under the commerce clause; and moreover that the power of enforcement is not limited to cases where such effect exists. Patently absurd. Under this definition, almost all human activity is interstate commerce, even non-commercial activity that takes place outside the USA. (Only jurisdiction prevents this from being under the domain of the federal government.) The definition of "public use" applied in Kelo is very similar; all private uses are now public uses; the distinction is eliminated. This applies to federal and state governments, substantially increasing the power of both. The similarity to Roe vs. Wade is not in the reasoning behind the ruling or in any legal principle, but rather the complete lack of reasoning, the total incoherence of the opinion, the power-grab thinly veiled in sophistry. It's quite obvious that the disastrous Raich ruling was motivated by the court's opinion that marijuana should be illegal, just as Roe was motivated by their opinion that abortion should not be, and Kelo by the general idea that governments must be free to reappropriate private property. Underlying them all is a belief that the supreme court should be deciding such matters. The real precedent set by Roe vs. Wade is the popular acceptance of judicial legislation. (Not to suggest it was the first instance.) —Jemmy_tc 20:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jemmy, fell free to email me if you'd like to discuss Raich and Kelo some more. If you'd like, you can go to my home page, and click on "email this user" over on the left-hand-side.

There are scholars who dislike what the State of Connecticut did in Kelo, but who still believe it was constitutional. For example, Prof. Jonathan Adler wrote: "[W]hile I would like to read ‘public use’ as a strict limitation on government use of eminent domain for a small set of purposes, there is little warrant for this interpretation in either the ratification history or the court's jurisprudence of the past 100 years or so." Prior to 1789, several state constitutions expressly limited the government's power to take private property, by demanding that a taking be based upon "public necessity" or "the public exigencies." No such langauge is in the U.S. Fifth Amendment. James Madison wrote about the idea of taking slaves away from their masters: "Whatever may be the intrinsic character of that property [slavery], it is one known to the constitution and, as such, could not be constitutionally taken away without compensation." Regarding Raich, like I said, I think it was probably decided wrongly, but at least Congress was allowed to do what it wanted. And Scalia was not completely out of his mind to suggest that home-grown pot would "undercut" the interstate ban, because someone smoking pot would not be as easily identifiable as a lawbreaker.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

What strikes me the most about this liberal controversy section is the amount of weight that is given to these people's view. What should the due weight be in this situation? Do the majority of "liberal"s agree or disagree with Roe? This makes it seem like the vast majority clearly disagree with the Roe decision, even if they like abortion. From my own personal understanding, it is the other way around (that the vast majority of liberals think Roe is great). Therefore, we are giving way to much credence to minority views, while not mentioning the majority view anywhere. Are these the sort of issues you have as well Jeremy? -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, this section is about legal criticism. The next section on public opinion covers non-legal criticism, and indicates that the non-legal criticism is a minority view. So I think your question ("Do the majority of liberals agree or disagree with Roe?") is not well taken. A better question would be, "Do the majority of liberal legal scholars agree or disagree that Justice Blackmun's opinion was correct?" And I don't know the answer to that question. Notice that I've focussed on Blackmun's opinion here. Some of the people mentioned in this Wikipedia article as opposing Blackmun's opinion nevertheless believe that Roe could be justified on other grounds, or should be preserved just because it's already been around so long (stare decisis). The very first paragraph of this article section makes clear that many liberals and feminists support Roe but for different reasons than Blackmun described. So, I don't see an undue weight problem here.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The point of me listing PoV last was that not only is Liberal a value judgement, but many of these people aren't even considered liberal by the most objective assessment possible. Whether the people listed are liberal is of less concern, in the light of this. "Liberal" is PoV. please respond. Links are not the place to insert material you don't wish to include in the article. Please respond. I looked at the procedure for arbitration, and it seems as though it would be unwise of me to delete, although I do believe it will be deleted in the end. The paragraph is essentially a list of quotes. That strikes me as wrong, in addition to the the use of Liberal.

1. The paragraph needs to be deleted. I can't see it being a part of this article. The whole article is a mess. Presidential opinions, I was looking at. What a farce. However, procedure must be followed. I will not delete until authorized. Pursuant to that, I will converse until resolution or an impasse is reached, and participate in arbitration until a decision is made.
2. Warren was a straight arrow. Liberal, conservative, didnt concern him. Pretty much makes him not a liberal, though, doesnt it? And, I wouldnt classify him. PoV, rememember?
3. Pht. "John Hart Ely's hero, Earl Warren,..." John Hart is listed. Liberal is PoV. Progressive is PoV.
4. Well, that's pretty much the point. The quote doesnt say who he is, he isnt listed in Wiki, there are about 5 kermit roosevelts but not him, and elsewhere it similarly confused. If one was going to quote him, an explanation would be helpful. Cant find the page listing him as clerk atm.
5. My mention of Tribe was primarily in concession. Calabresi isnt listed in the article. Liberal is PoV. Maybe the problem was I only said it once? I thought capital letters and Hellooo afterwards might be enough.
6. You didn't respond to these.
Cohen: this one is important. the header defines the paragraph. This first sentence is Cohen's opinion, it should be attributed to him. It is the opinion of no one else in the paragraph. Please respond.
Witte is no liberal. Liberal is PoV, vague, it obscures or is an excuse for lack of facts. He says he supports liberal abortion laws. what does it mean? This is a problem with your quotes in general, btw. They arent factual, they are rhetoric. They don't make logical arguments, they weave a nice poetic waft of cool breeze.
Saletan Liberal Republican see below
Ginsburg belongs, in a section titled Political Strategies of Roe Supporters. As noted before, it isn't really a critism so much as it is a regret, after the fact.
kinsley see ginsburg.
Dershowitz. I wondered if the quote even concerns Roe, please respond.
sunstein is a centrist, respond. see ginsburg

If you did a poll asking people if the phrase Liberal Republican is an oxymoron, true or false, what kind of results do you think you would get. It's a joke to his fellow Republicans, a self-effacing joke at that, to disperse potential criticism. The fact that terms like Liberal and Conservative don't fit into nice neat boxes just further shows their unsuitability as descriptive nouns in a Wiki article.
"mess": largely meaningless.
similarly meaningless, name dropping/hearsay
First half of sentence is coherent. He would then seem to be saying that the decision was deficient in some way. Which confuses me; the Cubists were more than adequate at what they did, which was painting. Painting really doesn't have a lot to do with Roe v Wade. This is an appeal to lowbrow prejudices; it is unworthy of any educated discourse, let alone the Wiki.

The changes you have made since: The new category of feminism is a backwards step, as is a second quote turned into a paragraph-coloring header which can be read as pertaining to the whole paragraph. It is a quote with a footnote instead of an attribution.

Well, that about covers it. Don't forget to respond to, Liberal is PoV. Anarchangel (talk) 11:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Anarchangel, maybe it will be best to take your main point first. You say that the term "liberal" is POV. However, there's a Wikipedia article on the subject, plus about 64,000 other Wikipedia articles that use the term. If a person self-identifies as a "liberal" and others characterize him as a "liberal" then where's the POV problem?

Regarding Kermit Roosevelt, this article wikilinks to the article about him, so he is indeed listed on wiki. Regarding Dershowitz, yes he was explicitly discussing Roe, as you can see from the external link provided. Regarding Sunstein, the footnote includes a quote describing him as a "liberal constitutional scholar." Ditto for Ely.

Anyway, if your main concern is that the term "liberal" is POV, is the term "conservative" also POV?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we call a spade a spade here? Roe vs. Wade obviously has no basis whatsoever in constitutional law. Any legal scholar who says otherwise disqualifies himself by that opinion alone, just as any astronomer would disqualify himself by an appeal to epicycles. It's clear what the reason for the opinion is. A Canadian liberal (for example) could readily acknowledge this without conflict. The court's complete lack of intellectual honesty shouldn't have to extend to everyone who supports legal abortion. In the last analysis it does no good for American liberals to be represented as disingenuous; the honest ones deserve at least recognition of their existence.

Anyway, here's a compromise which probably makes more sense. "Liberal" is not what is meant here anyway; what the page should represent is pro-abortion opponents of the decision. —Jemmy_tc 20:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Jemmy, the term "pro-abortion" is a bit loaded, so I would have to disagree with you. There are many people who support permissive abortion laws who nevertheless would urge a woman not to get an abortion. Rudy Giuliani, for example. Even if we used the word "pro-choice" instead of "pro-abortion", it would still open up a can of worms, because the footnotes now cite people who are "liberal." Someone (e.g. me) would have to go chasing down a whole new set of quotes, and for what? Isn't the word "liberal" a perfectly legitimate word?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, personally, I avoid words like "liberal" and "conservative," which are today usually devoid of meaning. Anyone who interprets "pro-abortion" the way you suggest they might really shouldn't be allowed to read (some people just can't be trusted around words), although I certainly don't care how the thing is phrased--it means the same thing in the end. The reason pro-abortion critics (sorry: critics in favor of legal abortion) are notable is that they are not politically motivated in their opinion; their criticism therefore has a greater weight; it occurs in spite of a conflict of interest, rather than because of one.

In the case of "liberals" this is not (strictly speaking) the case. There is nothing about "liberal" that means pro-abortion (sorry: opposed to abortion prohibition). People think so because they take "liberal" to mean alignment with a certain orthodoxy: very ironic!^* An anti-abortion (sorry, pro-life) liberal's opinion on Roe vs. Wade, though, would not really merit attention in the same way that a pro-abortion (sorry, pro-choice) opinion would, even from a conservative. Thus, "liberal" is not really what is meant.

As far as the work involved, I propose Anarchangel do it.  ;) —Jemmy_tc 16:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

^*  If you did a poll asking people what the word "liberal" means, what kind of results do you think you would get?

Jemmy, what if we changed the heading title to "Pro-choice and liberal legal criticisms"? Then I could simply put additional info into the footnotes establishing that the people mentioned have taken a pro-choice position. Would that be okay?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Context for poll results

This article was kept as a featured article on February 5 of this year. At that time, the article provided context for the poll results. The article stated:

However, pro-life groups assert that the media often misreports polls on abortion.[34] The Harris poll question dealt with first trimester abortions, while later abortions are more controversial; 72% of women are opposed according to a Los Angeles Times poll.[11] Also, Roe decided that a woman can get an abortion for any reason, without regard to what her doctor advises.[1]

All of this material was subsequently deleted without talk page discussion, on October 5 2.

This week, I reinserted a very abbreviated version of the removed material: "the poll question quoted above asked about only 'part' of the decision." Today, Andrew c reverted that abbreviated version (again without talk page discussion).

I believe that some context needs to be provided for the poll question and the poll results. In 1981, the vice president and executive editor of the Associated Press issued a directive stating that "it's wrong to say only that the court approved abortion in the first three months. It did that, but more."[6] This article should acknowledge that the Harris poll question may be misleading.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not make side jabs at me. Discuss content not people. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Content very similar to the FAR content I quoted was deleted on October 2, rather than October 5 (including the identical statement that "The Harris poll question dealt with first trimester abortions"). Please don't accuse me of taking "jabs" at you when all I did was note that your deletion was not accompanied by talk page discussion here. The only talk page discussion occurred at your talk page, with the same person who deleted the material on October 2. Thanks for your willingness to talk about it here and now.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Next, the content you quoted was not removed in the diff you provided. I'm also confused of the date, because there wasn't a single edit to the article on October 5th. However, that doesn't matter, because I am not here to defend edits from over 2 months ago. I'll discuss the edit that I made. You inserted unsourced commentary: though the poll question quoted above asked about only "part" of the decision. (keep in mind that unsourced content can be removed at any time, and the burden of discussion lays with the one who wants to include the content). We quote the entire question. Why do we need to explain what the question says when we have the entire question quoted? On top of that, it appears you are trying to contradict the findings of the Harris poll. If they said "56 percent now favors the U.S. Supreme Court decision", and you personally believe that is inaccurate based on the nature of the question they asked, we still cannot publish your original thoughts here on wikipedia. We'd need another citation criticizing this exact poll to make the implication that they are wrong. And if the Harris organization is putting out misleading interpretations of their data, are they even a reliable source to cite in the first place? I'd support removing the Harris data completely if there is a good case that they aren't a WP:RS before I'd support inserting unsourced criticism that implies there own published findings are faulty. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your assertion that I have tried to insert "unsourced commentary" into this article, I'm having some difficulty understanding why you think that the following statement is not sourced: "the poll question quoted above asked about only 'part' of the decision." This is a purely factual statement that is fully supported by the quoted poll question. Let's try to be friendly with each other, okay Andrew c?

The Harris poll results were inserted into this article during the featured article review. Editors discussed then that the Harris poll results may not accurately measure the amount of support for Roe v. Wade, but we agreed that the Harris poll results are a valuable indicator of the trend over a great many years. That is why the table in the article does not include an absolute amount of support or opposition, but instead only indicates the increase or decrease over the years. Do you agree or disagree that the Harris poll results can be useful in this article, if they are accompanied by adequate explanation?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The juxtaposition of the disputed sentence in question with the quote Harris' findings is what I consider original synthesis. It clearly makes an implication that the claim the Harris group makes is incorrect based on the nature of one question they asked. For those following along, this is the full context of the disputed sentence: The Harris organization concluded from this poll that "56 percent now favors the U.S. Supreme Court decision", though the poll question quoted above asked about only "part" of the decision. It clearly implies that the conclusion they draw is based on a partial or misleading question. It implies "how can the Harris group say that the country favors the whole Supreme Court decision when they only asked about "part" of the Supreme Court decision?" Clearly, this is a valid question for FL to raise on his own. But to publish that here on wikipedia would be original research. We can clearly quote what the Harris organization found. And if we have sources that state that Harris' findings are flawed, then we can clearly add that as well. But making the leap without a source is what I find problematic. I hope my concern is clear now. Thanks. (Here is an idea, instead of quoting the findings of the Harris organization verbatim, perhaps we could take a more summary approach. How about a sentence like "Through examining the data it collected, the Harris organization concluded that a majority of those polled support the Supreme Court decision".?)-Andrew c ^[talk] 19:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Andrew c, you suggest not quoting the findings of the Harris organization. Are you suggesting that we delete the table of data in the public opinion section? I would disagree with that, unless we present other poll results instead.

Original synthesis and original research are of course not okay at Wikipedia. I'm not convinced that the statement in question (i.e. "the poll question quoted above asked about only 'part' of the decision") is either one, any more than the FAR-approved statement deleted on October 5 (i.e. "The Harris poll question dealt with first trimester abortions") was original synthesis or original research. But maybe it's better to find alternative language that we both consider to be clearly okay. I disagree with your proposed alternative (i.e. "Through examining the data it collected, the Harris organization concluded that a majority of those polled support the Supreme Court decision") because it does not give the reader any idea whatsoever that the Harris poll results may be misleading or problematic due to the fact that they only asked about the first three months. We have an obligation to not mislead Wikipedia readers, and that's the only obligation that I was trying to fulfill.

Here's how this matter was resolved in the FAR....

However, pro-life groups assert that the media often misreports polls on abortion.[34] The Harris poll question dealt with first trimester abortions, while later abortions are more controversial; 72% of women are opposed according to a Los Angeles Times poll.[11] Also, Roe decided that a woman can get an abortion for any reason, without regard to what her doctor advises.[1]

[1] Roe v. Wade.
[11] Rubin, Allisa. "Americans Narrowing Support for Abortion," Los Angeles Times (2000-06-18). Retrieved 2007-02-02. (Reporting that 65% of respondents did not believe abortion should be legal after the first trimester, including 72% of women and 58% of men.)
[34] Press Release from National Right to Life Committee titled “Associated Press and Other Media Distort Roe v. Wade and Public Opinion on Abortion Policy” (2004-11-29). Retrieved 2007-01-12.

I don't think you could make any case that this is original research or original synthesis, right? This FAR-approved solution presents the Wikipedia reader with a full understanding about the Harris poll results. Would reinstating this FAR solution be acceptable to you, Andrew c?

Alternatively, here's how this matter was resolved leading up to the reversion on October 2:

Critics assert that the media often misreport polls on Roe v. Wade.[36] The Harris poll question dealt with first trimester abortions, whereas Roe decided that a woman can get a pre-viability abortion for any reason, without regard to any concern her doctor may have about protecting the fetus, well beyond the first trimester.[1]

[1] Roe v. Wade
[36] Press Release from National Right to Life Committee titled “Associated Press and Other Media Distort Roe v. Wade and Public Opinion on Abortion Policy” (2004-11-29). Retrieved 2007-01-12.

I don't think you could make any case that this is original research or original synthesis, right? This pre-October-2 solution presents the Wikipedia reader with a full understanding about the Harris poll results. Would reinstating this pre-October-2 solution be acceptable to you, Andrew c?

A third approach would be to quote the vice president and executive editor of the Associated Press who issued a directive in 1981 stating that "it's wrong to say only that the court approved abortion in the first three months. It did that, but more."[7] I don't think you could make any case that this is original research or original synthesis, right? Presenting this quote would give the Wikipedia reader a full understanding about the Harris poll results. Would this third solution be acceptable to you, Andrew c?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

All right, let's cut to the chase. Do you have a source that state's the Harris poll question is misleading? Do you have a source that says the conclusion (which we currently quote) is inaccruate? Your proposals piece together different ideas and apply them to the Harris poll, which would be a case of wikipedia publishing the first ever criticism of the Harris poll. I hope you understand why this is unacceptable. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you believe that the sources that I've described, regarding polls and regarding reports about Roe v. Wade, are not notable and should not be included in this article? Do you have a reason for keeping material out of this article that was approved in the featured article review and that provides context for opinion polls on this subject? Must everything in the public opinion section of this article specifically reference Harris?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully within a few days I'll have time to draft some additional language that may be deemed satisfactory, for the public opinion section. Right now, the public opinion section is lacking context. It would help to have answers to the questions posed earlier today, but in any case I'll suggest how we can restore the context that was included during the FAR in February, and that existed in the article thru October. Thx.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent)I'll put the following quote in the article later today, since it seems to be what Andrew c was asking for. The Harris poll question "is misleading because, although accurate as far as it goes, it tends to give those uninformed about the decision the impression that the Court did not legalize abortion after three months....It certainly does not measure opinions about the Court’s overall decision."

Adamek, Raymond. "Abortion Polls", The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Autumn, 1978), pp. 411-413.

I still think the Harris poll results should be included in this article, because they indicate how support for Roe has risen and fallen over the years. However, it's essential that we put it in context, and the Adamek quote is one way to do that.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I really appreciate you doing this research. let's hold off throwing that quote into the article and discuss things a bit longer. Here is what I have come up with as a proposed sentence to insert after the Harris conclusion quote:

• In a 1978 journal letter, sociologist and pro-life activist^[1] Raymond J. Adamek questioned whether the Harris poll question was a valid measure of public opinion about Roe's overall decision because the question focuses only on the first three months of pregnancy.^[2]

My initial concern is that this is an almost 30 year old letter to a journal. Over at Talk:Mifepristone, editors felt a single letter to an editor from a 16 year old journal was giving undue weight to that view. So I can't help make the comparison to a letter that is even older. That said, since the question has been consistently the same over the course of the survey, the criticisms from yonder still seem valid to me. Therefore, I personally wouldn't mind inserting something along the lines of the sentence I proposed. I generally prefer summarizing instead of quoting (I feel we can be more concise, and it is more encyclopedic, and leads to better prose). If you don't mind, I would like to ask for MastCell and/or Bondegezou's opinion on the WP:WEIGHT issue (but I won't without your consent).-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, thanks for drafting some language. I agree it might be useful to add some more current stuff about the Harris poll language. For example, the poll question was called a “mind-numbing and incorrect question” in June of this year. See Franz, Wanda. "The Continuing Confusion About Roe v. Wade", NRL News (June 2007).

I see that you have inserted info about the political leanings of the author of the 1978 letter, which is fine by me, as long as we're consistent throughout the abortion-related articles. It might be better, however, to include such info in footnotes instead of the main text, so that it does not become too obtrusive, especially in an instance where there's no evidence from the cited publication itself as to the political leanings of the author (e.g. I had no idea what the political leanings of Adamek were until I read your draft language).

As for calling on Mastcell and others, how about if you and I see how far we get, first? Once we take care of the present question, then maybe we can consider whether or not to include second-trimester poll results (like those that were included during the FAR).Ferrylodge (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be worthwhile to note this discussion which occurred last month on Talk:Abortion in the United States. I would say that the determination reached about the Harris poll on that article would probably also apply to this one. -Severa (!!!) 19:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, Severa. You are referring to a brief discussion at the talk page of another article, between an anonymous IP and one named user. The conclusion reached there seems to have been that the Harris poll results should be presented without context, and without any indication that they are controversial due to the phrasing of the poll question. An opposite conclusion was reached during the Featured Article Review for the present article, after lengthier discussion.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent)I've drafted up a revised public opinion section, in order to include criticism of the Harris poll question, and to provide context for the Harris poll results....

An October 2007 Harris poll on Roe v. Wade, asked the following question:

“

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that states laws which made it illegal for a woman to have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy were unconstitutional, and that the decision on whether a woman should have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy should be left to the woman and her doctor to decide. In general, do you favor or oppose this part of the U.S. Supreme Court decision making abortions up to three months of pregnancy legal?[1]

”

The Harris organization concluded from this poll that "56 percent now favors the U.S. Supreme Court decision". However, critics assert that the poll is not a valid measure of public opinion about Roe's overall decision, primarily because the question focuses on the first trimester.[2][3] The legality of second trimester abortions is more controversial, with 72% of women opposed, according to a 2000 Los Angeles Times poll.[4]

Regardless of whether or not the Harris poll question accurately measures overall support for Roe, the poll does indicate that support for Roe has waxed and waned over the years:[5]

TABLE

The situation in 2007 was not appreciably different from in 1998.

[1]Harris Interactive, (2007-11-09). "Support for Roe v. Wade Increases Significantly, Reaches Highest Level in Nine Years." Retrieved 2007-12-14.

[2]Franz, Wanda. "The Continuing Confusion About Roe v. Wade", NRL News (June 2007): “By repeating the phrase 'up to three months of pregnancy' three times, the respondent is given the powerful suggestion that Roe legalized abortion only in the first three months. And this is then topped off with the phrase 'the woman and her doctor'—suggesting further that abortions are primarily done because of dangers to the mother’s physical health." Franz is President of the National Right to Life Committee.

[3]Adamek, Raymond. "Abortion Polls", Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Autumn, 1978), pp. 411-413: "Harris’s emphasis on the phrase ‘up to three months of pregnancy’ is both curious and misleading....The question...certainly does not measure opinions about the Court’s overall decision." Dr. Adamek is pro-life. Dr Raymond J Adamek, PhD Pro-Life Science and Technology Symposium.

[4]Rubin, Allisa. "Americans Narrowing Support for Abortion," Los Angeles Times (2000-06-18). (Reporting that 65% of respondents did not believe abortion should be legal after the first trimester, including 72% of women and 58% of men.)

[5] Harris Interactive. 'U.S. Attitudes Toward Roe v. Wade". The Wall Street Journal Online, (2006-05-04).

Any thoughts?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not particularly care for this proposal. It's a bit much, especially all at once, and the bias is evident. It basically discredits the conclusions of the Harris poll, and then presents your personal opinion on what the poll is useful for ("indicat[ing] that support for Roe has waxed and waned over the years"). On top of that, it basically quote mines (in that the full conclusions and context of the poll are omitted) a very high statistic from a poll that is 7 years older than the Harris poll. Your changes are rather drastic. It didn't seem like you had many problems with my proposal. Perhaps we could tweak that, get that in the article, and then tackle the 2nd trimester stuff?-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Andrew c, I really object to your statement that I have suggested "biased" language. The fact is that the Harris poll asked only about the first three months, whereas Justice Blackmun wrote in Roe that abortion was legalized for any reason up through "28 weeks" (i.e. 7 months). All I am trying to do here is to put the Harris poll in context by mentioning that it only covers the first trimester. That is not "bias". It is honesty. If you would like to continue the assertions of bias, would you please do so at my talk page? Thanks.

Regarding your desire to address the second trimester at another time, I have no objection, as long as you acknowledge that we should have something in this section about the second trimester. Perhaps we should include the following table based on poll results from CNN/USA Today/Gallup:

	2003 Poll		2000 Poll		1996 Poll
	“Legal”	“Illegal”	“Legal”	“Illegal”	“Legal”	“Illegal”
First trimester	66%	29%	66%	31%	64%	30%
Second trimester	25%	68%	24%	69%	26%	65%
Third trimester	10%	84%	8%	86%	13%	82%

Regarding your assertion that I have "mined" a quote, you are entitled to your opinion, I suppose, but I disagree. I placed details about the LA Times poll in the footnote, and the exact same thing was done at the conclusion of the FAR in February. The 72% figure is more notable than the other figures in the poll. Don't you think so?

And Andrew c, how can anyone look at the table that is now in the article, and not conclude that opinion has changed over the years? If you think that is merely my "personal opinion", exemplifying some sort of bias on my part, then I'm disappointed in you. If you would like to draft up some revised language that you think is free of bias and personal opinion, then please go right ahead, but I urge you to please try to assume some good faith on my part. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Editorializing"

This comment has been moved here.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Public opinion poll results table

Is there a particular reason why the table in the public opinion section only shows the results of the poll in relation to public opinion in '73? I'm not opposed to the information being included on the table, but it seems to me it would be beneficial to include the actual numbers rather than just the difference. This is particularly true because the section and table don't actually mention what the percentage was in 1973. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bobblehead, this issue was discussed during the Featured Article Review, and more recently here. Check it out, and see if that doesn't resolve your concern.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw the archive discussion and after checking out the discussion on the FAR all I'm seeing is your opinion on the wording of the poll and not a valid explanation as to why there is only the +/- percentage in relation to the 1973 opinion. If your concerned about the wording of the question, then clarify what is being measured in the title of the table, ie "Public opinion on the part of Roe v. Wade making first trimester abortions legal". As it stands now, the table is not overly informative and is more distracting than anything as it is basically meaningless without some context provided. The context of the numbers either needs to be properly addressed, or the table removed and the entire section rewritten to do a better job of addressing how public opinion has changed over the years. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As the article currently explains, there is a dispute about whether or not the Harris poll question accurately measures overall support for Roe. However, no one disputes that the Harris poll indicates that public opinion on this question has fallen and risen over the years. I am not aware of any other poll that has been taken long enough, and consistently enough over the years, to show these cyclic shifts in support.

Having said that, I agree with you that this section of the article could be improved. For example, this section currently only deals with poll results for first trimester abortion, and does not include any poll results for second trimester abortion. I would have no objection to also including a table that includes both first and second trimester abortion, such as the following table based on poll results from CNN/USA Today/Gallup:

	2003 Poll		2000 Poll		1996 Poll
	“Legal”	“Illegal”	“Legal”	“Illegal”	“Legal”	“Illegal”
First trimester	66%	29%	66%	31%	64%	30%
Second trimester	25%	68%	24%	69%	26%	65%
Third trimester	10%	84%	8%	86%	13%	82%

Any thoughts?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Roe v. Wade, not abortion. So the Gallup poll would not be appropriate for this article. But with the Harris poll, there is nothing wrong with using the actual percentages as long as it is clear that the table represents support for the part of the ruling that legalized first term abortions. I'm just not seeing how showing the +/- in comparison to 1973 resolves your concerns about the question only covering the first trimester. Even if one accepts that the Harris poll is flawed because it only asks about the first trimester, the +/- in comparison to 1973 does not reflect support for Roe v. Wade as a whole, but rather support for the portion that legalized abortion in the first trimester. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The Gallup poll is not about whether "you've ever had an abortion" or about whether "abortion is right or wrong." It's about whether or not it should be "legal." Saying it should be illegal in the first trimester is the same as saying that Roe v. Wade is wrong, isn't it? More generally, the notion that we would present poll results only for the first trimester and not for the second trimester just seems very lopsided, no?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yet again.. This article is not about abortion so a poll that is based solely on that topic is not appropriate for an article on Roe v. Wade. If you want to include polls covering the rest of the Roe v. Wade decision, then you need to find a poll that actually mentions Roe v. Wade. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll look for polls covering the rest of Roe v. Wade that actually mention Roe v. Wade in the poll question, but in the mean time I think it's best to leave the table as it's been since the FAR, so that it only indicates the trend. Not even the pro-life people would dispute the veracity of the table as it exists now, and the table now provides valuable info about the shifts in public opinion over the years. That was the reason we included it.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Check out this link and this one. It seems to be a fairly comprehensive poll about Roe.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that is what you call a push poll. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Why?Ferrylodge (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Hmmm, push poll is not the correct explanation I was going for, I meant more that the poll is a pretty good example of how to conducted a biased poll. When polling is conducted, how questions are asked and in what order you ask them are extremely important as minor changes in wording and order can have major effects on the poll results you get.[8] The poll you found guides the person taking the poll to opposing Roe v. Wade by highlighting only the "negative" reasons for having an abortion in the questions proceeding the re-asking of if they support the decision or not and by also asking a greater quantity questions of the "negative" reasons than the "positive" reasons. By the time the person makes it through question 3 they don't really remember the questions asked in number 2 and due to the wording in question 4 the only reasons to have an abortion they are going to think of the "discretionary" reasons for getting an abortion. If they had not wanted to guide people towards not supporting Roe v. Wade in question 4 they would have had an equal number of "positive" and "negative" reasons to have an abortion and they would have randomized all those reasons instead of only randomizing within the "positive" or "negative" groupings. The reason why the Harris Interactive has been used to determine the "pulse" of Americans in regards to Roe v. Wade (or at least the portion that legalized abortions in the first three months) is because the wording is as unbiased as possible, is the only abortion related question that is asked, and has been the same for three decades. Hopefully that wasn't too confusing. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The Harris wording is not unbiased: the question includes the language "should be left to the woman and her doctor to decide," as if doctors have any substantial decision-making role (the pro-life people address this point here, saying that the phrase "the woman and her doctor" suggests "that abortions are primarily done because of dangers to the mother’s physical health"). Also, the fact that Harris didn't bother to ask any question about the second trimester is telling; Harris advertises their first-trimester question as a poll regarding the overall decision. I don't see that the Ayres McHenry poll is any more biased than the Harris question. Anyway, I'm not pushing for including the Ayres McHenry results in this article, but I do find them illuminating.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Back to the presentation of the data: it sucks. If you follow the reference link to the Wall Street Journal and look at the graph for about 2 seconds, you will have a pretty good understanding of how the poll results have changed over the years. Since we took their data, can we take that graph too? Or should I put one together in excel? Nialsh (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think we can just take their graph. Also, having a graph in addition to the table would probably be overkill. The table may suck, but it provides the info. People can follow the reference link to the WSJ if they want more, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-Choice/Anti-Choice and NPOV

There are (at the moment) 5 occurrences of the phrase "anti-choice" in this article. Personal stance aside, the generally-used terms for the sides of this issue are "pro-life" and "pro-choice". Defining the controversy over this issue as "Pro" and "Anti" inherently introduces a bias, which violates NPOV. Hence, I am replacing the appropriate "anti-choice" statements as "pro-life". Ogredrew (talk) 08:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried to do that earlier, but I accidentally missed some of them. Thanks for noticing and fixing. I agree that "pro-life" is much more better than "anti-choice", because the latter is a disparaging term used by opponents, while the later is a term of self identity (see WP:NCI). I'd be glad to discuss matters further, but I think a term of derision used by opponents can never really be used neutrally. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and opinions

I deleted "as we feel it [freedom of choice about abortion] is [found in the 14th amendment]" from the article, as I felt it violated WP:NPOV.Bettering the Wiki 21:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see it came back. I don't want a lamest edit war.Bettering the Wiki 21:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please sign with four of these things: "~" at the end of your next comment. Otherwise, your user name doesn't show up at the end of your comment.

Are you aware that you removed words from a direct quote in the article?[9] We can't do that, at least not without replacing the words with one of these things: "..."Ferrylodge (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FL that the removed text was improperly removed because it was from a quotation (thus altering what our cited source wrote). Ellipses are usually used to remove words from quoted text, but I'm not sure why the words need to be removed in the first place. Removing words from quotations often causes suspicion in readers and should only be used cautiously and where appropriate. Can you please explain why you feel the quotation is improved by removing text from it? Perhaps this was simply a simple mistake and you did not realize that the text you were editing was a quotation.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal criticism

I don't think that the recent overhaul of this section is altogether a good idea. It now says that, "One reaction has been to argue that Justice Blackmun reached the correct result but went about it the wrong way" and then several people are listed. However, the cites don't indicate that Cox or Lazarus think Blackmun reached the correct result, i.e. that the Constitution supports the Roe decision.

Additionally, this section has been in narrative form for quite awhile, and I'm not sure that converting it into a list with bullets is really helpful or consistent with a featured article format. It might be better for Simon to paste the old version here, and do strikethroughs to indicate changes.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think that the edit was an improvement within the parameters it set for itself. One criterion that I set was that I didn't want to remove anything substantive, even though I thought some of it ought to go. I toyed with having another paragraph that would talk about scholars who remained formally agnostic on whether the result was correct and/or good while criticizing the reasoning. The bulleted list seemed to follow from the editorial decision to move a lot of the quotes from footnotes into the main text; doing that (which I will also defend as being better than editor-penned summaries) created a very long contiguous paragraph. I felt that bullet-pointing it made it easier for readers to digest. In sum, I would advocate reverting back to my edit and then fixing any problems with that, rather than wiping it out entirely. It's certainly improvable, but IMHO, it's an improvement on the earlier version in terms of style. Simon Dodd (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The main objection I raised has nothing to do with style, but rather addresses factual correctness. The cites don't indicate that Cox or Lazarus think Blackmun reached the correct result, i.e. that the Constitution supports the Roe decision. You may not have removed anything substantive, but you certainly added substantive material, by classifying all of these opinions, and I'd say that the classification has not been done carefully.

Regarding whether to move quotes from the footnotes into the main text, that's largely a matter of style, though I would argue that a featured Wikipedia article should be able to describe material, rather than just repeating it.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at another version which addresses the concern about the Cox and Lazarus quotes. I disagree with you that Cox and Lazarus are agnostic about whether Roe is correct, FWIW, but that's really beside the point (the article is, after all, about Roe not Ed Lazarus' opinions). I still say the bullet-pointing would be an improvement, but I've dropped that, too, in the spirit of 'go along to get along.' Simon Dodd (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead paragraph

The lead paragraph of the article has been changed. The edit summary says, "Edited lead paragraph for style and detail; this version reads better, and is both more concise and accurate." However, there's been no explanation of anything inaccurate. The new version says:

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Along with its companion case Doe v. Bolton, it held that a constitutional right to privacy that the court had recognized in earlier cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut protected the right to obtain (or perform on a consenting patient) an abortion.

The old version said:

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) is a United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a landmark decision regarding abortion.[1] According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings. Roe v. Wade is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history. Its lesser-known companion case, Doe v. Bolton, was decided at the same time.[2]

I object to omission of so much information. The decision was based on the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. What's wrong with saying that? The decision overturned pre-existing laws. Waht's wrong with saying that? Doe v. Bolton is lesser known. What's wrong with saying that?Ferrylodge (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well, first, because it's an introductory paragraph. There's nothing wrong with saying that Doe is lesser-known, per se, but it adds words without adding useful information. It's lesser-known - so what? The important point is that there was a companion case, and it was called Doe v. Bolton. That it's lesser-known is extraneous, and while there may be a place for extraneous information in the main body of the article (I'd argue not, but reasonable minds can differ), there's no place at all for such in an introduction, where the goal is to efficiently convey a broad overview of the subject. Likewise, it's not useful in an introductory paragraph to include the discussion of the substantive basis for the court's holding - and that would be so even if you were correct that the decision rested on due process. That was the Casey plurality's view of Roe, see 505 U.S. at 846, but Casey worked a lot of changes to Roe, some of them explicit, some of them amounting to sub silentio revisionism. The article isn't about abortion law as it stands now, it's about what Roe held, and Roe itself prevaricated on the basis for the decision, see 410 U.S. at 153 ("[t]his right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy"). You can argue, of course, that this prevarication didn't amount to much, and that the court was really resting on the 14th amendment, rather than the 9th amendment or on the amorphous Griswold "right to privacy," but the place for that discussion is in the body of the article. In an introduction, it adds needless complexity. Very respectfully, Ferrylodge, I disagree with you on both these issues. The re-writes to both the introduction and "liberal criticism" are, in my view, improvements.Simon Dodd (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Ferrylodge, I've tried to accommodate your concerns by editing the entire lead section rather than just the lead paragraph. The basis for the decision, the removal of which from the lead paragraph concerned you, is now tackled explicitly in the second paragraph, which keeps the information you want, but leaves the lead paragraph lean and concise, as I want. Acceptable compromise? Simon Dodd (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing style

Given that there are disagreements here, might I suggest that we work out revisions here at the talk page, before longstanding material is changed in this featured article?

I am going to revert one more time, and that will be all the reverting for today, because I don't think that edit-warring is a helpful way to proceed here. You accuse the Court of "prevaricating" in Roe v. Wade, which is a very serious charge that you haven't explained. The Court was very clear that the decision was based on the Due Process Clause, and there is no evidence that the Court "prevaricated" about that; the Court merely said that the District Court used a different rationale.

A court can only strike down a statute for inconsistency with a Clause of the Constitution, and it is silly to omit mentioning what that Clause is, in the lead paragraphs. Moreover, discussing a case decades later (Casey) is not appropriate in the lead paragraphs, absent some compelling reason. I have other objections to the recent immense changes to this article, and I wish they could all be discussed and resolved here at the talk page, instead of having a revert war.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

First - what edit war? With the goal of improving the article, I made some good-faith revisions; you reverted them. I made different revisions that explicitly acknowledged your concerns and made good-faith efforts to accommodate them; you reverted those, too. So let's be clear here: unless the definition of "revert" has been changed without my knowledge, you're the only one who's performed any reverts on this article of the two of us, still less who's engaging in an "edit war." I'm just trying to improve the article

Second, I'm hardly "accusing" the court of prevaricating: they did exactly that in the text quoted. They say that maybe the right to privacy rests on X, as we think it does, or maybe it rests on Y, as the district court felt, but either way, it's there, and that's the point." If you'd prefer the synonymous "equivocate"; that's fine with me. And in any event, my main point is that this statement should be moved to the second paragraph - along with the rest of the description of the holding - to clear the clutter from the lead paragraph. You evidently like the lead paragraph, I'm forced to infer, and don't want it changed; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles. I think it could be improved, and I think I've been reasonable and fair in trying to accommodate your concerns.

Third, the compelling reason for including Casey is obvious. The ongoing relevance of a case belongs in the introduction if it has been changed, provided the change can be concisely summarized. That is why the introduction to National League of Cities v. Usery notes its overruling by Garcia, for example, or why Dred Scott v. Sandford notes that although it wasn't overruled, it became a dead letter after the civil war amendments. Had Casey overruled Roe, I assume you wouldn't object to the introduction stating as much, and it seems to me that insofar as Casey worked significant changes to Roe -- that's why the court's post-Casey abortion cases (Stenberg, Ayotte and Carhart) cite Casey not Roe -- it belongs in the introduction, if only in very cursory reference.

In order to move forward, then. I will not revert to my last edits - not today, that is - unless we can find consensus on the talk page. That does, however, imply that you are willing to participate in trying to find a working compromise, which means a text different to the existing article. Otherwise your suggestion that we hash it out on the talk page amounts to a request that I stop editing the article and go away - again, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles. As to the lead paragraph, I propose a compromise that goes back to the revision of the lead paragraph I originally offered but includes your description of the due process basis for the holding. I can't propose an alternative for the "criticisms" section because you've not identified what your outstanding concerns are with my revised edit - the ball's in your court on that one. Simon Dodd (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be good to take one thing at a time. You inserted the following sentence into the second paragraph of this article: "The court based the ruling on a 'right to privacy,' although it prevaricated on the precise location of this right in the Constitution." The word "prevaricate" normally means to lie: "to speak falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression; lie."[10] I don't think we should start out the article by calling the Court a bunch of liars, especially not without citing reliable sources.

As to the basis for the Court's ruling, the Court said: that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." The Court thus clearly said that the liberty language of the 14th Amendment supported the decision, and they never endorsed the District Court's alternative rationale. That much is very clear, and there's no reason not to mention in the lead paragraphs that the Court based its holding on the Due Process Clause. I can produce some reliable sources to verify this, if you like.

Justice Douglas concurred in the Court's opinion, and he also wrote in Doe v. Bolton that "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights." Douglas obviously understood the Court's opinion in Roe as not endorsing a Ninth Amendment rationale, and the Court's language in Roe obviously does not endorse a Ninth Amendment rationale. But like I said, I can dig up some further reliable sources on this point if you like.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether we can agree on the foregoing isn't really relevant; I'm not interested in fighting that battle at this point. I've already offered the concession of including the basis in the lead paragraph and saying that it rested on due process, so I'd reiterate that. Simon Dodd (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I also find it problematic to discuss Griswold in the lead paragraphs. The decision in Roe v. Wade did not speak much about Griswold, and even then did so to distinguish Griswold: "The situation therefore is inherently different from marital intimacy, or bedroom possession of obscene material, or marriage, or procreation, or education, with which Eisenstadt and Griswold, Stanley, Loving, Skinner, and Pierce and Meyer were respectively concerned." Additionally, unlike Roe v. Wade, the opinion in Griswold did not rely on the Due Process Clause, but rather relied on a penumbra formed by various other provisions of the Bill of Rights, so Griswold did not serve as any precedent for interpreting the Due Process Clause upon which the Court relied in Roe.

Regarding Casey, if it had overturned Roe, then sure it would be appropriate to mention it in the lead paragraphs of this article. But Casey did not overturn Roe, and did not even slightly modify the central holding of Roe: that women can get abortions for any reason up until viability. Casey occurred decades after Roe, and I think it's best to bring it up later in the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

My instinct is to disagree on Griswold, but I'm happy to leave it out if its inclusion concerns you because (a) go along to get along and (b) leaving it out makes the lead paragraph even leaner without sacrificing any critical content. I continue to strongly disagree on Casey, hoever; it does significantly modify the Roe framework, as the Chief Justice's opinion in that case explains. I agree that the introduction shouldn't dwell on it, but when case X was reaffirmed and modified in case Y, and both cases are important, I think a sentence in the introduction noting such is appropriate.

In sum, I propose the following text for the lead paragraph: "Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Along with its companion case Doe v. Bolton, it held that a constitutional right to privacy grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment protected the right to obtain (or perform on a consenting patient) an abortion. The decision struck down virtually all state and federal laws prohibiting or regulating abortion." Simon Dodd (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The article presently says in the second paragraph:

The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[1]

Do you agree that this statement in the second paragraph is correct? If so, how was this central holding affected by Casey?

You want the first paragraph to say that Roe, "held that a constitutional right to privacy grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment protected the right to obtain (or perform on a consenting patient) an abortion." But this is simply incorrect. The opinion very clearly said that abortions after viability could be flatly banned by a state. I don't think that the present lead paragraph contains any such inaccuracy.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the liberal criticism section, you say that I’ve “not identified what your outstanding concerns are with my revised edit - the ball's in your court on that one.” But have you identified the outstanding concern that caused you to edit this section? You wanted to start the section out with a brief one-sentence paragarph, but one-sentence paragraphs are bad form. You wrote 713 words in place of 380 words, which gives that subject undue weight, and is not concise. You say what the “most prevalent reaction” has been, without citing any source, much less a reliable source; the section previously said that this was “one reaction” without specifying if it’s been the most prevalant. If there’s no paragraph break before quoting Ely, then it is made to seem like he felt Roe reached the correct constitutional result, but this is not evident from the cited sources, and ditto for Tribe, Balkin, Dershowitz, et cetera. You write about “this general heading” without clarifying what heading you’re referring to.

You say that Cox remained agnostic, but the cited source doesn’t support that, and ditto for Lazarus. You say that Wittes was “skeptical of the reasoning” in Roe, but it sounds more to me like he affirmatively denounced that reasoning. Ditto Rosen. Ditto Kinsley.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, one of my criteria in rewriting the section was to avoid eliminating any of the extant content - my intent had simply been to add the JPS quote, but when I got here and saw a chaotic section that was really pretty badly written and in need of improvement and organization, it seemed an obvious thing to do to improve the style without eliminating any content. I passed no judgment on whether the material presently in there ought to be there or not: once we've dealt with the style issue, to be frank, I'm inclined to eliminate the quotes from Cox, Lararus, Rosen et entirely.

You say my edit increased the word count, but that's not the metric. Concision doesn't have anything to do with word count, it has to do with efficiency: is the maximum information conveyed in the fewest words, and is all the information conveyed relevant. "expressing or covering much in few words; brief in form but comprehensive in scope." [11]

I think the best way to move forward on this is to restore my last edit, and then fix whatever problems remain with it - not to revert to an inferior previous version. Some of your criticisms have merit, others don't, at least in my view, but the most important point is that all of those can be addressed by improving, not reverting. Improvement is, I had thought, almost invariably preferred over reversion for non-frivolous good faith edits.[12]Simon Dodd (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to inclusion of the Stevens quote in the section about liberal criticisms, if a reliable source is also cited that confirms his reputation as a liberal (despite his own characterization of himself). It would really be nice if we could please proceed from there incrementally. I'm not trying to own the article, but at the same time Wikipedia is supposed to operate by consensus. So, if stuff is added to the article, there ought to be consensus to do so. I've explained my concerns, and still do not understand why you think the section in question is poorly written. It's been stable for many months, including through a featured article review. Cox, Lazarus, et al. were quoted in the footnotes, you then suggested moving the quotes into the main text, and now you seem to be suggesting that they be completely removed from the article. I'm not following what you view as the problems with the section. My suggestion and request would be that you copy the section onto this talk page, and then indicate by bold or strikethrough the parts that you find most objectionable.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nixon & LBJ

This edit added the following sentence: "For Nixon, the day of the ruling was really poignant; just hours after the Supreme Court handed down the ruling, he was leading the nation in mourning after learning that his predecessor, Lyndon B. Johnson, died." I'd like to remove this for several reasons. First, the image caption to the right already says that LBJ died the same day. Second, there's no cite regarding how poignant this was for Nixon; LBJ was a Democrat who Nixon may well have despised. Third, the language is not encyclopedic ("the ruling was really poignant"). Fourth, the poignancy of LBJ's death does not have much to do with this article, and maybe should go in the LBJ or Nixon articles.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)