Talk:Reproductive rights

New Information

by apartmento I'm considering adding paragraphs discussing the reasons that the pro-life and pro-choice people have for their oppinions. I want to say that: http://www.family.org.au Prolife

-these babies are human, look human, suffer pain and the killing of them can be concidered infantcide
-late term abortions (after 20 weeks)are quite often survive when the are out of the womb
- it is sickening

Pro-Choice

-a woman has the right to her body
-the elimination of abortion will lead to dangerous backyard operation that are quite oftenly deadly for both the baby and the mother
-The baby if born might be put into an unloving, uncaring family

I'm not really good with words so may someone please put this into the article.

---

I don't agree with the JamesMLane edit adding a Pro-Life reference. I understand the intent to balance the loaded terms of each side, but "pro-life" corresponds to "pro-choice", not "reproductive rights". Can a better counterpart be found? If not, is it really needed? I know "framing" might itself be read as a loaded term, but it's also accurate for this and other labels (on both sides). -- Perey 23:14, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On what basis do you say that "pro-life" corresponds to "pro-choice", not "reproductive rights"? All three are terms that people prefer to use to describe their own positions. Of course "pro-life" is framing. Is it accurate? Well, I'd answer that we have a supposedly "pro-life" president who's caused the deaths of 100,000 people in Iraq. It's not going to work to say that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are both fair, impartial, descriptive terms, while "reproductive rights" is some kind of Orwellian doublespeak. All these terms are in the same class. JamesMLane 23:23, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of course they are. I'm not disputing that they're all loaded terms. But as it stands, the sentence you added implies that "pro-life" and "reproductive rights" are opposing arguments ("the other side of the controversy"). They aren't - "pro-choice" is the opposite of "pro-life" (because they both specifically address abortion), while "reproductive rights" is broader, encompassing other reproductive choices. If a better example can't be found (and I don't think there is one), perhaps we could just state that both sides use political framing, and link to relevant articles rather than adding examples here? -- Perey 02:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is with the phrase "especially in regards to abortion". Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the argument referred to is only with regard to abortion? I don't know if even the most vehement right-wingers say that birth control and family planning amount to "a right to kill the innocent". They may oppose such rights as encouraging immoral behavior or some such, but they don't use the same terminology as they do about abortion. Maybe the second paragraph should begin this way:

Some supporters of legal prohibitions against abortion oppose the use of the term "reproductive rights" in that context, because they see it as amounting to a "right to kill the innocent". They also argue that such rights...." (etc.)

Then, in the last sentence, insert "abortion" before "controversy". Those changes, together, would make clear that, as you say, "reproductive rights" is broader. I've also amplified that point by adding in the opposition to compulsory sterilization, which is one of the causes championed by the Center for Reproductive Rights ([1]). Would those changes address your concern? JamesMLane 02:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That works for me. It highlights the need for further discussion of other "reproductive rights" though—if I didn't know better I'd say we're on the way to unstubbing this! -- Perey 12:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Stevertigo's additions, my revisions

I've edited the article heavily, simply because it's not appropriate for the article to take a position on whether or not fetuses count as "living" (e.g, "a society granting legal sanction to women to abort a living pregnancy"). NARAL would say that they are not; James Dobson would say that they are. It's not for us to take a side here (see WP:NPOV). In light of this, I've made the following changes:

• remove the second sentence of the lead. I integrated the first half of the sentence (controversial) into the lead, and dropped the rest for NPOV
• removed scare quotes from around "rights" in the first sentence, second paragraph--since we're describing the framing of the issue here, the scare quotes weren't appropriate
• removed "and liberal feminism"--feminism is broader than this, so I felt it wasn't really accurate, but I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of rephrasing.
• Removed the entire first paragraph of the "social Rights versus human rights" section. It takes a position in the very first sentence ("perhaps best represented as choice between the human rights of women versus the human rights of fetal or "unborn" human beings"), and goes downhill from there--it completely ignores the significant point-of-view that argues that fetuses have no rights.
• Remove the second paragraph of the same section. It too takes a position--note how it sets up the claim that RR are human rights, and then knocks it down ("Hence, in any heirarchy of legal principles, if "reproductive rights" are recongnized in the society, they must be subordinate to more universal rights such as human rights"). Again, this takes sides in a POV dispute over whether reproductive rights are human rights or not.
• made a few adjustments to avoid the dispute over "human vs. social" rights in the next paragraphs--I tried to stick to the facts of the dispute.
• Remove the paragraph about Roe v. Wade--it was too U.S.-centric and also digressed into non-reproductive rights areas (right to die etc)
• Removed the paragraph about pro-life views on the right to privacy, and merged some of it into the preceding paragraph. It rests too heavily on the "social vs. human" frame for this section, which I've been trying to expunge. Mentioned that pro-life people seek to define fetuses as people, while pro-choice people oppose this--that's a good enough answer to the debate.
• Remove the last paragraph--takes a POV ("both present moral contradictions"). Again, these may or may not be moral contradictions, but it's not the place of the article to determine that.
• Removed "arbitrary" from discussion of trimesters; see trimester, which claims they're not completely arbitrary
• Rearranged paragraph about middle grounds, and noted controversies over other issues

In addition, I think this article needs to cover more ground. The current section (renamed "fetal personhood") is OK, but needs to be a sub-section of a larger discussion. Specifically, we need:

• A history section (when did the idea of RR evolve, etc)
• A discussion of contraception, including history and current stances
• A brief history of the abortion controversy as it relates to RR

Hope this helps. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 14:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Response

Thank you for looking at it, and taking such care and attention towards it. While I disagree with your characterization of the fetus as of questionable living status, I'm enthusastic about reviewing your changes and comments. Legal questionability doesnt equal factual, moral/ethical, social, or cultural doubt --likewise few would disagree that a "fetus" at 8.9 months [or perhaps even 4.9 months] is not, legalese aside, a "baby." Sireg-St|eve 19:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• After a quick look, I generally agree with the removal of the Social rights/ universal heirarchy/ preemption of rights etc. language, as it was mostly off topic, and my written scaffolding for thinking through how to write toward the topical issue. Maybe some of it will fit in some other more conceptual article. Sinreg -St|eve 19:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Disagree with the removal of feminism, though I understand any confusion. Women's rights for the most part is embodied in the term "feminism" and is the category into which reproductive rights fits: Human rights > Female rights (feminism) > reproductive rights. While contraception can be considered a female right, it cannot be said that females have the right to kill anyone, and any exception for "fetuses" can (without being POV) be said to be among the social and legal exceptions to "dont kill people" principle. Embryos--i.e. different stages of pregnancy--have different distinct political constituents (POVs needing representation), while the absolutes (the most prominent) represent only either "yes" all or "no" all views. But its understandable that PC advocates want to avoid this distinction, and IMHO any resulting confusion is largely deliberate. -St|eve 20:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • If I might clarify--my problem was with the phrasing that RR is "largely synonymous with liberal feminism", when it's properly classified as a subset of the larger entity. Didn't mean to suggest that the two weren't linked. Might this help a proposed rephrasing? Best, Meelar (talk) 20:25, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Women only?

Okay, so generally the term 'reproductive rights' does mean 'women's reproductive rights'. But since Stevertigo's edits, the article supports this de facto definition with logical argument, claiming that 'reproductive rights' is a term exclusive to women by logical necessity. I'd dispute this—women are not the exclusive 'vessels of human reproduction', and the first paragraph still has the example of forced sterilization, which can be forced on men as much as women. -- Perey 08:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

here are some links which might be worth adding if you care about it.

forced sterilization?

How is forced sterilization a component of reproductive rights? I would think anything forced is the exact opposite of rights.

Reproductive rights entails rights to procreate or not. Forced sterilization takes away the right to procreate—which is a reproductive right. —GrantNeufeld 06:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Unclear sentences

I find the sentence regarding the pro-life position unclear, and also unnecessary. It says:

Many "pro-life" advocates claim that the term is simply mincing words—claiming there to be no practical (hence meaningful) difference between the two statements.

Since the previous sentences state that the terms reproductive rights and pro-choice reference pretty much the same position, is it really important for this sentence that says, basically, that they are the same thing? It is redundant as well as misleading; the sentence is framed in such a way as to imply disagreement, where in fact there is no disagreement.

Furthermore, the next sentence,

However, supporters of reproductive rights may consider it misleading to say, in the context of reproduction politics, that a political figure “supports abortion”, when instead that person may simply support a woman's right to choose abortion among other alternatives.

seems out of place; if this is to be included in the article it should have a bit of explanation/background information.

I am inclined to take these two sentences out, but since they constitute a large part of the article, I thought it better to see if there is any opposition before doing so. Please let me know what you all think about this. Thanks, romarin[talk to her ] 19:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

As there were no comments, I've gone ahead and made these two changes. Please let me know, anyone, if you disagree or have any other suggestions. Thanks! romarin[talk to her ] 23:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

International reproductive rights

This article has a strong US bias information-wise (even more so since I added a bit of info on US supreme court cases), and I think that we should add more about reproductive rights in other countries. Can those of you who live in (or know a lot about repro rights in) other countries add a section? Then maybe this article can be taken out of the stub category... romarin[talk to her ] 20:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

Recently, an anonymous user added a tag suggesting merging Pro-choice into this article. Although it's true that reproductive rights advocacy usually goes along with the "pro-choice" position, they are two different things and should have their own articles. There has been very little activity here lately, so I'm inclined to just remove the tag myself, but I will leave it for a couple days in case there is any discussion. romarin[talk to her ] 23:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, am I the only one here? And I haven't even checked in for a week or so... ok, well I'm removing the merge tag, as it seems to make little sense. romarin[talk to her ] 14:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that they shouldn't be merged. --Andrew c 04:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think that the applier of a merge tag has to justify its existence, and since that editor didn't do so at the time s/he added it, nor has s/he seen fit to defend it since it was questioned back in May, it is acceptable to just remove it.--Anchoress 02:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Compromise?

I believe the way it was worded before was unclear, and not really reflective of the "Pro-Choice" position, particularly as it is contrasted with the "Pro-Life" position. The way it was worded, that a woman should be able to decide "if and when she reproduces" doesn't really say much, as I'm sure those who are "anti-choice" would have no argument with people deciding when and if they should reproduce. The question hinges upon whether reproduction occurs at conception or birth, and if abortion is acceptable.

You said the Pro-Choice position isn't just about abortion, and in a sense, you are correct. But the very next line in the paragraph says that, "Reproductive rights are understood as encompassing more than just abortion, however." Therefore, my interpretation seems clearly the right one. The wording you were trying to preserve was POV, non-descriptive, and euphemistic. It sounded like a talking point and didn't really address the real distinctions between the overall concepts of Reproductive rights and Pro-Choice. Therefore, I have attempted a compromise.Killua 15:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what was unclear about the sentence as it was before, and it was prefectly representative of the pro-choice position, as I understand it. "Pro-choice" means the belief that women are in control of their reproduction, and "reproductive rights" refers to the view that women have the right to do so. This means choosing birth control, it means choosing abortion, it means choosing to give birth. All of these things are encompassed under reproductive rights, and that is why I think your alteration of the sentence is incorrect and POV.

As to your assertion that the pro-life position "would have no argument with people deciding when and if they should reproduce," this is not true. The pro-life position regarding abortion is that women should not be able to choose this option. Many pro-life organizations are also against contraception. The only correct way to go, according to most pro-lifers, is to have the baby. The phrase "if and when she reproduces" is really only applicable to the pro-choice position, for, as its name implies, it advocates that women have that choice in all circumstances.

The statement, "The only correct way to go, according to most pro-lifers, is to have the baby." is one of the bases of your reverting me, and it's a flaw. You're forgetting perhaps the most essential part about reproductive rights--that people have a choice as to whether they get pregnant in the first place. Sure, most Pro-Lifers don't believe in birth control like the pill or IUDs, but they might believe in condoms, sterilization, NFP, etc. Heck, even abstinence is a form of "control[ing] her reproduction by deciding if and when she bears children", is it not? Killua 19:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

How are the words I am trying to preserve POV now? They are open, yes, non-specific, yes, but not euphemistic .They say it like it is. This is the definition, that's all there is to it. If you think it's vague, then you need to understand that reproductive rights are themselves fairly vague.

The way it's phrased makes being both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice a possibility, which is ludicrous. This is accomplished by fuzzy wording, and I can state somewhat authoritatively, having studied both sides extensively, that the language is very NPOV-- it sounds like it's rhetoric right out of a PP brochure. People who are Pro-Life do not believe women have no choices at all regarding reproductive rights, just as people who are Pro-Choice don't believe nobody has a right to life. This is called framing the issue.Killua 19:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As to the following sentence, I think it should be modified as well, as it is slightly redundant. But, I think it is very important to preserve, not necessarily the exact word-for-word phrase, but the meaning of the term as rights about reproduction, whatever they are. romarin [talk ] 17:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your logic, and the underlying problem with the sentence, is the assumption that people who are "Pro-Life" oppose all human control of human reproduction. There are certainly people who believe women "should have the right control her reproduction by deciding if and when she bears children" but don't think abortion should be an option.

To illustrate a parallel situation, it would be like a person saying that Pro-Lifers just believe that human beings have a right to life. This is unclear, and engineered to cause people to agree and side with them. The real issue isn't the right to life of human beings, which is a general statement and readily agreed to, but the right to life of unborn human beings, which is more disputed. The way the sentence is phrased in this article sounds like if you are not Pro-Choice, you believe in forced pregnancy or sterilization. That's why it's NPOV. Reproductive rights are larger than Pro-Choice position-- and you are erasing that distinction. RR can run to gambit from opposition to rape, forced sterilization, forced pregnancy, forced abortion, to support for certain types of pregnancy planning tools, ranging from the rhythym method, NFP, condoms, IUDs, the pill, mifepristone, and abortion. RR and pro-choice are not the same thing. I prefer specificity. Killua 19:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"Reproductive rights” is largely perceived as being synonymous with the “pro-choice” position, which states that abortion should be a legal option for any woman with a pregnancy.

If you disagree with the first part of this sentence, maybe that is the part you should be changing. Reproductive rights are not the same thing as pro-choice, and I never said they were, though there are many connections, as the text implies. The pro-choice position is about granting women a full-spectrum of reproductive rights, and that does not only mean the right to abortion. The way you have framed this now makes it sound like that's all it's about, and that is just not the case.

You say, "The way it's phrased makes being both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice a possibility, which is ludicrous". No it's not, there are plenty of people who identify somewhere in the middle. Although this issue is often quite poliarized, it is complex and all points along the spectrum are possible, when it comes to self-identification. I do no believe that I said anything to the effect of pro-lifers being against all reproductive options; I only said that most of them are against contraception (many include condoms in that too), and that they see having a baby as the best answer to an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy. How is this inaccurate?

I think where we are having a disconnect revolves around the fact that you see my definition of pro-choice as trying to completely exclude pro-life, which is not necessarily the case. There are issues comprised in reproductive rights that both sides can agree on, such as "natural" birth control options, and this can certainly be added into the article. Reproductive rights is not exclusive to the pro-choice position. I think we agree on that; we're just going about showing it in different ways. Again, maybe it's the first part of the sentence that needs to be changed, rather than the second part. I just don't think there is any reason to give an incomplete portrait of the pro-choice movement; this is, in fact, making the sentence doubly inaccuate, rather than removing the root of the inaccuracy.

I really don't feel like getting into an edit war with you on this, and I think we should hold off until others can come and take a look at the situation. I am also about to leave for a long Wikibreak, due to real-life vacation. I have a big problem with the sentence as it stands now, for the reasons I have mentioned, but for the sake of peace I am going to leave it. If you understand the concepts I am trying to convey here, and feel like actually compromising I would be more than willing to do so. But what I really think we need at this point is some other opinions. Thanks, romarin [talk ] 20:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for your civility in this. I, too, do not wish an edit war. And have a great vacation. ^_^ But, in the meantime, as I see you've asked for others to come in from the Abortion Project page, I want to state my case a little clearly. The paragraph as I would have it is thus:

"Reproductive rights” is largely perceived as being synonymous with the “pro-choice” position, which states that abortion should be a legal option for any woman with a pregnancy. Reproductive rights are understood as encompassing more than just abortion, however. Members of the reproductive rights movement also believe that reproductive rights are human rights, and as such men and women should be granted affordable access to contraception, as well as education about contraception and sexually transmitted infections."

Yours is thus:

""Reproductive rights” is largely perceived as being synonymous with the “pro-choice” position, which states that a woman should have the right control her reproduction by deciding if and when she bears children. Members of the reproductive rights movement also believe that reproductive rights are human rights, and as such men and women should be granted affordable access to contraception, as well as education about contraception and sexually transmitted infections."

I believe there is a distinction between the terms "pro-choice" and "reproductive rights", as do you. I believe your paragraph erases this distinction, or at least makes it very minimal. I am aware the pro-choice movement involves more than abortion. But currently, politically and legally, it is almost 99% concerned with what a woman's choices are after pregnancy has begun. Now, the RR movement is maybe 90% concerned with the same. Not a big difference, and that's why the sentence said they were seen sometimes as being "synonymous". However, there are differences, and my version lays out these contrasts ina simple manner. I believe your version does not, and, moreover, the phrase "right [to] control her reproduction by deciding if and when she bears children" is not very well written, and sounds a bit POV to my ears.Killua 03:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the problem. We can all agree that "Pro-choice" means more than "pro-abortion". And we can all agree that "reproductive rights" means more than "pro-abortion". The wording that Killua is pushing acknowledges that the public sometimes confuses the difference between pro-choice and reproductive rights, but ignores the fact that there is a misconception about what "pro-choice" is. Romarin's version acknowledges the subtle differences in the actual meaning behind these terms, but at the expensive of loosing the public misconception about these terms. While the first solution that came to mind for me was something like "Reproductive rights is largely perceived as being synonymous with the “pro-choice” position, which in turn is often incorrectly perceived by the public to be synonymous with 'abortion should be a legal option for any woman with a pregnancy.'" But as you can see, this sentence is very wordy. Anyway, I think a solution that points out both the commonly perceived definitions and the more 'accurate' definitions of these terms would work.--Andrew c 21:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

abortion as a reproductive right

There has been some slow edit warring over including what appears to be a semantic argument. First of all, this sort of disputed content needs to be verifiable, and cited per wikipedia policy. Next, we have to keep in mind self-identity. The vast majority of advocates for so-called 'reproductive rights' include abortion in their stance. We cannot say that this is controversial, when that simply isn't the case for most reproductive rights organizations. (google 'reproductive rights' and browse the organizations that come up). I'd like to see sources that discuss this alleged controversy, and it would be nice to know what reproductive rights organizations exclude abortion from their veiw. If this information cannot be verified, then it has no place in the article. (sorry if my tone is a little harsh. I seriously would like to work this out on talk, and avoid further reverting before this matter is settled here).--Andrew c 06:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's debateable whether reproduction occurs at conception, birth, or sometime after. The fact that pregnancies can be miscarried naturally, and that mammals are programmed to care for their children long after pregnancy, suggests to me that reproduction, in its strictly textbook definition, is largely dependent upon successfully producing offspring.

But, whatever the case, there is a solution. The issue can be sidestepped by changing "rights not to reproduce" to "rights to not reproduce or to control reproduction." After all, birth control is not only used when people desire not to have children altogether; it is also used to plan families, by limiting the number of children, or spacing them in age. Because many people who use contraception have, or go on to have, children, it is inaccurate to list it as being about a "right not to reproduce."

"Rights to not reproduce or to control reproduction" is open-ended. It leaves wiggle room for the perception that abortion is about "the right terminate a pregnancy after reproduction has taken place," but doesn't conclusively state conception=reproduction. I believe it is a suitable solution to both Andrew c's and Jakes18's concerns. -Severa (!!!) 18:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only does the word "reproduce" have different meanings, there is debate over when reproduction actually occurs. People who use the term "reproductive rights" obviously consider abortion to be included in those rights. Opponents play semantic games, which is noted in the criticism section. I think including that section is a good solution to this problem that has arisen. This article is about reproductive rights, which included abortion rights. Even if this is technically inaccurate, wikipedia is about verifiablity, not truth. We shouldn't frame a position through its critics. We should respect self identity. Furthermore, I believe the way we have it phrased now, it is clear that this is what reproductive rights advocates support, not some greater truth about human rights in general. --Andrew c 13:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to MrDarcy's Reverts

I added some text to the Reproductive Rights article to correct the bias already present in the article. The article only referred to Reproductive Rights as a "Women's Rights Issue", and ignored any reproductive rights issues relevant to Men's Rights. As the NPOV page states articles must be "representing fairly and without bias all significant views ". I quoted the position of an external verifiable source Choice4Men. Whether or not you agree with the Choice4Men position it is a 'significant view'.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Afp2258 (talk • contribs) 12:49, 31 January 2007.

First of all, please sign your talk page postings by typing four tildes (~~~~). Next, we have notability guidelines, reliable source guidelines, and an undue weight section of the NPOV guidelines. You did not explain why you believe this view is significant, you simply stated it so. Please try to explain its significance, while keeping in mind the 3 pages I referred to. Thanks!-Andrew c 19:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for expansion

Per international aspects of reproductive rights:

• Some reference to the Mexico City policy
• The international effects of the MCP - the Guttmacher Institute has some useful info to that end.
• International response to the MCP
• Beijing Conference on Women http://www.reproductiverights.org/ww_adv_beijing.html
• Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN, based in Nigeria, http://dawnnet.org but I think I have a good article for them)

In a slightly different direction, this article has some decent legal content relating to the US but little critical (as in academic and cultural discourse) content. Some nice additions might include

• reproductive rights as they relate to general health
• reproductive rights and feminism, Anne Fausto-Sterling and Angela Y. Davis come to mind
• particular aspects of rr, like the critical discussions of fetal rights v. women's rights as well the dangers of fetal rights - the notion of the public fetus and the objectified mother. Anne Balsamo is a great source for that particular discourse.

Any thoughts? Phyesalis 08:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of doing some serious editing, including adding res and removing the ref tag, since the Supreme Court decisions don't need additional citation - that Kirk ref could use some work. It's not perfect, but I think it's an improvement. I hope to be adding a History section in the next few days. Comments? Phyesalis 20:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

I am removing the crit section, again. The sources are two partisan websites with no known reputation of fact-checking. This info if relvant to RR should be gotten from a peer-review .journal or other reliable source. I'm not even sure what the relvancy is here. This is not an abortion debate. It covers much more than abortion and seems to give undue weight to pro-lifers. PL's do not criticize reproductive rights, per se. They crit. abortion. Not the same thing. Besides, then we have to get into definitions of "reproduction" (which would be okay if sourced appropriately). Technically, while reproductive processes start at implantation, reproduction does not occur until a woman produces a live baby. I am open to argument to the contrary. I would just like to see it on the talk page. Phyesalis (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, removing the Times piece because it is not about reproductive rights nor does it characterize men in terms of reproductive rights. Random pieces about men and abortion are not applicable to this article. It would be a good addition for the Abortion debate page. Also removing info sourced by wwwall.org - not reliable, same with pro-life.com. Again, this is not an abortion debate, please use reliable materials dealing with the greater (and explicit) topic of reproductive rights. Phyesalis (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Far from being a random piece about men and abortion, the info I added is directly relevant to the subject, which is reproductive rights. Also, your removal of pro-life links and keeping pro-choice links is inexplicable -- reproductive rights are DEBATED and pro-life organizations are part of the debate. Finally, your attempts to turn "reproductive rights" into "women's reproductive rights, which are really human rights since the UN says so, and include FGM and anything else that affects women" is not welcome. It may need to be refactored. Blackworm (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I have not tried to do what you allege. By all means, if you can find discussion of the material you'd like to include that occurs within the specific context of "reproductive rights" and not the limited aspect of abortion, please bring it to the table. I surely support inclusion of appropriate material relating to men, however, random discussions of men and abortion without the explicit context of RR are not relevant.

I kept links relating specifically to the greater category of reproductive rights and removed those limited to pro-life attitudes about abortion. I did keep parental leave and added links to other more appropriate links. Your reversion has removed these.Phyesalis (talk) 04:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict.)

I invite you to perform a Google search on

"reproductive rights" men

and read several Web pages. Notice that the National Center for Men, whose position was discussed in the cited Time Magazine article, is hit number 5 on that list. Read in particular this St. Petersburg Times article [[2]] that clearly and specifically discusses men's reproductive rights. The case for a section on the matter is strong. I have noticed that most if not all of your recent edits move the POV of this stub toward a primary focus on the reproductive rights of women. Men reproduce, in roughly equal numbers to women (I admit I'm guessing), and thus if reproductive rights are a women's issue, they are also a men's issue. Are you hostile to this idea? Are you attacking the material on undue weight grounds (in a stub, no less)? On other grounds? Please cite relevant policy. I don't question your good faith, but your instantaneous and blunt dismissal and reversion of my cited edit, especially in a stub article, seems inappropriate. Discussion surrounding the subject of reproductive rights demonstrably includes a discussion of the relationship between parents and unconceived (e.g., potential), in utero, and born offspring (the product of reproduction) -- that relationship clearly being the subject of the cited Time Magazine article. The reproductive rights (and accompanying responsibilities) of both women and men are discussed prominently. The inclusion seems legitimate.

I can't help but feel a sense of deja vu. You deleted the tiny "Criticism" section. What material was unacceptable? Is it the material presenting cited information that certain groups claim "reproductive rights" is a euphemism for abortion? The opinion seems to be rendered fact through its being attributed to "some abortion opponents." It seems appropriate. It's in the "criticism" section, however; I oppose this. I doubt people calling themselves "Pro-life" would necessarily describe themselves as critics of reproductive rights; they perhaps simply do not believe that such rights exist to the same extent as certain others, or perhaps that other reproductive rights exist that certain others deny, or perhaps that certain other rights trump certain reproductive rights claimed by others. Their opinions should be presented along with other material in the relevant sections of the article. You seem to suggest that their arguments are not on-topic; but this seems indefensible.

Similarly, your removal targeting pro-life links is misguided, and unfortunately violates WP:NPOV. Pro-life organizations are prominent, even popular in certain regions, and have the primary goal of advocacy (some may call it 'anti-advocacy', but that displays a non-neutral point of view) regarding reproductive rights. To omit them from this article seems to violate policy.

Your deletion of certain "See Also" links (to Bioethics, Procreative beneficence, and Reprogenetics) from this stub is also unexplained, although I actually applaud them. It's unfortunate I reverted them in a summary reversion of other violations. The links should perhaps be removed, per WP:V. Unfortunately, you must justify new additions, however, such as Women's movement. Remember also that Men's movement may also be appropriate (WP:NPOV).

I have several questions. First, forgive me, but why did you appear to pounce on this edit in particular, when the entire article is unsourced the edit I added was cited, but the majority of the article has been sitting for weeks, unsourced? That seems curious. Secondly, I look forward to discussing this article's WP:MOSDAB issues, if any; its lead section including the definition of the term; and the other relevant section headings. Perhaps a general outline of the article could be discussed. This article being a stub, the potential is great. I suggest that before discussing context, we should agree on a definition; anything else seems a grave error. I suggest that this article be reviewed top to bottom, by both of us, done right. Care to work with me on this? While you are of course free to make many edits in a short time, as you have demonstrated you are motivated to do, it is extremely time consuming to respond, so discussion may proceed at a slower pace than you might prefer. On my part, I will make an effort not to take lack of response for agreement. You have to understand, however, that it is good for editors to remove unsourced or otherwise unacceptable material, or article content derived from same. That is just how Wikipedia must work -- slowly but surely. This can be frustrating for all of us, but it makes Wikipedia better. Blackworm (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have restored your addition of Women's Movement and added other categories, and alphabetized the list. I personally believe there is widespread misuse of certain templates and categories on Wikipedia to serve certain points of view. However, you seem to wish to work on this section, and they are quick to add and remove, unlike other article material. Under those conditions consensus may be more likely to emerge. Blackworm (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Blackworm, real quick - you didn't care about this article until I started editing it. This article sat here for 3 years with most people agreeing with the basic scope of RR as a health issue. If you want to come in and radically alter the scope of this article, please provide explicit peer-review content that supports this significant departure from 3 yr status-quo. Let's stick to the content and skip the lengthy editorializing, this may shorten the time it takes you respond.

• Please do not remove peer-reviewed citations. You asked for the citation, got it, didn't like it. You can't just remove it without discussing why on the talk page.
• I checked the ref you questioned and added relevant quote and stable link.
• Argument against content in Reproductive rights#Reproductive rights as a men's issue - Fringe american arguments for male "financial abortions" in an article that is predominantly related to reproductive health (please read the two cited peer-reviewed articles on the subject) are not relevant. Also, male reproductive rights are more along the lines of not being sterilized. Phyesalis (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you are implying that I followed you here, that is false. I am also, like you, interested in sex and gender issues. What "most people agree" on is irrelevant in the context of a stub article with no sources and dozens of policy violations. I have provided appropriate sources for the material I added.

As I stated in the edit summary, the reference did not support the claim in the article. If you could quote a specific passage that validates the claim, please do so, and also remember to attribute opinions to those taking that view, per WP:V and WP:NPOV].

Your assertions as to what reproductive rights are, are irrelevant. Blackworm (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I claimed nothing about you following me here. You have not provided appropriate sources as they do not contextualize "financial abortions" as part of the international human rights discourse. I provided two peer-review articles for my assertions that reproductive rights are human rights as they pertain to sexual reproduction/sexual health as you requested, please have the courtesy to do the same. Until then, your argument is OR/SYN. If you can find material that contextualizes the "financial abortion" as a human rights issue pertaining to reproductive rights (health) as discussed in international discourses, by all means, bring it forward. Until then it should go, it is harmful to the article as it distorts the discussion, giving undue weight to a single fringe American perspective. Phyesalis (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Again. your desire to frame the "reproductive rights" article in terms of international human rights discourse (which I presume you mean the United Nations and its agencies) or exclusively in terms of "health" is misguided and inappropriate, violating WP:NPOV. Please quote directly the sections of your sources that you believe validate the article material, then attribute the material to the sources, per WP:RS. Blackworm (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Reproductive rights as a men's issue

Blackworm, I would appreciate if you would provide sources that contextualize the material within the specific discourse of health. The material you have included does not relate to reproductive health, nor does the source contextualize the material within a reproductive rights discourse. If reliable sources cannot show how this material relates to reproductive health and actually discuss men's rights within an explicit reproductive rights context. It should be removed. Phyesalis (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is about reproductive rights, not reproductive health. Again, perhaps the problem lies in defining the term, and whose definition is taken as binding. Is the definition of "reproductive rights" self-evident? Does "the topic of [this] article [have] no name," and is the "title [...] simply descriptive," (in the language of WP:LEAD)? I'm inclined to say yes. In any case, the source describes what self-described "reproductive rights" advocates believe. Its relevance to this stub, at least for the moment, is clear. Blackworm (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Reproductive rights are about reproductive health. The article has a 3 yr status quo as such. I have provided two peer-review articles that discuss this. All I'm asking for is a citation that contextualizes "financial abortions" as part of the Reproductive Rights (as in health) debate. Abortion as one particular reproductive right in an Western context is already discussed in Abortion debate. As the current material/source only actually responds to this and Roe v Wade, it is not appropriate to characterize American men's desire for "financial abortions" as an international issue in men's reproductive rights. The article is about the overall international context of reproductive rights as human rights and this is what your material must be contextualized as in order to not be WP:OR/WP:SYN. Phyesalis (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop reverting material you asked me to provide. I added citations, you removed them which left the article lacking peer-review citation. Your willful inability to read and comprehend what is a basic concept is disruptive. I then reintroduced the material adding additional quotes. You reverted multiple edits, one of which corrected a date in a citation. Please stop - if you find something missing - ADD IT. Do not remove reliable citations just because you don't like them. Phyesalis (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

As stated in the edit summary, your sources have not been shown to support the article text. Also, I am afraid it is you who are being incivil and disruptive. Please review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Blackworm (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Shown where? You have voiced your opinion and failed to provide examples or support as I requested (here and on your talk page - which you deleted). I think you need to step back, read the articles, (maybe think about actually typing out the short paragraph on pg 20 as requested) and show where I have allegedly misused my sources. As yet you have done nothing other than make allegations, revert citations and add inappropriate info (NCM and their "financial abortions"). You have failed to provide peer-review sources, failed to explicate or support accusations and failed to follow WP policy (3RR violation). I believe you are the disruptive one. Phyesalis (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Continued incivility and inappropriate article content

Phyesalis, I have deleted your incivil personal attack from my Talk page. Your approach, asking me to prove that I read the articles is misguided and unwelcome. I have challenged the material. You must both show that the cited source supports the article material (preferably by quoting the statement or statements from the source that support it), and ensure that any challenged views are attributed to the source. That means, instead of asserting "X" in the article, we assert "Y says, X." Don't take my word for it, read WP:V: "This page in a nutshell: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." I have pointed out to you before, you must "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." WP:NPOV. That same policy also says, "To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups." All notable views are notable for inclusion, and no challenged view should be represented as absolute truth. It is not Wikipedia's job to push a particular point of view, instead, we must "Let the facts speak for themselves."WP:NPOV Blackworm (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation

You have reverted this page 5 times in a 24 hour period. This is a violation of 3RR. I have made continued efforts to address your concerns. The material in question is a couple of facts which I supported with citations when you asked for them. These citations came from peer-reviewed secondary sources. When you reverted my citations, I added quotes. When you reverted the citations and the quotes, I started expressing concerns about your behavior. I do not believe that you have read the articles you are objecting to, since the articles clearly cover the material. The fact that reproductive rights first became internationally recognized as a subset of human rights with the Tehran conference in 1968 is not an opinion. It is a fact and I let it speak for itself. There are no leading views that contradict this. Your objections are unreasonable and disruptive. Your contribution of "financial abortions" from NCM is your POV unsupported by peer-reviewed sources. I left a note on your talk page in order to address what seem to be another set of personal issues you have with my contributions to yet another page. I stated that given our editing history here and on another page left me with little good faith. I suggested an option that you could accomplish with little difficulty if you had actually read the article in an effort to give you a chance to restore good faith. You chose to interpret this as a personal attack. I am posting this here now instead because it relates to your edits on this page. Phyesalis (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the page 4 times (not 5) in a 24 hour period. I agree this violates WP:3RR, and for that I apologize -- I was under the mistaken impression that only the same reversion counted. I stand corrected and I will be more careful in the future. Note, however, that you have reverted the page 7 times in a 24-hour period:

[21:23, 7 December 2007] [23:14, 7 December 2007] [13:26, 8 December 2007] [13:52, 8 December 2007] [15:54, 8 December 2007] [16:08, 8 December 2007] [16:13, 8 December 2007]

Secondly, you continue to misunderstand Wikipedia policy. The sentence which begins "Reproductive rights first became an internationally-recognized subset of human rights..." has for its cite a source which does not appear to contain the phrase "reproductive rights." Thus, the sentence seems not supported by the source. If you can quote material from the source which validates the article sentence, please do so. Otherwise, the phrase remains WP:OR. Blackworm (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this is ridiculous. You argue that my source does not contain the phrase "reproductive rights" and thus seems to not support the cited sentence. Oh really? Have you read the citation quote (that you reverted) that states "The first comprehensive statement of human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, failed to mention reproductive rights at all. It was not until 20 years later, at the international human rights conference held in Teheran in 1968, that human reproduction became a subject of international legal concern." I've tried to extend good faith, but even if you only read the first page, you would have noticed the phrase "reproductive rights" in the intro summary [3]. I think I can reasonably conclude that you have not read the cited sources and suggest you cease objecting to that which you cannot take the time to read. It appears as if you are baselessly persecuting my contributions. One might think it was personal.

As for your allegations, I did not revert your material. I made continued efforts to address your challenges. You asked for citations, I gave them. You reverted my citations claiming they were unsupported, I added citation quotes in support. You reverted those. I reintroduced them because of your revert abuse. Phyesalis (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I applaud your finally providing, after multiple requests, a quote from the source which you believe supports the Wikipedia article sentence. Your citation quote, however, does not support the article sentence. If the sentence said, "According to (author), human reproduction first became a subject of international legal concern in 1968," it would be much more defensible. Attention to detail in these matters is extremely important.

It is clear from the history that your edits were reverts, your defense of them being irrelevant to the question.

I'd also ask you again to please stop the incivility, and stop making personal attacks. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"Finally providing"? This is insane, the quote has been in the citation for a while - YOU removed it at least once. The cited source has been present since before you even started editing the article. I don't think you understand what "support" means. UN/1968 is a fact - it doesn't have to be attributed (since that seems to be what you are arguing). But really, how controversial is the date of the first international discussion of reproductive rights as human rights? Don't you think your behavior is a bit excessive? I'm done discussing this with you on the talk page. I've moved this discussion over to your talk page where it belongs. Phyesalis (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of being controversial, it's a question of properly reflecting the source. You can't take a sentence in a source that says "human reproduction first became a subject of international legal concern..." and summarize it, without attribution, as "Reproductive rights first became an internationally-recognized subset of human rights..." The latter is an interpretation, involving assumptions -- not a proper reflection of the source. One way to resolve these types of conflicts is to quote the source directly -- I highly recommend it in this case. Blackworm (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Veering off-topic in the leadin

This seems off-topic to me: "In addition, reproductive rights advocates endeavor to protect all women from harmful gender-based practices. Examples include cultural practices such as female genital cutting, or FGC, as well as state, customary and religious laws that contribute to women's political and economic disenfranchisment." (in the leadin). I'm sure many advocates of reproductive rights also advocate for other rights too, but that isn't really relevant here.

I'm not sure what you are objecting to, info regarding advocacy or specific examples? I'm in the process of expanding this article (no ownership) but as you can see, it's been a bit slow going. If it is the specific mention of FGC in the lead, I'd have no problem with creating a section and moving it down there (honestly, I can't remember if I intro'd that or if it pre-existed). I would have an issue with expunging of coverage of the most basic aspects of RR, particularly since I plan on giving these their own subsections. Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to mention of FGC etc. provided what is claimed about it is supportable and relevant. The problem here is that apparently a claim is being made that everyone who supports reproductive rights also advocates certain other things. That's very hard to believe. Or, maybe it means that the term "reproductive rights" is used only to refer to people who also advocate those other things. That's also somewhat hard to believe -- I mean, some people might use the term that way, but I doubt that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources do that, which is what would be required to make such a statement in the leadin. I don't see any footnote to support this hard-to-believe claim. Maybe it needs to be reworded, deleted and/or supported with reliable sources. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. However, the claim is that "advocates", not "supporters" or "proponents", endeavor to protect women from gender discrimination - this is the basic thrust of reproductive rights, they are not two different things. Actually the overwhelming majority of reliable sources do claim this, as it is the most basic precept of the discourse. But I surely invite you to provide reliable evidence to the contrary. I'm thinking in this context, advocacy would be understood as a particular type of action. Perhaps you are not familiar with the topic? If so, I highly recommend reading the 2 cited peer-review articles on the subject covering the basic history of reproductive rights. Would "activists" solve the issue? Like to get rid of "all"? Maybe "In addition"? Personally, I think "activists" is a bit loaded for the discussion (most people in the discussion agree that women should be protected from harmful discrimination, they disagree on what constitutes "harmful" - predominantly in terms of moral and cultural relativism). I'll spend some more time adding more cited material. Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Imbalance re countries

There is a section on reproductive rights in one country, the United States, but no similar sections on any other countries.

I suspect this is because of the US abortion issue (it was here before I was). Personally, I think RR has a clearly established international context as a subset of human rights - tons of top tier sources on this. I wouldn't mind c&ping it here until we could develop other sections. Phyesalis (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight re men's versus women's rights

Undue weight: I'm guessing that the vast majority of sources discussing "reproductive rights" are talking about rights of women, right to contraception, right to abortion etc., not about the right of men to avoid becoming parents. If so, then the article should give a lot less space to discussion of the rights of men than to discussion of other reproductive rights. On a google search, the whole first page of hits all seemed to be about women and contraception and stuff, not about men's rights. The women's rights section has major organizations cited such as WHO and doesn't even provide quotes of them, while the men's section has only some lesser-known organization(s) cited and I think (unless the other sections of the article are greatly expanded) it gives much too much space on those quotes. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You are correct - the overwhelming focus of RR is women's reproductive health. Honestly, I have objected to the material in the men's section (but not the presence of a men's section) because issues of men's RR are actually health issues like forced sterilization. Also, the source cites a fringe position relating to one fringe org and one dismissed lawsuit (hardly a mainstream position) in the abortion debate having nothing to do with reproductive health and the RR debate. I have asked for peer-review sources that establish "financial abortions" as a recognized issue of RR (since I haven't found any) but none have been forthcoming.

• Salon.com does not present the issue as an RR issue - it is somewhat dismissive of NCM and only mentions the phrase "reproductive rights" in terms of Feit's self-described "reproductive rights affidavit"
• NCM's self-published press release notes that such an idea has been dismissed legally
• Time does not mention the phrase "reproductive rights" - since Blakworm finds such a lack a reason to object to sources, I think his logic ought to be applied across the board.

I think this is a combo of SYN/OR. Unrelated sources on US abortion issues are being used to establish a fringe opinion as a relevant and weighty opinion in RR discourses. It ought to be removed and replaced with info relating to reproductive health and RR (like forced sterilization). However, if peer-review sources are produced to contextualize this info, I will rescind my objections. Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Coppertwig: When I added some material on men's reproductive rights, this article was flagged as a "stub." By all means, other sections should be expanded -- but don't start talking about removing cited, relevant material just because the rest of the article hasn't been written yet. "Undue weight" refers to competing views, not disproportionate public interest. Note, also, that this article does not provide sources for its notability, its definition, nor its arguments. Note that opposing views and links have been deleted from this article, by Phyesalis, on the supposed grounds that "pro-life" arguments specifically addressing "reproductive rights," are irrelevant to reproductive rights. I invite editors to properly write this article, cited sources supporting the text, and attributing views, per Wikipedia policies WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Blackworm (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Phyesalis: If you can phrase your objection while adhering to WP:NPOV and WP:V, I invite you to do so; but your assertions regarding what reproductive rights "are," "actually," are irrelevant. Blackworm (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

They're not mine - they are the UN's and those of the international academic discourses on RR (substantiated by multiple peer-reviews sources). Secondly, NPOV applies to article pages, not talk pages. And frankly Scarlett, I can frame my objections any way I want (but I, and you, have to support them with reliable sources which I, but not you, have done) as long as I avoid slurs (not a problem). If you can't provide peer-review sources to contradict those that I have provided, you are merely steam rolling. Until such a time, please stop tossing NPOV and V around. Your objections have thus far been supported solely by your opinion. It is disruptive - for someone who refuses to read provided quotes, let alone whole articles, you really need to show a little more good faith.

I removed pro-life material cited from completely unreliable sources. Since the overall focus is a) international and b) on reproductive health as a human right, US pro-life abortion commentary from fringe amateur cites doesn't actually cut it. For someone who wants to keep such high standards I'm surprised that Blackworm defends info from http://www.prolife.com/ABORMETH.html (no really, take a moment to check this out, edifying stuff here - glad to know that Blackworm finds this acceptable but chooses to repeatedly revert peer-review citations.) Phyesalis (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If the assertions are from specific agencies of the UN, then let's say so. Let's also allow room for other significant viewpoints.

Your assertions regarding the "focus" of this article are irrelevant. The focus of this article is simply "reproductive rights."

I believe it is clear to any unbiased editor reading this discussion that your behaviour toward me is much less acceptable than vice-versa. In every post you make, you make a personal attack. This must stop. If you object to the sources on WP:RS grounds, that is one thing; but you originally removed the "Criticism" section with the edit summary, and I quote, "removing inappropriate links to pro-life websites about abortion, not having to do with reproductive rights." That leaves the impression that you are editing in support of a particular non-neutral point of view, which, as I don't need to remind you, violates WP:NPOV. Blackworm (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What other significant view points? You haven't provided a single peer-reviewed source that states anything differently. And my comments on your behavior are appropriate given the behavior's disruptive nature. I've tried to discuss this on your talk page but you keep removing it and refuse to address my concerns. And yes, I used shorthand in my edit summary but you managed to leave out my somewhat lengthy discussion of the source quality issues under Talk:Reproductive rights#Criticism on November 25th; you were actually the only other person to respond, which you did on December 8th, so it's odd that you would characterize my actions as you have. You might want to pay a little more attention to discussions so that you don't appear as if you are willfully misrepresenting others' words, edits, and actions.

Especially since I wrote (typos and all): "I am removing the crit section, again. The sources are two partisan websites with no known reputation of fact-checking. This info if relvant to RR should be gotten from a peer-review .journal or other reliable source. I'm not even sure what the relvancy is here. This is not an abortion debate. It covers much more than abortion and seems to give undue weight to pro-lifers. PL's do not criticize reproductive rights, per se. They crit. abortion. Not the same thing."

And you are correct. This must stop. If you want the info from the 1968 UN discussion attributed, I have already suggested you go ahead and do it (in the stuff you removed), although I don't see how. It states a fact "Reproductive rights first became an internationally-recognized subset of human rights at the United Nations' 1968 International Conference on Human Rights" the UN is already contextualized in the sentence and is cited by a UN copy of the proclamation and a peer-reviewed secondary source to support it. What do you want to say "The UN states that it first recognized reproductive rights as a subset of international human rights at its 1968 International conference on Human Rights"? I mean, do you see how little that changes things. Again, I obviously don't think it needs to be changed and I'm not going to change it. If you want to add excess verbiage to establish UN attribution, do it yourself. Phyesalis (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, this "fact" you repeatedly claim as such is not evident, and not directly claimed by the source. The modified sentence you present above still is not claimed by the source. There is no onus on other editors to correct violating material; since it is presently original research, it may simply be removed until someone willing and able to properly summarize the source steps forward. Blackworm (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you. Do you deny that there could possibly be other significant viewpoints on reproductive rights, besides those from conferences sponsored by the UN? (I admit I am assuming, since the link between that conference and the UN is not clear from the source.) The possibility is all that I'm claiming, and emphasizing that these viewpoints, if found and properly sourced, are to be included in this article. I support your removal of the criticism section on WP:RS grounds. For it to be reinstated, it should be better sourced. Your removal of all pro-life links, while retaining sites such as NARAL Pro-Choice America, however, seems more dubious. Blackworm (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you telling me that you don't understand how the 1968 Proclamation of Tehran (A UN document from a UN conference) relates to the UN? You have put me through all this and you couldn't even check the sources to determine that the Proclamation of Tehran (sourced by a UN hosted UN document of the actual proclamation and an additional peer-review journal) was the product of a UN conference? THERE IS NO WAY YOU HAVE READ THE SOURCED ARTICLES.

• I removed pro-life sources because (as I remember) they were unreliable sources with no reputation for fact checking, NARAL and Planned Parenthood do have reputations for fact checking. Again, if you think their presence is inappropriate, I invite you to remove them.
• If you are unwilling to make the smallest effort to attribute a sentence or fix something, stop complaining about it. If you don't like something, the onus is on you to fix it - it is uncivil and unreasonable to expect others to do your work for you.
• All sorts of things are possible, this doesn't mean we have to account for them in WP articles. As I have stated many times, I am always open to the introduction of peer-reviewed material. Perhaps you could a) provide peer-reviewed material or b) clarify what aspects you think could be disputed? That UN proclamations are not evidence of reproductive rights being introduced as a subset of international human rights? The fact that RR are a sub-set of human rights, or that its primary focus is women and reproductive health? Because that's about all I have asserted with my cited references. If so, good luck. If you think it's out there, you're the one that has to do the legwork to prove your case. I'm no expert but I studied this discourse for 4 years. I was able to easily provide excellent sources to support the facts. As no reliable evidence of disputation has been provided (though repeatedly requested), I see no reason to provide for the possibility. You are the only person who finds the facts to be particularly controversial. If material does appear, we can easily change the article then - this is a wiki after all.
• As for your absurd assertion of OR - get real. I'm tired of addressing your allegations (on yet another page) when you have OBVIOUSLY not read the articles. Your argument that the article couldn't source the sentence because it didn't contain the phrase "reproductive rights" has been shown to be baseless (it does) and has proven that you have not read the article and the citation quote (either that or you are just being difficult). The material is cited, I have gone above and beyond reasonable expectation to establish this. If you remove the cited material again, I will RfC you. You admit that you are unfamiliar with the topic, assume a little good faith: the person who can easily provide good sources might just know what they are talking about.

Blackworm, your behavior has been most unjustified. I'm going to step back to get over the fact that you have engaged in disruptive and mendacious wikilawyering. I seriously recommend you reassess your interactions with me and begin to assume good faith, lots of good faith. Phyesalis (talk) 07:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The document was hosted by a UN-affiliated web site, but there is no mention of the UN in the document. The article statement is vague, not reflected by the source, and biased (since using the term "recognized" implies a truth). For example, if we said "The Nazis recognized Jews as evil," we are agreeing the Jews were evil, which does not conform to WP:NPOV. If we say, "The Nazis considered Jews as evil," then we are rendering opinion fact through attribution. Further, it would really lend weight to your case if the 1968 document would have been ratified by the General Assembly (like the 1948 International Bill of Human Rights was), but I see no evidence of that, or in fact any binding international agreement on the subject of reproductive rights.

Your expressed reason for deleting pro-life links and retaining pro-choice links is invalid. Even if you could provide evidence from a reliable source that NARAL Pro-Choice and Planned Parenthood have better fact-checking than the pro-life sites you removed (which you haven't, and I suspect, cannot), this is a "Links" section, where groups holding viewpoints on the subject are linked to. Their fact-checking and reliablility is to be assessed by the reader, not you.

On, the contrary, I've been making a HUGE effort here -- rather than simply fix the sentence, to teach you why it violates policy in hopes that the remainder of the article can be so repaired. Your demands are inappropriate -- material violating policy is to be removed. It may be re-added if it is made to conform to policy. Changing material to conform is preferable, but infinitely more time consuming, and removing material is perfectly acceptable, in fact called for by WP:V.

Your argument is backwards. You can't write up an incorrect and unattributed summary of a source ("Reproductive rights first became an internationally-recognized subset of human rights at the United Nations' 1968 International Conference on Human Rights") then, when challenged, demand to see reliable sources that contradict your interpretation. I have already shown how your interpretation does not necessarily follow from the quoted source.

I invite you to "RfC" me -- in fact I encourage it. From the very beginning your attitude toward me has been unacceptable, and public scrutiny and a round denunciation of your behaviour may assist in getting you to rethink your attitude and continually expressed hostility; it might also allow editors who follow and understand Wikipedia policy to edit certain articles. Blackworm (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the authoritarian approach is a bit lost on me. I'm not sure it's really your job to teach me a lesson. Perhaps it would be better if you decided to teach by example (as in attempt to fix that which you otherwise only revert and complain about). I cited the material. Your objection is not supported by any source, mine is. It's in the article you haven't read. If you remove the citations again, I will proceed with alternate methods of recourse. Pretty simple. Phyesalis (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's in the article, quote the relevant section. The article text does not follow from the section you have previously quoted. And, I repeat: you can't write up an incorrect and unattributed summary of a source, then, when challenged, demand to see reliable sources that contradict your interpretation. Per WP:NOR, the onus is on you to show that the source supports the article material. Blackworm (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

LGBT Reproductive Rights?

I see no mention of lesbian struggles to insure that they have access to reproductive technology as one area of reproductive rights, nor any awareness related to lesbian, gay and transgender parenting and family formation issues. This needs to be remedied.

Calibanu (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Calibanu

I agree - the article just recently came off of stub status, so it's missing a lot of things! If you would like to add some material, it would be a great contribution. Phyesalis (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There's also no mention of male castrati having the basic human right of free reproductive technology -- this also needs to be addressed. Blackworm (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Farinelli has to do with modern reproductive rights. But hey, if you can find some peer-reviewed sources that contextualize it specifically within the reproductive rights discourse, add it to the mix. Phyesalis (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What the "attribution needed" tag means

It means, "this statement needs to be attributed to the people who claim it." It doesn't mean "this statement needs more cites from people with the same views." The first sentence of this article is an opinion, not a fact. No amount of evidence from the UN, AI, or any other groups will make it a "fact."

What you are doing in this article Phyesalis, is writing unattributed "facts" which are challenged by other editors. In response to the challenge, you demand to see evidence to the contrary -- this is not a correct approach. If the views you wish to present are those of a majority, or even universal, you need to find a source that says so, then specifically write that in the article text. For at least the fourth time, you cannot present opinion as fact in this encyclopedia.

You write that (all unattributed "facts"):

• Reproductive rights are a subset of human rights
• Reproductive rights includes the right to abortion

By making these claims without attribution, you are making the Wikipedia article claim that abortion is a human right. Clearly this is not a universal view -- do you agree or disagree? Do you, Phyesalis, believe that it is a universal view that abortion is a human right? Because that's what the article says right now. Blackworm (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Since you are not familiar with the topic, I will point out that International Reproductive rights/Human rights discourses are not US abortion discourses (give it a commutation test). In Intenrational reproductive rights discourses, abortion is considered to be part of women's inalienable human rights. As this is the majority view (I have yet to see any mention to the contrary in the numerous legal documents (some cited in article), in CEDAW the ratified human rights treaty, and in various academic RR discourses) I'm thinking you're going to have to do a lot of leg work to prove otherwise. As I have provided secondary and tertiary sources that establish this, and you have provided none, you need to provide evidence for your claim. Wikipedia is not about "truth" it is about verifiability. Until the time that you have provided evidence of your POV, please refrain from slapping attribution tags on basic facts. I will repeat this one more time for emphasis: Get some sources or stop being disruptive. If you keep tagging cited material I will RfC this. Phyesalis (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you appear to believe it legitimate and correct for Wikipedia to claim, without attributing the claim to any party (paraphasing): "Reproductive rights, including the right to abortion, are a subset of basic human rights," then I rest my case here. Blackworm (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. Get a source. Or attribute it yourself. Phyesalis (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Regarding "human rights", first, thanks Coppertwig, I really appreciate you taking the time to bring about a solution. It's nice to see someone take a constructive and pro-active approach to the dispute. This is my issue: there are three sources which state that RR are HR, I don't think that removing the citation and mention of human rights is productive, as so far, no one has provided citations to support the contrary. Until the time that someone does provide citations, I'm thinking it would be counterproductive to remove the mention of human rights or the citations. I'm all for WP:BRD as for as general rewording, but I think the human rights aspect is well-documented. For the time being, I'm fine with the addition of "often held to include", though I think this might be more appropriate when discussing advocates. As far as the attribution for the first sentence of the second paragraph, does any editor honestly dispute that reproductive rights are associated with the pro-choice position? I added this sentence in an effort to start to differentiate general reproductive rights discourses and the more specific abortion debate. If you feel that the lead would be better without it, we can remove it or reword it. I think that if an editor does actively dispute this, I'd appreciate some kind of statement as to the logic for this, otherwise I'm going to remove the tag. Sound good? Phyesalis (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Find a source making the exact claim you wish to include, then attribute the claim to that source, especially if the claim is challenged. That is how Wikipedia works. Blackworm (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Documentation for RR as human rights

So, in addition to the footnote I added to the citation for the article "Advancing Reproductive Rights Beyond Cairo and Beijing", Cook and Fathalla use the terms "human rights" and "reproductive rights" virtually interchangeably (HR is the greater category and RR is the subset). For example, they state:

• Meticulous documentation can show that human rights abuses represent systematic state policies rather than merely individual abberations. Evidence in court cases can show that a government has failed to eliminate and remedy reproductive rights abuses, and such evidence can be used to analyze conscious patterns over time. Complaints before national, regional and international legal tribunals and incidents publicized by nongovernmental human rights organizations can also be used to direct attention beyond the facts to the underlying conditions of abuse of reproductive rights for which states are legally answerable. (pg 117)
• Under the subsection "Applying Human Rights", first sentence: "Reproductive rights may be protected through specific legal rights. Which rights are invoked and how they are shown to have been violated depend on the particular facts of an alleged violation and on the underlying causes of reproductive ill-health. The rights addressed here are not exhaustive, but only suggest some of the approaches that may be developed to advance reproductive interests. Table 1 shows the relevant provisions of the respective international instruments that relate to each right. Moreover, we indicate only certain ways in which specific rights may be applied to reproductive interests and how the Cairo Program and Beijing Platform can be used to add meaning to them. As human rights laws are applied more vigorously to reproductive interests, a variety of ways of applying them will emerge to serve reproductive interests. (end paragraph,pg 117)
• The Cairo and Beijing texts suggest a variety of strategies for effectively protecting and promoting reproductive rights at every government level, from local government to international agencies. The Beijing Platform recognizes that legal literacy and legal service programs are required to ensure that women understand their human rights, how to use them and how to gain access to courts to enforce their rights [paras. 232-233]. Moreover, the Beijing text recommends support of those who try to uphold human rights, sometimes at great odds [para. 232] Important efforts towards this end include hearings held at Cairo and Beijing nongovernmental forums, where women testified about violations of their reproductive rights. (pg 120)
• The Cairo and Beijing documents recommend that the health professions develop, disseminate and implement ethics codes to ensure practitioners' conformity with human rights, ethical and professional standards...Overall, the Cairo and Beijing documents develop the content and meaning of reproductive rights. (p 121)

Response? Phyesalis (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Find a source saying "Reproductive rights are a subset of human rights." Then we can say, "This source claims that reproductive rights are a subset of human rights." Until then, all you have presented is an argument in support of that claim, which by definition is original research. Blackworm (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I did, check out the Amnesty international citation: "Reproductive rights - access to sexual and reproductive healthcare and autonomy in sexual and reproductive decision-making - are human rights; they are universal, indivisible, and undeniable. These rights are founded upon principles of human dignity and equality, and have been enshrined in international human rights documents. Reproductive rights embrace core human rights, including the right to health, the right to be free from discrimination, the right to privacy, the right not to be subjected to torture or ill-treatment, the right to determine the number and spacing of one's children, and the right to be free from sexual violence. Reproductive rights include the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children, and the right to have the information and means to implement those decisions free from discrimination, coercion, and violence. Reproductive rights also include the right to the highest standards of sexual and reproductive healthcare." Phyesalis (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The Amnesty Internation citation is fine -- attribute the view to them, and all is well. You may not, however, claim that because AI claims reproductive rights are human rights, that it is a fact that reproductive rights are human rights. Clearly groups opposed to certain practices claimed as reproductive rights (e.g., abortion) disagree that they are human rights, thus the claim is not fact but opinion, which must be attributed. Blackworm (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverting

Coppertwig made changes and invited users to revert them as he had not discussed them on the page. I made this edit [[4]] in which I added additional footnotes as requested by Coppertwig. I posted much discussion and additional citation (above). The problems with the subsequent revert [[5]] are these:

• revert removed cited material and disrupted a constructive and good faith attempt between two editors to solve the dispute, while making no attempt to ameliorate the problems
• revert of disputed material, though not done in response to vandalism, was not accompanied by a discussion on talk
• revert asserts OR, while removing citation, but does not support contention with any source or argument

I'm going to reinstate my edit and request that further reverts be discussed on talk as this is part of an ongoing dispute. I'd like to request that editors follow WP:BRD, with emphasis on the (D)iscussion. Phyesalis (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Material violating Wikipedia policy is to be removed. Your edit claiming without attribution that "reproductive rights are a subset of human rights" violates Wikipedia's "no original research" policy. As I have told you in the past, there is no requirement for editors to cite sources contradicting original research. If you wish to include a claim, you must cite reliable sources making the exact claim, which may then be required to be attributed to the source should they be challenged in any way. Blackworm (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the content of this debate. I'm going to say that both of you need to stop the edit warring, or else risk having this article protected in the wrong version. One of you be the bigger party and let the other side "win" for the time being. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I would rather see it protected, even in what I consider the "wrong" version, than allow original research to remain and grow in this article. Perhaps page protection would draw attention to this article; attention it desperately needs to be made verified, free of original research, and neutral. As of now, it fails miserably in all three aspects. Blackworm (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to stop editing the article for a few days. I only started now because Coppertwig and I were moving things forward. He asked for the additional info and I asked him to offer up a suggestion. When I saw the revert, I did not address anyone directly and kept my comments to the material and the effect on the article, as well as a general request to follow BDR. Do we think discussion can take place over this period of time, or should we both step back and then discuss the issues. Phyesalis (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

We've discussed this at length, and cannot seem to move past fundamental issues. You believe that Wikipedia should assert as unattributed fact that reproductive rights, and by extension abortion, are "human rights." I believe that violates WP:NPOV and WP:V. Impasse. If you have other suggested edits, I invite you to present them. Blackworm (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've actually tried really hard to create space for the abortion issue. I didn't start this stub, and was working The sentence that keeps getting reverted is sourced by 2 peer-review sources (Cook and Freedman) and Amnesty International (which states flat out "Reproductive rights are human rights" [6]). It doesn't say anything about abortion. It is difficult for me to understand what the issue is. The statement is sourced per R and V, it contains no weasel words, yet it repeatedly gets reverted because of "OR". How OR can it be if I can cite it almost word for word from reliable sources? As for NPOV, I have repeatedly asked for sources and/or suggestions regarding the wording of both the opening sentence and the lines that deal with abortion. It is terribly discouraging to repeatedly add footnotes and citations only to have them reverted [7] edit summary "rv WP:OR", [8] es: "revert original research again".

And yes, I stated that I believed (when asked) that abortion is a reproductive right. I have a POV, I'm fine with the transparency, it keeps me honest. I am not trying to push a pro-choice POV. I have no problem with an editor going in and trying to clarify the relationship between abortion and RR. I've been trying to work from the lead and the history on down, so I haven't gotten to it yet. The first constructive edit offered by Coppertwig yielded some good results. I added more footnotes, we moved forward on "often held to include" I like the phrase, but I think that it should be applied to the section talking about advocates to specifically qualify abortion. Phyesalis (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize both with your difficulty in understanding, and your discouragement. Coppertwig's edits indeed yielded some good results, especially his reversion of "[RR] is a subset of human rights" which was clearly challenged opinion not attributed to any source. No one disputes that the right to have an abortion is widely regarded as an inseparable part of the concept presented as "reproductive rights," therefore, it is grossly unacceptable that this encyclopedia state that "reproductive rights are a subset of human rights," since those who may fully support even the broadest opinions regarding what human rights exist, do not necessarily believe that the right to have an abortion at will exists. More specifically, the "right to life" is cited universally as an example of a "human right," and yet the phrase "right to life" is more commonly associated with the pro-life movement than "reproductive rights" advocates. Some notable groups (for example, [many if not most Catholics]) believe the opposite of your assertion, namely, that "reproductive rights" stand in opposition to "human rights." Clearly the view that the rejection of any reproductive rights is a rejection of some human rights (logically implied by the phrase, "reproductive rights are a subset of human rights") is just that -- a view, not shared by all and contradicted by a significant minority (at least). Certain groups that express a belief in a specific set of reproductive rights and claiming them to be human rights is notable, as at least several prominent organizations have done so. But the article, with your edits, begins by simply asserting that abortion is a human right (since abortion is listed as a reproductive right), despite the existence of notable contrary opinion from a not-tiny group. This violates WP:NPOV, which states, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." (Emphasis in original.) (The debate as what opinion is in the "majority" is irrelevant, per WP:NPOV, other than dealing with undue weight issues, which this is not).

Coppertwig's edit is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Someone makes an edit, which better conforms to policy than the previous edit. Finally, remember that "of course, others here will edit what you write. Do not take it personally." (WP:BOLD.) Also, "it is important that contributors do not edit recklessly. 'Being Bold' does not excuse a disregard for verifiability, neutrality, and the other guidelines/policies that comprise the five pillars of Wikipedia." (WP:BOLD.)

Another good one I'll throw out there is, "when you see a conflict in a talk page, do not be just a 'mute spectator'. Be bold and drop your opinion there" (WP:BOLD.) Blackworm (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Re "additional citations as requested by Coppertwig": this may be based on a misunderstanding, or possibly I'm forgetting something. I don't remember asking for any additional citations, except via a citation-needed tag for the phrase "While the term is often associated with the pro-choice position", which I am asking to be either deleted or have a citation provided to support it; and I don't think the footnotes Phyesalis provided address that particular phrase. The misunderstanding seems to be that Phyesalis believes that "reproductive rights are human rights" is a fact and that it can be supported by citations and that perhaps if we have a problem with it, more citations will help. Actually, more citations are not likely to be of help there. To me, the words "reproductive rights are human rights" have the meaning of a normative statement, equivalent to a statement containing the word "should". Organizations such as AI or the UN make those kinds of statements. Wikipedia does not, regardless of how many reliable sources can be found which support the statement. The fact that the words mean something different to Phyesalis is not enough reason to keep them. Instead, words should be found which are unambiguous, which mean the proper meaning to all readers or practically all readers. I don't think I'm by any means the only person in the world to interpret those words in that way.

I agree with Blackworm that there is also still a problem with the treatment of abortion in the lead. It does seem to be implying or stating that abortion is a human right. Wikipedia certainly does not make statements like that. Wikipedia can make statements (if they are true) like "Organization X has declared abortion to be a human right." Not "Abortion is a human right" nor "reproductive rights are human rights" nor "reproductive rights are a subset of human rights." --Coppertwig (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Re this edit by Phyesalis: I invited people to "Feel free to revert and discuss on talk." I may not have made it clear, but that was supposed to apply to both (or all three) of my edits -- i.e. I was not intending to invite anyone to revert without explanation. Phyesalis, you have reverted as I invited you to, but you have not, as far I as see, explained on this talk page the reason for reverting. Please explain -- why do you think the article is better the way you changed it back to? I don't think your post above addresses this at all. Maybe I'm missing something. I need to see it stated clearly. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)