Talk:Abortion/Archives/02

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between DATE and DATE.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Abortion/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. 84.146.238.75 19:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


A lot of discussion has been moved to archive. A helpful user summarised the more important points. If you wish to read the full archive, you may do so at your leisure. Talk:Abortion/Old. Much of it is still relevant, but none of the discussion is ongoing. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 12:07 (UTC)

Compromise or freeze[edit]

I would once more like to propose a compromise that provides all of the impassioned parties in this debate a means to reach agreement. I don't expect either side to be completely satisfied, but it is intended to end the debate for at least a few months so that other, more important activity on Wikiquote can proceed without the distraction of this time-consuming battle.

214 earlier explicitly committed to any organization of the article that would put pro-life quotes first. Others pointed out the importance of standard Wikiquote organizations. I opined that "anti-abortion" is a more accurate label for the "pro-life" position. (Specifically, "pro-life" is a euphemism for "anti-abortion", because there is no party that considers itself "anti-life", whatever P-L supporters might want to imply, and there are plenty of pro-lifers who are comfortable with capital punishment.) "Pro-choice", likewise, is more accurate that other variations, because many P-C supporters are on record as personally foreswearing abortions, yet still believe this is an individual decision of conscience, however repellent or immoral it may seem to them.


Using "anti-abortion" and "pro-choice" as section headings, in that alphabetical order, may not follow most common practice, and it may lose the comfortable symmetry of "pro-choice/pro-life" (or vice versa), but Wikiquote values accuracy, and these two labels do not contort the English language.

I will give everyone two weeks to consider this (and any other compromises they may reach in this period). This will allow 214 to rejoin the debate. During this time, I will not participate in this debate in any way, even to clarify my statements above or to admonish misrepresentations of them. Sometime after 00:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC), I will review the state of the article, the talk page, any votes taken on this issue, however informal, and any supporting pages discussed in these pages. If I feel, in my best judgment as a Wikiquote sysop, that there is no consensus for this article, I will restructure it into the format I mention above and protect it from editing for three months. This will be designed to allow a cool down of existing tempers, more rational debate, and a further development of Wikiquote policy to help us resolve these contentious issues.

I believe Wikiquote and informally-borrowed Wikipedia policy allow me to make such a unilateral move in the absence of any progress on consensus, the lack of any Wikiquote arbitration mechanism, and subject to review by other admins and ultimately the Board. I don't want to do this, but I will if we can't reach agreement. There are many ways consensus may be achieved in the meantime. I would note that consensus does not mean unanimous agreement, so it is in everyone's best interest to make their best case calmly, concisely, and without personal attacks, in order to convince the greatest number of fellow Wikiquotians.

Please do not insert comments into this text. If you must comment on it, please post after this line. Until July 24, I leave you all to your debates. — Jeff Q (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

General remark for protection. It is generally opposition to the wiki character "everyone can edit". So I propose two possible modification 1) shorting protection term: more than 1 month. I agree on that cooling down would be helpful, but three months seems to me a bit long. 2) another possible modification is, "shorter one either three months or getting consensus (or consensus of unprotection)". Besides that, we need to think where is (are) proper places to request for un/protection... --Aphaia 04:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I accept any category being first, so my comment seems neutral like yours, Jeff. That should make all parties happy. In the mean time, does this proposal look good to accept for now? Also, I think that any protection is good only if we have consensus from the community.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Links[edit]

Just question: why some quotes are followed several links, even their original are apparently off-line sources? I think one link is enough and it would be only either the original is online material or the whole source can be refered with that link. And in my preferences, lines of [number] seem for me not beautiful, unless there is a reason they should exist in that way ... --Aphaia 16:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It's like a spare tire on a bicycle or a car or bus. If one tire goes flat (bad), you can go to the back of the automobile and get a "spare tire," and be able to drive! and likewise, if a visitor clicks on one link, and it is "bad," there are three more in many cases.
Normally, this is not good, but the links are very small, and take up only a little screen room. The page still looks pretty good, and all links are "sources" for "sourced materials." (More links = More resources for the curious reader! good, no?) Also, I did my best in Wikifying the links to quotes page if the person had many quotes on the web; and to Wikipedia if few; and to NO link is Wikipedia was without an entry.
Oh, you think 3 or 4 numerals as sourced links looks bad? Maybe. Could you ask Moshe and Kalki, Jeff, or other friends for their opinion on the appearance and beauty of the finished product? (Oh, I believe that i am totally finished, unless "small details" need attention.)
Sorry, but I am sleepy; I have been working for many hours and did not sleep last night. It is almost good. Could you ask for another opinion? Thank you!--GordonWattsDotCom 16:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

PS: If the page is now good (or can be fixed), then we maybe can ask for a new policy: Protect "controversial" pages, and if a new editor wants ot edit, he or she can submit ideas to screened editors (long-time editors who have been apporoved and pass the test for being good editors) Also, I think it is not right that we work for free. You probably work even more than me on several Wiki's, and Jimbo should pay you a paycheck; That way, the quality improves if he pays editors. Just my opinions.--GordonWattsDotCom 16:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure if it is a good idea. Back to the "series of links" topics, I don't think it is a good idea because
  1. it could make it easier to introduce not accurate (and less important) sources. People would tend to add any "sources" only because the quote is contained there, without any evaluation of accuracy and reliability of sources. In my opinion, if several sources are given, information of their validity and importance as sources should be given. Not all sources are equal on their significance. Multipul sources are better if they give different information and analysis. For example there could be several translation for a foreign language quotes.
  2. Sources mean "the sources from where the citator citated" in my understanidng. Not "where you can see it also, so it is really sourced" evidence.
  3. And yes, in my feeling it is not beautiful. Specially if you want to print it. See printable version. The original quotes are covered over the URLs. And very hard to recognize. Honestly I think it ugly and annoying. I hope no other editor, specially newbies follow your method.
Any opinon? --Aphaia 06:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Please comment on VP, not here. Thank you.

Lots of new quotes added[edit]

I added a ton of new quotes and also did a lot of cleanup work. I hope other editors will respect the hard work and many hours I put in. If you think something needs to be changed, please EDIT, instead of just reverting. Thank you. 214.13.4.151 19:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

They look OK so far, except for the fact that some quotations are somewhat lengthy, however I am not finished reviewing all the changes, and in fact spend too much time online. This does not pay me money, so, if I disappear suddenly that may be why.--GordonWattsDotCom 22:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
It looks like you did a good job with your recent edits
UPDATE: Many hours have passed, and I have finally finished looking at every single edit change from my last edit until the current state of the main quotations page here (by looking at each successive diff). I did not look at the accuracy of the link sources or check every detail, but instead simply looked for obvious mistakes or deletions. It is my conclusion that you did a good job, and it appears that you deleted absolutely nothing (and made no major changes in the format), which should be happy news for those worried about your willingness to work with team members. Also, I glanced at the overall page appearance. While there are concerns about the quantity of links I placed, the appearance of the Abortions quotes page is acceptable and good to me. I fixed a few minor errors, like a cache link and minor punctuation issues.
Have fun, and be good.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

214, I see the recent title changes. They look OK to me, but there was a choice, a fork in the road, and I wonder if you chose the right path. (I don't know.) So, I looked on the Internet for answers.

In Support of your change: Aphaia and Fonzy discuss this with an edit as recent as March 24, 2005, and the relevant section says: "In Wikiquote, many entries are devided up by Attributed and Verified. What does this mean?" Wikiquote:Attributed and Verified Quotes

In Support of the previous method: As recently as July 5th, this year, Iddo999, JeffQ, Aphaia, and Kalki discuss this, with this relevant quote: (Jeff states in part) "After reviewing the discussion Kalki alluded to in the section above, and concurring with Aphaia, I changed "Verified" to "Sourced" in the article. This appears to have been an oversight after a community feeling (if not formal consensus) that the term "verified" is too ambiguous and too easily abused, whereas "sourced" is obvious..." Wikiquote talk:Guide to layout The regular page Guide to Layout, like its talk page says, in part: "Quotations should be divided into two sections, Sourced and Attributed. This ensures that quotations with sources are listed first and highlights to all readers that authenticity is a primary goal of Wikiquote.

If the entry is long, the quotations should be listed in alphabetical order within sections to help prevent duplication and to make it easy for readers to find a quotation if they know the first word.

Each quotation should be one entry in a list, be surrounded by double quotation marks (with embedded quotations in single quotation marks), and optionally followed by transliteration and translation (for non-English quotations), source, and notes. See the template for examples.

Entries with large number of quotations such as proverbs should include an alphabet finder, which looks like: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z (See the template for text.)"

In favor of more discussion: Back in February, of 2004, that is, last year, Kalki and an anonymous IP user discussed this topic, with this pertinent quote: "Does Attributed mean the opposite of Verified or does it mean that quotes under Attributed have never been said by the person but are alleged to be said by that person? What about a Unverified' section then?...We have been using the term "Verified" to designate any quotes for which sources have been cited, and "Attributed" to designate those for which they haven't. It is perhaps not the ideal designation but it is workable system. On some pages there have been created a further designations of quotes ABOUT the subject, which I think is a good idea..." found on the Wikiquote talk:Attributed and Verified Quotes

I hope this is helpful in figuring this out.--GordonWattsDotCom 18:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I simply went to a template page and saw the word "verified" - and copied it. I thought I was helping bring the page into compliance with the rules. Please change if you feel "sourced" is better. 214.13.4.151 03:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I see your new edits, whether or not you indent extra full colons: I check the edit history. Anyhow, I have a "neutral" opinion on this; Everyone should be happy about that. However, there is ongoing debate in the section above this one regarding whether or not extra sources are a good thing. Why don't you weigh in on that debate? Also, mediation has stalled on the Terri Schiavo page. Uncle Ed has made some progress, but this URL might be relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terri_Schiavo/Mediation Your voice needs to be heard, here is practicable in your schedule of things. Buckle up, and be safe in your travels, and have a nice day.--GordonWattsDotCom 14:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Block instead of freeze[edit]

Upon my promised review on the latest version of Abortion, I find I cannot untangle the many issues that remain. I can, however make one clear judgment.

Despite making some uncontroversially useful edits, 214 continues to do her best to undermine civil discourse by ranting about other editors and denigrating them for supposed tactics that she herself uses much more frequently. She also continues to subvert the accepted division of the article into the two irreconcilable camps by placing quotes supporting the one side into the other side based on arguments that have been rejected by nearly every other editor participating. Finally, during her latest spate of controversial edits, she has added at least one deliberate inaccuracy, describing the technical term "dilatation and extraction" as "dismemberment and extraction"[1]. Because of this sustained, unbashed, uncooperative, POV activity, I have blocked her IP for one month. I am also willing to report her use of U.S. taxpayer resources (a DoD IP address and likely equipment) to promote a political stance to abuse@nic.mil. Unless there is a consensus to defer this action (or somebody beats me to it), I plan to do so sometime after 00:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC). I've resisted doing this earlier, as I don't like to take such drastic action, but I am no longer willing to ignore an obvious offense being committed in order to be "fair" to the committer, when she shows no such inclination toward reasonableness herself.

Without 214's disruption, I believe the remaining editors (on both side of the debate) have a reasonable chance of achieving useful consensus, so I will not freeze it as I had previously planned. The article still looks like a mess to me, not because of visual format (which does have some appeal), but because of its content and organization:

  • "Pro-Choice" and "Anti-Abortion" were adopted without alphabetizing, which seems like the worst of both arguments about the headings and order.
  • Many quotes have been added (by 214 again, I believe) that confound easy separation into the two camps, which I think is a good reason to examine the simple 2-camp strategy.
  • Many quotes have multiple sources, a point of some controversy.
  • Completely irrelevant quotes have been added (e.g., "power tends to corrupt…").

On the plus side, the "Sourced" and "Attributed" subsections are an excellent change. But I suspect I could find many other problems with the article if I cared enough to examine it any further. However, after nearly five hours of reviewing it, its history, its talk page, related talk pages, and various references, I have well exceeded my interest in wasting time on it. I find that this article heartily deserves a cleanup tag, and have added one to it.

If anyone has any problems with my actions, feel free to comment below. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Jeff. Thanks for taking this action -- I have proposed blocking her long ago. I agree with most of what you say, and I'll try to take a look at the article the coming weekend to see if I can improve it. In any case, I have one reservation: I would like you to not report 214 to possible supervisors. Granted, as a non-American, it is not my tax money she is wasting. However, on the whole, I am not sure how such an action will benefit wikiquote. I, personally, think blocking is sufficient. Thanks for your hard work and concientous edits! ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 12:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
(quoting Jeff) "ranting about other editors and denigrating them" In Support: That is correct. She did complain loudly. Opposing argument(s): She retracted her comments by deleting the most recent post here, in the Revision as of 15:15, 19 July 2005 and included this edit summary: "removed my own comment as apparently there is no more major controversy" "She also continues to subvert the accepted division of the article into the two irreconcilable camps by placing quotes supporting the one side into the other side based on arguments that have been rejected..." Comment: She argued for that, but I thought that she had agreed to comply with consensus, and I did not find any misplaced quotes, in my most recent review (and I looked closely,) but I may have missed something. If she currently did that, it would be "bad." Despite making some uncontroversially useful edits... Not only did she make some good edits and additions, but her conflict drew me in to try to resolve it, that is, it was a catalyst for change. Without her participation, I would have likely added only one Bible verse quote, and been gone and left, which would have likely left the article without additional work on it. (We ALL worked on it, not just me. Good job! Irony here is that a "bad" conflict resulted in some good.) "supposed tactics that she herself uses much more frequently" This implies that other editors used these tactics "less frequently." The other editors could have tried a little harder, as I eventually did, but, given the workload and lack of salary (no paycheck), I would say that you all did a good job under the circumstances. In fact, you all caught up to me and are surpassing my contributions here. Congratulations. Very good job for your hard work. "214 continues to do her best to undermine civil discourse..." 214 has not been actively editing for about a week, and this may not be the current situation: About a week ago, 214 told Aphaia in this diff here on 17:53, 19 July 2005 that she plans to stop editing (talking) and be open to listen to any criticism. Here is her quote: "Aphaia, I will stop editing for a spell. I have added MANY quotes and tried to clean up formatting. Please let me know if I have done anything that you think violates the wiki rules. And especially if you or any others plan to contact the owner of my IP address (as I see you mentioned on July 4). 214.13.4.151 17:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)" "at least one deliberate inaccuracy, describing the technical term "dilatation and extraction" as 'dismemberment and extraction'..." In Opposition: The term she used is not unheard of: Thirteen (13) hits in Google.com and ten (10) in Yahoo.com. In Support: About a zillion hits for the phrases using "dilation" instead of "dismemberment." In opposition: Her term is correct: It dismembers the foetus. In support: Her term is probably POV bias language which could be dealt with better by including a disambiguation, explaining the use of both terms. (Good luck at doing this.) "Many quotes have multiple sources, a point of some controversy." That was my doing, but the multiple sources are actual "sources," where you can find the the quotation quoted verbatim, word-for-word. The extra links are not merely "references" for further reading, though that might be useful as links at the bottom of the page. There is ongoing debate about the link format, and the matter, as I recall, is not resolved. I've already cast my vote & comments and bowed out to let others weigh in. (Quoting MosheZadka) "In any case, I have one reservation: I would like you to not report 214 to possible supervisors." The two balancing concerns are 214's free speech and the analysis if whether or not other editors' "free speech" is disrupted or not. The use of taxpayers' dollars, while interesting, is probably not any more relevant than the use of a University computer at a local college -because free speech relates to 214's personal use of her time, while she is not on the clock. If she is truly disruptive, however, then her actions should be reported to her ISP. (quoting Jeff) "Pro-Choice" and "Anti-Abortion" were adopted without alphabetizing, which seems like the worst of both arguments about the headings and order. That is easy to fix by simply rearranging and/or renaming the headers as needed. "Many quotes have been added (by 214 again, I believe) that confound easy separation into the two camps..." Were they? "...which I think is a good reason to examine the simple 2-camp strategy." The three camp strategy (Pro / Anti / Indefinite), with the subdivisions (of verified/sourced and attributed) seems to work, but you might want to include a "see also" section for more links. I don't feel like spending time on it now, but I toss out this idea. Completely irrelevant quotes have been added (e.g., "power tends to corrupt…"). Good point! That wasn't my doing, but we wonder if maybe 214 contributed more positive contributions than irrelevant ones. I think most of her quotes were relevant and properly placed, but I only went over the article quickly, and it does need a "good cleanup," and I would give credit to anyone who is brave enough to spend time on this hard, unpaid job, which may be undone by other editors or open to vandalism, due to the "open" Wiki nature of the website. Final Comments: As far as blocking it, I support blocking the article (to all) -that is, I support "Freezing" or "locking the page" and making any changes have to go through an approved peer review editing committee. That way, Jeff, your investments and the work of others, is more easily preserved. With all due respect to Wikipedia founder, Jimbo Wales, his "wiki" philosophy is fundamentally flawed, and I will look back and say "I told you so," because of the time, money, effort, and computing resources wasted to keep up with vandalism and also fast-paced editors like 214 who so many edits (many of them good), that it is hard to spell check her work. "On the plus side, the "Sourced" and "Attributed" subsections are an excellent change." Correct. I know that you may seem more confused about my stances, and wonder whether or not to block 214, to report her, to lock the article, or whatever. I'm sorry that I talked a lot, and made few conclusions, but I hope that I have been helpful to your analysis by me providing both sides to the argument. (responding to MosheZadka) "Granted, as a non-American, it is not my tax money she is wasting." Your view is important and welcome, even if you're not an American. "However, on the whole, I am not sure how such an action will benefit wikiquote." If 214 is truly causing trouble (whether intentional or not), then reporting her will benefit both Wikiquote AND 214, herself, but reporting her is extreme. I don't know if her conduct rises to that level, given all the points I make in this post. Like the 2000 Presidential election, it is "too close to call." (I live in FLORIDA, hello?) "I, personally, think blocking is sufficient." (see above for my alternative view on freezing the article; 214's actions only need to be blocked if her edits are questionable; she has made a few mistakes, some introducing POV bias (see above), but mostly seem trustable. That is only my opinion, but I can sleep well and not worry about problems after seeing her quality of work. "Thanks for your hard work and concientous edits!" I concur. Though I've worked hard on this article for a short time, you all have worked longer and deserve more credit for being Good Samaritans.--GordonWattsDotCom 09:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, I appreciate your considerable effort to achieve a balance in this heated discussion. But I can assure you that, like you, not one of the sysops and other active editors of Wikiquote is being paid to do this work, and unlike you, the sysops are responsible for watching over a thousand times as many articles as you and 214 have been working on here. We are not being paid, either, and we have a hell of a lot more to worry about than this article. I venture to suggest that this is why we don't present detailed legal cases for all the elements that go into our arguments, and often tend to make brief references to events that could each engender multi-page discussions. We simply don't have time. And yet, we cannot ignore problems caused by people who seem to have copious quantities of time to twist a single article to suit their interests. (As you have pointed out, even before 214's first edits, this article significantly favored anti-abortion quotes in content, and the gap has substantially widened since then. It would have been quite reasonable to argue that the content alone justified placing "pro-choice" first, also in accordance to Wikiquote alphabetizing standards, in order to not appear to be favoring "pro-life". See what we've gotten for our attempts to be reasonable.) The inevitable result of this mismatch of resources is that sysops must take whatever we deem allowable and practical to keep the disorder to a minimum, in our best judgment.

I really don't want to get into a line-by-line commentary on your commentary, because, despite the fact that you aren't being paid to do this, you clearly have far more time than I, also unpaid but far more involved in Wikiquote proper, have to study and discuss this single topic. But I'll make the following points:

  • My statement about 214's activity was based on:
    • Her 189 edits in a 6-day period, which included: placement of quotes by quotee or general subject, not by the quote itself; putting words into someone's mouth by misinterpreting a well-known medical acronym; and the addition of the "power corrupts" quote. I don't know how much more may have been done; I got tired of reviewing them halfway through, having seen more than enough to demonstrate her recalcitrance.
    • Her claim that objections to her activities are "loaded to favor abortion" when they've been primarily addressing her failure to cooperate and practice Wikiquette.
    • Her mixing rants about subjects (e.g., Tori Amos) with advocation of her abortion position by incredibly POV statements, essentially defeating reasonable attempts to extract useful points on the organizational issues that she originally claimed were her major concerns.
    She simply doesn't understand or accept that her beliefs are neither universal, nor accepted as fact. Both (actually, all) sides of this debate should have a fair forum through quotes in this article, if the article is to exist at all, and she cannot be permitted to subvert it in order to destroy her hated opposition either by sabotaging the organization or by overwhelming the (unpaid) staff.
  • Suggesting that 214's momentary voluntary withdrawl reflects cooperation is not supported by her past history. Many times in the past, we have made the mistake of assuming that her periodic silences imply cooperation, but she has consistently returned to restructure the article to her tastes. I am not so easily fooled.
  • I have always agreed that 214's work and arguments had some merit. If you go back over my comments since her appearance, you will find that most of my postings (before wading into argument specifics) include an acknowledge that she made some good points and raised reasonable questions. That does not excuse her other actions. In fact, I believe that the current participants are sufficiently aware of her points that they no longer need to have her involved to discuss them, and are more likely to come to a proper consensus on them without her disruptive activity.
  • I'm rather disappointed by your comment about "D&E", which is a well-known medical acronym for "dilation/dilitation and evacuation". The substitution of "dismemberment" is just as wrong as if someone quoted a Republican as saying "I'm a member of the G.O.P." and inserting "[Greedy Old Patriarchs]" into his quote. This is nothing more than putting words in someone's mouth to make them look bad. It doesn't matter how popular the misinterpretation is, or even how accurate it may be argued to be, it's simply not what they said. Bracketed text, if included, should be literal expansions or clarifications.
  • I was unspecific on the multiple-source citation controversy; I did not say, or mean to imply, that any of them were inaccurate. It seems to me that the arguments assume the quotes are accurate, but question the need for so many, the appropriateness of the websites, the format, etc. I do not plan to get involved with this discussion; I merely pointed it out as an unresolved issue.
  • As a Wikiquote sysop and an American taxpayer, I have a conflict of interest. I agree with MosheZadka that Wikiquote has no essential concern about whether 214 is breaking U.S. law by advocating a political position (possibly on government time) with government resources. But as a taxpayer, it really pisses me off. I have striven to be reasonable by deferring my irate-taxpayer concerns (admittedly bolstered by my disagreement with her advocacy) in order to fulfill my sysop duties, but there's only so much I'll do for someone who shows utter contempt for wiki ideals of NPOV, compromise, and balance. If I can relieve a major load from the Wikiquote staff by reporting someone for flagrant violations of their country's law, I'm not only helping Wikiquote, I'm also benefitting my fellow taxpayers. (How's that for sophistry?)
  • And speaking of being American, I'm sure you didn't mean it, but your "gracious" nod to MosheZadka ("Your view is important and welcome, even if you're not an American") was quite condescending, especially coming from someone whose total contribution to Wikiquote includes only 2 articles and related discussions, and addressed to probably our most active current editor. Wikiquote's equipment may be based in your home state, but it is a worldwide project. We Americans have an incredible knack for incorrectly assuming that the world is ours, and we are so considerate to allow everyone else to play in it. Please consider that substantial Wikiquote work is done by people outside America, our developer contact lives in Germany, and our Wikimedia ambassador (our face to the WM world) is from Japan.

I apologize if some of this commentary itself falls below my own goal of civility and proper Wikiquette, but as an unpaid worker with a lot of self-driven WQ responsibility that has caused me quite a few sleepless nights in the past three weeks, I'm afraid my patience is wearing thin for this single-topic battle that has consumed so much of Wikiquote's unpaid people resources. — Jeff Q (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read my long missive above and for acknowledging my efforts to bring balance and peace. I always suspected that admins and sysops were unpaid, like editors, and you all deserve credit. I will briefly comment on your points, last ones first, working backwards, simply because they seem more important.
First, you did a good job on "civility and proper 'Wiki-Etiquette'," however you spell that, and your concerns are valid. You're right: I didn't mean anything offensive or condescending towards other editors (such as Moshe) and am glad for the global and worldwide participation and contributions of all people. Also, you're right: Our country is sometimes does go around "incorrectly assuming that the world is ours," and I will add to that: We are rude and greedy, comprising only about six percent (6%) of the world population, but using far more resources, and -yes, we give back to the world, but not enough to make up for what we take.
Also, I did not mean to imply that you had taken any position on the multiple links sources, but I merely wanted to clarify.
As far as my comment about D&E, I did not mean to imply that 214 should have done this or that I supported it after the fact, but I merely wanted to provide raw facts related here.
Thank you for having been open-minded and acknowledging 214's contributions. That was noble, and while other editors were also open to newcomers, I did not overlook your especially benevolent and friendly welcome, and neither did 214, who gave you some positive compliment once a while back.
Regarding 214's momentary withdrawal, I will trust your judgment. Along those same lines, when I assured you that I trusted her edits, I still mostly do, but your unbiased and objective concern gives me pause for doubt. As much as I am glad for her efforts, intentions, and contributions, I see negative elements in her responses, and wonder at the cause. I hope that 214 addresses those things that have stressed her to the point of over-reacting negatively to you all.
In closing, thank you for having kept up to date on all the issues and controversies on the Abortion page here, especially since you do in fact have many more responsibilities here at Wikiquote, but are unpaid. If it is any consolation, I too was unpaid for over a year, while I fought in court for Terri Schiavo's life, and I almost won my case, doing better than the Governor, but guess who got paid more?

The Search engines also show of my encounter with Clinton appointee, Judge Whittemore -in Federal Court -another case, like the one above:

Well, I feel guilty for talking so much and bragging, but I wanted to reassure you that you are not the only person who is trying to better the world on your own personal & unpaid time. I really lost a lot (financially and emotionally) when I took time off from work (my active job search, in this case). Well, I guess that's all I have to say: I am sorry I couldn't help more, but I tried my best, and I am sure you all will take care of things when I have moved on to other things, like personal responsibilities (cleaning my room) or getting a job.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
On the reporting of 214... I really am not eager to see anyone get into too much trouble, when they have perhaps been making some effort to be civil and fair, even if in our views it is not quite enough to be entirely laudable.
Giving 214 the extreme benefit of one's doubt, conceivably, for some reason, a worker in the DoD could actually be contacting the internet from their own computer at home, through off-hours linking to their at-work account. I believe it is not entirely prohibited by either civilian or military employers to have such arrangements available to workers.
Though I might welcome the relief it might provide, I also believe that even the month-long block is perhaps a bit harsh. To my knowledge, whether it was out of ignorance, lack of time and abundance of other tasks to attend to, or just plain weariness, no objections were actually made during her last extensive bout of editing.
The article does need further clean up, and I might make some attempt at it in the next day or so, but at least there were no major shuffling of categories done. Even though the efforts to expand some of the more disquieting statements made during the interviews or interrogations of the medical doctors to the point they might fit the criterion of actually being for abortion is somewhat excessive, it did not clearly violate any rules laid down. Even her misuse of false medical terminology could conceivably be one of ignorance as well, if her exposure to the issue is primarily through anti-abortion sites.
I am still uncertain as to how to proceed with the naming of the sections, and though I would not insist upon it, I would still like to add a section other than "Pro-choice" and "Anti-abortion" for more moderate assertions that don't imply an endorsement of the most extreme positions of either side; ie: those which would imply abortion even at the earliest stages is the ethical equivalent of murder, or that even at the very latest stages should have no other criterion for consideration as a legally available procedure than that of the pregnant woman's will. ~ Kalki 03:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Hmm... All of what you say here sounds good, Kalki. Yes, I think you're right -for whatever reason, no major complaints were generated in the recent edits. The main "important" points for us editors, I think, are to try to keep an eye on things in the article, without letting Wikipedia (or WikiQuote in this case) overtake or interfere with our lives. My two main complaints with the "wiki" system are that (1) it doesn't pay me any Ca$h money $alary! grr... -and, (2) my edits can easily be undone due to a lack of screening and/or protection processes. (That is, editors are not "screened" like new employees, when a newspaper hires writers.) In contrast, when a letter to the editor runs in a paper (rare for me to get one published), the newspaper's web site is usually not edited or altered -and, of course, the newspaper is printed on paper and can not be easily edited. As far as other sections, if you can think of an intermediate position that favors abortion in some circumstances but not others, then you may have something. I hold no view on this issue, so any consensus reached is supported by me. Best of luck and blessings here.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I support Jeff's one month blocking and other review. Now this article is one of messiest one on our project in my humble opinion; it should be improved. 214 was so incivil that she left me a message on another project (I mean meta). We don't need to be torelent such rudeness, I think. As for me, (to Kalki) I made no complaint because I avoided seeing the page itself. I would have liked her to do her best and Jeff to judge as he had said. And moreover I didn't want to be bothered with this issue unnecessarily. And from my view a month is not harsh; after three weeks disruption, remedies and recovery would take more time. --Aphaia 06:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I support any decisions you all make, regarding blocking or freezing -and I thank you for your efforts in improving the quality of WikiPedia/WikiQuote/etc. I also thank you for being kind and friendly to the newcomer, 214. She did make good contributions, but I must agree with you, Aphaia, that she was a little bit rude, and I hope that she can find solutions to the problems in her life which cause her to feel stress and anxiety. I also hope that you are not offended by 214's impatience.
You made me curious, so I went to meta and looked at this: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/214.13.4.151 Here, 214 did leave you a message, which said "Its time to remove the block for my ISP for wikiquote. 214.13.4.151 15:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)" I think she should have politely asked you, instead of telling you, however this single message alone was not incivil. Nonetheless, I think that 214's overall anger at you was somewhat incivil (uncivil / rude), and if I have only one wish, it is that you all are not angry at one another.
I am busy with other things, and if I don't talk to you all in a long while, I wish to thank all of you for your hard work and for being good neighbors. Have a nice day, and cheers.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I've removed several quotes from the "Indefinite" section. The page is titled "Abortion" and quotes should be on that subject, not statements that antichoice POV pushers think reflect on the subject. It's particularly egregious to quote people and thereby impute positions to them by the context. If Dr Seuss had said "Naughty doctors with their nasty knives/ are taking poor foetuses' precious lives", you could justifiably cite him. But in fact he didn't, did he? He said nothing at all about abortion. Nor did Edmund Burke! Perhaps you'd like to explain what is the evil being done here, and how it is not an expression of POV to suggest there is some being done? -- Grace Note

Hello, Grace Note! Long time no see. I did not add those quotes you deleted -at least I don'r recall adding them; however, I did rearrange the page. While you seem to be in a persistent vegatative state (humor) regarding your Terri Schiavo edits in WikiPedia, your edits here look good. (For those who did not get the inside joke humor, Grace_Note has insisted that Terri be described as PVS, when NPOV mandates that we make no judgments one way or the other.) Thank you for your work, Grace_Note; This page is good but needs much work, and you are welcome to help. Have a nice day.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
PS: You typed:
  • [http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Grace_Note Grace Note], but you probably meant:
  • [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Grace_Note Grace Note].--GordonWattsDotCom 05:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Inform DoD or not[edit]

Formerly I thought it would be better to leave 214 and don't make a new issue between the third party and us. But a vote on VfD changed my mind. Vote forgery from an offensive user name on an article about claimed DoD staff submitted by anon from DoD.

I propose to investigate involved users identification on that vote, asking a developer and check two accounts (who edited this article and who voted [and tried to forge another vote]). If that forger came from DoD, in my opinion it is an idea to inform DoD administrators that their users violate our policy and we are not pleased their behavour, and expect DoD educate its users to esteem outer websites' policies and guideline. Of course I don't care if they accessed in their office hours. It is matters of persons who pay for them. ;p --Aphaia 07:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't say that 214 and those users mentioned on the above are identical. If so, it would be horrible, though. My point is if multipul users from a certain domain violate our policy, it gives us a reason to contact the site administrators, specially in case they are all the users who are known from that domain. Aphaia

I doubt 214 and the other person(s) are the same, or even in the same organization. The origins (within the DoD) appear different, and the problems are quite different in style. I doubt we could find a common person to report both situations to. (I haven't yet filed a complaint about 214.) Still, it could be useful to point out to each contact how the problem may be larger than their own sphere of responsibility. It's the sort of thing that makes managers generate memos about appropriate use of company resources — the kind that everyone ignores, at least until they get them waved in their faces. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I recall once that 214 said that she was a woman, when she posted on Wikipedia in the recent past; 214 clarified this when someone referred to her as "he." The new user, the one who forged the vote on Votes for Deletion, acts like a man, not a woman. Also, I looked at the IP addresses in http://arin.net/whois and see that they are as Jeff says: They are both Dept of Defense IP addresses, but within different areas. I don't think they are the same person, but the recent forgery is serious enough that it should probably be reported. I do not tolorate dishonesty well.--GordonWattsDotCom 11:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I am a DOD user and if you report this all that will happen is that people deployed in support of the war on terror (civilians and military) will be denied access to Wikimedia pages all together (even to view the pages). As a long time user of Wikipedia as a reference, I hope this does not happen. Our only access to computers, even for authorized personal use, are DOD computers. July 29, 2005

This user claims that the U.S. Department of Defense will block all DoD access to all WikiMedia sites if we report the abuse of 2-5 individuals on 2 articles on one small project. As the son of a Marine colonel (retired), I am quite proud of the role that our military personnel play in maintaining the security of the United States. Which is why I find such absurd, alarmist appeals like this, in the vein of "if it causes the slightest harm to anyone in DoD, no matter what wrong they are perpetrating, then you are not a patriot and clearly don't respect the good men and women of the services", sickening. Reporting abuse of DoD resources by a handful of workers is hardly a national security issue. If these people are low on the totem pole, they will likely receive a warning at worst. If they are high, any report will likely be ignored anyway. I trust DoD to make an appropriate judgment on how important this issue is in the overall scheme of things. It would be a bizarre overreaction for DoD to block the entire Defense Department from accessing Wikiquote, let alone WikiMedia entire. And even if DoD did overreact, what conceivable impact could lack of Wikiquote access have on U.S. defense? Who do these people think they are, personal friends of Donald Rumsfeld or the Joint Chiefs? Get real!
I will also point out that the anonymous user (214.13.4.55) who posted the above happens to come from the very same Class C subnet as our troublesome friend, and may even be the same person. This unfortunately seems to be further evidence that a few questionable individuals within DoD are attempting to conceal their selfish, non-DoD related motivations in editing at Wikiquote. My father taught me to be forthright and honest, and I've grown up believing that this is an inherent expectation of U.S. military personnel, to be emulated by mere civilians such as myself. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily a requirement for the tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians and foreign nationals working for DoD. People like this who hide behind the reputation of the armed forces to avoid the consequences of their own dubious actions are committing a far worse abuse of DoD resources (namely, honor and courage) than simply using government computers to promote personal agendas. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Also, I remember the military (at least the Israeli one) takes great pride in "disciplining their own". In fact, if my dim memory of my service serves, the army commanders themselves often use the tactic of "collective punishments so the soldier's friends will force him to take responsibility". While I certainly do not condone such practices, one expects 214 knew what she was getting into, and how the military system works. My concerns were genuinely for 214 — I hated to think I was the one causing her to (possibly) lose her job, as rude as she was to me. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Come on, folks, I think we Wikiquotians have too big an opinion of our own significance if we think a DoD employee is going to lose her defense job over disruptive edits to a quote page. If she loses it because she spent all her work time doing non-DoD stuff, that's another matter entirely. If that is the case, I'll be glad if we call attention to this failure of an employee to focus on defense needs. But we have no way of knowing whether this is the case, and it really isn't our business whether she or anyone other abuser gets a wrist slap, a pink slip, or just a bemused look from a colleague. Again, I trust the people who guard U.S. security worldwide to be able to tackle a relatively tiny issue with discretion and prudence. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
214 is interested if we inform her boss or not apparently (see my talk) but it isn't our concern. For us it is concerns if she violates our policies. For her boss, perhaps it isn't his matters if she violates our policies, but if she violates their terms of use and abuses their resources. And I don't think it is a good idea "well, she violates our policies but if we inform her boss about her abuse, she will be troubled, so we should be nice to her and allow her to abuse both our website and their network". If she is a DoD employee, she is responsible for her all actions on the net as an adult; if she isn't, so she would be an abuser or cracker, so she wouldn't lose her job, at least in DoD, consequently. --Aphaia 10:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Jeff that it is unlikely that 214 or the other DoD user (who forged a vote in VfD) would lose their jobs; However, I also agree with Moshe that it is very important to be respectful and concerned for the other person's well being and safety. Along those lines, I think that Aphaia makes a good suggestion to 214 on her talk page, when she suggests that we attempt to practice WikiLove towards one another. I think that this is good because we will only live about 70-80 years of life maximum, thus we should make this time useful. However, since I am a biologist, I am amazed at the complexity of life, and conclude that it must have been created by an intelligent force, which I will call "God." Since there has to be a Creator, I think that we can receive assistance, help, and WikiLove from this God, or Creator. I am not trying to preach or convert about religion; My purpose in saying this is that maybe my words will encourage my neighbors to be happy and joyful or hopeful.
Think about all of us as foetuses or embryos, and the earth as our location: We are in the womb of "mother earth." By being encouraged that we receive help and assistance from some Higher Power (God), we can be kind and caring to our neighbors and make the earth a better place. This would help us "be born" to joy and happiness; However, being rude will result in our social and spiritual "abortion" where we are "killed" in our quest for full development. We must avoid negative and bad thoughts if possible. The abortion article is important, yes, but we are more important, so treat yourself and others well the best you can. I hope I have been helpful; That was my intention anyhow.--GordonWattsDotCom 12:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality of quote sources[edit]

I hope I'm not opening another can of worms here, but I see a real problem with adding sourced quotes to this article. Without any qualifications of the source, it is child's play (no pun intended) to find the most rabid pro-life or pro-choice source to quote an opponent in the worst way possible, especially if it provides an opportunity for major slanting. This occured to me when I noticed 80.42.214.120's addition of Maxine Waters' ironic quote about marching for her mother's lost right to an abortion. I found three different sources for that quote, but they were all from ultra-conservative websites who all referred to the rally at which it occured as a "pro-abortion" rally, which I rather suspect is not what it was called. That made me wonder if the quote itself was accurate, especially given some of the other supposed quotes I saw cited, which were almost certainly not correct.

In today's bleak landscape of attack journalism, one cannot trust a radical pro-life website to cite such a juicy quote accurately, any more than one would expect a NOW or other radical pro-choice website to provide anything but the most self-defeating quotes from pro-life supporters. Conversely, it's no surprise that, if the Waters quote is accurate, it wouldn't show up on a pro-choice website, just as pro-lifers wouldn't quote any similarly ironic statements from their own supporters.

This begs the question: just what kind of sources should we look for? Publications like Barlett's or Oxford would be ideal, perhaps, but aren't likely to be very current or include much on this topic. I'd suggest more middle-of-the-road publications and perhaps their websites, but I doubt either side would accept its opponents' definition of "moderate" or "balanced" news sources. We can check the Bible and the Congressional Record for their relevant quotes, but many others are problematic. It seems like a real quandry to me. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

It isn't a problem only on this article. We hold same problems on other articles unless the original is online resources (like webcomics). Barlett or Orford is not ideal from my view because they are at any rate the 2nd source - even reliable somehow. The ideal approach is to cite from the original source (1st edition) or critical edition. I know it is very hard for our contemporaries, and specially on their spoken words. Perhaps a new (sub)category like "claimed as sourced, but not authorized edition" (or just "controvertial") or move to "spurious" would be benefical. --Aphaia 08:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Just a heads up (brief notice), but the Maxine Waters quote was placed in the "Indefinite" section, yet it appears "Pro-choice."--GordonWattsDotCom 11:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
A quote saying "I am an fool" can hardly be intrepreted as "pro-my-side". That is the basis on which everyone here but 214 (and occasionally Gordon) has argued to use the impact of the quote to figure out where to place it. But if it is a valid quote (which I'm not convinced of yet, based on the lack of an unbiased source), it sounds like it was meant as a pro-choice quote, however foolish. I suspect that was why it was placed in "Indefinite". Perhaps it should be listed in both sections? Quotes like these demonstrate how difficult any categorization by sides can be. I repeat my assertion that there should be specific sections for anti-opponent quotes, as so much of what passes for pro-one-side is actually sabotage-the-other-side's-credibility, a distinctly different thing than any scientific, philosophical, religious, moral, or other issue-based citation. (Now that I think about it, this could give each side the benefit of using the quote in the manner it wishes, without having to add a "take" on what the quote implies. The mere presence of an "I'm fighting for my mother to abort me" or a "I'm against all forms of abortion, except when I'm not" quote in the appropriate "anti-opponent" section says all that need be said about the use of such a quote. Just a thought.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
"I repeat my assertion that there should be specific sections for anti-opponent quotes, as so much of what passes for pro-one-side is actually sabotage-the-other-side's-credibility, a distinctly different thing than any scientific, philosophical, religious, moral, or other issue-based citation." You are asking that we have two more categories, then? Like "Pro-Choice Quotes that make Pro-Lifers look good" and "Pro-Life Quotes that make Pro-Choicers look good?" (That would mean we would have five (5) categories, with two subcategories each, for a total of ten.) I support this concept, but I am lazy... uh... strike that, I'm "energy efficient," and don't feel like creating it, but I support others who would want to. I also don't have any objections to placing a quote in two sections, if it fits, but most quotes should fit in one section only. Oh, quick question: Were you saying that I occasionally argued that we should use the quote itself -or that I occasionally remained silent. I couldn't quite figure out what you were saying; what was it? In any case, my stance on the issue is that the impact of the quote is not important in categorization -only the "plain language" meaning of it.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Disorder[edit]

I got rid of links from "verified" section and found this page messy.

  • Some quotes in verified section have no source, but only its speaker or author.
  • There is no order in their order ... they aren't listed even alphabetically. Following our convention, we need to distinguish sourced quotes from merely attributed and then re-order them chronologically. I wonder what our frineds did during those recent monthes. --Aphaia 21:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what page you have been looking at. Nearly every quote is listed alphabetically. This page is very well organized compared to many other wikiquote pages. It seems that listing by date is best for pages that contain quotes from only one source or one person - but not, however, for this page. In this case, with so many people being quoted, perhaps listing in alphabetical order is most appropriate? 214.13.4.151 18:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

I have edited the category descriptions. What do you think? The three are now consistent. I think they are now more accurate and helpful. Do you agree? 214.13.4.151 09:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it, but I noticed both "sourced" and "verified" being used. For consistancy, we should use one or the other. I fixed that and added on quote in each of the three sections. One quote was from a notable pro-life advocate -moi. See other discussion, this page.--GordonWattsDotCom 23:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Ō== Added possibly controversial quotes - moi! - see below ==

I added three quotes - one in each section (Indefinite, Pro-Choice, Pro-life).

That in and of itself is not noteworthy, but we're only supposed to add quotes of "notable" speakers on the subject, right?

I almost won Terri Schiavo's freedom in court, and did better than the state's governor. This is a matter of public record. Gordon Watts suddenly became notable. I added said quote.

In the interests of intellectual honesty (and because you will find out anyway), I am making a post about this, to make sure it is not hidden. I think that my achievements in court and elsewhere make me noteworthy on this subject -it is a "pro-life" subject.

In other news, I made a minor change to the format because the terms "sourced" and "verified" were both used, and I made the page consistent by using only one. (I changed the "sourced" header to read "verified," like the other two.)

FYI, and respectfully submitted,--GordonWattsDotCom 23:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Added many new quotes in all the categories[edit]

I added a boatload. Lots of good stuff to chew on. Beyond the typical "its my body" and "its a baby", people on all sides of this issue have interesting things to say. Abortion supporters generally are uncomfortable with abortion despite their desire to keep it a legal last resort (with a few extremists who for some reason choose to celebrate (yes, celebrate) the violent death of a fetus) - and abortion opponents generally have compassion for and the long-term wellness of the mother, not just the baby, as a priority and rationale - as some express so eloquently. Seems that few abortion supporters will admit that this legal "last resort" so often is offered and accepted as the first and only solution - When pressed no one seems to think that is a good situation - or a true solution. 214.13.4.151 05:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Deleted article; and for the last time, NO MORE VANDALISM!!![edit]

I've decided most of the rest of you editing and discussing this article are indisputedly unreasonable. This article is continuingly and constantly being vandalized and the "cleanup" is anything but. I tried to revert the article back to quite much the way it was, the way it should be, before the anti-abortion editors smeared and ruined it with unnecessary quotations (such as interview segments rather than actual quotable statements, quotations about other subjects, etc.), the placement of unused wording into quotes, the relocation and burying of true pro-choice quotes to the bottom of the page (as if to make them so that most won't read them), etc., etc., etc. No matter how many edits are done, the vandals continue to ruin this article as if they have nothing else to do with their lives; clearly, they believe they can force readers towards they're POV if they try hard enough and they refuse to realize that that's not the way to persuade people. They simply don't understand that what they're doing is not for what Wikiquote is. I concluded that the only thing to do was to erase the entire article. That's drastic, but you all --- administrators, editors, everyone --- asked for. You administrators at Wikipedia wouldn't protect this article, or block or ban abusers (sic); none of you on this board even suggested such obvious actions (except for blocking one person in particular, but others have reversed the article to that vandal's work). You've even allowed editors to vandalize this board. I feel either things are kept strictly sensible and reasonable here, or this article should be no more. I feel that if pages aren't kept strictly sensible and reasonable, then its better that Wikiquote --- maybe even all Wiki projects --- be terminated. Why would anyone want to read or do research with anything in such a messy, vindictive and forceful shape and nature as what some Wiki pages --- especially this one --- have allowed to become? If it takes ultimatums to keep any Wiki project readable and easily perusable, then ultimatums must be given. (By Dr. K)

If you feel that the article should be protected, ask for it on WQ:AN -- most administrators would protect a page for a period of 3 days if it seems there is a lot of edit warring on sight (currently, I will refrain from protecting this article as I have gotten involved -- but feel free to ask me to protect anything else that seems to need this). If you feel there has been vandalism, the proper response is to revert and report it at WQ:VIP. If you want a short straw-poll, please start one. However, blanking the article and removing content from the talk page is considered unacceptable behaviour on wikiquote (in fact, it is considered vandalism, in general). Also note that if you feel the page is slanted, the {{npov}} tag is at your disposal -- this is why we keep this tag (this tag, however, should be accompanied by a note on the talk page saying what you believe violates NPOV). If you feel quotes are inaccurate, please likewise use {{disputed}}. We do allow everyone to edit (including vandalise) because we assume good faith here, as should you. If you are interested in making this article better, there are many acceptable ways to pursue it -- but blanking and artbitrary removal of content are not ones. Thanks in advance ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV and accuracy[edit]

Objections:

  • 1. Some, at least Gordan Watts, have spammed this article as well as this talk page to advertise Gordon Watts's activism. A thorough complaint about this was filed.
  • 2. Many "quotes" are listed without links. This makes their authenticity questionable, especially because some anti-abortion organizations have been preported to publish false discredits and stories in the past (take the Nat'l Right to Life Com.'s past "report" that fetal tissues were used in facial creams[2], and the frequently-referenced-yet-bogus "study" that attempted to imply abortions cause cancer).
  • 3. Opinions of and interview segments with quacks and other kooks have been pushed to the top of the "Pro-choice" section. Most of the more intelligent quotations have been pushed to the bottom of that section. Some genuine pro-choice quotes that seem strong arguments for pro-choice positions were relocated to the "Indefinite" section, which is deep at the bottom of the page. This implies that fringe views are more important to read and more prominent than mainstrean ones. That organization is obviously biased, thus not a NPOV.
  • 4. "Dismemberment and extraction" is not a medical term. Wikiquote is something of an academic nature, and so medical terminology is appropriate and unmedical pregoratives as substitutes are not.
  • 5. The quotes from Madonna, Thomas Jefferson and the U.N. under "Pro-Life" were from discussions that were not about abortion. (Note that neither person has ever been known publicly to advocate against abortion.)
  • 6. Some of the quotation from Tori Amos was not about this particular topic; note the inclusion of ". . ." in that quote. Methinks this was done to make it read like an focused ramble, thus making it seem bad.
  • 7. One credit for each of two pro-choice quotes - each quote a common medical assertion - reads "contradicting late-term abortionist Dr. George Tiller (see below) and abortion industry spokeman Ron Fitzsimmons (see above)". (And, again, some of the "quotes" seem questionable.) This seems to indicate that some editors were trying to make the page an expose' (accurate or inaccurate) of the pro-choice movement. That's not what this page is for. And it conforms to a particular POV.
  • 8. Some of these biased editors - notably Gordan Watts - have reversed overhauls and other edits that made the article more appropriate, particularly edits that gave it a NPOV. In those cases, they've reverted it back to versions pretty much identical to 214's versions, and administrators deemed 214's versions biased and questionable.

Suggestions for what to do about this:

  • 9. Protect the article.
  • 10. Reshuffle quotations to appropriate locations.
  • 11. Mix the mainstream opinions with the fringe ones.
  • 12. Verify the authenticity (if any) of the outrageous ones.
  • 13. If any quotes turn out to be obviously fake, remove them.
  • 14. Stop frequent abusers. Particularly consider Gordan Watts. As Jeff Q put it, some a user "simply doesn't understand or accept that (his/)her beliefs are neither universal, nor accepted as fact. . . . all. . . sides of this debate should have a fair forum through quotes in this article, if the article is to exist at all, and (he/)she cannot be permitted to subvert it in order to destroy her hated opposition either by sabotaging the organization or by overwhelming the . . . staff."

Dr. K 18:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I have been using this page as a source for quotes for several months. I have an account under a different name on wikipedia and have created an account today at wikiquote because I find the suggestions by Dr. K to be hasty and not in the spirit of our wiki community. Dr. K appears to be a newcomer who has hastily decided that this page should disappear because s/he does not like the quotes it contains. The complaints Dr. K lists are largely without substantiation. And thes solution of eliminating the page is simply a non-starter. If the quotes that appear are accurate then there is no basis to remove them simply because they support or undermine a person's POV. Here is a response to Dr. K's many complaints. Mr. Grace 22:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

  • 1. Some, at least Gordan Watts, have spammed this article as well as this talk page to advertise Gordon Watts's activism. A thorough complaint about this was filed.
1. Fine - fix the Gordon Watts problem. Not a big deal. He did not hide his addition or that it was his own quote. No need to get rid of the page.Mr. Grace 22:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • 2. Many "quotes" are listed without links. This makes their authenticity questionable, especially because some anti-abortion organizations have been preported to publish false discredits and stories in the past (take the Nat'l Right to Life Com.'s past "report" that fetal tissues were used in facial creams[3], and the frequently-referenced-yet-bogus "study" that attempted to imply abortions cause cancer).
2. You will have to do better than that to simply eliminate quotations because you think the only source is a pro-life group that you don't care for. Of course the hideous things that have actually been said by abortion supporters will not appear on most (or even any) pro-abortion websites - or any "mainstream" (aka "old media") websites (that are notoriously biased in favor of abortion) because the quotes are so sad or infuriating (and obviously detrimental to the pro-abortion cause). To claim that a quote is inacurate or fals esince it came from a pro-life website is simply doing your best to ensure no quotes unfavorable to the pro-abortion views appear at wikiquote (aka censorship). Ironically, the link you posted (thinking that it somehow proves that several quotes are inaccurate) is utterly biased and absolute gossip (and totally false regarding the matter at issue). Apparently you are not aware that the well-repected Guardian/Observer in the UK [4] accurately reported that beauty treatments in Russia use fetal cells and some pro-life organizations noted their dismay. Nothing sinister there (yet you claim the sky is falling). And there is no basis to conclude that there is no abortion-breast-cancer link - the only thing you might be able to say is that the link is disputed - which is the same that can be said about many medical and scientfic concerns that may or may not be true but have people concerned (such as global warming). Links are not required and are NOT standard at wikiquote. (In fact if you look at the history you will find that links to sources for most of the quotes were removed at the request of seasoned editors as being cumbersome and unnecessary). The material is sourced. If you think a quote is made up, do some research and then if you can substantiate its inaccuracy you can let people know of your intent to delete it (If you look at the history you will see that the Tori Amos quote was way off and one editor caught the error and deleted the quote altogether, but later someone found a source and fixed it now it is accurate).Mr. Grace 22:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • 3. Opinions of and interview segments with quacks and other kooks have been pushed to the top of the "Pro-choice" section. Most of the more intelligent quotations have been pushed to the bottom of that section. Some genuine pro-choice quotes that seem strong arguments for pro-choice positions were relocated to the "Indefinite" section, which is deep at the bottom of the page. This implies that fringe views are more important to read and more prominent than mainstrean ones. That organization is obviously biased, thus not a NPOV.
3. Please list the quacks or kooks being quoted - the persons quoted (whose actual words do make them seem like quacks or kooks) are in fact celebrated late-term abortion providers and well-known abortion activists or feminists. If you wish to move a quote to a new area, note your desire and ask for input. Mr. Grace 22:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • 4. "Dismemberment and extraction" is not a medical term. Wikiquote is something of an academic nature, and so medical terminology is appropriate and unmedical pregoratives as substitutes are not.
4. From the discussion pages, it appears that a pro-abortion British doctor uses the term as a medical term in a pro-abortion article. [5] In fact, "dismemberment D&E" is also used by abortionists and may be a good substitute. Mr. Grace 22:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • 5. The quotes from Madonna, Thomas Jefferson and the U.N. under "Pro-Life" were from discussions that were not about abortion. (Note that neither person has ever been known publicly to advocate against abortion.)
5. You have your facts wrong: the first 2 quotes you mention are in the "Indefinite" section (for quotes that do not indicate support or opposition to abortion). The UN perhaps belongs in the indefinite section. Again - if you wish to move something, note your desire, ask for input, and then move it.Mr. Grace 22:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • 6. Some of the quotation from Tori Amos was not about this particular topic; note the inclusion of ". . ." in that quote. Methinks this was done to make it read like an focused ramble, thus making it seem bad.
6. It is a quote that focuses on the religious motivation of pro-lifers and paints it as hypocritical - thus the speaker's own religious perspective vis-a-vis Jesus as contained in other portions of the article in question lends appropriate context to her comments. The ellipses give the quote context. If you find anything erroneous, then note why and ask for input about editing. Your desire to shorten a text to remove some of the context is not necessarily the best "solution" to what you percieve is a problem. Mr. Grace 22:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • 7. One credit for each of two pro-choice quotes - each quote a common medical assertion - reads "contradicting late-term abortionist Dr. George Tiller (see below) and abortion industry spokeman Ron Fitzsimmons (see above)". (And, again, some of the "quotes" seem questionable.) This seems to indicate that some editors were trying to make the page an expose' (accurate or inaccurate) of the pro-choice movement. That's not what this page is for. And it conforms to a particular POV.
7. If you think the quotes are incorrect, then do some research and prove your assertion. Noting that a speakers words are false is not a bias if in fact the words are objectively false. It is a service to the reader to bring attention to a quote that contains untrue information. If you wish to reword the explanatory notation to readers that the information is false (so as to remove what you see as POV) then do so. Perhaps the same explanatory note belongs after the Fitzsimmons and Tiller quotes. In the end, Michelman's repeated self-serving comments about partial-birth abortion being rare and only in certain circumstances contradict the very men who were performing those abortions and their representatives. Mr. Grace 22:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • 8. Some of these biased editors - notably Gordan Watts - have reversed overhauls and other edits that made the article more appropriate, particularly edits that gave it a NPOV. In those cases, they've reverted it back to versions pretty much identical to 214's versions, and administrators deemed 214's versions biased and questionable.
8. If you wish to make edits, then propose them on the talk page and ask for input.Mr. Grace 22:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • 9. Protect the article.
9. No real basis for this - the persons adding quotes have aske for input and recieved none. This does not appear to be any abuse, but rather a lack of interest by other editors. The solution to all your complaints is to add quotations that offer a persepctive you support - since no pro-choice people seem to be doing so, the page is percieved to lack balance. Mr. Grace 22:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)]
  • 10. Reshuffle quotations to appropriate locations.
10. The quotes are listed in alphabetical order within each category. This is standard for wikiquote. If you feel something is miscategorized, then suggest a move on the talk page, wait for input and then make the change. Mr. Grace 22:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • 11. Mix the mainstream opinions with the fringe ones.
11.Your opinion of mainstream or fringe is not important. Those categories are inappropriate at wikiquote. Mr. Grace 22:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • 12. Verify the authenticity (if any) of the outrageous ones.
12. By all means start researching any quote you think is inaccurate - when you have proof then post it on the talk page. Mr. Grace 22:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • 13. If any quotes turn out to be obviously fake, remove them.
13.See above - so far your track record for demonstrating quotes to be false (because pro-life organizations happen to use them since they bolster the pro-life argument) is poor.Mr. Grace 22:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • 14. Stop frequent abusers. Particularly consider Gordan Watts. As Jeff Q put it, some a user "simply doesn't understand or accept that (his/)her beliefs are neither universal, nor accepted as fact. . . . all. . . sides of this debate should have a fair forum through quotes in this article, if the article is to exist at all, and (he/)she cannot be permitted to subvert it in order to destroy her hated opposition either by sabotaging the organization or by overwhelming the . . . staff."
14.Gordon Watts has not posted in weeks and has asked for input everytime he posted a quote (do some research and you could have discovered this yourself). He recieved no input and therefore it is hard to fault him for any intentional "abuse". Let him know what the rules are and then if he does not follow them some sort of penalty could be imposed.Mr. Grace 22:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Self-referential quotes[edit]

I really hate being dragged back into this quagmire, but Dr. K called attention to a rather disturbing development. I've removed 2 quotes that cite information from GordonWattsDotCom, based on references that turn out to be an online "magazine" that is part of his person AOL Homepage account. This is a flagrant violation of w:Wikipedia:Verifiability, which Wikiquote uses to gauge reliable sources, and is one of the reasons why w:Wikipedia:Autobiography recommends against writing about oneself. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Tag removal[edit]

Mr. Grace removed the NPOV and Accuracy tags, when none of the controversies raised were fully resolved. His explaination on the edits page was ("no explanation as to which quotes are inaccurate or biased, nor any attmpt to edit to address concerns") doesn't mean there isn't a controversy. It's not even a valid excuse; the issues have been discussed on this talk page for some time now, as Mr. Grace has probably read our detailed objections, and his edits have done only a little to address the issues we've raised. Because this issue hasn't been fully resolved - in fact, it mostly remains unresolved - I've reinserted the tags. Mr. Grace clearly knows the truth of these disputes, as he has obviously read the discussions; he certainly knew enough to attack my arguments in the NPOV & Accuracy section of this talk page.

Which brings me to the meat of this particular objection here. If he disagreed with the NPOV/accuracy objections, he could have simply stated so. Instead, his stated disagreements and explanations were harsh, mean-spirited attacks (under the "NPOV and accuracy" heading) explicitly directed at me. Editors, please read his thomes in that section and observe the scathing and confrontational nature of what he has typed to me.

So, should we put a trolling tag on this talk page or that section? Should we not tag antyhing unless and until one of us finds more trolling on this page, or tag one or another anyway?

Dr. K 04:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I've added a note to Grace's talk page that removing tags should not be done until a consensus forms. I note that anyone else could have done so as well. Under the Assume-Good-Faith rule, we should assume Grace's removal of the tags was a good-faith effort to improve the article, and that he was not aware of the relevant policies -- which is why I informed him of them. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
As a further note, I would like to mention that Grace happily moved his replies to Dr. K to be more readable when I asked him to. This shows there is an effort to comply with policies, which I am happy about. Regarding tones, I believe the tones by everyone here showed a little less WikiLove than what I am comfortable with, and I would like to remind everyone that we are all, ultimately, working towards the same goal -- making wikiquote the best quotation collection. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 06:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I will be removing the Accuracy tag unless a list of each quote that is innaccurate is listed with an explanation with a reliable source to sustantiate the inaccuracy. Mr. Grace 06:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I will be removing the POV tag unless a very specific explanation is given as to which wikiquote protocol/rule/policy is not being followed. Mr. Grace 06:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not remove such tags, as ample reasons has been given for the tags, among them misplacement of quotes and very vague sources. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Accuracy of quotes is not at issue. Quotes are all sourced according to wikiquote standards. Being published by several well-known and widely respected and well-established news or opinion publications is certainly "sourced". Accuracy tage are being removed. There WILL NOT be special standards for sourcing quotes that make abortion look sinister or stupid. To suggest that there shold be is preposterous. End of story. Mr. Grace 21:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
That a person can choose to characterize or even pretend that in the wildest stretch of their imagination that many of the quotes that have been added to the "Pro-choice" section are actually anything remotely similar to that, displays an extreme lack of regard for factual accuracy, or of anything but promoting a very narrow perspective and agenda... of making all advocacy of people's choices on the matter, other than an absolute anti-abortion stance look "sinister" or" stupid".... ~ Kalki 22:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the categories should be dropped and the quotes listed without regard to any attempt to categorize them. The reader could then simply read the words and make up their own mind as to what to take from the speakers; words. Is there really a reason to put them in categories? Eliminating them would remove a lot of debate about how to characterize quotes. Many abortion advocates have, as advocates for abortion, in fact said "Abortion is evil and murder, but it should be legal" (or words to that effect). They are still words of abortion advocacy regardless of how you may choose to see them. Understandably the words don't seem like abortion advocacy, but the whole point the abortion advocate is making is that regardless of how mean, gruesome or unfair it is, abortion ought to be legal for women. Such statements ought not be mischaracterized as anything but a firm advocacy of abortion rights - regardless of how cold-hearted such a firm pro-abortion stance may seem. Mr. Grace 22:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently you have a problem with the categories and category definitions, not the accuracy of the quotes. The quotes are accurate, and, arguably, all are in the correct category as the categories have been defined. If you wish to create new categories or redefine them, then make some suggestions. As of now, the "pro-choice" category is the only place to put the words of a pro-choice advocate who is speaking as an abortion advocate yet who is being candid about the gruesomeness and moral problems most normal people have with abortion. Such candor does not change the person's expressed opinion of whether abortion ought to be legal. Until you can come up with quotes that are proven to be inaccurate (meaning they are fabricated) and that are not removed once so proven, the "accuracy" tag is inappropriate. Mr. Grace 22:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Despite the profound importance of this matter for many people on both sides of the issue, many of the current editors here, including myself, are not very interested in getting into edit wars or extensive debates upon the matter with narrow minded idealogues of any persuasion. I have voted to KEEP this article despite its horrendously lopsided character. Until someone comes along interested in remedying it I am not really to concerned about what views are expressed within it, only that they are fairly characterized and accurate. To totally eliminate categories does not at this point seem to be an appropriate solution, and would only serve to further hide the very heavily biased nature of this particular article. ~ Kalki 23:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I will do an analysis of how many quotes are in each category (how many are made in support of legal abortion, and how many are made in support of re-criminalizing it). If the numbers are fairly even, then the pov tag will also be removed. A person who says "Abortion sucks but should be legal" is expressing a "pro-choice" view according to the long-established protocol for this topic's quote page sections. As to accuracy, if any quote is not accurate or not in the correct section, then the matter will have to be discussed and accuracy fairly determined. But fair warning: if a pro-abortion advocate says "Abortion sucks but should be legal", it most definitely belongs in the pro-choice section. And if an embarrassing statement is made by a pro-abortion advocate and then not covered by the admittedly pro-abortion biased mainstream press, such a cover up attempt on the part of abortion supporters will not be rewarded by disallowing the embarrassing quote because it can only be found in material written with a pro-life or conservative perspective. Mr. Grace 23:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding the nature of consensus. Here is a guideline: if many editors think the tags should stay, than they should stay. Removing them one-sidedly, regardless of your arguments, is not acceptable when other people have clearly said that they think the tags should stay. Removing tags from an article, when lacking consensus, is considered vandalism. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Err...[edit]

Wouldn't it be easier to split this into three different articles - Pro-choice, Pro-life and Indefinite? It would make it a damned sight less overwhelming to read, too. --Mister Six 12:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Tags[edit]

If you simply click on the tags themselves, you can discover an explanation of when each tag is appropriate. The accuracy tag is reserved for inaccurate information, not for POV disputes as to where in the article the quote belongs. The only dispute on this article is claims of a lack of a NPOV in where quotes are lsited (how they are categorized), not accuracy of quotes. Only the POV tag stays for now. Mr. Grace 22:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see earlier in the page for concerns re:accuracy. Please note that further unconsensual tag removal will be treated as vandalism. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It is absurd to pretend any quotes are inaccurate when there is no evidence at all that its a true allegation. "My side sounds stupid, and therefore the other side must have made up the quote" is not evidence that a quote is innacurate. If anyone thinks a quote should be moved, then lets discuss each quote you think is incorrectly categorized and then make the edits when there is consesnsus. That is a POV argument, not an accuracy argument. Two tags are improper when there is only one thing at issue, and that is that some think certain quotes are miscategorized. Its amazing the lengths that some will go to to ignore this cogent logical explanation. Stop vandalising because you don't like the content. Get over the idea that a quotes page is not an article - it is a collection of quotes. Under wikiquote rules, none can be censored out. That makes some peoplevery upset. The solution is to edit the article if you think it needs improvement. People make statments in support of abortion and do not undermine their own position all the time. Find them and add them. Stop demanding that someone else edit the page to your liking - that is not how wikiquote works. Mr. Grace 20:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly asserted NO ONE is "pretending" the quotes are innacurate, though someone is DEFINITELY pretending that they are properly categorized; and no one is "demanding" that it be edited to their liking, merely posting a tags which declare that fact that as a whole it is not up to normal standards of HONESTY.

I had to leave the computer immediately after my previous edits the other day, and though I later noted the further changes and the ridiculously presumptive comments that were made, I was very busy with many other things and did not have time to waste in being further exasperated by a persistently obtuse and obstinately obnoxious editor, who objects to anyone interfering in what appears to be mostly a one (or perhaps two) person campaign to make most of that page merely a propaganda piece for a particular set of views.

I am not much interested in squabbling over this issue, but I definitely reject the rather singular assumption that I, or anyone else who bothered to keep them posted, was "confused" on the matter of the tags. Reasons for them have been stated by more than myself, and "Mr Grace" seems to be very presumptuously condescending, conceited, and extremely evasive upon many points that other editors have made.

The formal guidelines on Wikiquote are not as extensively formulated, as yet, as they are on Wikipedia, and I for one like this, but even to the extent Wikiquote editors use Wikipedia guidelines as good points of reference, the tags DO seem to me, and to others, to be entirely appropriate to the hodge-podge of selectively edited, mangled and abused mass of slanted, skewed, and oultlandish presentations much of that article seems to be:

The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if... in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking... it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.

AND: if there are more than five dubious statements, or if a dispute arises: ... insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem. This will help focus contributions from others. ...paste {{disputed}} in the beginning of the article to add a general warning.

As has been repeatedly been stressed: the accuracy of the headings is a matter of factual accuracy of how whole sections of quotes are characterized, and it is not merely "points of view" on a few of them. All of which leaves the article, as it stands, entirely deserving of such notices as others had properly placed there, and I had merely restored. ~ Rumour 21:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Not one quotation is in question as to it being a sourced accurate quote of the person who said it. Which categoy ]some quotes belong in IS in dispute. Pick one: NPOV or Accuracy. Not both. It seems the concern here is POV. "errors" refers not erroneous quotes, not categories that somemay dispute, especially when there has been no serious attempt by any editors to actually come to consensus and edit the page. No quotes are dubious. No quotes are erroneous. No one has listed which caharacterizations are "inaccuarate" or made any attempt to suggest howthey might be fiexed. WIthout some actual effort to "fix" the page, simply placing a tag and leaving without attempting to "fix" the page is NOT what the tags are to be used for. Stop vandalizing because you don't like the accurate quotes. Mr. Grace 22:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Tags - only when in accord with wiki policies[edit]

  • Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute

The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if:

  • it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references. NO! Sourced comments that undermine a speaker's own view are not therefore dubious! No one has listed any quotes that are inaccurate, despite my invitation to do so.
  • it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify. NO! All such quotes are linked to well-respected sources. No one has listed any quotes that are inaccurate, despite my invitation to do so.
  • in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking. NO! No errors, just concern over POV of characterizations.
  • it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic. NO! Accuracy is not in question. POV is.

If you come across an article with an accuracy warning, please do the following:

  • don't remove the warning simply because the material looks reasonable: please take the time to properly verify it. DONE! All quotes are verified!
  • visit the talk page to see what the issues are. DONE! Despite my invitation, no one will elaborate. Seems like a ghost issue.
  • correct it right away if you can. Please take the time to properly verify it. Please also add to the article any sources you used to verify the information in it: see cite your sources. In accord with this policy, I made some edits based on expressed concerns (characterizations of quotes were edited). Other concerns were not justified as the quotes were verified.

This tag article then goes on to note the editor placing the tag then should find the information necessary to fix the inaccuracy and edit. "Tag and run" is not how tags are supposed to be used. Mr. Grace 22:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


There is only one person calling these tags "vandalism", and NONE of the admins are, and at least one admin has told you to stop with the premature removal of tags AGAINST consensus. The consensus clearly exists that they STAY. Similar tags are sometimes posted on Wikipedia articles for months at a time and they have thousands of regular editors. There are only a handful here, and they are obviously not all that interested in tediously wading through all the manure in some huge heap-of-shit article, which has caused a few to simply want to give up, and to ask for it to be deleted. I don't agree with that idea, but I do agree that on the whole it is the biggest mass of manure that I know of in this project. ~ Rumour 23:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)