Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 30 August 1 >

July 31[edit]

Category:Republika Srpska international footballers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 10#Category:Republika Srpska international footballers

Category:James Cardinal Gibbons Medal winners[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 10#Category:James Cardinal Gibbons Medal winners

Category:Abortion survivors[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 12:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Abortion survivors" is an anti-abortion term and doesn't comply with WP:NPOV. Suggesting "Survivors of failed abortion attempts" as it's more specific and accurate. I couldn't think of a correct term in place of "survivors". (See below) Nice4What (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changed proposal from "Survivors of failed abortion attempts" to Category:People born after a failed abortion attempt as it is more compliant with WP:NPOV. This description seems to be undeniably neutral. Nice4What (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong disagree. When discussing a person who survived an abortion, "abortion survivor" is the most neutral, unbiased, straightforward and objective term one can possibly use. Raising an objection to the neutral phrase "abortion survivor" is an attempt to advance a particular POV. Nominator has recently engaged in an edit war, repeatedly deleting properly-sourced information in order to advance this POV.
Perhaps even more importantly, Gianna Jessen and Melissa Ohden self-identify as abortion survivors. Do you respect Caitlin Jenner's choice to self-identify as a woman? I do, despite the fact that anatomically and chromosomally, Jenner is objectively not a woman. Is it not therefore even more important that we should respect the choice of these women to self-identify as abortion survivors? Novel compound (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Want to point out to other editors that User:Novel compound created this category. Want to quote my response as this editor posted a similar message on the Heartbeat bill talk page:
Equating gender identity to self-identifying as an "abortion survivor" is gross and wrong. Saying "Jenner is objectively not a woman" is also highly offensive and doesn't add to the conversation. Respecting gender identity doesn't mean having to respect every other identification a person takes on; that is just faulty parallel logic. Also, Wikipedia isn't all about respecting everyone's choices, which is why we use the neutral terms "abortion rights" and "anti-abortion" instead of "pro-choice" and "pro-life".
However, I will try my best to explain why "abortion survivor" is biased. A survivor is usually seen as someone who survives something negative, and therefore the term "abortion survivor" implies that abortion is negative. That's why I proposed the term "person born after a failed abortion attempt" above as it is factual and shows no bias towards either side. I think it's a fair compromise. Nice4What (talk) 00:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion
Want to point out how Nice4What has taken me out of context. I stated that I support Jenner's choice to self-identify as a woman, despite the fact that "chromosomally, Jenner is objectively not a woman." Nice4What, are you seriously claiming that chromosomally, she is a woman? Even Jenner herself makes no such claim!
I am offended by Nice4What's attempt to elevate one woman's self-identification over another's.
"Abortion rights" is hardly a neutral term, given that millions of women fervently believe that no one should have the right to kill their offspring, in any stage of development.
Claire Culwell clearly feels that abortion is something negative. That's understandable, because an abortion killed her twin brother, and it would have killed her too, if it had been successful. If you care to take three minutes to watch her testimony to the Kentucky Senate, Culwell cogently points out that a most important and very specific woman's right – her own right to live – would have been fully denied if the abortion had been successful. Anyway, am I saying that abortion is something negative? No, but we should certainly respect Ms. Culwell's choice to self-identify as an "abortion survivor." Novel compound (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Novel compound: You've fully exposed your anti-abortion bias with this one Novel compound by saying "the right to kill their offspring" and "a most important and very specific woman's right – her own right to live – would have been fully denied if the abortion had been successful". You must understand your biases but still follow WP:NPOV.
Also, please point to a Wikipedia policy that says we must respect every self-identification, because as User:188.176.129.120 pointed out, you cannot declare yourself as King of Exampleland and expect Wikipedia to comply. Do not compare the matter to gender identity again; it's offensive, and you should make the effort understand why. Nice4What (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The right to abortion is, objectively, the right to kill one's offspring (subject to possible restrictions, such as the bans on late-term abortions found in some states). I'm sorry you're not comfortable with that objective, unbiased fact. To obfuscate unbiased facts is to promote a non-neutral POV. What would you have us believe abortion is – the right to give lollipops to one's offspring? Would you have us believe that if the attempt to abort Claire Culwell had been successful, she would be alive today? I want you to retain some credibility. Toward that end, please stop with these increasingly-lame attempts to attack me while you push your non-neutral POV.
There is no policy that says we must respect every self-identification. It does not follow, however, that we shouldn't respect this one. The comparison is not objectively offensive, so stop figuratively wagging your finger at me. Novel compound (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice4What, you strongly objected to the statement "a most important and very specific woman's right – her own right to live – would have been fully denied if the abortion had been successful."
Please tell us which part of the statement you feel is not factual:
- that Claire Culwell has a right to live?
- that her right to live is important?
- that she is a woman, and therefore her right to live is a specific woman's right?
- that if the attempt to abort her had been successful, she would not be alive today?
If you can't find anything unfactual in the statement, your strong objection is nothing more than an exposé of your bias. Novel compound (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry User compound, but I can't waste my time entertaining you any further! You are taking this argument too extremely. Where did I object to that statement? When did I say I was against any of these? You are getting frustrated and overthinking my words, trying to equate my view of WP:NPOV to debating the importance of woman's rights and the right to live; how do you even come to such a stretch? Also realize your bias in understanding that not everyone believes that fetuses have the "right to life" and this is especially contended in the debate about abortion. I'm not expressing my personal beliefs, I'm just pointing out that since it's so debated, we as editors are to write neutrally. Nice4What (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 09:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The "explanation" begs the question, so explains nothing. If people live who would otherwise not, then they have survived. If someone survives a hurricane, that entails no moral judgement as to hurricanes being good or bad, simply that the person under consideration lived beyond the hurricane taking place. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Andreas Philopater: Hurricanes are a natural phenomenon however, and their destruction is usually seen as "bad". You can "survive" through a drug addiction or an exam period, and that's because those are being viewed in a negative context. It is not simply life/death. Abortions are a medical procedure, and the term "abortion survivor" also implies that the person survived something "bad" (which is not a neutral point-of-view). It's worth noting that the term "abortion survivor" is almost exclusively used by the anti-abortion/pro-life side. I think it's best to use a neutral term. Nice4What (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exams are hardly a moral evil, so I think you might just have proved my point. People also survive operations. Medical treatment is generally regarded as a good thing. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Andreas Philopater: I think you're still choosing to ignore the negative connotations in regards to what you're surviving. You survive an exam because you risk failing (negative). You survive a medical treatment because you risk a sort of consequence (negative). Surviving an abortion is implying something negative (which seems to be a good explanation as to why it is a term used by the anti-abortion side). I'm not speaking of any moral evils so I don't see how your point was proven. Nice4What (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Taking sides" is really the problem here. You seem yourself to be trying to make a point for one side against another, rather than reflect on whether the term actually implies what you claim. "Surviving" implies solely that life carries on afterwards. You can "survive" even an exam that you fail. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion
Again you have proven Andreas' point. If you saw a video of a mosquito that survived an attack by a dragonfly, I suspect you would not argue with a characterization of that mosquito as a "survivor," and we would both agree that said video does not imply anything negative about dragonflies. But your pro-abortion bias doesn't allow you to make an equal application of "survivor" and "doesn't imply anything negative" when a human fetus survives an abortion. Because of your unequal treatment of these two subjects, one wonders if your pro-abortion bias causes you to hold a human fetus in lower esteem than a mosquito. Novel compound (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
one wonders if your pro-abortion bias causes you to hold a human fetus in lower esteem than a mosquito. The "bias" you hold against me is your own assumption. Also, no reasonable person would wonder that, unless you're downplaying your own abilities? Nice4What (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The destruction of hurricanes has ended far fewer human lives than the practice of abortion (see www.NumberofAbortions.com). Why do you feel that the former is "bad," and the latter is not bad? Novel compound (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Novel compound: Point being, because of WP:NPOV, we don't take sides on whether abortion is "bad" or not. We are neutral. I'm hoping you're going to understand this soon enough. I have not been pushing the removal of "abortion survivor" as a term because of my personal beliefs, I'm doing so for a neutral terminology. You are very biased in the matter and need to be more self-aware, maybe recuse yourself, or favor the neutral terminology because using "People born after a failed abortion attempt" is factual, isn't pro-choice, and isn't detrimental to anti-abortionists. Nice4What (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted to add that the site you linked has a counter for "Black babies since '73 in US". Hmm... wonder what the motive is for listing that one? Nice4What (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again, claiming that I'm the biased one. I'm not the one going around to multiple articles and deleting the neutral and unbiased word "survivor." Such a zealous effort to scrub a neutral word, because of your fear that it might put the institution of abortion in a negative light! Novel compound (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't understand the motive, Nice4What? The motive is to raise awareness that the African-American population has been disproportionally harmed by abortion. Clenard Childress, Jr. has famously lamented that "The most dangerous place for an African-American to be is in the womb." Without an objective statistic that backs him up, that is merely an assertion. Now you've seen an objective statistic that backs him up.
Now, before you go off and accuse me of bias again, consider that many things can harm, and have harmed, the population to one extent or another: Cancer. Terrorism. Motor vehicle accidents. Abortion. The opioid epidemic. Cold weather. If you want to single out abortion as the one thing that should be taken off this list of things that have harmed the population, you're the one exhibiting bias. Novel compound (talk) 05:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Novel compound: The point being that viewing abortion as something that has harmed the population is subjective and Wikipedia is neutral. Saying that "survivor" is a neutral term is clearly not the case if you've read the talk page discussion. You keep coming up with different excuses (it's extremely factual, we must respect self-identification, it's one of the most harmful things, etc.) yet I've made no excuse and point to WP:NPOV as a guideline. I am in no fear "that it might put the institution of abortion in a negative light!" and this is an assumption you've made on your own. You can check that I've removed pro-choice bias from the Heartbeat bill article as well. I also suggest in your future responses as you continue to edit Wikipedia, you don't make assumptions based on others as you have done to me; exhibit good faith. Nice4What (talk) 05:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm quite aware that you continuously assert that using the objective, unbiased phrase "abortion survivor" to describe a person who has survived an abortion – even when that person self-identifies as an abortion survivor – is biased.
I will concede that a curbing of the population is not universally viewed as harmful. Members of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement see it as a good thing. (But I bet even many of them would not be pleased by a curbing of the population that disproportionally affects African-Americans.)
Having said that, I didn't expect you would actually double down on your bias by looking at my list of things that have objectively curbed the population to one extent or another – cancer, terrorism, motor vehicle accidents, abortion, the opioid epidemic, cold weather – and singling out abortion as the one thing that doesn't belong there. But you did.
El_C advised that "While discussion is ongoing, the convention is for the status quo ante to remain in place." But I actually have a life outside Wikipedia, and don't have time to restore the status quo to the articles from which you have deleted the unbiased word "survivor" – so you actually might prevail here. Good night, off to bed. Novel compound (talk) 07:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 09:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an entirely POV label. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Rhododendrites, deletion was not even proposed by the Nominator. Renaming is what was proposed. Novel compound (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • True. But we're not bound by the terms of the initial proposal once the discussion is open. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Novel compound: I assume you're may not be too familiar with how discussions on Wikipedia go, but other proposals can be made other than what the nominator suggested. Also, read my comment below: I indicated support for delete. Nice4What (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SMALLCAT, category growth is unlikely with increasing medical expertise. All three articles are in the abortion category tree already. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The category will grow, if an article is created for any of the following abortion survivors: Amy Charlton, Sarah Smith, Ana Rosa Rodriguez, Heidi Huffman, Christelle Morrison, Claire Culwell, etc. As of 2001, 4-5 people per year had survived attempts to abort them at one Chicago-area hospital alone. (Yes, my use of the word "people" is accurate and unbiased, because everyone agrees that fetuses become infants when they are born, and infants are people.) What those infants did not survive was the subsequent neglect.[1] It would be dubious to claim that the efficaciousness of this type of abortion has skyrocketed in the last 18 years.
    Furthermore, it's not a problem when an article is in multiple categories in the same tree. USS Missouri (BB-63) is in Category:Korean War battleships of the United States as well as Category:Cold War battleships of the United States. Both categories are in Category:Battleships of the United States. Novel compound (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Go ahead and propose those categories for discussion if you wish. Nice4What (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is not how many people have survived abortion, the question is how many of them are notable, and on top of that to what extent are they known for having survived abortion. Apart from exceptions, I would expect this fact only to be known in case they are anti-abortion activists. While we already have a category tree for anti-abortion activists. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Amended abortion policy is cold comfort – Nurse's objection to leaving babies to die gets her fired". Chicago Sun-Times. September 8, 2001.
  • Comment - I'd say delete if category is not moved, as original move nominator and per WP:NPOV and WP:SMALLCAT. Nice4What (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per POINT. Note that I've heard some activists use this label for the entire generation born after the legalization of abortion in the 1970s. Place Clichy (talk) 10:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anybody would argue it should be extended beyond people for whom this is a definite part of their public persona, so that concern is perhaps misplaced.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an entire movement in France called Les Survivants ("The Survivors") which has acquired some prominence. The press says (rough translation): according to them, with 220 000 abortions a year in France, all the children who are born could have been aborted. They consider themselves [youth born after 1975] survivors of abortion. With their slogan "1 in 5", they claim according to their figures that one in five children is aborted.. Their own site (God forbid me to place a link) refers to abortion survivor depression syndroms, citing e.g. Abortion Survivors, Philip Ney, MD, Marie A. Peeters, MD, for people who would have had e.g. "siblings loss from abortion". So yes, there are some who argue that "abortion survivor" applies to, pretty much, every former embryo, including "statistical survivors". Place Clichy (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Les Survivants is not being logical. It's akin to a person who has never been in a car accident calling himself a car accident survivor, just because he has driven on roads where others have been in car accidents.
    Wikipedia does not discontinue the use of a neutral term, just because some group makes an illogical attempt to hijack the term. Novel compound (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, they are anti-abortion activists, and they are not being logical. How am I surprised. Worse, they are not consistent with other such activists. However, the argument falls short of proving how "abortion survivor" could ever be a "neutral term". Place Clichy (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (possibly after checking that the articles are in any appropriate categories such as anti-abortion activists). We shouldn't be categorizing people (actors, politicians etc and categories like this inevitably get such articles) by what happened before they were born. What next - "People conceived due to a failure of contraception"?DexDor (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Contraception prevents a human fetus from being created, while abortion ends the life of a human fetus. As such, abortion raises many ethical questions that contraception does not. Your flippant comparison of the two exposes pro-abortion bias. Novel compound (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Novel compound: Ah yes, everyone who disagrees with you now has a pro-abortion bias. What a great development on your part of the argument. Nice4What (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Novel compound, I agree re ethical questions, but for the person being categorized both (contraception and abortion) amount to "person born despite parents desire not to have a child" - i.e. the point remains that it's not a good characteristic to categorize the person by. Consider also, for example, an actress who was born in a country where girls are routinely aborted because parents prefer boys (perhaps especially if they already have girls), but she survived (perhaps the parents couldn't pay for the test/abortion or the doctor got the test results wrong). Is she an abortion survivor? DexDor (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Contraception survivor" sounds nice. Wait, maybe "family planning survivor". Oh, I know, "intercourse survivor". Place Clichy (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename or Otherwise Keep If people want to self identify as such, why should be not respect their decision to do so? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SMALLCAT and NPOV. – Levivich 01:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Any way to relist this so it can finally be removed? It's been over a month and the consensus is clear here... Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 16:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No new comments in more than a month -- no need to relist. I'll add a request for closure to AN. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify. The name is ok, short, clearly says exactly what it means. However, not defining for the members, no point cross-referencing them. No parent article. Listify to somewhere. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The best match coverage in mainspace that I have found is Abortion#Live_birth. I think that mainspace should cover things before they are categorized. I think some coverage there of examples of long term survival belongs. The category contains three articles. Listying here for possible use:

      Gianna Jessen
      Melissa Ohden
      Oldenburg Baby

  • Delete the category, too small, no parent article, and not itself part of a suitable category. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note To prevent information loss, and per the suggestion above to listify, I have created the article List of people born after a failed abortion attempt. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't think this is something that will add in navigation. It has only three entries and it is not a defining characteristic. Dream Focus 05:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename Blumpf (talk) 08:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with above arguments that this is not a defining characteristic and contains only 3 articles of people who are relevant to the abortion debate and are listed as such. I would oppose, for example, listing a singer in this category were it known about them as it wouldn't be relevant. It is relevant as a background to becoming an anti-abortion campaigner, and those people are already in the category Category:American anti-abortion activists. |→ Spaully ~talk~  10:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be relevant if reliable sources talk about it. Also people in that category don't have to anti-abortion. They could still support it or not have an opinion on it. There is already one, Oldenburg Baby, who was not an activist. Blumpf (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting that there is clear consensus to delete here, but the companion AfD is not so clear-cut. Relisting for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:31, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - possibly listify, but the current name is very pointy and certainly not neutral. Grutness...wha? 03:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Eskimo flags[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (was already merged). MER-C 18:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I found this category as a successor to Category:Inuit flags. It contained the flag of Alaska, Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Nunatsivut, Greenland and Flag of Chukotka Autonomous Okrug. The name of the category (and as Inuit flags) is incorrect. The flags themselves are not really Eskimo or Inuit flags. The ones for Alaska, Yukon (no Inuit live there), NWT, Nunavut and Greenland are flags that represent all the people living there, which may include First Nations and non-natives. Sticking the ones for Canada and Greenland in an Eskimo category is a bit offensive as well. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the articles before I tagged it for deletion. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Liz I restored the original categories which also emptied the category. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_31&oldid=910196575"