Talk:Anti-abortion feminism

Expert Needed

It's difficult to try to write about this article in a more neutral, unbiased tone, and I noticed some people who edit the article always are biased against the pro-life feminism. There are really many pro-life feminist views across the world and this article should reflect this, not the views of their oponents in excess.85.242.239.146 (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The article should reflect the anti-abortion feminists positions taken from the 18th century to the first half of the 20th century. Then, after 1969, it is exactly when we can talk properly about pro-life feminism, around the world.85.242.239.146 (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I am a reviewer and I will do my best to expand the article and exemplify the modern pro-life feminist stances. Not a easy task but it should be done.Mistico (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Like I wrote before: "Pro-life feminism, as an organized movement only developed in the second half of the 20th century, specially after the 1960s, when the pro-choice movement become more influencial. It makes however all the sense that modern pro-life feminism claims to be in the heritage of the anti-abortion feminist tradition of the past, in the same way that pro-choice feminism reinvidicates the same about the 19th and 20th century feminists who supported legal abortion. The same goes for modern anti-death penalty supporters who use the heritage and the stances made against the death penalty in the past from people like Thomas Paine and Victor Hugo, or for the death penalty by people like Thomas Aquinas and Abraham Lincoln. The times change but these controversial issues remain."Mistico (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You cannot improve this article by removing any of the text based on scholar Laury Oaks. For instance, this edit from Mistico removed an important point about pro-life feminism's refusal to split up the abortion issue into its various legal, moral and medical components in the way that many women do. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This was Laury Oaks POV and it is very arguable.85.243.70.254 (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The Oaks cite is a peer-reviewed scholarly work, the highest level of sourcing possible by Wikipedia guidelines. Her viewpoint is a scholarly one and her cited text cannot be removed. Binksternet (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm finding these arguments rather unconvincing, seeing as your attempts to supposedly reach NPOV include deleting information from the only scholarly source cited, removing attributions in favor of having this encyclopedia state as if it were fact that "pro-life" feminists are carrying on a nineteenth-century tradition, and changing the text to pretend that "pro-life" feminists are a substantial number of feminists instead of a fringe group that's rejected by the feminist movement as a whole. (You claim that "pro-life" feminists are a majority elsewhere, but you've yet to prove it. Numbers, please.)

Please read WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV: "Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution." Please read WP:UNDUE: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view."

Perhaps you do have useful things to contribute to this article, but we haven't yet seen them. Maybe you could begin by writing content instead of by deleting it?

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

19th century feminists

Not all 19th century feminists felt the same way about abortion. We cannot put the names of three women in a row if we describe them in ways that do not fit all three. We have this sentence beginning:

• Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Matilda Joslyn Gage, who considered abortion to be an evil forced upon women by men...

All three agreed upon this aspect. They thought the world that men controlled was a world that brought about the problems of abortion and illegitimacy, prostitution and infanticide (the killing of a newborn). The 19th century feminists thought, perhaps too optimistically, that if women were strong in politics, if they held the vote, that abortion could be eliminated, along with a host of other societal ills.

But abortion as a crime? Anthony never expressed an opinion about abortion being a crime. In fact, she typically did not advocate any kind of law that focused its restrictions on women. She advocated laws that lifted restrictions. A rare exception to this was her stance on prostitution which was very liberal, legalizing prostitution in order to control its bad effects, or on the fence, unsure about what would be best, until the early 1870s at which time she sided with those who wanted to make prostitution a crime. Maybe she wanted to make it illegal for a man to seek out a prostitute... Anyway, Anthony cannot be lumped together with more fiery, more religious orators as Gage who did consider abortion a crime. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem very biased against pro-life feminism of nowadays and the anti-abortion feminist stances of the past. I have no problem in having a article explaining the pro-choice feminism and their heritage and I certainly wouldn't like to see it written in a biased way against them. Excuse me, but from all evidence I ever read Susan B. Anthony really saw abortion as a crime, and Matilda Josylin Gage was an atheist! This is what Anthony said about abortion: "Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!"[1] The historical context of the 19th century feminism is very different from nowadays. Most feminists opposed abortion in principle and were against it's legalization. You are trying to enforce your POV in the article claiming that modern pro-life feminists are less feminists then modern pro-choice feminists, calling them mainstream feminists. Pro-choice feminists can be a majority in the United States but this article is about pro-life feminists in the world. The article should reflect the 18th cand 19th century feminist views on abortion, taking their historical context. Back then very few voices support legal abortion and the most widespread view was that abortion really could be eliminated. I am trying to select a proper bibliography about that and different stances on abortion taken by leading feminists. There were already some feminists in the 19th century who supported the legality of abortion. The first half of the 20th century saw many of these anti-abortion stances by leading feminists and also the rise of modern pro-choice feminists like French writer Simone de Beauvoir. Since 1960, we can talk with more propriety about pro-life feminism, as opposing pro-choice feminism, and it is a movement widespread across the world. We can't center this article exclusively in the United States. In fact, from what I have read, pro-life feminists are very influencial in Latin America and the Islamic world.Mistico (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I invite all the editors of this article to read carefully Wikipedia policies of NPOV: [2].Mistico (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV is my guiding light. I know it inside and out.

You are wrong about Gage, and you are wrong about Anthony. Gage was religious, helping Stanton write The Woman's Bible, but she seriously questioned religion, from the inside. Anthony did not write the quote you think she did... it was anonymous, signed only 'A'; a manner of signing that Anthony never used. Anthony never stated, not once, any opinion about abortion being made a crime.

Regarding the difference between U.S. ratio of pro-life to pro-choice feminists and the global ratio, you will need to cite some sources. Scholar Laury Oaks is the cited source saying pro-life feminism is the minority. You cannot remove that simply because you do not like it. If other cites are brought into the article, scholarly ones that can stand up against Oaks, which counter her viewpoint, then you can modify the Oaks statement to say that other experts have arrived at a different conclusion. You cannot remove any Oaks-cited text as it is at the highest level of scholarship as judged per Wikipedia guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm seriously worried about applying the labels "pro-life" and "pro-choice", both fairly modern terms invented for propaganda purposes, to people from the 19th century who would not even recognise them. There is no historical continuity from e.g. Anthony to modern "pro-life" feminists. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly nobody in the 19th century can be absolutely named as pro-life or pro-choice, but we can quote reliable sources who say they think so, keeping to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Which portion of the article are you worried about? Binksternet (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this NPOV: "Having failed to gain a respected position within traditional feminism,[1] pro-life feminists have aligned themselves with other anti-abortion, "right to life" groups. This placement sets them against the feminist movement, and erodes the sense of an identity separate from other pro-life groups, despite the pro-life feminist "pro-woman" arguments that are distinct from the "fetal rights" arguments put forward by others.[1]" What do you mean with traditional feminism? I guess nobody really can talk about pro-life and pro-choice feminism except after the 1960s but modern pro-life feminists can claim the tradition of the 19th century and 20th century first half feminists that were anti-abortion. How can such a claim in a article based and pretend isn't biased against pro-life feminism? Should this article be totally subservient to Laury Oaks bias?82.154.80.225 (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this article, like all articles, should reflect the highest-level sources we can find. If you are able to locate a pro-life scholarly source then bring that information to counter (not remove) Laury Oaks. Other non-scholarly sources must remain "subservient" to Oaks. Binksternet (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Germaine Greer

Is not pro-life. Simply no question about it. Disliking the way in which abortion is currently practiced, preferring to focus on prevention of unwanted pregnancy, criticizing the movement's focus on abortion - are not equivalent to opposing abortion, and your personal belief that she is "pro-life," based on your own interpretation of one essay (when she's written time after time about her support of abortion rights), is not an acceptable substitute for reliable sources.

(As for the other parts of the revert: WP tagging policy is that tags are not to be used as a badge of shame, but rather to advertise ongoing discussions about how to improve the article. There are no ongoing discussions. I removed the links because they are for individual organizations, and should be linked in those organizations' articles but not from a page on the general principle. And we have no reason to say "Laury Oaks states" as though it's her personal opinion.)

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"Germaine Greer advocate(s) a clear warning about abortion on demand." Would you say that is not an accurate assessment of the source? And though I didn't write the statement, from my perspective it looks like the editor is trying to say that the existence of Pro-life feminism doesn't mean that all other varieties of feminism are mainline Pro-choice. Decenting opinions do exist. Is that an inaccurate statement to make?

As for the other part of the revert, would you not say that the article could use the benefit of an expert? And in my opinion we are debating a POV issue right now. Other political articles include links to individual organizations or directories of organizations including Feminism, and I have not be able to confirm the context of Laury Oaks's comment as the link isn't currently working for me, so given I had just hit the revert button I didn't see any reason to keep that specific change. PeRshGo (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether it's an accurate paraphrase is irrelevant. It might belong in the Germaine Greer article. Greer not opposing abortion, it doesn't belong in an article on feminists who oppose abortion.

No, I don't see the need for an expert. Nor was the reason for that tag ever explained, in fact; it seems rather like the person who originally added it thought it meant "o no this article isn't promoting my POV!" rather than "let's get someone in with scholarly background in the subject."

The only EL that leaps out at Feminism is the link to Women's Forum Australia; all the other links appear to be historical/scholarly/news sources. I'm not terribly invested in removing the links, but it does give the impression of "'Pro-life' feminism is represented entirely by these three organizations, only one of which is notable."

What would you say is the POV problem we're currently discussing? I certainly see a BLP problem, viz. calling a living person "pro-life" when she is not, but that's a different policy.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, also, if you have no objection with removing "Laury Oaks states" but, as you said, just reverted it blindly, would you mind restoring it? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether it's an accurate paraphrase does matter. If it's accurate and contributes to the article it shouldn't be removed. It never says she's a Pro-life feminist and in fact it says the opposite. As for your assessment of the tag, well that's your POV on their motivations. If I look at this article now I can certainly say it looks like it could use someone who knows what they're talking about. As for the external links, the primary issue I had was just leaving it empty when there are obviously organizations it could link it. The POV problem, and in the reality the only reason I even looked at this article is I noticed a couple of editors seem to be Wikilawyer Pro-life oriented subjects into the dust. I wasn't even watching the subject, I'm just stuck at my in-laws and thought, wow these actions are painfully blatantly against the sprit of Wikipedia policies, someone should say something. PeRshGo (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

So, wait, you're agreeing that Greer is not in any way an example of "pro-life" feminism and you still want to keep her in an article on "pro-life" feminism? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The only point being made by their edit was that even mainline feminists will have negative things to say about abortion. It was never said she was a pro-life feminist. PeRshGo (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Then it doesn't belong in an article on "pro-life" feminism. This isn't a clearinghouse for every possible criticism of abortion coming from a self-identified feminist. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Then what source would you suggest properly backs up the claim that even some mainline feminists criticize abortion? PeRshGo (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

A third-party source would be preferred, but this is something to bring up on Talk:Feminism; since it isn't about "pro-life" feminism, this is not a good place to discuss it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Greer's attitude(s) toward abortion should not go in this article but into other relevant ones such as feminism or abortion or Greer.

And Laury Oaks does not have to be attributed as she is a top scholar giving a neutral appreciation of the topic.

And the tags at the top are old. They have already done whatever good they were intended to produce, and they should be retired.

Finally, this article should not be linking URLs to groups that are not pro-life feminists. Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

So now that you have made a comment you feel comfortable reverting the article to your previous edit with no consensus made? PeRshGo (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing better arguments for removal of Greer, removal of tags, removal of off-topic URL, removal of "Laury Oaks said". An essential step in achieving consensus is that the arguments of one group are convincing. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course you find the arguments better, you reverted to an edit that you yourself made first. Roscelese simply repeated it. But it does make me realize the sad truth looking me in the face which is that consensus is a numbers game and that’s one thing I just don’t have. PeRshGo (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Laury Oaks COI

Laury Oaks is a mainstream feminist scholar commenting on a movement that she states herself broke away from and now is at odds with mainstream feminism. There should be some statement making the reader aware that this possible conflict of interest allowing the reader to decide how much weight they wish to give it. Listing authorship is not discrediting. PeRshGo (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't how conflict of interest works. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

So members of an opposing viewpoint get the final say on their opposition? PeRshGo (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If they meet our RS standards, which, as scholarly sources, they do. Dressing up the same old argument in "she has a COI!" won't fool anyone. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually that's not true. The RS guideline doesn’t weigh in on conflict of interest issues, but taking conflicts of interest into account is most certainly important in balancing POV. Usually this is achieved by putting the view of opponents in to a criticism section or mention the author’s position before the view is stated. PeRshGo (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If there were a conflict of interest, then we could discuss whether that devalues the source, but "no longer anti-abortion" is not a conflict of interest. Again, this is the same argument you've already tried and had rejected with Gordon and Sherr - "She doesn't agree with me, so she's not RS" - but now you're trying to dress it up in a new policy in the hope that it'll work this time. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you think I'm talking about? Though it's off topic I've never considered Gordon not to be RS, and I still do consider Sherr more TV personality than scholar, like the consensus made on other articles. But right now I'm stating that Oaks is a mainstream feminist commenting on a movement that is at odds with her own, and it should be framed as such PeRshGo (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. Let me phrase it a little differently: Not opposing abortion is not a conflict of interest. Read WP:THIRDPARTY. Trying to claim that Oaks is writing as a representative of some organization or establishment could charitably be described as original research, but I'm not so charitable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oaks is a verifiable mainstream feminist. By her own account Pro-life feminism split off from mainstream feminism and is now at odds with mainstream feminism. It is the equivalent on giving a Catholic Priest the final say on Lutheranism. There is a clear conflict of interest. This does not mean we should remove the information because it is important for the reader to be aware of what the parent movement thinks about its offspring, but the statement should be correctly framed. Also note from the very policy you linked to me it is mentioned that it is best to mention how the source is connected to someone with an interest in the topic if there is even a possible conflict of interest and it is most important to do so in controversial subjects. So what is the problem with giving the reader information on who wrote the statement? PeRshGo (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Selectively quoting parts of that paragraph is a waste of time, because if you'd look at the rest, you'd see that disagreement does not constitute a conflict of interest. I don't know how many more ways I can say this. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

So do you have any reason why Oaks's statement should not have information about who made it? PeRshGo (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it's an admitted attempt to treat her as an antagonist instead of as a scholar. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it incorrect to state that she is a mainstream feminist, and that by her own statement pro-life feminism broke away from mainstream feminism, and is now at odds with mainstream feminism? If it isn't then what possible grounds do you have for your argument? PeRshGo (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Because, as I already said, it's pretending that she represents the antagonist position instead of the scholarly position. In short, what you failed to do with Gordon and Sherr, but now you're claiming it's a COI issue. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I never made this argument with Gordon or Sherr. My issue on that OTHER article was that they were attempting to make a statement of fact on a matter of opinion. Now unless you’re going to try to make some rebuttal to my argument on THIS article I see no reason why not to change it back. PeRshGo (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I've rebutted your "argument" half a dozen times and I see no reason to copy and paste it when you can just go back and read it. Take the source to a noticeboard if it offends your "pro-life" sensibilities. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

All you have said is you don't like the argument. If all you have is bad faith accusations I'm changing it back. You can't just complain about it without responding to its content. PeRshGo (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would you make that claim when anyone can look at this thread and see that it's not true? Do you really think that people will take your word for it about what I said when they have my comments right in front of them? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You have made no argument! Unless you can prove that my assertions aren’t true all you're doing is stating your dislike for my changes. PeRshGo (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

These false claims are wasting my time and they're wasting yours. Like I said: take it to a noticeboard. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Will do. In the mean time, take a look at Wikipedia:ATTRIBUTEPOV. PeRshGo (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

As the name would suggest, ATTRIBUTEPOV is only relevant for POVs. If you'd read the paragraph, you would notice that it refers to "biased statements of opinion," not to research published in peer-reviewed journals. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be continuously ignoring the fact that this is a mainstream feminist writing in a mainstream feminist journal about a movement that splintered off of mainstream feminism and is now at odds with mainstream feminism. Parent groups as a whole on Wikipedia, or anywhere are not considered impartial when commenting on sub groups that have rebelled against them. You are trying to argue that Feminism should somehow be an exception to the rule here without providing a reason for the exception. It not suiting your POV isn’t a good enough reason. PeRshGo (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Feminist Formations is a scholarly journal, not the Pravda of the "mainstream" feminist movement. If you want to include "mainstream" feminists' opinions on "pro-life" feminists, I'm sure there's plenty of material out there, but Oaks's research is not an example of that. You're really going to need better evidence discrediting the author or the journal if you want to claim that the statements represent a simple POV rather than research, as you are doing when you cite ATTRIBUTEPOV. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Oaks is a scholar, period. If you have another scholar in mind who rebuts her position, bring it into the article in a way that balances the two views. If no other scholar is brought, Oaks stands. Binksternet (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not advocating removing Oaks. Oaks standing or not was not and has never been the issue. PeRshGo (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese, you’re strawmaning. No one is trying to trying to eliminate Oaks or somehow make a statement to discredit her. You even reverted someone else’s change to just listing her as “feminist scholar” complaining that it didn’t address your strawman. I would have been fine with that change. Laury Oaks is a Feminist, and she’s commenting on a movement that is according to her own statement at odds with mainstream Feminism. There is no policy “violation” in attributing her claims. In fact if anything it’s encouraged. So unless you can find a policy that is opposed to listing authorship you have no case. PeRshGo (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Claiming that her research represents the "mainstream" feminist POV instead of peer-reviewed scholarship is an attempt to discredit, yes. Attributing the statement implies the invocation of ATTRIBUTEPOV when no POV dispute exists. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that being published in a peer reviewed journal somehow equates to 100% impartial, but it doesn’t. Noam Chomsky for example regularly has work that is published in peer reviewed journals, but given his political beliefs and highly regarded status his authorship is more often than not mentioned when one of his articles is cited. This is true with most articles about political belief systems. Libertarianism for example name drops on nearly every source. There is no reason this article should be an exception. PeRshGo (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There you go again pretending that Oaks's research reflects only her personal opinion! Chomsky is not a political scientist or historian, so duh, his political opinions are going to be attributed. When do we attribute his uncontested statements on linguistics, his field of study? (Note "uncontested" - if there were a scholar that had a different view of "pro-life feminism," we would obviously write "Oaks says A and Bloggs says B," but absent any disagreement, there's no need for this, and poisoning the well is in any case inappropriate. Same reason there's all that attribution at Libertarianism - because we present different views. Also because many of the names are being cited for their political opinions rather than their scholarship.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the key points about Oaks is that her article was given a high level of peer review before it was printed in NAWSA Journal. Nobody on that journal's editorial board would allow mere opinion to be printed. We apply the article as The Truth until another scholar is found who says differently. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Chomsky is a linguistics, political, and philosophical scholar, his work has been published in peer reviewed journals covering a variety of subjects, and his statements, many of which come from such journals are attributed to him more often than not. Also peer reviewed journals do not simply publish statements of fact but also scholarly opinions on matters with the peer review process existing to eliminate outright falsehoods. On top of that even views that are uncontested are very often attributed to the article especially if the subject matter of the article is controversial. But with the arguments you’ve presented you still don’t address the fact that this is a feminist’s comments on a splinter group in opposition to her own and there is no policy or good reason that recommends not attributing authorship to a statement. In fact it is outright promoted in things like Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Writing_for_the_.22enemy.22. Listing authorship shows no bias, and in no way discredits. The only possible reason that you would want to not attribute authorship would be to hide it. PeRshGo (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I've explained half a dozen times that pretending Oaks's research represents The Feminist Opinion instead of sociological research is a misrepresentation that attempts to discredit the best source thus far cited. The fact that you don't want to believe it doesn't mean that, as you claim, I haven't explained it. If you still feel that it's important to pretend that Oaks represents a side instead of scholarship, take it to a noticeboard and see if you can find people who agree with you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Despite her being in your opinion the best source (a source that mind you has only been referenced by other issues of the same journal) she still is a feminist who by her own admission is speaking about a group which is at odds with feminism. On top of that there is nothing discrediting about listing authorship. Why hide her? PeRshGo (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No one's "hiding." Her name and the journal are very clearly listed in the references, because that's how citation works. Adding information about her in the article text supposes that it's her opinion. For the twenty-fourth time (I'm not counting, this is a nerdy allusion), personal disagreement does not constitute conflict of interest or scholarly bias. Your unwillingness to try and resolve this through the normal channels for content disputes, instead of by just repeating your already discredited "arguments" and making easily disproved claims about other users' comments, does not reflect well on you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually have attempted to go through the "proper" channels but no one wants to touch this one. I can’t even get a third opinion. Controversial issues on Wikipedia are a garbage dump of POV and no one wants to get involved in that tangled web. That’s why the abortion wikiproject died out. The only thing that reflects bad on me is I don’t know when to quit arguing with POV pushers. You claim that mentioning her name supposes that it's her opinion. So the fact that listing authorship is recommended as I have demonstrated is just set aside? The reality is you don’t want it to be clear that nearly the entire article is cited to the work of one mainstream feminist writing about a movement she sees at odds with her own. It’s plain and simple and the only reason you’re getting away with it is because the debate is more or less just you and me, and you’re more than willing to edit war over it rather than reaching for a compromise like the edit Haymaker made. PeRshGo (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You got a third opinion and you didn't like it. The next stop is a noticeboard. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Bink isn't exactly uninvolved, but if you want to count everyone Haymaker made their own edit on the issue and you reverted that too. I still have a notice up for a genuine 3rd opinion. PeRshGo (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Try reading WP:3O again. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I did. "Third opinions must be neutral. If you have had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute." PeRshGo (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

3O is for bringing a third person into a dispute between two editors. How many editors do you count here, arguing about Oaks? More than two, so 3O is not the proper venue for your concerns. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

My 3O request predates you chiming in and I still feel a neutral opinion from someone not involved in the regular editing of these articles would be greatly beneficial. But with you back involved you two basically can keep any one person from editing to the article given the one revert rule sanctions so I might as well take a break from the issue for now. Hopefully time will bring more editors and a hope for a more neutral POV. PeRshGo (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Previous involvement is irrelevant; you had a two-editor conflict, it's no longer only two editors, you cannot use 3O anymore. Stop complaining about meanie editors reverting you in the interest of NPOV, and take the issue to a noticeboard if you don't feel that your position can't stand up to scrutiny. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Laury Oaks named in article text?

Should feminist studies professor Laury Oaks be named as the source of information about the pro-life feminist movement? Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I rephrased the question neutrally. Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Above rewitten by Binksternet, original RFC below.

• Named. Currently the Pro-life Feminism article is primarily cited to one source, a journal article written by feminism scholar and mainstream feminist Laury Oaks, and primarily portrays the movement in a negative light. Oaks herself sees the movement as at odds with mainstream feminism and being a mainstream feminist herself I see this as a possible conflict of interest. The journal article itself has only been cited by the journal that originally published it but since it is scholarly journal and a well-known author I see no reason to remove it, only that her authorship be mentioned so that the reader is aware that the content primarily comes from one author and that author sees the movement as at odds with her own. The two editors that more or less run the abortion related articles will not hear of this and see any mention of authorship as an attempt to discredit Oaks and oppose any attempts at compromise on this or any issue that relates to balancing article's point of view. I don’t usually take things to this level but I don’t generally edit these types of articles and I think I’m just out of patience. PeRshGo (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a violation of the rules related to filing RfCs. Please rephrase your request in a neutral tone that does not bias users in favor of or against one side of the disagreement. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Rephrased per guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

To elaborate on the arguments for and against, which I like to do:

• One user believes that because the subject of the article is a splinter movement from feminism, Oaks is biased against it, and her article should be taken as the feminist opinion and attributed as such.
• Other users believe that, Oaks's article having been published in a scholarly journal, it is inappropriate to treat her as the representative of a side, rather than as a scholar, by attributing these facts as though they were her opinion.

Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Now who is being non-neutral? 1st User:Haymaker also edited the article to reflect oaks authorship, and that was the original state of the article before you and Binksternet changed it. 2nd I do not think that it should be listed as her opinion, only her authorship be listed, and third "Other users" specificaly represents you and Binksternet, no one else. Please do not hide numbers in phrases such as "other users." PeRshGo (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"Other users" still means a number that is more than one. What, would you have me say "another user," when that doesn't reflect the current situation? I'm not going to pretend I can't count just so that our position looks like it has less support; that's not what neutrality means. Your claim that the article originally listed Oaks as the author is, additionally, both false and irrelevant.

By acting as though your rant is still the RfC, rather than Binksternet's neutral summary of the issue, you are still violating the rules on filing RfCs. I am going to add a note that makes it clear to other users that this is your vote, rather than the RfC notice.

--Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Just listing the debate as me vs. others is both an inaccurate and an intentionally slanting view of the situation that ironically mirrors article problems. Stating “Binksternet and I believe…” would have been more accurate. Also the article was written as “Laury Oaks says” when I came to this article. This is a fact and not up for debate. The relevance is that it makes me one of at least three editors which have added that to the article. PeRshGo (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Not named. Naming Laury Oaks is an attempt to downgrade her study conclusions from the mainstream scholarly view to a skewed opinion from a non-pro-life point of view. I would be happy to name her if there were other scholars making contradictory statements, coming to contrary conclusions, but there are none. Absent disagreement among scholars, it must be assumed Oaks states the mainstream version. The main version does not need attribution. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• Not named. We have, at present, no other research cited on the history of the "pro-life feminist" movement, and naming Oaks in the article text, absent any contradictory research, implies that the research reflects only her opinion, rather than sociological study. I'm opposed to using her name, but I'm even more strongly opposed to using the phrase "Laury Oaks, a (mainstream) feminist scholar" - there are plenty of things to say about Oaks, and choosing "mainstream feminist" is an (openly admitted) attempt by PeRshGo to poison the well and pretend that she represents the feminist opinion (which we could easily provide with statements from feminist organizations if we chose to do so) rather than peer-reviewed scholarship. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• Name it (for now). Right now, this article just isn't that great. More than half of it is cited to the writings of one woman. Hopefully in the coming weeks that will change but until it does, we may as well let the reader know who accounts for about 2/3s of this article. - Haymaker (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Named No attempt to discredit. Perfectly reasonable to inform the reader who she is, especially since most of the article is based on her work. Lionel (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Name it. I don't see her name as a tool to discredit her, and in my experience, scholars no matter what their credibility are named on Wikipedia articles describing contentious debates and movements (for example, see how Tibet during the Ming Dynasty is replete with names). Also, although I'm trying to be sympathetic to the side that argues that Oaks does not represent a POV, I have seen little direct refutation for an alarming body of evidence for a strong polemical tendency in her writings. Quigley (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

So with all the "name it" folks listed, is anyone interested in making the edits? I'm reluctant to do is myself out of worry that anything I do may be construed as "edit warring." PeRshGo (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I've already done it, you're one step behind. ;) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Name her, I don't think it's a tool to discredit her, it just shows that there is a limited amount of research on the adherents and that the information in the article is derived from her research. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Religion section

I tagged it as OR six months ago, and no one's bothered to add any references, so I see no reason to keep this uncited and unverified content in the article. It contains one source, which does not mention "pro-life feminism" in any way; the rest of the section, which makes claims about the religious beliefs of "pro-life feminists," is totally uncited. Is there any particular reason another user is insisting on adding this made-up information? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph is cited, and makes the connection between Pro-life feminism and the predominantly Catholic New Feminism. The second is uncited and probably should be. PeRshGo (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly - it "makes [a] connection" that isn't supported by the cited source, which doesn't mention "pro-life feminism" at all. This is what "original research" means. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Pro-life feminism is a topic, New Feminism is a type of Pro-life feminism. Why? Check the New feminism article, it’s pro-life, and it’s feminism. There is nothing wrong with talking about in the Pro-life feminism article. PeRshGo (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope. "Pro-life feminism," according to our sources here, means that the principles of feminism (equality, nonviolence and so forth) inform some people's opposition to abortion. "New feminism," on the other hand, opposes abortion because it believes that women's purpose is to bear children, and it calls itself "feminism" for God knows what reason. Your "pro-life" + "feminism" = "pro-life feminism" is classic synthesis. Would you like to take the question to WP:NORN? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Your response is OR. Calling a pro-life feminist movement pro-life feminism is not. But it's irrelevant till tomorrow. Someone came by and swept up the edits without being involved in the talk page so I guess it's a dead issue for now. I even found some sources. Well I guess they’ll have to wait. PeRshGo (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm the "someone". I haven't contributed to the talk page lately, but I've followed it. I tend to read more than I write. In any case, if you're waiting for 1RR to time out before reverting again, you're missing the point. PhGustaf (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If I thought there was a chance Roscelese would act in good faith I would restore the religion section with proper sources, but I can say with a certainty that it would be used against me in the already pending 1RR litigation. There is no consensus attempted on abortion articles, just bullying and wikilawyering. PeRshGo (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. Simply reverting once a day is not the way forward. Building a strong argument and gaining adherents is. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You can’t argue with people who aren’t genuinely interested in improving the article because they literally hate the subject matter. The only thing you can hope to do is create content that is so full of citations that editors will not remove it out of fear of being undeniably outed as pov-pushers. PeRshGo (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say both editors aren't genuinely interested, but one certainly isn't. And if we're wrong, please prove it by trying to work with us, not shutting us down. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

No intelligent editor interested in improving articles would bind his hands by blindly agreeing to "work with" editors who may or may not help make the articles better. This notional editor would analyze each new change independent of who made the change. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If you distrust us, that's your problem. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

Part of this article was very biased against pro-life feminism, while it is totally centred in the United States. I think an expert is needed.85.240.22.35 (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Almost the entire article can be attributed to one author who is an outspoken critic of the movement. It could use neutral sources. PeRshGo (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The most heavily relied-upon sources are scholars. They have taken a neutral look at the issues and stated their conclusions. What you see is not bias but a neutral appreciation of the issues which puts pro-life feminism in a non-mainstream, minority position relative to feminism. Of course, proponents of pro-life feminism will not like being called a minority position, but that's the scholarly assessment. Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In the United States, if pro-life feminists are a minority, in a way or another, that is not the point. Not all the pro-life women are feminists. Same goes for the pro-choice women. Obviously if they were the number would be much larger. The question is that they have their own beliefs and go back to contemporary feminists who use, like them, all the typical feminist argumentation about a woman right to choose, their reproductive rights, while rejecting abortion, because they see pregnancy as the ultimate right to choose and value pre-natal human life to wish it to see it protected by law. I know this is very controversial and needs better and reliable sources. For example, the article seems to forget that pro-life feminists use an argumentation that refutes all the pro-choice claims about who defends more or better women's rights. For example, pro-choice feminists don't regard abortion against the will of the woman as a crime while pro-life feminists do it. The question isn't about who is less or more feminist, it all depends of the point of view and this isn't to promote anyone views, just to present information neutraly. I found several books tackling the pro-life feminist question on google books, some sympatethic, others more neutral or hostile, and I will try to select some of the most significant so they can be used to improve the article.85.242.236.140 (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Laury Oaks is totally biased against pro-life feminism, like her quotes showed it. She even could be a pro-choice feminist and try to see it more neutraly, but it's not her point. The article seems to indicate that feminism in the United States is intrinsicaly pro-choice and pro-life feminists aren't even worthy of calling themselfs feminists! Based in Laury Oaks source, the article sated: "This placement sets them against the feminist movement, and erodes the sense of an identity separate from other pro-life groups, despite the pro-life feminist "pro-woman" arguments that are distinct from the "fetal rights" arguments put forward by others." This is too subjetive and the article should show how feminist stances on abortion evolved during the 20th century feminist movement until the current situation.85.242.236.140 (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You've been going at this article for a year and your argument that we should ignore peer-reviewed scholarly research because it's not promotional enough has always been rejected. Why do you keep re-hashing this argument from slightly different IP addresses? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

First off, those who wish to improve this article need to step up to the scholarly plate and deliver a strong source from, say, a university sociologist or similar. The Laury Oaks source is frank and honest, and it is scholarly. Equally strong sources are needed.

The personal arguments I am seeing on this page are not sufficient to make any changes to the article. One of them is that "Not all the pro-life women are feminists". Well, gee, this is not the pro-life article, it is the pro-life feminism article. In fact, Oaks says that pro-life feminists were forced into the arms of the pro-life movement in general (including non-feminists) because they found that mainstream feminists did not embrace them. So the personal argument is aligned with one of Oaks's points. I don't see any need for action relative to the neutrality template that has been tacked onto this page. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we ask in what historical context she refers to? The 1960s? The United States after 1973? What she says is: "pro-life feminists were forced into the arms of the pro-life movement in general (including non-feminists) because they found that mainstream feminists did not embrace them." Wait a minut? Wheren't pro-life feminists already a part of the pro-life movement?! I am sorry, read the Wikipedia policies, then you should show to what exactly particular context is Laury Oaks pointing to. By the way, the article rather obviously doesn't show a universal view of the subject. It needs an expert.85.242.236.140 (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

We're already citing an expert, but you're dismissing her because she doesn't promote your movement hard enough. That's not how RS works. If you want to know what timeframe she's talking about, why don't you, I don't know, read the article? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I found some books about pro-life feminism [3]. I can mention: Gail Grenier Sweet, Pro-life Feminism: Different Voices (1985), Rachel MacNair and Mary Krane Derr, Pro-life Feminism (2006), Randy C. Alcorn, Why Pro-life?: Caring for the Unborn and Their Mothers (2012). They can be used by those who know them as sources. This last book states that pro-life feminists "They argue that they stand on two hundred years of prolife feminist history, and that it wasn't until the 1970s that the women's movement embraced abortion. Polls indicate that more women than men affirrn the unborns' right to life." This is arguable but, in fact, there is an important question that needs to be answered: when exactly the feminist movement become more conotated with the pro-choice stance? In the United States I really think it must have been in the 1960s, from what I know.85.242.236.140 (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this a joke? You come in claiming that we need expert sources, and you ask us to rewrite the article from the perspective of Randy Alcorn and Life Cycle Books? If you do not present a policy-based reason for the presence of the POV tag, I will be removing it soon. "Wikipedia doesn't promote my organization" is not a neutrality issue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Randy C. Alcorn? Don't make me laugh. Alcorn has no place in Wikipedia. Rachel MacNair is an expert sociology and psychology source, not so much Mary Krane Derr who is an amateur historian. Unfortunately, the book you offer is only compiled by MacNair and Derr, a collection of essays written by other people. Gail Grenier Sweet is just a journalist and may be used for dates and facts but not to dispute Laury Oaks. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Policy based position? You have a pro-choice activist writing an article for a group she actively works against. It's a clear conflict of interest and if you can find a policy that states just because someone is a professor they can't be biased, please present it. PeRshGo (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The Oaks piece is in a scholarly journal. We assume that scholars are sufficiently neutral. There cannot be a violation of WP:COI if Oaks has not edited Wikipedia to promote a position. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn'tWP:COI, this is a real world conflict of interest, and I see no indication that "we assume that scholars are sufficiently neutral." I am aware of no Wikipedia policy that backs up this up nor any logical rational. PeRshGo (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Show me the Wikipedia guideline that says we cannot use scholars who hold an opinion on a topic within their main area of expertise. Of course we can use such scholars; most scholars fall into this category. And scholars are our best sources. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

To see how this article is American centered, I didn't even knew who Randy C. Alcorn was. Now that I know him I get your point (lol). What about other titles in the google books list? By the way, nobody answered my questions about when feminism become more conotated with pro-choice stances. It is really difficult to improve this article and some users fixation with Lauryn Oaks is to say at least strange, since nobody else tries to present other RS. I did what I could.85.242.236.140 (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Sidney Callahan is a RS, since she is a renowned psychologist and ethicist. Here can be found some of her books about pro-life feminism and life issues in general: [4]85.242.236.140 (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying we can’t use Oaks, but taking into consideration Oaks position on the matter it needs to be balanced by someone who doesn’t oppose the movement they’re commenting on. The current state of the article is no better than if the article on the Democratic Party was written entirely by Republican scholars. PeRshGo (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. The current article is based on all of the best sources I could find. If I were writing the article about Democrats I could certainly find scholar after scholar on both sides of the fence and also from third parties and from other countries. However, this topic is so specialized that one scholar is a gold mine.

You cannot "balance" Oaks with a lesser source. The only way to rebut her position is to bring another scholar who contradicts. Binksternet (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That is why I have tagged this article with systemic bias. We have the majority group writing about the minority group with no attempts to balance the article by allowing minority group to present their position. Not only are you stating that you are aware of the systemic bias but are actively enforcing it. PeRshGo (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If you think systemic bias is the same as accepting high level scholarly sources before lesser ones than I don't know what help you can be here. This article is not here to promote the minority position. Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Nor is it here to oppose it, which is why we don’t base nearly the entire article on the voice of one person who opposes the subject. PeRshGo (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Also given the journal's description on its website it publishes the work of activists alongside scholarly articles. "Feminist Formations is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal publishing groundbreaking work by scholars, activists, and practitioners in feminist, gender, and sexuality studies." And frankly given the lack of genuine scientific study in Oaks' article it much better fits under the category of activism. PeRshGo (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You sank your boat by pressing the "peer-reviewed" button. That settles the question in favor of using Oaks as our most reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing tags

I removed the globalize and systemic bias tags because they were not relevant. The topic is primarily about American viewpoints, so there is no need to globalize it. Also, no sources have been suggested from non-American observers, or about non-American aspects of the topic.

Wikipedia acknowledges its bias in favor of scholarly, peer-reviewed sources. That bias is not part of the problematic "systemic bias" which works against gaining a broad base of scholarship. This article has nothing to do with Wikipedia:Systemic bias, nothing at all. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

What about providing more sources to improve what is said in the article instead of the Laury Oaks fixation?85.241.205.185 (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You are abusing the 1RR policy in collusion with Roscelese to remove a tag that references an ongoing debate. PeRshGo (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The debate was over a year ago, the last time you and the IP user made the exact same claims without any support. There is no serious question about the neutrality of this article; there's only the joke proposal that we rewrite it from the perspective of Randy Alcorn and Life Cycle Books instead of peer-reviewed scholarship. Please do not continue wasting the community's time in this way. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Re Binksternet: Oaks actually has an article (which I can't access) on "pro-life feminism" in Ireland, so it isn't confined to the US, but I somehow doubt this is what the IP-hopper was thinking of. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

User above already showed several times her malevolence, due to her personal bias. Read what she write in Talk:Christianity and homosexuality, where she argues that Christian denominations who oppose homosexual behaviour are anti-gay. For some reason she was already blocked from editing other articles several times. There was no "joke proposal" (sic) to rewrite the article, there were references to better shources, like Sidney Callahan, who left her speechless. By the way, no one yet was able to provide direct quotes from Laury Oaks book about what historical context was she talking about, nobody went to look for a history of feminism so it could be used on here, etc. By the way, if we are talking of a organized movement or not, there are pro-life feminists in other countries of the world, like United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, etc.85.241.205.185 (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a group called Feminists for Life International according to the Feminists for Life article.85.241.205.185 (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll make you the same proposal I made the last time you tried this nonsense a year ago: if you have real sources (not nonsense sources from activist publishers) and have global material to contribute, add it. So far, your edits to the article have consisted of removing sourced, scholarly material, which makes it rather difficult to believe that your claims of US-centrism are being made in good faith. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I took out the 'globalize' tag again today. This topic is primarily USA-centric, with much smaller contingents in other countries. It is fair to say that the other countries should be represented but I cannot say their absence is a major problem, worthy of a big tag. Instead, the adding of other countries should be welcomed but not demanded. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I added information about Ireland. No globalize tag necessary. Also, I would appreciate it if Roscelese and you Binks could check to make sure that I didn't commit any blunders. I would absolutely hate to misinterpret and misrepresent what Ms. Oaks wrote. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I haven't been able to look at the article yet and thanks again for getting a hold of it. If I see any problems I'll change them but I'm sure you're doing fine. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

"Irish women"

Collect, would you like to explain why you're falsely claiming that Oaks attributes a position to "Irish women" when the bit is in a section on anti-abortion activists, preceded by several iterations of the comment that Irish anti-abortion activists are trying this tactic of promoting motherhood, and immediately preceded by the remark "Anti-abortion activists are poised to address this very problem"? When you scream that I need to "read the source," where in the source are you actually looking, since your edit bears no resemblance to what Oaks writes in it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I am using what Oaks writes in an accessible article on the topic. Provide the text of the unavailable article if you feel it supports the edit you wish - else it is under WP:BLP in the nature of a weak contentious source at best. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you personally cannot access the article (Bink, Sonicyouth, and I all have it) is not grounds to misrepresent it. The accessibility argument is weak anyway since you're also misrepresenting the accessible article, which repeatedly states that these are the positions of abortion rights opponents, not "Irish women," who in your view apparently all hold the same political views: "some antiabortion advocates have attempted to identify the 'root causes' that lead many young, pregnant women to choose abortion instead of motherhood when confronted with an unplanned pregnancy...Breda O’Brien, a mother, teacher, journalist, antiabortion advocate, and founder of Feminists for Life of Ireland...This represents the Irish articulation of an antiabortion perspective that also has been expressed in the United States...From the antiabortion perspective, the commodification of the components of a women's life choices and the inversion of the place of children in a woman's life from 'cake' to 'icing' suggests that attempts must be made to alter young, middle-class women's values and expectations...Of most urgent concern to antiabortion advocates is how abortion becomes seen as the best option..." These are all quotes from the source you linked. Even the part where O'Brien is described as a "pro-life feminist," which you seem to think needs to be taken in isolation and elevated over the entire rest of the article, is in a big section on anti-abortion advocacy. Where the hell do you get this idea that you can make these completely rubbish claims about the monolith of Irish women? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Breda O'Brien

per [5] by Laury Oaks - Breda O'Brien is a "pro-life feminist." Seems that where the person cited uses a specific term, that that is a proper term to ascribe to the cite. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You know what would help? If you read the source that's being cited, instead of other sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The source cited in the article is unavailable without paying $36 -- so I used a source from the same author which specifically called O'Brien a "pro-life feminist" - I would think you would welcome a more accessible cite from the same sauthor you would use to deny that term to. And, by the way, Wikipedia does not say only use the source which no one can verify. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't get to misrepresent a cited source because you personally do not have access to it. I know it's April Fools' Day, but some of us are still trying to work, so please stop editing disruptively. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

And I just checked out the article that you linked and it doesn't even say what you're claiming it says! Like the cited source, it also says over and over again that this promotion of motherhood is a tactic of Irish anti-abortion activists, not "Irish women"! You really need to step away from this article before you deliberately misrepresent any more sources. Let people who are interested in WP:V take the stuff that's obviously too difficult for you to handle. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

And it refers to O'Brien as a "pro-life feminist" -- sorry -- but eliding what you do not want to read makes others doubt whether you read the source at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

And? You're attempting to remove the fact that Oaks uses O'Brien as an exemplar of anti-abortion activists and pretending that she's supposed to represent the positions of Irish women. We already state that she's the founder of FFL Ireland, so it's very silly to whine that anyone's trying to suppress the fact that she's a "pro-life feminist" - why are you still trying to misrepresent Oaks's research by writing that O'Brien's position is generally held rather than being held among a cadre of activists? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

We use what the source says and not what we know to tbe the truth You appear to "know" that O'Brien is an anti-abortion activist and not a pro-life feminist. But since Oaks does not say that, we can not use what you "know". Is that clear? Collect (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually Oaks is very, very clear about what position she's using O'Brien as an example of. That's why she says, over and over again, that anti-abortion activists, not "Irish women," use these arguments. Like I said before: if you're unable or unwilling to read the sources, you are not qualified to be editing this article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Collect has no basis for argument here. The cited source must be read to be understood. Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(od) the "cited source" has not been given as a quote, and is unavailable. I invite anyone to provide the exacr quotes from the cited source - but as of now I regard the source as unverified as far as WP:BLP is concerned. Rosce -- can you cite the exact quote of the section you are using to have Oaks characterise O;Brien as not being a "pro-life feminist"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't need to, because no one is making the claim that she is not a "pro-life feminist." You are required to substantiate the claim that Oaks designates her as representative of the positions of "Irish women," since that's the text you're trying to add and since it's at variance with what Oaks actually says as I detail above. You're not a n00b; you should know by now that the burden lies on the editor who adds or restores material. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The claim is made that the source calls her an "anti-abortion activist" for which a reliable source as a contentious claim is required by WP:BLP. Calling her a "woman" is un-contentious, or if you feel it is a contentious claim, ask at BLP/N. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Luckily, it's in both the cited source and the source you provided, but unfortunately for you, it's not the claim that she is a woman that's contentious but the claim that her position is representative of Irish women, which appears nowhere in the source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The online source specifically characterizes the person as a "pro-life feminist". Calling someone anything not specifically in a source is contrary to WP:BLP no matter who it is or what the characterization is. Cheers. Now anyone going to furnish solid material from the cite used? Collect (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The online source also specifically characterizes the person as an "antiabortion advocate." Or do you not read the sources you're citing, either? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Collect is being disruptive.[6] Does he think that the founder of "Feminists for Life Ireland" is not an "abortion opponent"? On the other hand his edit makes it appear that Breda O'Brien represents what Irish women believe. And Collect says he has not even read the source. When Collect makes these time-consuming and ultimately pointless edits, it detracts from improvements to articles and discourages editors who come here to improve articles not to get into silly arguments with people who know nothing about the subject. TFD (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not "know" anything - I rely on what the reliable sources state. When a reliable source is asked for, it ought to be provided. What you are doing here is injecting a personal attack on an editor - somethingabot which you have been warned in the past. Cheers - and kindly stop stalking me. Collect (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Laughable stalking accusation following the loosing of your frustration at AN. Once it's at a noticeboard, people notice and join in. Binksternet (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No reliable source says, "Irish women... valorize child-bearing and are critical of the notion that women have "a 'right' to an identity beyond motherhood". That is just a promotion of an ethnic stereotype. TFD (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Oaks states repeatedly that the self-identified "pro-life feminists", including Ms. O'Brien, are opposed to abortion and as such are anti-abortion advocates. There are dozens of passages I could quote. To use just one: "Pro-life feminists contend that they have been unfairly ignored by the feminist movement, and argue that "Marginalizing pro-life women out of feminism silences women's voices in the same way that they were silenced by patriarchy. Their opposition to abortion stems from concerns both..." [I added italics for emphasis]
By contrast, the source does not claim that Irish women are critical of the right to an identity beyond motherhood. You tried to misrepresent the source, Collect, got corrected, and are now sore about it. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that I used "women" as a gender indication - not as an indication that all Irish women fell into one group here. The issue was that the source quote was not given, and that per WP:BLP/N discussion, Roscelese has amended it. WP:DEADHORSE applies when an edit I am comfortable with was made tonight by Roscelese, and one which is far more in line with the source than the prior edit was. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Collect, this was a waste of time - "pro-life" means opposition to abortion (viz., the life of the unborn). You should learn tidbits of information like that when you decide to edit articles such as "pro-life feminism". TFD (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

1RR query

Is this article specifically covered by a 1RR restriction? Can someone show me where this is done? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

All abortion-related articles are, per the arb case. (That's also why the article is semiprotected.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Then ask an admin to label it as such. Else it is not enforceable to be sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that's not a statement of intent to continue violating 1RR. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

After a personal warning, continued reverting is enforceable. Any editor, even Collect, is able to add the 1RR notice at the top of this page. Binksternet (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Requires an admin to issue the warning. And I note you did not warn the editor who is at 3RR <g>. You can not have it both ways, Binksternet. Collect (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it does not require an admin. Admins have no special power apart from the tools. Anyways, considere the warning duly delivered by an admin. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Collect, why do you keep pretending someone is at 3RR here? The only person edit-warring is you. Are you hoping to obscure that fact by flinging around false accusations? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I noted that 2RR was reached - and that saud person was not warned. Also note that the note by SSch is not a "warning" of me violating any restriction, as no one can be held to a restriction not previously placed on an article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the restriction was placed from the moment the community decision was made as the decision seems to be that all abortion related articles are placed under a 1RR, not that they can be placed under a 1RR at the discretion of an admin. The fact that the restriction was not noted previously is unfortunate but is unlikely to prevent enforcement if someone is aware or made aware of the restriction. In particular, if you've been informed of the restriction, it's unwise to break it simply because of the lack of an admin being the one to tell you (as that isn't required). If you have doubts that the person's claim is accurate, seek clarification rather then violating the restriction. If you don't have doubts, refusing to abide by it because you haven't been informed by the right person or because it isn't noted in the article talk page is likely to be seen as WP:wikilawyering. I'm a bit confused who else you're saying violated 1RR but it isn't necessary to warn someone if they've already been warned or are otherwise aware of the restriction, an admin may still take action if they feel it necessary, but feel free to give a warning if you feel it justified (as me and others have noted, it doesn't have to come from an admin). Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

)od) Please note Sarek has posted a request for clarification on the matter. I suggest that such is the proper venue for this, as I fear some nuances might otherwise be elided. Note also that my specific attempt to self-revert was made impossible (as I noted elsewhere), as I abide as far as possible by all restrictions on articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)