Talk:Abortion in Wyoming

Abortion and Terminology section
What is the point of these sections given that they are not specific to Abortion in Wyoming? They should be removed. 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:4875:D011:ADFF:57B2 (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree; someone long ago decided to copy-paste some boilerplate explanations that are really superfluous but now they intrude on every single abortion-related article for all 50 states. I support blowing this away and distilling each and every article in this topic down to its essentials so that the real issues can be adequately treated without cluttering or pushing a semantic agenda. Elizium23 (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether that text belongs here, but there should be a discussion rather than a blanking. A number of these pages have had text removed. SYNTH is not the reason why to remove the text as it doesn't appear to be SYNTH. Andre🚐 00:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The topic of this article is the intersection of "Abortion" (laws, practice, politics, medicine) and "Wyoming" state jurisdiction, so if it does not directly address both of those it is WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE and cannot be retained in the article, lest all 50+ of these become a WP:COATRACK for semantic agendas. Elizium23 (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure what you mean about semantic agendas. The text in question has been there for 2 or more years. It's not SYNTH, it might not be necessary but your rationale isn't tracking for me. Andre🚐 00:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , I believe that 's argument is that content and sources need to be explicitly related to the topic (Abortion and Wyoming), editors taking material unrelated to the specific topic and coming to their own conclusion that it is relevant are engaging in OR/SYNTH. Elizium23 also cites WP:UNDUE, which I find more convincing. The content of an article should reflect the degree of coverage that sources dedicate to each sub-topic. If there are no sources on Abortion in Wyoming that relate the naming issue or the mentioned healthcare research to Abortion in Wyoming, these sections are WP:UNDUE and should be omitted. 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:30D4:F95D:2279:4AB3 (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I mean, at that point, why not propose the article just be deleted? "Abortion in Wyoming" is an article but maybe there isn't anything about abortion in Wyoming in particular. However, at least, this user should propose this change and gain a consensus for that. I don't see one here. Andre🚐 22:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's absurd. There are several sections with relevant information specific to Wyoming in this article. And there are several sections with nebulous information whose sources are not connected to Wyoming at all. Can you see the difference? Elizium23 (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Which user should propose what change and gain consensus for it? 2A01:4B00:9D42:6E00:4546:1FFB:D0EE:B610 (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * == Abortion in Texas has an RFC==

Abortion in Texas has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

"Abortion rights and anti-abortion views and activities" - Neutrality & balancing aspects
This section should be expanded to better incorporate WP:BALASP. Research shows Abortion in Wyoming is generally unpopular but the article doesn't balance these opinions. Jschng (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * That's not what the enclosed link says. It says 48%-49% and 3% don't know in 2014. With a sample size of 316. That means to me "views are split" and not "generally unpopular." Andre🚐 21:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)