User talk:Danielpennings

Welcome!

Hello, Danielpennings, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KillerChihuahua, can you explain to me how my comment violated the 'Neutral Point of view' policy? That is exactly what I am trying to correct. I find the pro-life and pro-choice pages very biased, and want to correct that bias. The article itself admits the bias because it states how one side refers to the fetus as an unborn child, and how the other side refers to the unborn child as a fetus. However, consistently only the term 'fetus' is used. I also was trying to explain what the pro-life side is FOR, rather than simply stating what it is against. Likewise, the pro-choice side should also include both the positive and negatives, rather than just the positives, if wikipendia is to fulfill its 'neutral poiont of view' policy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielpennings (talk • contribs) 13:00, 18 January 2008

Concerning the word "fetus" vs. "unborn child": "fetus" is neutral. "unborn child" is POV, because it presents only the pro-choice view. Concerning what pro-life is FOR rather than against, there may be room for improvement in the article. Be aware, all the articles in the Abortion family of articles are areas of dispute, sometimes hotly so; I suggest you post your suggested edits, AND your rationale, on the article talk page for discussion. Pick one edit; persuade rather than argue if at all possible. Remember that in addition to NPOV we avoid OR - any sourcing to support your position will be helpful, although biased sourcing will not be - in other words, a website called abortionismurder.com will be ignored as a biased site, whereas RCOG, CNN, etc will have more weight. Please let me know if you have any further questions. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Later in the article there is a quote: Pro-life and pro-choice individuals often use political framing to convey their perspective on the issues, and in some cases, to discredit opposing views. Pro-life people tend to use terms such as "mother", "unborn child", "unborn baby", "pre-born infant" or infanticide.[32] Pro-choice people tend to use terms such as "zygote", "embryo" or "fetus". Each side accuses the other of using a preferred set of loaded terms.

Therefore that contradicts your statement 'fetus is neutral'.

I will try to find the article talk page to discuss this.

On any article or user page, the talk page is located by clicking the "discussion" tab at the top. The talk page for Pro-Life is at Talk:Pro-life. What further help do you require? KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there[edit]

I'm quite new to editing myself and was surprised initially how quickly some of my edits were reverted - especially on some articles. I think now that where I went wrong was making several changes at once. My advice is to help an article evolve - make one small change and see if that is generally accepted; then, later, consider another change. This is not an underhand way of making changes but a sensible way of allowing each step to be considered on its own merits. Also, be ready with references to support any claim you think is required that may be controversial. Happy editing! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline User talk speedy[edit]

I am sorry but User talk pages are generally not deleted per user request. If you have a very specific reason for deletion, please add it using {{db|add your reason here}} Woody (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DaneilChi[edit]

I noticed that this user now appears to be using User:Danielchi instead of this account. There should be some notice placed here (or perhaps an account merger), correct? Ante lan ^talk 22:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]