Talk:Abortion/Archives/03

VFD keep notice

This article was preserved after a vote for its deletion. See its archived VfD entry for details.

~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Clarification - the article was preserved because there was no consensus to support its deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.215.251.179 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Editing and adding quotations

Please add quotations in the appropriate section in aphabetical order (by speaker's or author's name). I will try to move quotes that are not placed in alphabetical order unless a quote is added during a wave of vandalous edits (as has happened recently).Mr. Grace

Categories

The cateogries have been set for some time now after vigorous previous debate. Please do not alter them without building some consensus here first. If you think quotes belong in a different area, please discuss here, ask for input, and then move them to that area. If you think new cateogries might be a good iea, please build consensus here first. Thank you, Cat, for adding quotes! Please re-add any that got lost in the category reversion. Mr. Grace

I am not changing anything in the article and am loathe to wade into it, but I have to comment: "Mr. Grace" reverted changes by Catamorphism in the categorizations that seemed to have been somewhat an attempt at greater accuracy and simple honesty with the comment : "Categories are set based on past extensive discussion (see talk archives). Do not change.", and the note above.
The phrase "a load of dingoes kidneys" comes to mind.
This seems nearly as big an act of obfuscation as having placed some of these quotes into the "pro-choice" category in the first place. As far as I can see, the categories and their appropriateness have not been "set" as they stand by anything so much as a single editor's obstinacy, (or conceivably that of a very few, if "Mr. Grace" by any chance isn't actually the same person as previously edited with just IP identifications), and the inadequacy of the categories and the blatant inappropriateness of some of the entries into them, has been and remains a primary point of dispute. I don't think Catamorphism's additional category was adequate either, but it seemed a step in the right direction. ~ Rumour 16:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The point is that any re-organizing of the page ought to be worked out here, on the talk page, prior to just diving in and making the changes. It seems that using different categories might be helpful. It might be best to organize the page like most other pages and simply list the quotes in alphabetical order, without editorializing the quotes by placing them in arbitrary categories. 136.215.251.179

Perhaps before reverting my work, you could have discussed it here on the talk page. My impression is that "vigorous previous debate" about the issue consisted of nobody besides you caring enough to get involved. Catamorphism 18:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If you actually review the archived talk pages (have you?), you would see that many people discussed categories and several variations were tried, but the consensus was to keep it simple, because more categories will inevitably make it harder to select the cateogry for a quote. The less options an editor has, the less chance for POV to sneak in. This is not an article, rather it is a list of quotes (as you noted in one of youur edits). Mr. Grace

Abortionist

If no one objects, I'll change the occurrences of "abortionist" to "abortion doctor", as "abortionist" is a POV term. Catamorphism 23:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The term is actually very neutral. Its in most all dictionaries and has been for ages. One who perfoms an abortion need not be a doctor - and many feminists would prefer that non-doctors be able to perform them. In fact, the Washington Post uses "Abortionist" as a neutral term in headlines. Mr. Grace

"Quoteworthy"?

Hi, Mr. Grace or anyone else who might know -- where is the page that hosts the guidelines on which people are quoteworthy enough to have their quotations included in Wikiquote? I haven't been able to find it, but since you removed a quotation because the source wasn't quoteworthy, I figured you might have seen these guidelines. Catamorphism 19:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Definition. Who is this Tucker guy? I take it you googled for abortion quotes and found one from him. But who is he? My boss also has spoken on abortion, but is her commentary notable enough to appear here? Mr. Grace

Sorry, that's a Wikipedia policy. Wikiquote is not Wikipedia. Since there are many quotations in this article whose sources would not be deemed as "notable" by Wikipedia's standards, I'm restoring the quotation I added, since that's less disruptive than removing all the quotations whose sources are non-notable by the standard you suggest. Catamorphism 23:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Who is Tucker? (And wikiquote follows wikipedia policy when there is no policy on point). Mr. Grace

Verifiable Falsehood

Michelman's claims are verifiably false. Abortion lobbyists lied (as lobbyists often do); note the truthful quotes from the doctors who actually do the procedure all the time. Michelman's falsehoods should be labeled as such so that no one mistakes her words as true. Mr. Grace

• "When you're a doctor who does these abortions and the leaders of your movement appear before Congress and go on network news and say these procedures are done in only the most tragic of circumstances, how do you think that makes you feel? You know they're primarily done on healthy women and healthy fetuses, and it makes you feel like a dirty little abortionist with a dirty little secret. I think we should tell them the truth, let them vote and move on. In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along. The abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does everyone else." - Ron Fitzsimmons, Executive Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, New York Times, 2/26/1997
• "Afterwards they were just amazed. They just had no idea. And here they're rabid supporters of abortion. They work in the office there. And...some of them have never seen one performed...And I'll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective in that 20-24 week range...In my particular case, probably 20% are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective..." - Dr. Martin Haskell, inventor of late-term abortion method, to American Medical News (U.S. Congressional Record, 1996, p. H2919)
• "We have some experience with late terminations; about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks and something like 800 fetal anomalies between 26 and 36 weeks in the past 5 years." - Dr. George R. Tiller, discussing how so few of his late-erm abortions were due to fetal health problems, 1995, New Orleans, LA.

Editing concerns

Recent edits, and indeed a long history of edits on this page, have shown notable patterns of what is probably a single person, or at most a few, bullying, obfuscating, and outright lying to dominate and totally control the edits that are done on this page. After another editors quotes were removed, I edited a quote where some of Tori Amos's comments on entirely other matters were colorfully suffixed to her statements about abortion:

"It's weird when you're giving a guy head at 15 and you're thinking 'Jesus is looking at me!'. . . Doing it with a priest never got me off, they wash it so often!. . . But doing it with Jesus, now that is something else!."

By what convoluted stretching of imagination that belonged on the "Abortion" page was beyond me, but it was then re - added with the statement "speaker uses Jesus to make her point about abortion — so her lattitude [sic] toward Jesus provides necessary context", then removed again by another editor and re-added again with the simultaneous removal of what were cited as "pro-abortion" slogans and responses to anti-abortion slogans with the EXTREMELY hypocritical and obfuscating comment: "see previous comments - quotes must be about abortion, not simply feminism; also stop editing out context". The quotes removed did not seem to be simply about "feminism", and because someone notable might be inclined to respond to such arguments as are being made using such phrases as "Jesus H. Christ - what a goddamned deceitful, contemptible hypocrite" it wouldn't justify adding any or all the comments they might make about Jesus, God, deceit and contempt in an interview, to a page that were for quotes about "Hypocrisy", because they use some reference to each of these terms to make their point.
The extension to the quote, as well as most of the editing on the page seems to have been obviously added and re-added by an industrious editor who plainly is intent on doing anything and everything possible to make any people or arguments that are for views contrary to his/her own simply seem ridiculous. In the source of the quotation by Tori, this passage is actually nowhere even near her comments on abortion, and indeed has a far different tenor than these clipped statements would indicate, ie: "I waited a long time before giving up my virginity, because of this feeling: 'how can I be a nice, respectable girl and want to do this?'. And more than anything I wanted respect from men, my father in particular. And even at that age I felt that Jesus was a real, living presence in my life. That can be a bit of a disadvantage. It's weird when you're giving a guy head at 15 and you're thinking 'Jesus is looking at me!'." She is then asked if she ever thought of Jesus as a man whom she might have seduced, which produced :

Doing it with a priest never got me off, they wash it so often!" she responds, laughing almost maliciously. "But doing it with Jesus, now that is something else! Most Christian women would be trained to think that even this thought is blasphemous. But I say that's a load of bollix! That's how women are paralyzed, disconnected from the source of their own power, by religion.
"I've nearly always believed that Jesus Christ really liked Mary Magdalene and and that if he was, as he claimed to be, a whole man, he had to have sexual relations with her. So in my deepest, most private moments I've wanted Christ to be the boyfriend I've been waiting for. And a lot of Christian girls have a crush on Jesus. I may have felt guilty at the thought of wanting to do it with Jesus but then I say why not? He was a man."

ALL these comments occur long before the abortion passage is reached, and have nothing directly to do with those comments she makes about abortion.

I am actually a person who would be quite pleased if far more responsible use of contraception or abstinence nearly eliminated the unwanted pregnancies that result in women choosing to have an abortion. I also recognize that irresponsible actions, and outrageous oppressions such as rape, or the desire to make what are rightfully other people's personal decisions for them, are not likely to be totally eliminated from human behavior any time soon. I do not equate the removal of an embryo or fetus from the womb, as drastic and unpleasing as such an action might be to myself and others, with the murder of already born children or other autonomous human beings, as many of the most dogmatically motivated opponents of abortion are often inclined to make it seem. Modern technology has permitted ever greater survival rates of prematurely born infants, but this does not merit extending legal "personhood" to human embryos, nor even an early stage fetus. The cells of my left thumb are "human" and could conceivably be used to create a clone of myself using rapidly developing bio-technology. That does not make clipping cuticle from my thumb the equivalent of an act of murder, because I destroy what could, with the aid of modern technology, potentially become a separate autonomous person, and neither can the potential survival of earlier stage fetuses or even embryos be used as an argument of the "independent" rights of what could potentially become a fully sentient human individual. I believe arguments against abortion should remain ethical ones, and not legally binding ones, and they should remain honest, fair, and respectful. Neither honesty. fairness, or respectfulness towards those with abortion-rights views are things that I find well represented in this article. ~ Achilles † 23:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this would be a case for arbitration if Wikiquote had an arbitration policy, which I guess it doesn't, yet. I've asked for help on Village pump and on a few admins' talk pages, but either no one wants to get involved (understandably) or there just aren't policies in place that would allow action to be taken on this. Anyway, I hear you! Catamorphism 23:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Now there was an attempt by "Mr. Grace" to delete Amos's comments entirely, probably because the entry no longer seemed quite so ridiculous, after totally irrelevant comments were no longer affixed entirely OUT of context, and the the relevant comments were not so "sliced and diced" to a certain obstinately POV pushing editor's liking. He or she removed them with the comment:

"Amos uses religion to make her point and her actual religious views expressed in the same interview therefore give appropriate context - its all or nothing"

This was promptly reverted by another editor.

I have made my views on the hypocrisy and perversely skewed POV pushing of "Mr. Graces" edits abundantly clear. This whole article is overdue for a major overhaul, from the present state of being nearly entirely one person's anti-abortion polemic, but I likely will only have the time to address a few issues now and then, as I have other duties and concerns to attend to. I do not expect this article to immediately be mended of all its mendacious characterizations and misrepresentations, but I will gradually make a go at it. I would like to re-emphasize that I do NOT consider myself "pro-abortion", and indeed I would probably be very inclined to strongly argue against having one, to any woman who inquired as to my views on the matter; but the heavily lopsided, biased, and distorted representations of "pro-choice" views that occur on this page are truly deceitful and repulsive. ~ Achilles † 21:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope you will add quotes you think are related to abortion. Thats what this page is for. Not sure why some of you think less is more. If you like Amos, lets make sure everyone knows what she really thinks about religion and abortion, since she herself links her abortion comments to her religious views. Not sure why you want to hide her underlying piety (a very unique piety that would consider Jesus as a sex partner) other than to eliminate accurate context. If you don't like the quotes in this article, please add some quotes. Mr. Grace

Please stop plotting and making threats - you make it seem as if the world will fall apart if you don't overpower Mr. Grace into submission. The abortion page has plenty of quotes from many perspectives - and many are very thought provoking and surprising. I always encourage editors to add abortion related quotes. And I have supported the removal of some editorial commentary that seemed unnecessary (and have not supported deleting explnatory notes that simply clarify verifiable facts that place the quote in context). I have ojected to adding quotes that are not directly related to abortion. I have objected to shortening a quote and thereby removing important context. And I have objected to an arbitrary restructuring of the page after reviweing the talk page archives and the edit archives and realizing that the debate will be endless if anything but the simplest of categories is employed (as is now the case). None of this behavior is vandalism or anything but the work of an editor who wants this page to be a useful source of quotes about abortion. Mr. Grace

No personal attacks

Please follow the rules, Achilles. Mr. Grace

You are also engaging in a personal attack by accusing other editors of "plotting", "making threats", and "trying to overpower [you] into submission". Catamorphism 08:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks, assume good faith (and don't be disruptive)

Catamorohism, please familiarize yourself with these two rules. Also, your edits on the abortion page have been disruptive. For example:

• Please add only quotes about abortion.
• Please do not remove verifiable portions of quotes that you don't like. (as I have noted repeatedly, the Amos quote is good - but stop chopping off the most interesting parts)
• Please do not change the established very simple and neutral categories. (Review the page archives to verify)
• Please do not add edits from mystery people whose notoriety you cannot even explain when asked to do so. (You still have not explained who Tucker is - see Talk above - yet the quote remains)
• Please do not complain and make accusations of bad faith and make personal attacks when you do these things and your disruptive editing is checked.

Mr. Grace

Removed vegetarianism/abortion quote

I removed the following quotation:

• "If you refuse to eat an embryonic life form on the grounds that it ends the life of an animal then you might as well join the loonies who gather on N. Charles street to compare abortion to the Holocaust."
  • Simon Waxman, in the Johns Hopkins News-Letter, 2/10/2006 [1]

since it's obviously meant to express opposition to vegetarianism and merely uses abortion as an analogy; it's not a quote that's meant to make a point about abortion. Posting the removed quotation on the talk page as per Wikiquote guidelines. Feel free to add this to Vegetarianism if you'd like! Catamorphism 20:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove quotes that explicitly mention and comment on abortion. The quote you have deleted actually is very thought provoking regarding both vegetarianism and abortion - and certainly is a comment by the speaker that he thinks vegetarians and abortion opponents can be extremist loonies. This quote is being restored. Any quote that discusses abortion is appropriate on this page. Perhaps you think the quote should be in a different section of the page - but deleting it is not the proper way to deal with your concern - moving it to the section you think it belongs would be a better approach. But the best would be to express your concern first on the talk page - especially when you don't yet seem to know how wikiquote works. Your claim that it does not belong on the abortion page is simply implausible. Please stop being disruptive. Sorry, but now, due to your disruptiveness, you will need to restore any other GOOD edits you may have made that have been lost. Its best not to be disruptive. In my parenthetitcal editing comments I referred to what you did as vandalism - but I realize your edits seem to be intentionally disruptive - which is probably one notch less severe than vandalism. I apologize for using that word inappropriately. Mr. Grace 07:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Pollitt quotes

Cat, I was very careful to post an excerpt that did not mislead the reader as to Pollit's point and very carefully preserved the irony she was expressing. I don't think your hyperexpanded version adds anything. Edits to this page should always be aimed at making this a helpful article to readers. Spitefulness looks bad. Mr. Grace

I'm restoring the additional Katha Pollitt quotes that were deleted. Catamorphism 02:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

As explained, the deletion was a result of your disruptive edits - and I invited you at the time to restore quotations lost due to the reversion following your disruption. And I note that you actually eliminated some of Pollit's quotation when you "fixed" it. It will help if you approach edits here with a positive attitude and wikipedia spirit. Mr. Grace

Experiment

Please post comments here about the elimination of categories. The goal is to eliminate any chance of bias by simply listing the quotations alphabetically by speaker and letting the reader determine any viewpoint for himself or herself. Please give it a try. If the comments don't support keeping it this way we can go back. Mr. Grace

Adoption Quote

This quote is about a woman who did not want to give up her baby for adoption. It does not discuss or even imply anything about abortion. It has been removed and unless there is more information that links it to abortion, it should not be restored:

• "Forcing me to surrender my child [for adoption] was an ultimate act of rape. I wish that when they were through with me, they had put a bullet in my head so I wouldn't have to live in such anguish."

Mr. Grace

As above

I hve removed the following quotes, per Mr Grace's comments above. I agree completely with him, "unless there is more information that links it to abortion, it should not be restored". Otherwise all quotes pertaining to contraception, unwanted pregnancy, giving up for adoption, population growth etc would have to be included as having implications for abortion. (If someone wants to put in a reffed quote like, "X said Christians do not support abortion because the Bible says 'the babe leapt in her womb'", that of course would be valid.)

• "Then said Mary unto the angel, 'How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?' And the angel answered and said unto her, 'The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy Thing Which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible.' And Mary said, 'Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.' And the angel departed from her. And Mary arose in those days (of Herod), and went into the hill country with haste into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, 'Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.'"
  • The Bible, Luke 1:34-45, KJV, (describes two unborn children communicating with each other).

• "Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."
  • The Bible, Jeremiah 1:4-5, KJV

• "I assure you, as often as you neglected to do it to one of these least ones, you neglected to do it to me."
  • The Bible, Matthew 25:45

Agreed - I removed additional biblical quotes (all variations of Exodus 21:22 from the Bible) for the same reasons - in context they do not discuss abortion (rather they discuss unwanted assault). Mr. Grace

I also removed this one for the same reason:

• "Neglect of an effective birth control policy is a never-failing source of poverty which, in turn, is the parent of revolution and crime." Aristotle, Politics, circa 350 B.C.

Mr. Grace

There seem to be a lot more, but it's kinda hard work to get at them without any sections for edit purposes. If no-one wants subheads, shouldn't this article at least have alphabetical sections? Also, I suggest leaving the these deletions for a while, as tho I think they're needed, I'd rather wait for broader consensus (=more than one other person!). JackyR 00:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't visit wikiquote much more now-days, but I will cast my "votes" to help you obtain concensus, JackyR:

The Luke 1:34-45, KJV and the Jeremiah 1:4-5, KJV passages belong here, because they clearly refer to unborn children, the prime precursor of abortion, but the Matthew 25:45 passage, although it is one of my favorite passages, does not refer to abortion or pre-born persons; It refers to already born people (such as Terri Schiavo, who was denied a cup of water -with no mention of feeding tubes, lol).

Regarding the categories, the prior concensus had been to be divided into "pro-abortion," "anti-abortion," and "neutral," with sub-categories of "attributed" and "sourced" under these three main categories. Whether you call them "pro-life" and "pro-abortion," or merely "pro-choice," or some variants, I hold no opinion whatsoever.

However, I vote "for" three main categories, and two sub-sections (attributed and sourced) under the three main categories: It makes organization, reading, and editing easier -with all due respect to those who would mix them together, the use of categories, sections, etc. does not introduce bias; It merely makes things more organized.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: If these categories are restored, I would think that alphabetized ordering within each sub-section would be appropriate, but I do not care one way or the other. That is my "vote."

Oh, yes. Jeff (and colleagues), if you're reading, I saw the old discussion about my quote regarding Sarah Weddington's visit to FSU. I'm sorry if this was looking like a "vanity" post, but I thought with my notoriety in the Schiavo ordeal (I did better in court than the Governor), I would qualify. Anyhow, if other minds oppose that quote, I am OK with concensus. Have a nice day.--GordonWattsDotCom 05:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful stuff on headings. Tho' (without trawling through the history) I'm sure headings can introduce both order and bias!

"It refers to already born people". So... what has it to do with abortion? Is this an American thing? I can imagine that if you have a lobby called "pro-life", it would take up other life/death causes. But this page is about euphemism-less abortion. "About the unborn child" would be true of entire pregnancy guides. Should we be adding those? Sorry if this sounds negative – I'm concerned by the length of this page. Cheers, JackyR 13:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

"It refers to already born people". So... what has it to do with abortion? Nothing: That is why I opposed the Matthew 25:45 passage, even tho it is a favorite of mine. "About the unborn child" would be true of entire pregnancy guides. Should we be adding those? Of course, we must strive for brevity: Short and sweet -and to the point. Excerpts, showing the jist: Not an encyclopedia, I say. Sorry if this sounds negative – I'm concerned by the length of this page. Well, I had come to that conclusion and had agreed with you before I read your last line, so my vote agrees with yours: Length must be reasonable. Hope this helps. Are you less negative now? :-) --GordonWattsDotCom 16:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh good, I just didn't make the leap from your first sentence. Happy now :-) (Confused about gist and encyclopedia comment, but pretending I'm not!) JackyR 17:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Great! This area has few editors, but they can be passionate sometimes. One new editor, Mr. Grace, has been allowed back in the fold, after a two-week cooling off period. While you and I don't share his views on the "lump-them-all-together" formatting, please consider his views and respect his opinions in his absence, and don't take advantage of him being gone. That said, I wonder about the formatting. Maybe we should get more input. I've case my vote. Remember: No matter which way it's formatted, it will require a lot of work to change it back and forth. I will leave these matters in y'all capable hands, and wish you good times. Laissez le bon temps rouler: Let the good times roll on!--GordonWattsDotCom 12:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Bush on Hardball - no context and biased sources

The only evidence of this quote are anti-Bush websites or hit-pieces. There is also no basis to know the context of what was said since the quote does not even mention anything related to abortion in the least. Bush might have been discussing cattle futures. Please post the words that prompted Bush's reposnse. Then we can know Bush was speaking about abortion. I have searched and cannot find any transcript. Mr. Grace 19:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose all 2000 of these sources are "anti-Bush websites or hit-pieces". Slate in particular I think should be considered a reputable source. MSNBC doesn't offer the transcripts back to May 31, 2000. However, everyone attributes this quote to Bush talking about abortion. If you find one source that says he is talking about cattle futures or any other issue, I'll concede that we shouldn't add this quote. But it is simply unreasonable to assume that this is an anti-Bush conspiracy. Savidan 20:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Given the partisan and biased nature of the sources (Slate has always been decidedly liberal) and lack of a reputable unbiased source that provides any context at all, the quote is meaningless as regards abortion. Bush said it, perhaps. But we have no idea how it related to abortion. None. That thousands of people copied and pasted the exact same sentence and description ("on abortion") is not all that helpful in determining the actual context. You can place it in the "attributed to" section, but it is not adequately sourced until we have some context to know how it relates to abortion (and to verify it is more than an urban legend). It is not simply that this may be an anti-Bush fable, its simply that it is impossible to determine what he was saying about abortion without the context being available. Surely you can concede this last point. Mr. Grace 21:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Many consider the New York Times to be left leaning. I guess that means we should downgrade any quote sourced to the times as "Attributed". Your object is to context, not the source. This is clearly a sourced quote. We have 2,000 sources. To me, it's very clear what Bush is saying about abortion. He's defending his views on abortion against the claim that they are not grounded in the reality of the situation (i.e. abstract ethical concerns versus people getting back alley abortions, etc.). His mis-speak on this issue has become notable for the same reason. Savidan 21:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no context other than ("on abortion"). The 2000 web pages are a good reason to list the quote under "attributed", but not under sourced. We simply have no good source that allows the context to be determiend (other than the claim of 1000 snarky Bush-bashing webpages, all with the same "on abortion" note. Clearly an example of wide attribution, but no objective verification. All we need are the sentences before and after the quote that has been attributed to President Bush. Mr. Grace 11:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, an accurate contextual version of this Bush quote is contained in this column written by Chris Matthews himself. Interestingly, and as I suspected, the quote in context flatters Bush - though Bush bashers have shamelessly removed the context. At least the man who conducted the interview - a noted liberal - realized the nobility of Bush's words, seemingly lauding his perspective and tone on the issue. Mr. Grace

I don't understand what this adds to the quote. Please readd it with whatever context you think is necessary and we can go from there. 24.238.213.223 17:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I completed this task. As Bush's critics quote him, they leave out ALL of the context in a blatant attempt to unfairly discredit him and claim his words are an embarassing "Bushism", as Slate does:

"I'm gonna talk about the ideal world, Chris. I've read—I understand reality. If you're asking me as the president, would I understand reality, I do."—On abortion, Hardball, MSNBC; May 31, 2000

But Bush critic Chris Matthews, who actually conducted the interview that produced the quote, seems to think Bush gave a good answer (note the very headline of his column). 139.139.161.12

Aristotle on birth control

As to Aristotle's words: we simply cannot put words into his mouth. Margaret Sanger and others who advocate abortion have said plenty of things about birth control, but it would be inappropriate to assume, without proof, that they also meant in each instance to equate birth control with abortion. Given the controversial nature of abortion relative to abortion, assuming moral equivalence of the two on behalf of any speaker is simply absurd. If the context makes it certain that the speaker was referring to abortion or the value of the child in utero, then the quote is appropriate to this page. Mr. Grace 21:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sanger said plenty in favor of birth control, and plenty against abortion. I have yet to uncover anything she said in favor of abortion. Unless someone can provide this, I'd recommend removing the "life-long advocate of legal abortion" from her quote attributions. MFNickster 00:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

She took the stance that abortion was bad, but it should be legal. She mistakenly thought that widely available birth control would drastically reduce abortion. She was dead wrong. Mr. Grace 11:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I have yet to find anything she said in favor of legal abortion. Do you have a quote which is unambiguous in context, and is from Sanger herself and not something written by someone else in a publication of Sanger's? I'd be very interested in seeing it. MFNickster 14:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I would be fine with moving some quotes to Birth control, etc. if you think they aren't strictly in the context of abortion. What I object to is your wholesale deletion of sourced and notable quotes for questionable reasons. Sure, this article gets long and needs to be organized/split but that is not a reason to go deleting quotes at random. This is a "theme" article on wikiquote which implies some degree of latitude about the subject of the quotation. I'm not saying that we shouldn't establish limits on what goes in this collection, but that they should be decided through consensus on talk pages rather than by a single user without establishling any clear deliniation as to the subject of the article. This quote from mother Teresa ("It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.") is almost exactly analogous to the Aristotle quote ("Neglect of an effective birth control policy is a never-failing source of poverty which, in turn, is the parent of revolution and crime."). My problem isn't only with the apparent double standard that is created by your pattern of edits, but with the fact that useful quotes are simply deleted rather than moving to a more appropriate article. Savidan 22:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The same with all the quotes that you left in that are in the more general concept of "Right to life". How can we leave those quotes in this article an not leave quotes that are in the analogous general concept of "Birth control". I think thta we should add a see also section for such similar concepts like these, as well as "Women's rights", etc. and move quotes there. From there, once this article is limited to quotes that are strictly in the concept of abortion, we can start to organize those. Savidan 22:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The most common meaning of "right to life" or "pro-life" is tantatmount to "anti-abortion". Thus when those terms are voiced it is most often the case that the comments refer to abortion. And in context it is often clearly the case. However, the terms "feminism", "birth control" and "women's rights" are all generally precieved as very broad - with abortion one of many concepts that those terms can encompass. And speakers as often as not use those terms to discuss things other than abortion. So in the absence of some strong indication of a context that specifically includes abortion, quotes that mention "feminism", "birth control" and "women's rights" should not be classified as statements about abortion. In any event, whatever protocol is followed here, it has to be followed even-handedly. Mr. Grace 07:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not make up the notion that all quotes must relate to abortion in context. Mother Teresa was, in context, discussing abortion. Her abortion views are widely known. She was a vocal critic of abortion. But we cannot know if Aristotle meant to include abortion (or beating all pregnant women to a bloody pulp, for that mattter) in his comment. That is unknown and not verfiable. In fact, quotes I like have been removed from the page under this rule without my objection, so your critique of it being used one-sidedly is simply wishful thinking on your part. A new quote was added. It cannot be verified either as to it being real or its context. I removed it and have given an explanation that has nothing to do with any bias. Mr. Grace 11:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"Under this rule"? Mr Grace, I don't think this is a rule. AFAIK, you suggested (and acted on) removing quotes that were not obviously about abortion. I agreed with you, and removed more, but suggested we both hang-fire while consensus built one way or another. (See Talk:Abortion#Adoption Quote and ff.) Or have I misunderstood what you are saying here? Cheers, JackyR 20:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Call it what you like, it functions as a rule. And if it applies at all, it will be applied evenhandedly. I am not sure what your complaint is. I simply noted that the rule seems sensible despite the fact that under the rule some quotes I like go away. Thus applying the rule can hardly be labelled as biased. Mr. Grace 06:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No. It doesn't even function like a rule. You and I suggesting something is (sadly!) not the same as consensus. But Savidan's plan is a jolly good way forward: let's go for it. JackyR 00:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Savidan, that's a great suggestion for getting a grip on the size of this page - I couldn't see how we were going to spin off pages with sensible titles, but yes, Women's rights, Birth control and even Population control (some nasty Malthusian stuff to go in there, I imagine) with See also will keep valuable quotes without turning Wikiquote into a single-topic venture.

Btw, I've heard little on my suggestion of alphabeticizing this page - so unless I hear otherwise will go ahead when I Get Round Tuit! Cheers, JackyR 20:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I already took a stab at alphabetizing. Mr. Grace 06:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh well done! JackyR 00:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

A POV tag can be placed by anyone as long as there is an explanation and then an effort to repair the alleged POV. If you want to add a POV tag, you will have to be specific about what is not neutral about the content. As it stands now, this article contains accurate sourced quotes and there has been no effort to censor any accurate sourced quotes. No quotes that fit the cateogry have been kept off the page. A broad spectrum of personalities and views is represented. Please see perevious discussion. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.146.234.34 (talk • contribs) 05:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I long ago explained my reasons for adding the POV tag. I committed at the time to maintain this POV tag until the editors made a clear and successful effort to remove the POV disputes that routinely plague this article. I told the active editors at the time to come to me if and when they achieved this. I never heard from them, so when I happened to look in on this article and found the tag removed, I reinstated it per my commitment.

However, my strategy seems to have been inadequate to the task. I see now, with a most cursory inspection, that the article appears to be well-organized and apparently well-sourced, a radical change from when I last looked. The edit history suggests that there isn't a lot of vicious POV editing going on, so without carefully examining it and the talk page, I cannot justify maintaining the {{npov}} tag, and I am not prepared to wade into this controversial work at this time. I apologize for my hasty action.

One important issue: I would ask that editors please be careful about maintaining the integrity of the talk page. In trying to find where I posted my commitment (which I still haven't found), I discovered at least two topics that had been completely deleted during a series of spam vandalisms and an archive update. It is essential for any article, and especially one so controversial as this, to ensure that no discussion is lost. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, JQ. I read the abortion page every week to see what is going on. Thanks for recognizing my work at cleaning up the page. Mr. Grace

Tori Amos

The woman uses Christian principles to make her point - thus her out-of-the-mainstream view of Christianity from the same article is highly relevant to her comments. The lengthy quote is verifiable and accurate. It also does not mislead, and in fact offers the reader important context in Amos's own words. Quite frankly I don't think the Amos quote is that good at all and would like to remove it totally, but if it remains, the context of her odd-ball views of Christianity (spekaing of having nothing to do with the core concept of Christianity) should be retained. Amos's riff about women/Christianity/sex/guilt/Christ/priests is interesting - and her words about abortion and Christianity are not well understood without those preface comments that KillerChihuahua wants to excise. 84.146.234.34

Cat, perhaps we can compromise here. Amos' shares her extreme view of wanting to have sex with Jesus and priests to make the point that she thinks the Church wrongly oppresses sexuality and women, and she then ties that percieved Church oppression to abortion advocacy. In fact the outlandishness and vulgarity of her words seem to be deliberately deisgned to demonstrate how liberated she is from such oppression. Surely you can see that it is all very much one big riff and the points are all related. All these ideas - including the outlandishness and the vulgarity - are important to understand her point in context. I am open to a shorter version that touches on all the aforementioned ideas within her quote. Please suggest one, and we can work from there. 139.139.161.12 22:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Catamorphism's latest edits

Cat, you have added NPOV tag to the abortion article despite offering no basis for the tag and making no suggestions for what you think would justify removing the tag. You did not even have the courtesy to comment on the talk page. Please see JefQ comments on the matter (above) before taking unitlateral action in violation of the NPOV tag policy. Tags are temporary tools to make the article better, not to add your editorial opinion to the top of the page.

Also, please don't excise important context from Amos' extremely unique religion-and-abortion quote. You can't just decide that her extreme views on the topic be removed so as to make her opinion appear more palatable to readers. The fact that she rants about wanting to have sex with priests and with Jesus as a segue to discussing how the Church's moral prohibition of immoral sexual activity and abortion has nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity is noteworthy and necessary to understand her discussion about abortion.

You also removed one (undeniably relevant) abortion quote without explanation (the B.D. Colen quote at the bottom of this link) - that is a big no go.

Thanks for considering my input. I trust you want wikiquote to be a friendly and fair place. Adhering to the rules will make that more likely to be true.

139.139.161.12 08:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This is worth repeating: A POV tag can be placed by anyone as long as there is an explanation and then an effort to repair the alleged POV. If you want to add a POV tag, you will have to be specific about what is not neutral about the content. As it stands now, this article contains accurate sourced quotes and there has been no effort to censor any accurate sourced quotes. No quotes that fit the cateogry have been kept off the page. A broad spectrum of personalities and views is represented. Please see perevious discussion. Thank you. 139.139.161.12

You can start citing policy when you stop editing anonymously. Catamorphism 18:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You can start citing policy when you stop editing anonymously. Catamorphism 18:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC) :::You can start citing policy when you stop editing anonymously. Catamorphism 18:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Point of order: Being anonymous on Wikiquote (or Wikipedia, or whereever) doesn't affect one's ability to cite policy here; the policies exist as they exist, and the fact that an anonymous editor may call attention to them has no bearing on what that policy may say.

That said, however, I don't see what policy would apply here. Our current NPOV policy does not govern the inclusion or exclusion of quotes, or using those quotes to support a particular belief or "side" (though a change like this is being discussed). This leaves the {{npov}} tag in something of a limbo, because the same-named policy doesn't seem to cover the case it's being used for here.

I hope that you can work toward a peaceful solution to this; to that end, I remind you that this is just a website, and it does not have a reputation as an authoritative source on issues. If some quotes that might be relevant are missing, or some that might not are included, it is not something that is worth getting worked up about. If you have difficulty understanding another person's beliefs, or you disagree with them, that's your choice, but please leave all that at the door; it has no place on Wikiquote. —LrdChaos (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I just mean that if someone lacks the familiarity with Wikiquote necessary to create an account, then maybe they don't have much business speaking authoritatively about policies. If, on the other hand, they do have an account but are editing anonymously, maybe they should be editing under their account name, so as to promote greater accountability. Catamorphism 22:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding NPOV, if you look at Category:NPOV disputes, you can see that besides this page, at least 5 of the 12 articles that are listed there (Opus Dei, Christianity, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Ruhollah Khomeini, and Stephen Harper) are tagged with {{npov}} because either the quotations seem to be chosen to reflect a particular slant, or because the quotations are taken out of context. So that seems to suggest pretty strongly that the NPOV tag can be used in such a situation. Catamorphism 22:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, first, you have not made the claim that "quotations seem to be chosen to reflect a particular slant, or because the quotations are taken out of context" until just now. Certainly the page has large numbers of pro-abortion AND pro-life AND neutral quotes and none have been censored, so the slant argument is a non-starter and you have not even tried to demonstrate the existence of any slant; asserting the claim is not the same as demonstrating its truth. NPOV tag requires more than just an assertion from the person placing the tag. As for being taken out of context, that claim is laughable in light of your current atempt to remove important context from the Amos quote simply to serve an ultra-feminist POV! Again, you have not even tried to demonstrate your claim is true. Sadly, you are upset because the quotations here are very balanced; no one viewpoint dominates the page. But the fact that some things people have said undercut support for abortion- whether those people are for or against abortion - seems to bother you and you wish to censor those comments. That is quite unfortunate. 84.146.240.231 05:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you assume good faith; in addition, I'm not sure what you think is required in order to insert the NPOV tag. Are you the same person as 139.139.161.12?Catamorphism 20:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If you insert a tag, the polite thing to do is to state why with some specificity, and then make edits to fix the problem. Since wikipedia NPOV policy notes that quotations should not be eliminated based on their POV, the appropriate solution to "fix" a page that you think has too many quotes in favor of one POV is to add quotes of differing POV to balance the page. The appropriate solution is not to simply add the tag and walk away, as you seem to have done. Can you admit that no quotes are being kept off of this page due to their POV? You should be happy about that fact. It would be much better if you would do the work to broaden the page (if that is what you think is needed) than to place a tag with no substantive explanation and leave. 139.139.161.12 22:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I restored the NPOV tag as this article still contains many quotations that seem to have been added more because they say gruesome things that support the pro-life perspective than due to their literary merit. Many of these quotations are from non-notable sources, as well (Leroy Carhart? Robert Crist? Martin Haskell?) The Wikiquote home page describes the site as "a free online compendium of quotations from notable people and creative works in every language" -- quotations like the ones from Haskell, Carhart, and Crist fail both these tests. I would ideally like to see the page reviewed by a neutral party, but I realize that Wikiquote is quite understaffed; until someone has time for this, the NPOV tag should remain. In addition, the article is approximately four times as long as it should be; many of these quotations from non-notable sources that were -- I repeat -- added in order to promote a POV rather than to improve the quality of this compendium of quotations -- should be removed merely for the sake of length. Catamorphism 19:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Leroy Carhart, Robert Crist and Martin Haskell are newsmakers and icons of the abortion industry, and thus notable. Again, I have never seen any quote about abortion successfully removed from the wikiquote abortion page, regardless of its POV. There is a great mix of quotes that are sympathetic to abortion supporters and pro-lifers - and all positions in between. As such, it is hard to assert that this page is not neutral. You seem to want to censor the buffoonish or unflattering comments of abortion supporters from the page. That is exactly the sort of biased editing that is anethema at wikiqiote. Your tag is inappropriate, as even JeffQ has previously acknowledged. 139.139.161.12 19:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you wait for others' input before removing the NPOV tag. Regarding the Tori Amos quote: you do not own this page, so threats like "...or it will be removed" are quite inappropriate. Catamorphism 22:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Tori Amos quotation

I read the actual article that the quotation was taken from. The beginning part, about doing it with Jesus, was very textually distant in the article from the part about abortion. The way the quotation was phrased before was extremely manipulative. It's not appropriate to paste together two separate remarks someone made in the same interview and call it a single quotation. I copied the relevant portion of the quotation directly from the interview -- nothing more, nothing less -- and added it to the article. Catamorphism 22:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Cat, you really should try to compromise on this, as I suggested above. You are not the boss here. 84.146.246.239

Shortened version of article

Since this article is far, far longer than the suggested length limit for articles on Wikiquote, I've created a shorter version of it in my userspace, removing many quotations for various reasons (lack of notability of the speaker, lack of literary value, repeated quotations from the same speaker, quotations that seem to consist mainly of content that's not in line of the purpose of this compendium of quotations, etc.) See User:Catamorphism/Abortion temp and discuss it here. Catamorphism 18:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please explain the justification for making the page less inclusive. The new page you propose has 3 quotes from Pollitt and 2 from Luker, yet has eliminated all quotes from some others. Though you may find Pollitt and Luker of note, most people have never heard of them. Which is not to say that their quotes do not belong on the page; my point is that your perspective of who is important/relevant or unimportant/irrelevant to quote is not as broad and open as you might think. (My view is that the page should be very inclusive, especially given the contorversial nature of the topic. I can see that a limit as to length of each quote might be beneficial, or a maximum number of quotes per speaker.) Likewise, the poignant and candid perspective of abortion activists who are uncomfortable with abortion or who describe the procedure are not represented. Hiding such opinions is a disservice to the intellect of wikiquote readers. I do think your shorter page is not wholly one-sided, but it certainly was edited in an ideological fashion to avoid embarassing quotes from abortion supporters. Embarassing quotes are often the most noteworthy! Thanks for trying, but less is not more in this instance. Perhaps we can dialogue for a bit longer to determine a solution that suits you but is also inclusive. 84.146.251.231 06:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

One example in which your selective exclusion of quotes is simply baffling (and indefensible) regards the quote from Norma McCorvey, the very Jane Roe of Roe v Wade. You simply don't include it. Anyone who is objective can see the import and signifigance of her rejection of abortion 33 years and 40 million non-therapeutic American abortions after Roe v Wade. 139.139.161.12 07:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

McCorvey's opinion about abortion isn't particularly more or less relevant than that of any other person off the street. Roe v. Wade wasn't about her right to have an abortion, it was about women's right to have an abortion. However, of course I'm willing to accept consensus about whether that particular quotation should be included. I also didn't find the quotation interesting in and of itself. It's not particularly succinct and doesn't convey any other original insight than "Norma McCorvey is now against abortion". That fact is interesting, but belongs on Wikipedia, not Wikiquote. Wikiquote is meant to be a compendium of interesting quotations, not a compendium of facts. Catamorphism 19:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please post a link to the policy that limits wikipedia to "interesting quotations"; of course, interesting is in the eye of the beholder. It's quite interesting for many people that Jane Roe is now pro-life (and to know that her lawyers manipulated her and lied, that she never had an abortion, that she did not even want one at the time the suit was filed, etc. etc. ). It's also factual that Roe v Wade was expressly about Jane Roe's rights, specifically. The case was brought in her name. I understand the point you are trying to make, but I don't see any wikiquote policy that supports you personal wishes. 139.139.161.12 19:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have time to continue this conversation right now, so I'm just going to leave my own modified version of the article where it is, in userspace, and not make major changes to this article. If anyone else wants to use my version or an adapted version of it, feel free. Catamorphism 21:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

United Nations Declaration on Human Rights

• "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. . . Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

United Nations Declaration on Human Rights, Articles 2 and 3, 1948

The word "birth" here is inexplicably bolded (just as many other quotes have words bolded; is this some WQ policy I'm not familiar with?) and yet, the context of this quote doesn't seem to relate it unambiguously to abortions. Looking up birth in Wiktionary, there are three definitions of the word "birth." It seems to me that the third definition, "The circumstances of one's background, ancestry, or upbringing," is the one relevant here. While I do concede that it's possible to interpret "without distinction of... birth" as referring to fetuses, embryos and other unborn human babies, I think not addressing the ambiguity of the word's usage is POV. 85.250.79.91 14:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• It seems that all three definitions are legitimate. Its POV to assert otherwise.

Some Suggested Changes

Hi. I made a bunch of changes, and then it was suggested that people should get a chance to discuss those changes before they're implemented. So, I'd like to know if anyone has any objection to revising the page to this.

All of the changes are briefly described at the "history" page.

The changes include replacing dead links with live links, correcting misattributions, adopting a uniform treatment of people's titles (i.e. no titles before names), adopting a uniform treatment of dates (i.e. no dates in the form x/y/z), linking court cases, adopting uniform description of people who perform abortions (i.e. "abortion practitioner" instead of abortionist, abortion provider, abortion doctor, et cetera), providing more complete quotes instead of swiss cheese quotes (i.e. a quote with more than one ellipsis is suspicious), adding a few quotes, deleting parts of quotes that are not relevant, et cetera.

If no one has any objections, then I'll go ahead and revert. Even if some people have objections, would it be okay if we revert and then proceed with further discussion? I made so many edits that it will be difficult to revert to only some of them. Thanks.Ferrylodge 01:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I do object to removing accurate portions of quotes. Ellipses are not bad - especially when there are links for those who want to look at the full context. I also object to changing descriptions of abortion doctors - the law (and people in general) do make distinctions between doctors and others who do abortions. Also, various people quoted anonymously should not be lumped together under the author of the article. Please do not simply revert to your plethora of edits. Please re-do them taking into account the input of other editors. I have been actively editing this article for over a year and appreciate your consideration. Other than the objections I have noted, I am very supportive of your efforts to clean up the article. Thank you for your interest. 84.146.234.179 21:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, 84.146.234.179. I would be glad to try to oblige, but could you please be more specific? Surely you agree that even if a portion of a quote is accurate, it should also be relevant. Do you have a particular quotation in mind?

Also, I agree that ellipses are not bad, but if there are multiple ellipses in a single quotation, shouldn't that raise our eyebrows? Therefore, I replaced several ellipses with "accurate" material that had been deleted; can you please say if there is a particular quote that you think I treated badly?Ferrylodge 23:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Tori Amos.84.146.233.113 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Jack Hitt quotation, don't you think he provides valuable context for the people he quotes? I do. Moreover, if the anonymous people are to be quoted directly, then I would think the quotes would have to be moved down to "unattributed" quotes.Ferrylodge 23:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

These are sourced quotes attributed to anonymous people. THey are not quotes of Hitt.84.146.233.113 6 January 2007 (UTC)

And, finally, regarding "doctors" versus others who do abortions, I of course did not change "doctor" to anything else if it occurred in an actual quotation; I only did so in the Wikipedia description of the person in question. It still seems to me that "practitioner" is a safer term to use, because then we won't have to get into controversies about whether a "doctor" is board-certified or not, whether abortion is actually the practice of "medicine", and stuff like that. Does that make sense?Ferrylodge 23:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"Abortionist" would be the concise and all-encompassing term. But when they are doctors, that term should be used as their actions are viewed differently than those of non-doctors. You are creating a non-existent controversy - people with medical or osteopath degrees are commonly referred to as doctors. If you have some basis to doubt the qualifications of a doctor being quoted, then say so, but elimintating that helpful description is not encyclopedic. 84.146.233.113 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am agreeable if anyone wants to move the various people quoted anonymously (in the Jack Hitt quote) to separate entries in the "unattributed" section, although I prefer the single quote of Jack Hitt. And I agree that accurate and relevant portions of quotes should not be deleted, including material that has been put in place of ellipses.Ferrylodge 03:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful if comments here on the discussion page are added one after another, instead of being inserted in the middle of someone else's comment. This will help avoid confusion about who said what and when. Thanks.

Regarding the additional quotes recently added by user 84.146.233.113, I have no problem with them. However, I do think we need to start thinking about how to further divide this page for the convenience of readers. For examples, we could divide it into quotes of Americans versus non-Americans. Or, we could divide it into quotes of religious figures versus secular figures. Or, we could divide it into quotes prior to 1500 A.D. and quotes subsequent to 1500 A.D. In any event, I think some such division would be advisable.

As requested in this thread, I have tentatively restored the full Amos quote, as well as the various separate anonymous quotes form the Jack Hitt article. However, I would like further discussion about these two matters. I don't think that the first part of the Amos quote is sufficiently relevant; it shows that she's an anti-religious jerk, but that is not directly pertinent. Also, I think that keeping the Hitt quotes together in one quote allows us to include context that Hitt provided; otherwise, these quotes are unattributed and should go in the unattributed section, I think.

I have also reinserted the language that various people are "abortion doctors". I disagree with this as well; we should use the more neutral term "abortion practitioners." Abortion vilolates the Hippocratic Oath, so people who perform them do not necessarily qualify as "doctors". Also, I don't want to have to investigate all these people to find out if they are really board-certified or not.Ferrylodge 20:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetical is the most neutral way to divide things. Trying to divide things other ways will most certainly lead to POV editing wars. 84.146.215.12 22:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean that we should stop doing things alphabetically. For example, we could add a section titled "Older Quotes" and within that category list alphabetically quotes from before a certain date (e.g. 1500 A.D.). As people add more quotes to this page, it's going to get more unwieldy, and more difficult to read.Ferrylodge 23:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I've begun to get rid of internal Wikiquote links that go nowhere. I've replaced as many of them as possible with links to Wikipedia pages. It seems counterproductive to provide readers with a link for a particular person, if the reader won't find anything by clicking on that link. So far, I've done A-L, and will wait to see if anyone has objections before doing the same for M-Z.

Also, I notice that the quote for Bay Area Committee Against Operation Rescue has been re-expanded. My goal in taking out the first part was to make it more concise; it doesn't seem like the first part says much that the second part doesn't say. Anyway, I'll leave it as is, but I disagree, and hope that people will try to prevent this page from becoming uselessly long.

Incidentally, for people with a pro-life perspective, I would advise against including many overtly religious quotations on this page (like the ones recently added). The more this is made to seem like a religious issue, the more relevant the First Amendment becomes. Anyway, I view it primarily as a moral issue.Ferrylodge 00:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly your warning is unwarranted. Slavery activists (abolitionists acted on religious convictions), civil rights activists (Reverend King was acting on religious convictions), peace activists, anti-death-penalty activists, and advocates for those in poverty FREQUENTLY and often EXCLUSIVELY rely upon religious ideals as the basis for their activism to change public policy (government action and laws). Abortion is no different. Murder and perjury are condemned by the bible - but no one has ever suggested that criminalizing such immoral acts is a violation of the 1st Amendment. 84.146.227.125 16:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I was giving friendly advice, not warnings. And, from a practical point of view, the abortion issue differs from the other issues you mentioned in the sense that courts are presently on the verge of declaring abortion a religious issue and preventing governmental interference for that reason. Judge Michael McConnell of the Tenth Circuit has written an article making this argument (and he’s a potential Bush! appointee to the Supreme Court). See "Religious Freedom at a Crossroads," 59 U. Chi. L. Rev. 115 (1992). Many others have been making the argument that it is wrong to impose one's religious views about abortion on other people. I believe this argument is wrong, because abortion is also a moral issue. But the point is: no one was saying that MLK was trying to impose his religious views on anyone else. Pro-life people who try to turn this abortion issue into a religious issue are only shooting themselves in the foot, unfortunately.Ferrylodge 16:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverting New Quotes Without Good Links

When people insert new quotes, it would be much appreciated if they would not insert links (to the quoted people) that go nowhere. If there's a valid Wikipedia link, then that should be used. It is not my job to do other people's research, so I intend to revert new quotes that have links going nowhere. Recently, I accidently deleted several new quotes, and I apologize for not adequately explaining in the comments. I will make sure to explain better in the future. However, it is not fair for people to insert new quotes in poor format, and then leave it for other people to correct. Wikiquote links that go nowhere are annoying, they waste readers' time, and they steer people away from valid Wikipedia pages that readers would find enlightening. I am already spending a massive amount of my time fixing old quotes, and I will continue to revert new quotes that contain links going nowhere.Ferrylodge 15:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

When I get time I will work on removing bad links, but your attitude is most disturbing. You showed up to this page and began editing as if no one else had interest in the content except you. Please try to collaborate. Consdiring how difficult you have made it to track the changes you have been making, you don't have much capital to post as if you are annoyed with the behavior of others. 84.146.227.125 16:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking anyone to remove bad links. I've already done that for A-L and will soon do it for M-Z. All I am asking is that you please not insert NEW bad links. It is unreasonable for you to say that such a request is a refusal to collaborate. Thank you.Ferrylodge 16:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I simply re-inserted quotations you inadvertently deleted. I had to spend a lot of time doing that due to your error. I simply cut and pasted the things you had deleted - but it took a long time and was tedious. I understand your view on using the wikipedia link instead of the wikiquote link - its a good idea. But you are hardly in a position to insist that others edit in accord with your desires, given the sloppiness you have exhibited and the problems that caused. I expect that we can work fine together. I look forward to putting this little spat behindus. 84.146.227.125 16:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Last night, I finished cleaning up all of the quotes for A-L by eliminating bad links and inserting good Wikipedia links. It took hours. All I ask is that you not insert bad links.

Moreover, I did not inadvertently delete anything; I neglected to adequately explain, for which I have apologized. I have said that I will not object to your many new quotes (even though they are unwise), if you would omit useless links. I am as collaborative as you should expect a fellow editor to be.

Incidentally, a Wikiquote page is for quotes of "notable" people. If a quoted person has no Wikiquote page, and has no Wikipedia page, then that's a very good indicator that the person is not notable. This page is getting huge and cumbersome and useless, and so I suggest we delete all entries having quotes from sources that are not notable. I don't expect that 84.146.227.125 will agree to that, or will agree to making any of the quotes more concise, or will agree to stop adding dead links, or will agree to divide the page in any way, or will acknowledge that maybe inclusion of so many religious quotes is not helpful from a pro-life perspective.Ferrylodge 16:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I am all for removing quotations that do not pertain to abortion. I have also indicated that I support removal of dead links - and even volunteered to work on such edits. I do not support cherry-picking short quotes that support one side or the other in the debate when a speaker has also said things in the same speech or writing that makes their views seem extremist, suspect, less than credible, or simply ill-informed. I also don't support removing quotes because they express a religious viewpoint.

Finally, how odd that airhead and not-very widely known pop-singer Tori Amos' comments would be deemed as "notable" on this topic under your proposed criteria, but those of the US Catholic Bishop's Conference's chief pro-life spokesman, Helen Alvare, who alone likely did more to influence federal legislation and public policy than any other pro-life lobbyist or acitivst, would be considered as not notable because she is not listed in wiipedia or wikiquote. 84.146.227.125 19:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Amos quote should be deleted. It is not notable. The best test for notability[2] of a sentence is whether it has been quoted by others. The Amos quote appears in an interview, but hardly anyone has ever quoted those particular sentences. If no one objects, I will delete the Amos quote, which is not a notable quote. As for the Alvare quote, I'll leave it for now, until I've finished getting rid of all the dead links and replacing as many as possible with good links. Then we can decide whether to delete all quotes from people who don't have Wikipedia or Wikiquote pages. By the way, anyone can create a Wikipedia page for Helen Alvare if she merits it, but you'd still run into the problem that hardly anyone has ever quoted this quote.Ferrylodge 20:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that many quotes on this page are not notable. I tried to remove many long ago and got a lot of resistance. Good luck in that regard. What I predict will happen is that there will be an outcry if any pro-choice/pro-abortion quotes get removed but removal of pro-life quotes will be seen as good by the same people. My stance has always been to use the same standard for all quotes regardless of perspective. 84.146.227.125 21:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that stance. I'll finish getting rid of the dead links, and finish trying to find live links, and then we'll have a better idea which quotes to delete and which not to. I think we also need to go through all of the quotes, and insert links to where the quotes are quoted, so we'll be able to clearly see which quotes have never been quoted and which have been.Ferrylodge 21:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Plan to winnow out quotes

I've inserted a few sentences at the top of the article emphasizing that we're looking for notable quotes from notable speakers. I've investigated every speaker quoted, and installed a valid Wikiquote link (or failing that, a valid Wikipedia link) whenever possible, and deleted all the dead links for speakers.

I think we can all agree that the page is getting too long and unwieldy. Accordingly, here's my plan. There are somewhere between 45-50 speakers who don't have a valid Wikiquote or Wikipedia link. Although we all may have heard of one or more of these people, I think it's fair to consider them all to be "not notable" in the sense that they don't have valid Wiki links. I'm not suggesting that all of their quotes be deleted. Instead, I will investigate each quote on the internet to determine if it's been quoted elsewhere, and if not then I'll suggest deletion. Likewise, I will also investigate the fifteen longest quotes from notable speakers (i.e. speakers having valid Wikiquote or Wikipedia links), to determine if they've been quoted elsewhere, and if not then I'll suggest deletion.

If anyone objects to this plan, then please say so. This plan does not preclude further deletions later on if we all agree to them.Ferrylodge 03:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Your criteria are NOT the standard wikiquote criteria - you have invented these criteria. I strongly disagree that wikipedia or wikiquote links are proof of notability. In addition, every single quote HAS been found elsewhere - which means it has been quoted somewhere else for it to have been found and then posted at wikiquote. I do appreciate your attempts to improve this wikiquote page. But I do suggest you slow down and try not create new rules. 84.146.233.8 07:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going exceedingly slowly. I have not begun sifting through the quotes to winnow them out, because I wanted to first get feedback. Thank you for the feedback. However, you have not suggested any alternative way of proceeding.

A sentence buried in some longer work is NOT a quotation. A quotation involves selecting a portion of what a speaker says, and putting it in quote marks. If few people have selected a portion of a longer work to quote it, then I don't see what business we at Wikiquote have selecting a portion of a longer work, merely because WE think it's notable.

Please see this Wikiquote essay about notability. Do you agree with this essay? What do you think would be the best way to implement it? Do you think it's completely irrelevant to a speaker's notability whether that person has a Wikipedia or Wikiquote page? What other factors would you suggest?Ferrylodge 15:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

84.146.233.8, I have not made ANY edits here to conform the page with Wikiquote's notability requirements. I have not done so, because you have not yet agreed to discuss those requirements. How much more accomodating could I possibly be? I have waited and waited. And now I see that you have deleted my contribution to an essay on notability. You asserted that I merely wrote that material to justify edits. On the contrary, I have not used that material to justify any edits that I have made. I have been waiting patiently to discuss notability with you, and have NOT MADE ANY EDITS for notability. Additionally, I contributed to that notability essay based upon what I think is good notability policy.Ferrylodge 01:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

I agree that the following quote, though seemingly relevant, is actually not:

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. . . Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

In this context, "birth" meant "class" or "origin" or "parentage." Eleanor Roosevelt explained. See here.

However, I've just added the following quote which is very relevant: "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth." This is from the United Nations' DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD. For background about this provision, see here.

I see that someone has deleted the quote I added. The quote is relevant to abortion, and there was considerable debate about abortion when the Declaration was drafted. However, I will instead add an even less ambiguous quote instead:

"For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.… Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth"

See Convention on the Rights of the Child Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989.

Ferrylodge 08:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Alvares and Amos Quotes

The quotes from Alvares and Amos are very long, and I think they would be a good place to start thinking about how to make thisWikiquote page more concise and useful. Here's the Alvares quote:

"A description of the partial-birth abortion is the single greatest argument against its continued existence... When a practitioner uses sharp scissors to stab a hole in the skull of a baby and vacuum out its brain contents and calls it a medical procedure, words have indeed lost their meaning... With regard to infanticide, no one looking at this procedure could disagree; it is one-fifth abortion, four-fifths infanticide. It kills a child when 80 percent of his or her body is out of the womb... If partial-birth abortions remain legal, if Congress allows them to continue, what next? Killing a child who has emerged from the womb 3 or 4 more inches... Opponents of this bill keep asking whether it would be the first step in an effort to ban all abortions, but the real question is whether allowing this procedure is not a step toward legalized infanticide."

Helen Alvare, representing the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, testifying before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, U.S. House of Representatives, March 21, 1996 [2]

I suggest to delete the stuff in bold, for several reasons. Only the unbolded part of the quote has been quoted elsewhere. See here for where it has been quoted. In contrast, the first part of the bolded material is quoted nowhere. See here. Moreover, the bolded part about "one-fifth abortion, four-fifths infanticide" merely repeats another quote, of Cardinal Hickey, that is already listed at this Wikiquote page.

Regarding the Amos quote, I suggest to delete it. Here it is:

"Doing it with a priest never got me off, they wash it so often! But doing it with Jesus, now that is something else! Most Christian women would be trained to think that even this thought is blasphemous. . .That's how women are paralyzed, disconnected from the source of their own power, by religion. . .It has nothing to do with a core concept of Christianity. And it has nothing at all to do with the children, in the broadest sense. If it does why don't those people go down to the back-streets of Dublin where children really need their help. Or go down to Colombia where children live in sewers? There are millions of children who need help. So this is the greatest abuse of the words 'pro-life', they are not for life. This is about control of a woman's sexuality because they can't stand the idea that we are saying we are not just incubators anymore. And we're not even going to pretend that we are. We're not breeding farms."

Tori Amos, American singer-songwriter and musician, Hot Press magazine, Ireland, (1992)

This is quoted nowhere other than at Wikiquote, and at an interview with Amos. See here. Obviously, this is not a "notable" quote, if the only place it appears is amongst a lot of other stuff she said in an interview.

Does anyone object to these two edits? See here for a discussion about what "notability" means.

Ferrylodge 07:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Split out case law?

Given the length of this article, I'd like to split out a separate article featuring only quotes from abortion case law (e.g. Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Stenberg v. Carhart, Gonzales v. Carhart, etc.). I think this is a logical and neutral way to carve a piece out of this article, as there are numerous case law quotes on all sides of the issue. Does anyone oppose this idea? BD2412 T 23:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a very logical and neutral way to proceed. Please only move quotations from judges' opinions and leave the quotations from witnesses who testified where they are now. Good idea! —This unsigned comment is by 139.139.51.70 (talk • contribs) .

It is done. BD2412 T 22:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Doing this removes quotes from some of the most influential (arguably) sources from the main page! Not a good idea. 87.160.109.28

Judging by your recent reversion, you seem to misunderstand the purpose of Wikiquote. The purpose of Wikiquote is not to influence people one way or the other about any issue. The purpose of Wikiquote is to create an accurate and comprehensive collection of notable quotations. However, this does not require that all quotes relating to a given subject must appear on the same page, even where the size of that page will make it arduous for visitors with slow connections. To this end, I have split out the 1500-1900 quotes, and will look for additional neutral means to divide this entry into components of reasonable size. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Alas - noting the highly influential nature (or notability) of some ot the removed quotes is NOT a comment on the purpose of wikiquote. Why did you conclude otherwise? Anyway, the whole point is that there is not goign to be a good way to categorize these quotes that is without legitimate criticism or even controversy. Alpahbetically by source is the best way to proceed if the page is too big. That way the categories selected themselves won't become the issue. Cheers! 139.139.51.70

Another (neutral) split proposal

Splitting out case law quotes was a good step, I think, but the article is still enormous. How about splitting by date - since there are a number of 'ancient' quotes I would like to start by making a separate entry for all quotes prior to, perhaps 1500. Any thoughts on this? BD2412 T 06:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that's very logical, if it's not done soon, I'll try and find time to do it myself.

NerdExtrodinare 10:33, 15 may 2007

I just want to be sure anyone else who wants to weigh in has an opportunity first - give it a few more days. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've named the split out Abortion (pre-Reformation), as that seems less arbitrary than just "pre-1500". I would not object to a different date. Perhaps we should also split out entries from 1500-1900? BD2412 T 16:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Doing this removes quotes of some of the most influential (arguably) sources from the main page! It also serves to lessen the prominence of the ancient quotations from eminent ancient figures/sources that continue to lend support to those who oppose abortion on both secular and religious grounds. Seems to be an end-run way to claim "neutrality" with the obvious effect of removing such things as the ageless and highly influential and still-relevant Hippocratic oath (which outright forbids abortion) - not a good idea. Doing this also relegates to a status of "old out-dated religious zealot quotes" (which is precisely how many people will read the category "pre-Reformation") the amazingly strong and explicit condemnation of abortion contained in the ancient Christian Didache as well as the highly secular and even more ancient Hippocratic Oath. 87.160.109.28

We have to split the page up in some way, or it becomes simply unweildy - the suggested 32kb limit exists for a reason. If there is a modern formulation of the Hippocratic Oath that addresses abortion, then that should be included as a modern quote and attributed to whomever came up with that formulation (the original formulation being in Ancient Greek). That the character of ancient quotes tends to lean one way or another is irrelevent to the fact that a strict division by an arbitrary date is about as neutral as can be had. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that when I finish with this division project, there will be no "main page"; there will be a directory page linking to a collection of sub-pages, each of a reasonable size. Cheers! BD2412 T 01:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Alas - noting the highly influential nature (or notability) of some ot the removed quotes is NOT a comment on the purpose of wikiquote. Why did you conclude otherwise? Anyway, the whole point is that there is not goign to be a good way to categorize these quotes that is without legitimate criticism or even controversy. Alpahbetically by source is the best way to proceed if the page is too big. That way the categories selected themselves won't become the issue. You would probable achieve consensus easily with this sort of change. 139.139.51.70

Alphabetically by source: a wholly neutral split protocol

The main page could have an intro like this:

Abortion quotes are listed alphabetically by source.

• A-F
• G-M
• N-R
• S-Z

• I suppose that would work just as well - the article would have to be split in five, though to make the pages wieldy. Maybe into six, to account for inevitable future growth. As it is my impression (and you can check this for your own consideration) that the quotes from case law are fairly evenly split, I propose that this separation continue to be maintained as a separate article. Quotes from legal opinions are of something of a different character than advocacy quotes; they are efforts to explain what the law means rather than suggesting what it ought to be, in my estimation. Cheers! BD2412 T 16:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think case law should be distinguished from advocacy quotes. Many people believe that abortion case law includes decisions that said what the law ought to be instead of explaining what the existing law means.Ferrylodge 05:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Clean up

This page is full of many quotes which seem very obscure, not notable, and repetitive. I am going through this page and cleaning out quotes that are not notable and repetitive. There's stuff from obscure newsletters and random 20 year old local newspaper articles that doesn't seem relevant. Snow Leoppard 03:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The quote you removed in the "B" section might arguably be one off-topic as it deals with direct-action tactics rather than abortion — but the removals from the "A" section seem entirely a matter of particular opinions and viewpoints being reomoved. I personally am "pro-choice" in these matters, and MOST of my frustrations with people editing this page have been with the abundance of anti-abortion quotes added, but I have strong opposition to opposition viewpoints merely being censored or removed, no matter how unpleasant they might be. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 04:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not "repetitive" to have multiple distinct quotes from the same source. BD2412 T 04:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The focus of the person/people who put together these quotes seems to have been quantity over quality. Many of the quotes are from obscure or not notable sources. Susan B Anthony is notable. "Anonymous abortion doctor" quoted in a random local newspaper article from 1992 is not. Plus the same articles and books are being quoted multiple times. There's three anonymous quotes being drawn from the same article in one instance. This page would benefit from more variety in terms of the sources of quotes, or at least less repetition.

I found this page as one of the top hits for "abortion quotes" on Google and thought it was a classic example of quantity over quality. I thought I would clean it up. But if it's preferred as is, I guess I can't change that. Snow Leoppard 04:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This page was probably the single most contentious page on the site for many years. Things finally quieted down as what seemed be generally acceptable balances were reached and some of the more contentious organizational measures attempted were eliminated in favor of a simple alphabetical format. I do not actually want things to flare up again, and could agree that one of the removals you made was probably appropriate, and let that one stand, but the others seem primarily motivated by a will to "cleanse" the article of significant anti-abortion testimony. I certainly do NOT agree with the stances of many of those quoted nor of the people who added these quotes — but neither do I find censoring of them appropriate. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 05:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone could see some type of ulterior motive in my clean up effort when I didn't even get to the letter C. There were a lot of anonymous quotes alphabetically listed in the A section that were repetitive or not notable, so, yeah, I may have trimmed more there than I would have in later sections. Also I took out one law because it referred to the right to life, but not specifically abortion.

If what it took to reach a "truce" with this page was to allow the addition of lots of repetitive and not notable quotes, that was too high a price to pay. The main concern should be quality, I think. Right now I'm seeing lots of quantity but not much quality in the selection of quotes here. Snow Leoppard 05:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It was was long the practice to permit people to add material without too much of the formalized, habitual and often quite conceited criticism which I believe has become far too abundant and restrictive of actual participation in adding material here. I do not believe that there was ever any formal "truce" between any contending parties, on many major issues, nor do I expect that such are likely to be arrived at, but there were measures taken which minimized many conflicts. Everyone has their own assessment of "quality" which is one reason I have done little to add to the abundance of opinions of how one might formally "define" it — I much prefer to try to exhibit what I can of it in making my own selections and additions without to much regard to formalities, and prefer not to be as critical or exclusionary as some are inclined to be of what others add; even if I find little merit in some of it, and much which is distasteful, I do not normally object to many quotes that are sufficiently sourced, so long as they are plainly of some significance or pertinence to the pages they are posted to. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 06:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC) + tweaks

There needs to be some kind of review of the quotes on this page. Some of them don't seem notable enough to be included, some of them are kind of random or taken out of context, and some of them seem cherry picked. There's a lot of quotes here, but how many of them add value to this page? I see a lot of quotes that don't serve much purpose, which the page wouldn't be worse for lack of. But if other people see differently, I guess I can't change that. Snow Leoppard 07:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not see an answer in removing quotes that are verifiable and that meet our quotability guidelines. If there are quotes that are off topic, they should be moved to a better topic. If the page is too long because it covers too much ground, we can split out subtopics like Partial-birth abortion. BD2412 T 16:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of quotes that have me asking, "Why is this here?" Just because it's verified doesn't make it notable or quote worthy. If you're looking for quotability, many of these quotes aren't quotable. Someone liked them enough to add them, but is that a good enough reason for them to be on here? It seems there needs to be strongercriteria for what gets added here. Snow Leoppard 19:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Your comments provide an example of one reason I have seldom engaged in discussions of having a "standard" of "quotability" to promote or insist upon — people always have and always will find DIFFERENT things worthy of quotation. I am QUITE confident you genuinely would seldom, if ever, find the quotes you wished removed "quoteworthy" — and I am also quite confident that those with different agenda than yourself would never find many of those you would retain quoteworthy — most people are quite inclined to quote things which accord with such aims as they wish to promote, and quite prone to despise and reject any quotations that do not serve such purposes; and the most arrogant and zealous of people often wish to erase, eradicate and even punish and forbid any expression or indications which might provide significant expression of views or impressions different from their own or strongly opposed to their own. If there are any apparent imbalances on the page that is because some people on one side of the issue were more diligent than people on the other side in adding significant statements. That things have largely settled down I take as a sign that there are enough expressions on either side to satisfy most people who are inclined to examine the page. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 21:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Your ad hominems are completely uncalled for. I have valid concerns about the problems this page has, and that doesn't justify ad hominems. Snow Leoppard 00:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

OMFG. What a crap argument. You were CLEARLY removing remarks that were clearly ONLY anti-abortion in nature. I restored them, DESPITE being pro-choice myself. I get irritated when such FAIRNESS in allowing different views to be presented is ATTACKED by such shallow vapid excuses of bigotry. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 00:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I had just been working on the Dick Cavett page when I read the above nonsensical ad hominem attack upon my arguments by attacks upon me — and my response was immediately and sincerely brusque, because my statements were plainly NOT attacks upon a person, but simple assertions that people have different reasons for quoting different things, and the push to multiply defined "standards" is usually a subtle or obvious push for defined exclusions that are usually tailored to some particular people's tastes and affinities. Such is hardly a unique observation, or a personal attack. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 00:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC) + tweak

You're being very uncivil. There's no reason to resort to ad hominems or to assume bad faith like you are. I already said I removed quotes that seemed not notable, repetitive, or off topic. My criteria were that someone like Susan B Anthony is notable and "anonymous abortion doctor" quoted in a random 20 year old local newspaper article is not. If you have a reason why you think these quotes from what I see as very marginal sources are significant and should be here, then go ahead and explain. But ad hominems are not a valid argument, and hostility isn't going to solve anything. Snow Leoppard 01:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am being what many shallow people might consider being "uncivil" by making "rudely" passionate and sincere remarks in response to what I perceive to be rude behavior and crap arguments: Please recognize that the assertion that "There's no reason to resort to ad hominems or to assume bad faith like you are" is something I perceive applies to your arguments rather than mine. I called your arguments crap. I pointed out a few reasons WHY I believe them to be that — and you go about assuming that myself and other people are stupid enough to accept them being characterized as unacceptable "ad hominem" attacks if you simply CALL them that. I assert you might be a generally respectable person as MOST people are — but your activities thus far appear rather biased, as your agenda by all appearances is to remove quotes that are not beneficial to your own opinions. I repeat it once more: I am NOT attacking YOU, I am making observations and responding to your arguments. I certainly did NOT seek to post such quotes — someone else did, and I have been arguing for the right of people on the OTHER side of the issue than you or I seem to be to present such quotes as they believe interesting and pertinent. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC) + tweaks

I will assert that I can fully sympathize with your desire to remove some of these, because they are unpleasant observations — but because they were made by people you might wish to presume are "unnotable" they have been quoted by people who are notable in publications which are — whether or not they might be aligned with such positions as you or I might support or oppose. They had been accepted here in most cases for years, and I am not inclined to presume them unworthy of attention merely because they are emotionally strong assertions against such positions as I myself personally have. I am perhaps more irritated than normal because my defense of quotes in support of positions I actually oppose ae being considered inappropriate by someone I honestly perceived to have a definite agenda because of the character of the quotes being removed. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

When someone says, "I don't think these quotes are notable enough to be here," and you accuse them of something completely contrary, that's assuming bad faith. I've questioned people's arguments for wanting to keep quotes I see as not notable, but I haven't assumed they're motivated by some hidden agenda. When you call someone "arrogant," "zealous", "shallow," "vapid," "bigotted," that's ad hominem. It's not addressing the substance of the concerns, it's just making ad hominems against the one raising them. It's impossible to have a reasonable dialogue about the problems with this page in such an atmosphere of hostility. Goodbye. Snow Leoppard 01:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I recognized that some of my rhetoric was harsh and somewhat excessive, but the problems on this page are such as I have been irritated with for years, and I believe the current situation is about as good a compromise as can be managed because of the strong passions and beliefs of people on opposing sides of the social and political debates regarding the subject, and I do not generally welcome removal of long-standing material, even if it is such as I personally would never have sought to add. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 02:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Another modest split proposal

Since this has grown to be one of our larger pages, I propose that we break out any identifiable distinct subsets of quotes addressing specific kinds of abortions, apart from generic comments relating to all abortions irrespective of kind. BD2412 T 16:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I really think that would make things even less manageable, and create more pages for zealots on either side of the issue to dispute over. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 17:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think breaking them out by type of procedure would be a mostly arbitrary fragmentation of the issue. Like Kalki, I think the forks would only cause problems with the article to proliferate. I can envision such sub-topics being even worse from an NPOV perspective.

However, there may be other ways to break up this overly large page. E.g., quotes that are from or specifically about jurisprudence in Roe v. Wade and other court cases might be moved to the Abortion case law article, or quotes that predate the modern era might be moved to Abortion (pre-Reformation) and Abortion (1500-1900). However, neither of these examples would have a huge impact on article length. ~ Ningauble 19:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have followed this page for years. It contains interesting quotes from people of various viewpoints. My students find that the most interesting and noteworthy quotes are the candid and unexpected comments from people who support abortion. My students have never complained that the page is too long. 74.5.191.140 22:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Quote about Operation Rescue

I have just removed a quote which you [74.5.191.140] had restored to the page after I had declined to do so in restoring much more extensive removals — I can actually see that this quote was NOT about abortion in any way: but merely about the dubious tactics of a few people involved in the direct action of civil protests:

We do not call police ourselves during a hit. Our best work is done before police arrive, or when there are not enough police there to prevent us from doing what we have to do. Get in place before cops can mess with it; establish balance of power early, do key acts requiring physical contact with OR [Operation Rescue] as much as possible before cops have enough people to intervene. Even if the sidewalk is 'public,' we've had success at putting enough of us out, early enough, to basically bully the ORs into staying across the street...Chivalry is not dead with these [Operation Rescue] people (just convoluted), and that means they have an inordinate sense of modesty and 'honor' about being accused of touching women. There are innumerable instances of clinic defenders neutralizing male ORs by shouting 'get your hands off me, don't you dare touch me' all the while they are tugging or pushing OR out of the line.

• Bay Area Committee Against Operation Rescue (later renamed Bay Area Coalition on Reproductive Rights), "Clinic Defense: A Model" (1990). The probable author of this manual at BACAOR was Alison Gude.[3]

Though I restored others of dubious noteworthiness to others, I believe this should remain removed, for though the quote might be relevant to some discussions about the conflicts between anti-choice/pro-choice and anti-abortion/pro-abortion factions, it actually is a quote about strategies of conflict, and various legal or social ruses by people of shallow perception on either side of the issue, and not a quote directly on the article's actual topic of Abortion. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 22:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC) + tweaks

I see what you mean, but I think there is more for you to consider. The BACAOR people and the OR people were activists concerning one thing: abortion. Thus a quote from either group would be pertinent to the general topic "abortion" (barring some other rule here of which I am not aware). What is that rule? This particular manual language is very notable in that it was quoted on the floor of Congress during debate about the FACE act, and act designed to protect access to abortion. I don't the rationale you offered for excluding it withstands this additional information. My students found this particular quote to be compelling enough to actually research the FACE Act debate in more detail and discuss the impact of the act itself on abortion as a phenomenon in the USA. 74.5.191.140 23:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I see you restored the quote and I am again removing it, because I believe the objections to it's pertinence still remain valid. You state in your edit summary "restored quotation that pertains to abortion activism" but actually the quote itself realy doesn't pertain well even to "abortion activism" — it pertains to the attitudes of one particular activist about strategies of promoting particular views by means with dubious ethical integrity. You obviously seem to think this is a significant means to generalize such behavior to all who are on that side of the issue, but I do not accept such argument as actually valid, thus I maintain objections to the inclusion of it here. I am sure you can direct your students to this page if you wish to emphasize how deceitful and manipulative people on one side of an issue can be in promoting their views and ignoring or villifying the actions and motivations of others, duping them with appeals to their sense of chivalry and with shallow or even spurious arguments. Of course such behavior is far more common among many people than many often wish to acknowledge. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC) + tweaks

What I think is the quote is interesting to my students as they study the FACE Act. Other than that, your guessing of what I think is not beneficial to the content of this page. Quotations are, by definition, snippets from one person (or source) extracted from the context in which they were delivered or appear. I don't think we can argue that wikiquote should not contain quotations that might be open to incorrect interpretations or misleading conclusions. If that were the case, there could be no wikiquote. What am I missing? Why not go to the BACOAR website (or other pro-choice advocacy groups) and find quotations that you think will assist people to understand the situation properly if you think the quote might lead someone to misunderstand things? That way the readers can make up their own mind about these quotations and those who uttered them. What would your objection be to that? As it stands, a quotation cannot be excluded because of its content. In this case, the quotation regards abortion-related activism outside of abortion clinics. There is no separate category in wikiquote for such quotations, and none seems necessary or helpful since there has only ever been one quotation added to wikiquote that touches on the topic. Until such time as there are enough on the main abortion page to justify creating a new page, there is no wikipedia rule that justifies your exclusion of the quotation that you removed. At least that seems to be the situation objectively speaking. Do you understand how I reached that conclusion? I have added a quote from BACOR's about page and have also restored the quote because there is no basis to remove it under wikiquote standards. 74.5.191.140 22:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kalki. Quotes must relate quite directly to the subject of the article, or else they are out of place. The proposition that "a quotation cannot be excluded because of its content" is absurd. If that were the case, the entire Shakespeare lexicon could be added to this page with no basis for removing it. Techniques that a protester might use in protesting an issue are tertiary to the issue being protested. However, it is quite right to suggest that this quote may merit inclusion in an appropriate Wikiquote page. Such a page remains to be created, but the barrier to achieving that is very low. BD2412 T 00:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I had begun a somewhat harsher response, but am too busy with too many things to wish to get too involved with this issue and a few others at the present time. I will simply once again assert that the quote doesn't belong on this paricular page, and the additional quote through the mentioning a specific group is a rather strained attempt to shoehorn the other quote into this page, and for the most part seems a rather pointless statement on its own, and similarly related more to the success status of a specific group than the issue of abortion. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 01:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that the quote does not belong on this page but may be appropriate for another page. ~ Ningauble 18:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)