Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Abortion/Categorization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Category:Forms of abortion, etc.

This is an extension of a debate begun at Wikipedia:Categories for Discussion.

"My way is the only way"? What about you? When I created Category:Methods of abortion, Category:Forms of abortion was deleted on the grounds that it superseded it. Your response was to sneakily create Category:Types of abortion in an attempt to forcibly reinstate your way of doing things. That category was immediately deleted on the grounds that it was an underhanded attempt to circumvent an administrative decision. Yet I am supposedly the problem here? [Severa,] you did NOTHING to try to accommodate my concerns. You didn't offer any sort of compromise. Saying that you did doesn't make it so. You reverted dozens of times while making accusations and complaining. You are acting in exactly the ways that you accuse me of doing, while claiming to be a victim. Yet, I have not broken any rules, lied about or defamed anyone, or behaved in sneaky ways. Joie de Vivre 16:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Joie de Vivre's deletion of "Forms of abortion" was an end run around the long-established WikiProject Abortion categorization system. Joie de Vivre acted unilaterally, without even attempting to raise relevant concerns on a talk page first, so that other users could weigh in and try to work together to find a solution. I invited Joie to participate in a discussion to reach an agreeable solution at Category talk:Methods of abortion. Both Andrew c and myself put forward two proposals there, and, after Joie didn't object to Andrew c's proposal, I took that as indication of 2/3 in favour and went ahead in implementing a blend of my and Andrew c's two proposals. There was nothing "underhanded" or "sneaky" about it — in fact, I tried to involve Joie in the process of finding a solution, inviting Joie to participate in discussion. I'm willing to work together with Joie de Vivre to find constructive solutions. Apparently I'm not the only editor who has stressed to Joie de Vivre how compromise, discussion, and assuming good faith make things run more smoothly on Wikipedia (although I happen to agree Nicolosi was way out of line in this case). Cooperation is integral to the function of Wikipedia — if you don't take it from me, Joie de Vivre, then take it from Mr. Wales. -Severa (!!!) 17:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
How, exactly, does my creation of Category:Methods of abortion constitute an "end-run"? Don't bother answering if you plan to continue referencing unrelated issues in an attempt to defame me. Are you purposefully trying to derail the conversation? I am not going to defend my actions in other arenas to you. The references I gave about your behavior are immediately relevant. Stick to the topic. Your options are to civilly discuss the categorization scheme, or to discuss the categorization scheme civilly. Joie de Vivre 20:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd encourage you to refrain from serving up personal criticism if you are not inclined to be receptive toward criticism yourself (which is odd, being that you have a template, {{User:Saoshyant/Userboxes/User oops}}, on your user page inviting other users to let you know if you've made a mistake). When have I lied, and when have I slandered or libelled you, because that is what "defamation" means? I have tried not to question your motivations, only your methods, but you had already chosen to read bad faith into my actions, as demonstrated in this post, long before I turned scrutiny toward you. You have continued to assume bad faith on my part through the use of such invective phrasings as "lied," "underhanded," "defamed, "broken rules," and "sneaky." This unsubstantiated, accusatory tone only serves to pour gasoline on the fire, and does not aid in dispute reslution. I strongly encourage you to follow Mr. Wale's advice and apply WP:AGF.
An "end run" is an "an attempt to surmount a difficulty without confronting it directly." There was an established system to the categorization of abortion-related articles, but you went around that order, and implemented your changes without consulting what other users thought first. Whatever. I'm prepared to accept that you were unaware that there was an established system of categorization at the time. The point is that I explained there was a system of categorization and then proposed a compromise solution and invited you to discuss it. If I had no interest in cooperation, I'd have simply recreated Category:Forms of abortion as it had existed for months, and then nominated your "Methods" cat for CfD. I wouldn't have taken the time to try to address your concerns constructively and to marry your proposals to the existing categorization structure.
Wikipedia functions through processes of cooperation. You don't own Category:Forms of abortion/Types of abortion/Methods of abortion (whatever you want to call it), any more than I do, so my concerns are as valid as your own. Here are the two main concerns that have come up:
1. Ensuring that standard medical procedures are differentiated from everything else.
2. Ensuring that all similarily-themed articles are grouped together in order to preserve navigational function.
I'm inviting you to participate in a collaborative process to find a scheme that addresses both of these concerns. Since my proposal, as well as Andrew c's proposal, were not to your taste, what your ideas? I'd like to hear them. -Severa (!!!) 23:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, Andrew c has since changed his position and sided with me on this. You're alone. Joie de Vivre 20:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New proposal

How about simply inverting the proposed structures? Articles on the medical procedures (D&C, EVA, etc.) go in the parent directory and articles on everything else (self-induced abortion, etc.) go in the child subcategory?

  • "Category:Types of abortion -> Category:Miscellaneous types of abortion."

The articles on the medical procedures would go in the top directory, "Types," which would have a caveat in its description explaining the limitations of its use, just like Category:Pro-choice activists and Category:Pro-life activists. The "Miscellaneous" category would contain the articles on things like self-induced abortion, late-term abortion, etc. This would accomplish three things:

1. The medical procedures are differentiated from everything else.
2. Medical procedures are placed higher in the categorization structure.
3. Similarily-themed articles are grouped together.

I believe this addresses Joie's concern that the medical procedure articles not come after the miscellaneous articles in the categorization hierarchy. The title, "Types of abortion," has precedent under Category:Categories by type (ex:Category:Types of cancer), while "Miscellaneous forms of abortion" was the suggestion of Joie de Vivre, and the title would be slightly modified for consistency with the parent category ("Forms" -> "Types"). If the titles don't fly with you, feel free to put something else on the table, but I think this basic structure could resolve most of the issues that have been raised. -Severa (!!!) 14:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Response: The word "methods" means something very specific that "types" or "forms" does not. The distinction of a "method" is as a "a systematic procedure or technique", which is a very important concept when describing abortion. A category including "methods" will necessarily exclude various "types" of abortion which are not medical techniques.
A good example is the partisan term "late-term abortion". "Late-term abortion" does not refer to any particular abortion method, it's a political term which groups abortion procedures by gestation. It is used only to ban abortions after a certain length of gestation period. All of the methods of abortion which can constitute a "late-term abortion" are already listed under "methods of abortion". What the "Methods of abortion" category" accomplishes here is to keep a political distinction separate from medical distinctions.
Another example: the amorphous term "forms" of abortion would allow for such things as feticide, usually caused by a blow to the abdomen. That's a "form" of abortion, is it not? The reason that it is so important to preserve the rigid and exclusive category of "Methods of abortion" is that anything that is an actual abortion method is permitted. Everything that is not, is not.
Let's look at the articles you are concerned have no place without a "types" or "forms" category. There are only five of them: Feticide, Late-term abortion, Miscarriage, Selective reduction and Self induced abortion. A form of assault, a political term, a spontaneous bodily event, an method of terminating but not removing a fetus, and a a violent act performed on yourself under dire circumstances. Frankly, I don't see very much in common between any of these articles. I don't understand why they should be grouped together, especially if it's mainly being done to empty out the main Abortion category. It's not as though there are dozens of articles in the main category or that there is any pressing need to empty it. If "Abortion" is the most appropriate category for these five articles, that's where they should remain. A desire to empty the main category by boxing articles into smaller categories should not overtake common sense.
Your proposal would necessitate getting rid of Category:Methods of abortion, which I do not support. Joie de Vivre 21:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I already addressed the two concerns noted above in this post, but, for anyone who might have not seen them, I'll restate:
1. Feticide would not be sorted under "Types of abortion."
2. I have found no evidence to suggest that "late-term abortion" is a political neologism created by the pro-life movement. Saying that something is so does not make it so. Please provide a source to support this claim. In fact, if you read Talk:Late-term abortion, you'll find a link to a Guttmacher Institute publication entitled "State Policies on Later-term Abortion." The Guttmacher Institute's mission statement states that the organization is committed to defending "exercise [of] the right to choose abortion" — so I hardly think it could be said that this organization uses the term "only to ban abortions after a certain length of gestation period." User:Lyrl agrees on this count. Besides, this isn't really the venue to bring up concerns you might have over the term "late-term abortion." "Partial-birth abortion" was merged into Intact dilation and extraction, because PBA was determined to be a neologism after discussion on that article's Talk page, but, until a similar action is undertaken as a result of discussion at Talk:Late-term abortion, I do not see a reason for putting the cart before the horse and basing any judgments throughout WikiProject abortion as though this action has already occurred.
No less than four proposals have been presented to you (1, 2, 3, 4), two each from myself and Andrew c, none of which have been to your satisfaction. What sort of compromise solution would you support? I'd be interested in hearing your proposals for a compromise solution. -Severa (!!!) 23:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's accurate to characterize me as tossing out suggestion after suggestion like a tyrant. Yes, various suggestions were made in working towards a consensus, but they all required one of two things: either changing the Methods category to include those things which aren't methods, burying the methods category behind other non-method "forms", or changing the name of the "methods" category to allow a nested "miscellaneous" category, which would force the "methods" category to become: guess what? a "Forms" category.
Andrew c's most recent statement was to retract his suggestions, expressing that he agreed with my position. He stated that he found your solution to be logical in form, but he understood and agreed with my position that Category:Methods of abortion should not be diluted or buried, that it should remain specifically for medical procedures only, and that it should not be buried within a vague "types" or "forms" category. (Editors, visit this page, and search for the phrase "Gospel Books" to see the comment I am referencing.)
I would like to help you, but I stand firm that Category:Methods of abortion should remain exactly where it is. Is there some reason that Category:Miscellaneous forms of abortion could not be formed and placed separately from Category:Methods of abortion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joie de Vivre (talk • contribs) 22:08, 1 April 2007