Talk:Reproductive rights/Archive 1

Loaded terms
I don't agree with the JamesMLane edit adding a Pro-Life reference. I understand the intent to balance the loaded terms of each side, but "pro-life" corresponds to "pro-choice", not "reproductive rights". Can a better counterpart be found? If not, is it really needed? I know "framing" might itself be read as a loaded term, but it's also accurate for this and other labels (on both sides). -- Perey 23:14, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * On what basis do you say that "pro-life" corresponds to "pro-choice", not "reproductive rights"? All three are terms that people prefer to use to describe their own positions.  Of course "pro-life" is framing.  Is it accurate?  Well, I'd answer that we have a supposedly "pro-life" president who's caused the deaths of 100,000 people in Iraq.  It's not going to work to say that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are both fair, impartial, descriptive terms, while "reproductive rights" is some kind of Orwellian doublespeak.  All these terms are in the same class. JamesMLane 23:23, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course they are. I'm not disputing that they're all loaded terms. But as it stands, the sentence you added implies that "pro-life" and "reproductive rights" are opposing arguments ("the other side of the controversy"). They aren't - "pro-choice" is the opposite of "pro-life" (because they both specifically address abortion), while "reproductive rights" is broader, encompassing other reproductive choices. If a better example can't be found (and I don't think there is one), perhaps we could just state that both sides use political framing, and link to relevant articles rather than adding examples here? -- Perey 02:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe the problem is with the phrase "especially in regards to abortion". Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the argument referred to is only with regard to abortion?  I don't know if even the most vehement right-wingers say that birth control and family planning amount to "a right to kill the innocent".  They may oppose such rights as encouraging immoral behavior or some such, but they don't use the same terminology as they do about abortion.  Maybe the second paragraph should begin this way:
 * Some supporters of legal prohibitions against abortion oppose the use of the term "reproductive rights" in that context, because they see it as amounting to a "right to kill the innocent". They also argue that such rights...." (etc.)
 * Then, in the last sentence, insert "abortion" before "controversy". Those changes, together, would make clear that, as you say, "reproductive rights" is broader.  I've also amplified that point by adding in the opposition to compulsory sterilization, which is one of the causes championed by the Center for Reproductive Rights .  Would those changes address your concern? JamesMLane 02:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * That works for me. It highlights the need for further discussion of other "reproductive rights" though&mdash;if I didn't know better I'd say we're on the way to unstubbing this! -- Perey 12:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Stevertigo's additions, my revisions
I've edited the article heavily, simply because it's not appropriate for the article to take a position on whether or not fetuses count as "living" (e.g, "a society granting legal sanction to women to abort a living pregnancy"). NARAL would say that they are not; James Dobson would say that they are. It's not for us to take a side here (see WP:NPOV). In light of this, I've made the following changes:
 * remove the second sentence of the lead. I integrated the first half of the sentence (controversial) into the lead, and dropped the rest for NPOV
 * removed scare quotes from around "rights" in the first sentence, second paragraph--since we're describing the framing of the issue here, the scare quotes weren't appropriate
 * removed "and liberal feminism"--feminism is broader than this, so I felt it wasn't really accurate, but I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of rephrasing.
 * Removed the entire first paragraph of the "social Rights versus human rights" section. It takes a position in the very first sentence ("perhaps best represented as choice between the human rights of women versus the human rights of fetal or "unborn" human beings"), and goes downhill from there--it completely ignores the significant point-of-view that argues that fetuses have no rights.
 * Remove the second paragraph of the same section. It too takes a position--note how it sets up the claim that RR are human rights, and then knocks it down ("Hence, in any heirarchy of legal principles, if "reproductive rights" are recongnized in the society, they must be subordinate to more universal rights such as human rights"). Again, this takes sides in a POV dispute over whether reproductive rights are human rights or not.
 * made a few adjustments to avoid the dispute over "human vs. social" rights in the next paragraphs--I tried to stick to the facts of the dispute.
 * Remove the paragraph about Roe v. Wade--it was too U.S.-centric and also digressed into non-reproductive rights areas (right to die etc)
 * Removed the paragraph about pro-life views on the right to privacy, and merged some of it into the preceding paragraph. It rests too heavily on the "social vs. human" frame for this section, which I've been trying to expunge. Mentioned that pro-life people seek to define fetuses as people, while pro-choice people oppose this--that's a good enough answer to the debate.
 * Remove the last paragraph--takes a POV ("both present moral contradictions"). Again, these may or may not be moral contradictions, but it's not the place of the article to determine that.
 * Removed "arbitrary" from discussion of trimesters; see trimester, which claims they're not completely arbitrary
 * Rearranged paragraph about middle grounds, and noted controversies over other issues

In addition, I think this article needs to cover more ground. The current section (renamed "fetal personhood") is OK, but needs to be a sub-section of a larger discussion. Specifically, we need:
 * A history section (when did the idea of RR evolve, etc)
 * A discussion of contraception, including history and current stances
 * A brief history of the abortion controversy as it relates to RR

Hope this helps. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 14:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Response
Thank you for looking at it, and taking such care and attention towards it. While I disagree with your characterization of the fetus as of questionable living status, I'm enthusastic about reviewing your changes and comments. Legal questionability doesnt equal factual, moral/ethical, social, or cultural doubt --likewise few would disagree that a "fetus" at 8.9 months [or perhaps even 4.9 months] is not, legalese aside, a "baby." Sireg-St|eve 19:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * After a quick look, I generally agree with the removal of the Social rights/ universal heirarchy/ preemption of rights etc. language, as it was mostly off topic, and my written scaffolding for thinking through how to write toward the topical issue. Maybe some of it will fit in some other more conceptual article. Sinreg -St|eve 19:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Disagree with the removal of feminism, though I understand any confusion. Women's rights for the most part is embodied in the term "feminism" and is the category into which reproductive rights fits: Human rights > Female rights (feminism) > reproductive rights. While contraception can be considered a female right, it cannot be said that females have the right to kill anyone, and any exception for "fetuses" can (without being POV) be said to be among the social and legal exceptions to "dont kill people" principle. Embryos--i.e. different stages of pregnancy--have different distinct political constituents (POVs needing representation), while the absolutes (the most prominent) represent only either "yes" all or "no" all views. But its understandable that PC advocates want to avoid this distinction, and IMHO any resulting confusion is largely deliberate. -St|eve 20:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If I might clarify--my problem was with the phrasing that RR is "largely synonymous with liberal feminism", when it's properly classified as a subset of the larger entity. Didn't mean to suggest that the two weren't linked. Might this help a proposed rephrasing? Best, Meelar (talk) 20:25, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

New Information
by apartmento I'm considering adding paragraphs discussing the reasons that the pro-life and pro-choice people have for their oppinions. I want to say that: http://www.family.org.au

Prolife
 * -these babies are human, look human, suffer pain and the killing of them can be concidered infantcide
 * -late term abortions (after 20 weeks)are quite often survive when the are out of the womb
 * - it is sickening

Pro-Choice
 * -a woman has the right to her body
 * -the elimination of abortion will lead to dangerous backyard operation that are quite oftenly deadly for both the baby and the mother
 * -The baby if born might be put into an unloving, uncaring family

I'm not really good with words so may someone please put this into the article.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.41.31 (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Women only?
Okay, so generally the term 'reproductive rights' does mean 'women's reproductive rights'. But since Stevertigo's edits, the article supports this de facto definition with logical argument, claiming that 'reproductive rights' is a term exclusive to women by logical necessity. I'd dispute this&mdash;women are not the exclusive 'vessels of human reproduction', and the first paragraph still has the example of forced sterilization, which can be forced on men as much as women. -- Perey 08:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

here are some links which might be worth adding if you care about it.

forced sterilization?
How is forced sterilization a component of reproductive rights? I would think anything forced is the exact opposite of rights.
 * Reproductive rights entails rights to procreate or not. Forced sterilization takes away the right to procreate—which is a reproductive right. —GrantNeufeld 06:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Unclear sentences
I find the sentence regarding the pro-life position unclear, and also unnecessary. It says:

Many "pro-life" advocates claim that the term is simply mincing words—claiming there to be no practical (hence meaningful) difference between the two statements.

Since the previous sentences state that the terms reproductive rights and pro-choice reference pretty much the same position, is it really important for this sentence that says, basically, that they are the same thing? It is redundant as well as misleading; the sentence is framed in such a way as to imply disagreement, where in fact there is no disagreement.

Furthermore, the next sentence,

However, supporters of reproductive rights may consider it misleading to say, in the context of reproduction politics, that a political figure “supports abortion”, when instead that person may simply support a woman's right to choose abortion among other alternatives.

seems out of place; if this is to be included in the article it should have a bit of explanation/background information.

I am inclined to take these two sentences out, but since they constitute a large part of the article, I thought it better to see if there is any opposition before doing so. Please let me know what you all think about this. Thanks, rom a rin [talk to her ] 19:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As there were no comments, I've gone ahead and made these two changes. Please let me know, anyone, if you disagree or have any other suggestions. Thanks! rom a rin[[image:Rosemary white bg.jpg|15 px]] [talk to her ] 23:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

International reproductive rights
This article has a strong US bias information-wise (even more so since I added a bit of info on US supreme court cases), and I think that we should add more about reproductive rights in other countries. Can those of you who live in (or know a lot about repro rights in) other countries add a section? Then maybe this article can be taken out of the stub category... rom a rin [talk to her ] 20:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge?
Recently, an anonymous user added a tag suggesting merging Pro-choice into this article. Although it's true that reproductive rights advocacy usually goes along with the "pro-choice" position, they are two different things and should have their own articles. There has been very little activity here lately, so I'm inclined to just remove the tag myself, but I will leave it for a couple days in case there is any discussion. rom a rin [talk to her ] 23:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, am I the only one here? And I haven't even checked in for a week or so... ok, well I'm removing the merge tag, as it seems to make little sense. rom a rin[[image:Rosemary white bg.jpg|15 px]] [talk to her ] 14:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree that they shouldn't be merged. --Andrew c 04:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally I think that the applier of a merge tag has to justify its existence, and since that editor didn't do so at the time s/he added it, nor has s/he seen fit to defend it since it was questioned back in May, it is acceptable to just remove it.--Anchoress 02:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Compromise?
I believe the way it was worded before was unclear, and not really reflective of the "Pro-Choice" position, particularly as it is contrasted with the "Pro-Life" position. The way it was worded, that a woman should be able to decide "if and when she reproduces" doesn't really say much, as I'm sure those who are "anti-choice" would have no argument with people deciding when and if they should reproduce. The question hinges upon whether reproduction occurs at conception or birth, and if abortion is acceptable.

You said the Pro-Choice position isn't just about abortion, and in a sense, you are correct. But the very next line in the paragraph says that, "Reproductive rights are understood as encompassing more than just abortion, however." Therefore, my interpretation seems clearly the right one. The wording you were trying to preserve was POV, non-descriptive, and euphemistic. It sounded like a talking point and didn't really address the real distinctions between the overall concepts of Reproductive rights and Pro-Choice. Therefore, I have attempted a compromise.Killua 15:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see what was unclear about the sentence as it was before, and it was prefectly representative of the pro-choice position, as I understand it. "Pro-choice" means the belief that women are in control of their reproduction, and "reproductive rights" refers to the view that women have the right to do so. This means choosing birth control, it means choosing abortion, it means choosing to give birth. All of these things are encompassed under reproductive rights, and that is why I think your alteration of the sentence is incorrect and POV.


 * As to your assertion that the pro-life position "would have no argument with people deciding when and if they should reproduce," this is not true. The pro-life position regarding abortion is that women should not be able to choose this option. Many pro-life organizations are also against contraception. The only correct way to go, according to most pro-lifers, is to have the baby. The phrase "if and when she reproduces" is really only applicable to the pro-choice position, for, as its name implies, it advocates that women have that choice in all circumstances.


 * The statement, "The only correct way to go, according to most pro-lifers, is to have the baby." is one of the bases of your reverting me, and it's a flaw. You're forgetting perhaps the most essential part about reproductive rights--that people have a choice as to whether they get pregnant in the first place. Sure, most Pro-Lifers don't believe in birth control like the pill or IUDs, but they might believe in condoms, sterilization, NFP, etc. Heck, even abstinence is a form of "control[ing] her reproduction by deciding if and when she bears children", is it not? Killua 19:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How are the words I am trying to preserve POV now? They are open, yes, non-specific, yes, but not euphemistic .They say it like it is. This is the definition, that's all there is to it. If you think it's vague, then you need to understand that reproductive rights are themselves fairly vague.


 * The way it's phrased makes being both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice a possibility, which is ludicrous. This is accomplished by fuzzy wording, and I can state somewhat authoritatively, having studied both sides extensively, that the language is very NPOV-- it sounds like it's rhetoric right out of a PP brochure. People who are Pro-Life do not believe women have no choices at all regarding reproductive rights, just as people who are Pro-Choice don't believe nobody has a right to life. This is called framing the issue.Killua 19:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As to the following sentence, I think it should be modified as well, as it is slightly redundant. But, I think it is very important to preserve, not necessarily the exact word-for-word phrase, but the meaning of the term as rights about reproduction, whatever they are. rom a rin [talk ] 17:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with your logic, and the underlying problem with the sentence, is the assumption that people who are "Pro-Life" oppose all human control of human reproduction. There are certainly people who believe women "should have the right control her reproduction by deciding if and when she bears children" but don't think abortion should be an option.


 * To illustrate a parallel situation, it would be like a person saying that Pro-Lifers just believe that human beings have a right to life. This is unclear, and engineered to cause people to agree and side with them. The real issue isn't the right to life of human beings, which is a general statement and readily agreed to, but the right to life of unborn human beings, which is more disputed. The way the sentence is phrased in this article sounds like if you are not Pro-Choice, you believe in forced pregnancy or sterilization. That's why it's NPOV. Reproductive rights are larger than Pro-Choice  position-- and you are erasing that distinction. RR can run to gambit from opposition to rape, forced sterilization, forced pregnancy, forced abortion, to support for certain types of pregnancy planning tools, ranging from the rhythym method, NFP, condoms, IUDs, the pill, mifepristone, and abortion. RR and pro-choice are not the same thing. I prefer specificity. Killua 19:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Reproductive rights” is largely perceived as being synonymous with the “pro-choice” position, which states that abortion should be a legal option for any woman with a pregnancy.
 * If you disagree with the first part of this sentence, maybe that is the part you should be changing. Reproductive rights are not the same thing as pro-choice, and I never said they were, though there are many connections, as the text implies. The pro-choice position is about granting women a full-spectrum of reproductive rights, and that does not only mean the right to abortion. The way you have framed this now makes it sound like that's all it's about, and that is just not the case.


 * You say, "The way it's phrased makes being both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice a possibility, which is ludicrous". No it's not, there are plenty of people who identify somewhere in the middle. Although this issue is often quite poliarized, it is complex and all points along the spectrum are possible, when it comes to self-identification. I do no believe that I said anything to the effect of pro-lifers being against all reproductive options; I only said that most of them are against contraception (many include condoms in that too), and that they see having a baby as the best answer to an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy. How is this inaccurate?


 * I think where we are having a disconnect revolves around the fact that you see my definition of pro-choice as trying to completely exclude pro-life, which is not necessarily the case. There are issues comprised in reproductive rights that both sides can agree on, such as "natural" birth control options, and this can certainly be added into the article. Reproductive rights is not exclusive to the pro-choice position. I think we agree on that; we're just going about showing it in different ways. Again, maybe it's the first part of the sentence that needs to be changed, rather than the second part. I just don't think there is any reason to give an incomplete portrait of the pro-choice movement; this is, in fact, making the sentence doubly inaccuate, rather than removing the root of the inaccuracy.


 * I really don't feel like getting into an edit war with you on this, and I think we should hold off until others can come and take a look at the situation. I am also about to leave for a long Wikibreak, due to real-life vacation. I have a big problem with the sentence as it stands now, for the reasons I have mentioned, but for the sake of peace I am going to leave it. If you understand the concepts I am trying to convey here, and feel like actually compromising I would be more than willing to do so. But what I really think we need at this point is some other opinions. Thanks, rom a rin [talk ] 20:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I thank you for your civility in this. I, too, do not wish an edit war. And have a great vacation. ^_^ But, in the meantime, as I see you've asked for others to come in from the Abortion Project page, I want to state my case a little clearly. The paragraph as I would have it is thus:
 * ''"Reproductive rights” is largely perceived as being synonymous with the “pro-choice” position, which states that abortion should be a legal option for any woman with a pregnancy. Reproductive rights are understood as encompassing more than just abortion, however. Members of the reproductive rights movement also believe that reproductive rights are human rights, and as such men and women should be granted affordable access to contraception, as well as education about contraception and sexually transmitted infections."


 * Yours is thus:
 * ""Reproductive rights” is largely perceived as being synonymous with the “pro-choice” position, which states that a woman should have the right control her reproduction by deciding if and when she bears children. Members of the reproductive rights movement also believe that reproductive rights are human rights, and as such men and women should be granted affordable access to contraception, as well as education about contraception and sexually transmitted infections."


 * I believe there is a distinction between the terms "pro-choice" and "reproductive rights", as do you. I believe your paragraph erases this distinction, or at least makes it very minimal. I am aware the pro-choice movement involves more than abortion. But currently, politically and legally, it is almost 99% concerned with what a woman's choices are after pregnancy has begun. Now, the RR movement is maybe 90% concerned with the same. Not a big difference, and that's why the sentence said they were seen sometimes as being "synonymous". However, there are differences, and my version lays out these contrasts ina simple manner. I believe your version does not, and, moreover, the phrase "right [to] control her reproduction by deciding if and when she bears children" is not very well written, and sounds a bit POV to my ears.Killua 03:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the problem. We can all agree that "Pro-choice" means more than "pro-abortion". And we can all agree that "reproductive rights" means more than "pro-abortion". The wording that Killua is pushing acknowledges that the public sometimes confuses the difference between pro-choice and reproductive rights, but ignores the fact that there is a misconception about what "pro-choice" is. Romarin's version acknowledges the subtle differences in the actual meaning behind these terms, but at the expensive of loosing the public misconception about these terms. While the first solution that came to mind for me was something like "Reproductive rights is largely perceived as being synonymous with the “pro-choice” position, which in turn is often incorrectly perceived by the public to be synonymous with 'abortion should be a legal option for any woman with a pregnancy.'" But as you can see, this sentence is very wordy. Anyway, I think a solution that points out both the commonly perceived definitions and the more 'accurate' definitions of these terms would work.--Andrew c 21:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

abortion as a reproductive right
There has been some slow edit warring over including what appears to be a semantic argument. First of all, this sort of disputed content needs to be verifiable, and cited per wikipedia policy. Next, we have to keep in mind self-identity. The vast majority of advocates for so-called 'reproductive rights' include abortion in their stance. We cannot say that this is controversial, when that simply isn't the case for most reproductive rights organizations. (google 'reproductive rights' and browse the organizations that come up). I'd like to see sources that discuss this alleged controversy, and it would be nice to know what reproductive rights organizations exclude abortion from their veiw. If this information cannot be verified, then it has no place in the article. (sorry if my tone is a little harsh. I seriously would like to work this out on talk, and avoid further reverting before this matter is settled here).--Andrew c 06:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's debateable whether reproduction occurs at conception, birth, or sometime after. The fact that pregnancies can be miscarried naturally, and that mammals are programmed to care for their children long after pregnancy, suggests to me that reproduction, in its strictly textbook definition, is largely dependent upon successfully producing offspring.
 * But, whatever the case, there is a solution. The issue can be sidestepped by changing "rights not to reproduce" to "rights to not reproduce or to control reproduction." After all, birth control is not only used when people desire not to have children altogether; it is also used to plan families, by limiting the number of children, or spacing them in age. Because many people who use contraception have, or go on to have, children, it is inaccurate to list it as being about a "right not to reproduce."
 * "Rights to not reproduce or to control reproduction" is open-ended. It leaves wiggle room for the perception that abortion is about "the right terminate a pregnancy after reproduction has taken place," but doesn't conclusively state conception=reproduction. I believe it is a suitable solution to both Andrew c's and Jakes18's concerns. -Severa (!!!) 18:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not only does the word "reproduce" have different meanings, there is debate over when reproduction actually occurs. People who use the term "reproductive rights" obviously consider abortion to be included in those rights. Opponents play semantic games, which is noted in the criticism section. I think including that section is a good solution to this problem that has arisen. This article is about reproductive rights, which included abortion rights. Even if this is technically inaccurate, wikipedia is about verifiablity, not truth. We shouldn't frame a position through its critics. We should respect self identity. Furthermore, I believe the way we have it phrased now, it is clear that this is what reproductive rights advocates support, not some greater truth about human rights in general. --Andrew c 13:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to MrDarcy's Reverts
I added some text to the Reproductive Rights article to correct the bias already present in the article. The article only referred to Reproductive Rights as a "Women's Rights Issue", and ignored any reproductive rights issues relevant to Men's Rights. As the NPOV page states articles must be "representing fairly and without bias all significant views ". I quoted the position of an external verifiable source Choice4Men. Whether or not you agree with the Choice4Men position it is a 'significant view'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Afp2258 (talk • contribs).


 * First of all, please sign your talk page postings by typing four tildes ( ~ ). Next, we have notability guidelines, reliable source guidelines, and an undue weight section of the NPOV guidelines. You did not explain why you believe this view is significant, you simply stated it so. Please try to explain its significance, while keeping in mind the 3 pages I referred to. Thanks!-Andrew c 19:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for expansion
Per international aspects of reproductive rights:
 * Some reference to the Mexico City policy
 * The international effects of the MCP - the Guttmacher Institute has some useful info to that end.
 * International response to the MCP
 * Beijing Conference on Women http://www.reproductiverights.org/ww_adv_beijing.html
 * Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN, based in Nigeria, http://dawnnet.org but I think I have a good article for them)

In a slightly different direction, this article has some decent legal content relating to the US but little critical (as in academic and cultural discourse) content. Some nice additions might include Any thoughts? Phyesalis 08:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * reproductive rights as they relate to general health
 * reproductive rights and feminism, Anne Fausto-Sterling and Angela Y. Davis come to mind
 * particular aspects of rr, like the critical discussions of fetal rights v. women's rights as well the dangers of fetal rights - the notion of the public fetus and the objectified mother. Anne Balsamo is a great source for that particular discourse.
 * I've taken the liberty of doing some serious editing, including adding res and removing the ref tag, since the Supreme Court decisions don't need additional citation - that Kirk ref could use some work. It's not perfect, but I think it's an improvement. I hope to be adding a History section in the next few days. Comments? Phyesalis 20:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
I am removing the crit section, again. The sources are two partisan websites with no known reputation of fact-checking. This info if relvant to RR should be gotten from a peer-review .journal or other reliable source. I'm not even sure what the relvancy is here. This is not an abortion debate. It covers much more than abortion and seems to give undue weight to pro-lifers. PL's do not criticize reproductive rights, per se. They crit. abortion. Not the same thing. Besides, then we have to get into definitions of "reproduction" (which would be okay if sourced appropriately). Technically, while reproductive processes start at implantation, reproduction does not occur until a woman produces a live baby. I am open to argument to the contrary. I would just like to see it on the talk page. Phyesalis (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, removing the Times piece because it is not about reproductive rights nor does it characterize men in terms of reproductive rights. Random pieces about men and abortion are not applicable to this article. It would be a good addition for the Abortion debate page. Also removing info sourced by wwwall.org - not reliable, same with pro-life.com. Again, this is not an abortion debate, please use reliable materials dealing with the greater (and explicit) topic of reproductive rights. Phyesalis (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Far from being a random piece about men and abortion, the info I added is directly relevant to the subject, which is reproductive rights. Also, your removal of pro-life links and keeping pro-choice links is inexplicable -- reproductive rights are DEBATED and pro-life organizations are part of the debate.  Finally, your attempts to turn "reproductive rights" into "women's reproductive rights, which are really human rights since the UN says so, and include FGM and anything else that affects women" is not welcome.  It may need to be refactored. Blackworm (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I have not tried to do what you allege. By all means, if you can find discussion of the material you'd like to include that occurs within the specific context of "reproductive rights" and not the limited aspect of abortion, please bring it to the table. I surely support inclusion of appropriate material relating to men, however, random discussions of men and abortion without the explicit context of RR are not relevant.


 * I kept links relating specifically to the greater category of reproductive rights and removed those limited to pro-life attitudes about abortion. I did keep parental leave and added links to other more appropriate links. Your reversion has removed these.Phyesalis (talk) 04:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict.)
 * I invite you to perform a Google search on

"reproductive rights" men
 * and read several Web pages. Notice that the National Center for Men, whose position was discussed in the cited Time Magazine article, is hit number 5 on that list.  Read in particular this St. Petersburg Times article [] that clearly and specifically discusses men's reproductive rights.  The case for a section on the matter is strong.  I have noticed that most if not all of your recent edits move the POV of this stub toward a primary focus on the reproductive rights of women.  Men reproduce, in roughly equal numbers to women (I admit I'm guessing), and thus if reproductive rights are a women's issue, they are also a men's issue.  Are you hostile to this idea?  Are you attacking the material on undue weight grounds (in a stub, no less)?  On other grounds?  Please cite relevant policy.  I don't question your good faith, but your instantaneous and blunt dismissal and reversion of my cited edit, especially in a stub article, seems inappropriate.  Discussion surrounding the subject of reproductive rights demonstrably includes a discussion of the relationship between parents and unconceived (e.g., potential), in utero, and born offspring (the product of reproduction) -- that relationship clearly being the subject of the cited Time Magazine article.  The reproductive rights (and accompanying responsibilities) of both women and men are discussed prominently.  The inclusion seems legitimate.
 * I can't help but feel a sense of deja vu. You deleted the tiny "Criticism" section.  What material was unacceptable?  Is it the material presenting cited information that certain groups claim "reproductive rights" is a euphemism for abortion?  The opinion seems to be rendered fact through its being attributed to "some abortion opponents."  It seems appropriate.  It's in the "criticism" section, however; I oppose this.  I doubt people calling themselves "Pro-life" would necessarily describe themselves as critics of reproductive rights; they perhaps simply do not believe that such rights exist to the same extent as certain others, or perhaps that other reproductive rights exist that certain others deny, or perhaps that certain other rights trump certain reproductive rights claimed by others.  Their opinions should be presented along with other material in the relevant sections of the article.  You seem to suggest that their arguments are not on-topic; but this seems indefensible.
 * Similarly, your removal targeting pro-life links is misguided, and unfortunately violates WP:NPOV. Pro-life organizations are prominent, even popular in certain regions, and have the primary goal of advocacy (some may call it 'anti-advocacy', but that displays a non-neutral point of view) regarding reproductive rights.  To omit them from this article seems to violate policy.
 * Your deletion of certain "See Also" links (to Bioethics, Procreative beneficence, and Reprogenetics) from this stub is also unexplained, although I actually applaud them. It's unfortunate I reverted them in a summary reversion of other violations.  The links should perhaps be removed, per WP:V.  Unfortunately, you must justify new additions, however, such as Women's movement.  Remember also that Men's movement may also be appropriate (WP:NPOV).
 * I have several questions. First, forgive me, but why did you appear to pounce on this edit in particular, when the entire article is unsourced the edit I added was cited, but the majority of the article has been sitting for weeks, unsourced?  That seems curious.  Secondly, I look forward to discussing this article's WP:MOSDAB issues, if any; its lead section including the definition of the term; and the other relevant section headings.  Perhaps a general outline of the article could be discussed.  This article being a stub, the potential is great.  I suggest that before discussing context, we should agree on a definition; anything else seems a grave error.  I suggest that this article be reviewed top to bottom, by both of us, done right.  Care to work with me on this?  While you are of course free to make many edits in a short time, as you have demonstrated you are motivated to do, it is extremely time consuming to respond, so discussion may proceed at a slower pace than you might prefer.  On my part, I will make an effort not to take lack of response for agreement.  You have to understand, however, that it is good for editors to remove unsourced or otherwise unacceptable material, or article content derived from same.  That is just how Wikipedia must work -- slowly but surely.  This can be frustrating for all of us, but it makes Wikipedia better. Blackworm (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have restored your addition of Women's Movement and added other categories, and alphabetized the list. I personally believe there is widespread misuse of certain templates and categories on Wikipedia to serve certain points of view.  However, you seem to wish to work on this section, and they are quick to add and remove, unlike other article material.  Under those conditions consensus may be more likely to emerge. Blackworm (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Blackworm, real quick - you didn't care about this article until I started editing it. This article sat here for 3 years with most people agreeing with the basic scope of RR as a health issue. If you want to come in and radically alter the scope of this article, please provide explicit peer-review content that supports this significant departure from 3 yr status-quo. Let's stick to the content and skip the lengthy editorializing, this may shorten the time it takes you respond.


 * Please do not remove peer-reviewed citations. You asked for the citation, got it, didn't like it. You can't just remove it without discussing why on the talk page.
 * I checked the ref you questioned and added relevant quote and stable link.
 * Argument against content in Reproductive rights - Fringe american arguments for male "financial abortions" in an article that is predominantly related to reproductive health (please read the two cited peer-reviewed articles on the subject) are not relevant. Also, male reproductive rights are more along the lines of not being sterilized. Phyesalis (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are implying that I followed you here, that is false. I am also, like you, interested in sex and gender issues.  What "most people agree" on is irrelevant in the context of a stub article with no sources and dozens of policy violations.  I have provided appropriate sources for the material I added.
 * As I stated in the edit summary, the reference did not support the claim in the article. If you could quote a specific passage that validates the claim, please do so, and also remember to attribute opinions to those taking that view, per WP:V and WP:NPOV].
 * Your assertions as to what reproductive rights are, are irrelevant. Blackworm (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I claimed nothing about you following me here. You have not provided appropriate sources as they do not contextualize "financial abortions" as part of the international human rights discourse. I provided two peer-review articles for my assertions that reproductive rights are human rights as they pertain to sexual reproduction/sexual health as you requested, please have the courtesy to do the same. Until then, your argument is OR/SYN. If you can find material that contextualizes the "financial abortion" as a human rights issue pertaining to reproductive rights (health) as discussed in international discourses, by all means, bring it forward. Until then it should go, it is harmful to the article as it distorts the discussion, giving undue weight to a single fringe American perspective. Phyesalis (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Again. your desire to frame the "reproductive rights" article in terms of international human rights discourse (which I presume you mean the United Nations and its agencies) or exclusively in terms of "health" is misguided and inappropriate, violating WP:NPOV. Please quote directly the sections of your sources that you believe validate the article material, then attribute the material to the sources, per WP:RS.  Blackworm (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Reproductive rights as a men's issue
Blackworm, I would appreciate if you would provide sources that contextualize the material within the specific discourse of health. The material you have included does not relate to reproductive health, nor does the source contextualize the material within a reproductive rights discourse. If reliable sources cannot show how this material relates to reproductive health and actually discuss men's rights within an explicit reproductive rights context. It should be removed. Phyesalis (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is about reproductive rights, not reproductive health. Again, perhaps the problem lies in defining the term, and whose definition is taken as binding.  Is the definition of "reproductive rights" self-evident?  Does "the topic of [this] article [have] no name," and is the "title [...] simply descriptive," (in the language of WP:LEAD)?  I'm inclined to say yes.  In any case, the source describes what self-described "reproductive rights" advocates believe.  Its relevance to this stub, at least for the moment, is clear.  Blackworm (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reproductive rights are about reproductive health. The article has a 3 yr status quo as such. I have provided two peer-review articles that discuss this. All I'm asking for is a citation that contextualizes "financial abortions" as part of the Reproductive Rights (as in health) debate. Abortion as one particular reproductive right in an Western context is already discussed in Abortion debate. As the current material/source only actually responds to this and Roe v Wade, it is not appropriate to characterize American men's desire for "financial abortions" as an international issue in men's reproductive rights. The article is about the overall international context of reproductive rights as human rights and this is what your material must be contextualized as in order to not be WP:OR/WP:SYN. Phyesalis (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop reverting material you asked me to provide. I added citations, you removed them which left the article lacking peer-review citation. Your willful inability to read and comprehend what is a basic concept is disruptive. I then reintroduced the material adding additional quotes. You reverted multiple edits, one of which corrected a date in a citation. Please stop - if you find something missing - ADD IT. Do not remove reliable citations just because you don't like them. Phyesalis (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As stated in the edit summary, your sources have not been shown to support the article text. Also, I am afraid it is you who are being incivil and disruptive.  Please review WP:NPA and  WP:CIVIL.  Blackworm (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Shown where? You have voiced your opinion and failed to provide examples or support as I requested (here and on your talk page - which you deleted). I think you need to step back, read the articles, (maybe think about actually typing out the short paragraph on pg 20 as requested) and show where I have allegedly misused my sources. As yet you have done nothing other than make allegations, revert citations and add inappropriate info (NCM and their "financial abortions"). You have failed to provide peer-review sources, failed to explicate or support accusations and failed to follow WP policy (3RR violation). I believe you are the disruptive one. Phyesalis (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Continued incivility and inappropriate article content
Phyesalis, I have deleted your incivil personal attack from my Talk page. Your approach, asking me to prove that I read the articles is misguided and unwelcome. I have challenged the material. You must both show that the cited source supports the article material (preferably by quoting the statement or statements from the source that support it), and ensure that any challenged views are attributed to the source. That means, instead of asserting "X" in the article, we assert "Y says, X." Don't take my word for it, read WP:V: "This page in a nutshell: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." I have pointed out to you before, you must "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." WP:NPOV. That same policy also says, "To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups." All notable views are notable for inclusion, and no challenged view should be represented as absolute truth. It is not Wikipedia's job to push a particular point of view, instead, we must "Let the facts speak for themselves."WP:NPOV Blackworm (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation
You have reverted this page 5 times in a 24 hour period. This is a violation of 3RR. I have made continued efforts to address your concerns. The material in question is a couple of facts which I supported with citations when you asked for them. These citations came from peer-reviewed secondary sources. When you reverted my citations, I added quotes. When you reverted the citations and the quotes, I started expressing concerns about your behavior. I do not believe that you have read the articles you are objecting to, since the articles clearly cover the material. '''The fact that reproductive rights first became internationally recognized as a subset of human rights with the Tehran conference in 1968 is not an opinion. It is a fact and I let it speak for itself.''' There are no leading views that contradict this. Your objections are unreasonable and disruptive. Your contribution of "financial abortions" from NCM is your POV unsupported by peer-reviewed sources. I left a note on your talk page in order to address what seem to be another set of personal issues you have with my contributions to yet another page. I stated that given our editing history here and on another page left me with little good faith. I suggested an option that you could accomplish with little difficulty if you had actually read the article in an effort to give you a chance to restore good faith. You chose to interpret this as a personal attack. I am posting this here now instead because it relates to your edits on this page. Phyesalis (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the page 4 times (not 5) 5 times [-BW] in a 24 hour period. I agree this violates WP:3RR, and for that I apologize -- I was under the mistaken impression that only the same reversion counted.  I stand corrected and I will be more careful in the future.  Note, however, that you have reverted the page 7 times in a 24-hour period:

[21:23, 7 December 2007] [23:14, 7 December 2007] [13:26, 8 December 2007] [13:52, 8 December 2007] [15:54, 8 December 2007] [16:08, 8 December 2007] [16:13, 8 December 2007]


 * Secondly, you continue to misunderstand Wikipedia policy. The sentence which begins "Reproductive rights first became an internationally-recognized subset of human rights..." has for its cite a source which does not appear to contain the phrase "reproductive rights."  Thus, the sentence seems not supported by the source.  If you can quote material from the source which validates the article sentence, please do so.  Otherwise, the phrase remains WP:OR. Blackworm (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, this is ridiculous. You argue that my source does not contain the phrase "reproductive rights" and thus seems to not support the cited sentence. Oh really? Have you read the citation quote (that you reverted) that states "The first comprehensive statement of human rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1948, failed to mention reproductive rights at all. It was not until 20 years later, at the international human rights conference held in Teheran in 1968, that human reproduction became a subject of international legal concern." I've tried to extend good faith, but even if you only read the first page, you would have noticed the phrase "reproductive rights" in the intro summary . I think I can reasonably conclude that you have not read the cited sources and suggest you cease objecting to that which you cannot take the time to read. It appears as if you are baselessly persecuting my contributions. One might think it was personal.


 * As for your allegations, I did not revert your material. I made continued efforts to address your challenges. You asked for citations, I gave them. You reverted my citations claiming they were unsupported, I added citation quotes in support. You reverted those. I reintroduced them because of your revert abuse. Phyesalis (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I applaud your finally providing, after multiple requests, a quote from the source which you believe supports the Wikipedia article sentence. Your citation quote, however, does not support the article sentence.  If the sentence said, "According to (author), human reproduction first became a subject of international legal concern in 1968," it would be much more defensible.  Attention to detail in these matters is extremely important.
 * It is clear from the history that your edits were reverts, your defense of them being irrelevant to the question.
 * I'd also ask you again to please stop the incivility, and stop making personal attacks. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Finally providing"? This is insane, the quote has been in the citation for a while - YOU removed it at least once. The cited source has been present since before you even started editing the article. I don't think you understand what "support" means. UN/1968 is a fact - it doesn't have to be attributed (since that seems to be what you are arguing). But really, how controversial is the date of the first international discussion of reproductive rights as human rights? Don't you think your behavior is a bit excessive? I'm done discussing this with you on the talk page. I've moved this discussion over to your talk page where it belongs. Phyesalis (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of being controversial, it's a question of properly reflecting the source. You can't take a sentence in a source that says "human reproduction first became a subject of international legal concern..." and summarize it, without attribution, as "Reproductive rights first became an internationally-recognized subset of human rights..."  The latter is an interpretation, involving assumptions -- not a proper reflection of the source.  One way to resolve these types of conflicts is to quote the source directly -- I highly recommend it in this case. Blackworm (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Veering off-topic in the leadin
This seems off-topic to me: "In addition, reproductive rights advocates endeavor to protect all women from harmful gender-based practices. Examples include cultural practices such as female genital cutting, or FGC, as well as state, customary and religious laws that contribute to women's political and economic disenfranchisment." (in the leadin). I'm sure many advocates of reproductive rights also advocate for other rights too, but that isn't really relevant here.


 * I'm not sure what you are objecting to, info regarding advocacy or specific examples? I'm in the process of expanding this article (no ownership) but as you can see, it's been a bit slow going. If it is the specific mention of FGC in the lead, I'd have no problem with creating a section and moving it down there (honestly, I can't remember if I intro'd that or if it pre-existed). I would have an issue with expunging of coverage of the most basic aspects of RR, particularly since I plan on giving these their own subsections. Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to mention of FGC etc. provided what is claimed about it is supportable and relevant. The problem here is that apparently a claim is being made that everyone who supports reproductive rights also advocates certain other things.  That's very hard to believe.  Or, maybe it means that the term "reproductive rights" is used only to refer to people who also advocate those other things.  That's also somewhat hard to believe -- I mean, some people might use the term that way, but I doubt that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources do that, which is what would be required to make such a statement in the leadin.  I don't see any footnote to support this hard-to-believe claim.  Maybe it needs to be reworded, deleted and/or supported with reliable sources. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see your point. However, the claim is that "advocates", not "supporters" or "proponents", endeavor to protect women from gender discrimination - this is the basic thrust of reproductive rights, they are not two different things. Actually the overwhelming majority of reliable sources do claim this, as it is the most basic precept of the discourse. But I surely invite you to provide reliable evidence to the contrary. I'm thinking in this context, advocacy would be understood as a particular type of action. Perhaps you are not familiar with the topic? If so, I highly recommend reading the 2 cited peer-review articles on the subject covering the basic history of reproductive rights. Would "activists" solve the issue? Like to get rid of "all"? Maybe "In addition"? Personally, I think "activists" is a bit loaded for the discussion (most people in the discussion agree that women should be protected from harmful discrimination, they disagree on what constitutes "harmful" - predominantly in terms of moral and cultural relativism). I'll spend some more time adding more cited material. Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Imbalance re countries
There is a section on reproductive rights in one country, the United States, but no similar sections on any other countries.
 * I suspect this is because of the US abortion issue (it was here before I was). Personally, I think RR has a clearly established international context as a subset of human rights - tons of top tier sources on this. I wouldn't mind c&ping it here until we could develop other sections. Phyesalis (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight re men's versus women's rights
Undue weight: I'm guessing that the vast majority of sources discussing "reproductive rights" are talking about rights of women, right to contraception, right to abortion etc., not about the right of men to avoid becoming parents. If so, then the article should give a lot less space to discussion of the rights of men than to discussion of other reproductive rights. On a google search, the whole first page of hits all seemed to be about women and contraception and stuff, not about men's rights. The women's rights section has major organizations cited such as WHO and doesn't even provide quotes of them, while the men's section has only some lesser-known organization(s) cited and I think (unless the other sections of the article are greatly expanded) it gives much too much space on those quotes. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct - the overwhelming focus of RR is women's reproductive health. Honestly, I have objected to the material in the men's section (but not the presence of a men's section) because issues of men's RR are actually health issues like forced sterilization. Also, the source cites a fringe position relating to one fringe org and one dismissed lawsuit (hardly a mainstream position) in the abortion debate having nothing to do with reproductive health and the RR debate. I have asked for peer-review sources that establish "financial abortions" as a recognized issue of RR (since I haven't found any) but none have been forthcoming.
 * Salon.com does not present the issue as an RR issue - it is somewhat dismissive of NCM and only mentions the phrase "reproductive rights" in terms of Feit's self-described "reproductive rights affidavit"
 * NCM's self-published press release notes that such an idea has been dismissed legally
 * Time does not mention the phrase "reproductive rights" - since Blakworm finds such a lack a reason to object to sources, I think his logic ought to be applied across the board.
 * I think this is a combo of SYN/OR. Unrelated sources on US abortion issues are being used to establish a fringe opinion as a relevant and weighty opinion in RR discourses. It ought to be removed and replaced with info relating to reproductive health and RR (like forced sterilization). However, if peer-review sources are produced to contextualize this info, I will rescind my objections. Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Coppertwig: When I added some material on men's reproductive rights, this article was flagged as a "stub." By all means, other sections should be expanded -- but don't start talking about removing cited, relevant material just because the rest of the article hasn't been written yet.  "Undue weight" refers to competing views, not disproportionate public interest.  Note, also, that this article does not provide sources for its notability, its definition, nor its arguments.  Note that opposing views and links have been deleted from this article, by Phyesalis, on the supposed grounds that "pro-life" arguments specifically addressing "reproductive rights," are irrelevant to reproductive rights.  I invite editors to properly write this article, cited sources supporting the text, and attributing views, per Wikipedia policies WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Blackworm (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Phyesalis: If you can phrase your objection while adhering to WP:NPOV and WP:V, I invite you to do so; but your assertions regarding what reproductive rights "are," "actually," are irrelevant. Blackworm (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * They're not mine - they are the UN's and those of the international academic discourses on RR (substantiated by multiple peer-reviews sources). Secondly, NPOV applies to article pages, not talk pages. And frankly Scarlett, I can frame my objections any way I want (but I, and you, have to support them with reliable sources which I, but not you, have done) as long as I avoid slurs (not a problem). If you can't provide peer-review sources to contradict those that I have provided, you are merely steam rolling. Until such a time, please stop tossing NPOV and V around. Your objections have thus far been supported solely by your opinion. It is disruptive - for someone who refuses to read provided quotes, let alone whole articles, you really need to show a little more good faith.


 * I removed pro-life material cited from completely unreliable sources. Since the overall focus is a) international and b) on reproductive health as a human right, US pro-life abortion commentary from fringe amateur cites doesn't actually cut it. For someone who wants to keep such high standards I'm surprised that Blackworm defends info from http://www.prolife.com/ABORMETH.html (no really, take a moment to check this out, edifying stuff here - glad to know that Blackworm finds this acceptable but chooses to repeatedly revert peer-review citations.) Phyesalis (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If the assertions are from specific agencies of the UN, then let's say so. Let's also allow room for other significant viewpoints.
 * Your assertions regarding the "focus" of this article are irrelevant. The focus of this article is simply "reproductive rights."
 * I believe it is clear to any unbiased editor reading this discussion that your behaviour toward me is much less acceptable than vice-versa. In every post you make, you make a personal attack.  This must stop.  If you object to the sources on WP:RS grounds, that is one thing; but you originally removed the "Criticism" section with the edit summary, and I quote, "removing inappropriate links to pro-life websites about abortion, not having to do with reproductive rights."   That leaves the impression that you are editing in support of a particular non-neutral point of view, which, as I don't need to remind you, violates WP:NPOV.  Blackworm (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What other significant view points? You haven't provided a single peer-reviewed source that states anything differently. And my comments on your behavior are appropriate given the behavior's disruptive nature. I've tried to discuss this on your talk page but you keep removing it and refuse to address my concerns. And yes, I used shorthand in my edit summary but you managed to leave out my somewhat lengthy discussion of the source quality issues under Talk:Reproductive rights on November 25th; you were actually the only other person to respond, which you did on December 8th, so it's odd that you would characterize my actions as you have. You might want to pay a little more attention to discussions so that you don't appear as if you are willfully misrepresenting others' words, edits, and actions.


 * Especially since I wrote (typos and all): "I am removing the crit section, again. The sources are two partisan websites with no known reputation of fact-checking. This info if relvant to RR should be gotten from a peer-review .journal or other reliable source. I'm not even sure what the relvancy is here. This is not an abortion debate. It covers much more than abortion and seems to give undue weight to pro-lifers. PL's do not criticize reproductive rights, per se. They crit. abortion. Not the same thing."


 * And you are correct. This must stop. If you want the info from the 1968 UN discussion attributed, I have already suggested you go ahead and do it (in the stuff you removed), although I don't see how. It states a fact "Reproductive rights first became an internationally-recognized subset of human rights at the United Nations' 1968 International Conference on Human Rights" the UN is already contextualized in the sentence and is cited by a UN copy of the proclamation and a peer-reviewed secondary source to support it. What do you want to say "The UN states that it first recognized reproductive rights as a subset of international human rights at its 1968 International conference on Human Rights"? I mean, do you see how little that changes things. Again, I obviously don't think it needs to be changed and I'm not going to change it. If you want to add excess verbiage to establish UN attribution, do it yourself. Phyesalis (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, this "fact" you repeatedly claim as such is not evident, and not directly claimed by the source. The modified sentence you present above still is not claimed by the source.  There is no onus on other editors to correct violating material; since it is presently original research, it may simply be removed until someone willing and able to properly summarize the source steps forward.  Blackworm (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand you. Do you deny that there could possibly be other significant viewpoints on reproductive rights, besides those from conferences sponsored by the UN?  (I admit I am assuming, since the link between that conference and the UN is not clear from the source.)  The possibility is all that I'm claiming, and emphasizing that these viewpoints, if found and properly sourced, are to be included in this article.  I support your removal of the criticism section on WP:RS grounds.  For it to be reinstated, it should be better sourced.  Your removal of all pro-life links, while retaining sites such as NARAL Pro-Choice America, however, seems more dubious.  Blackworm (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you telling me that you don't understand how the 1968 Proclamation of Tehran (A UN document from a UN conference) relates to the UN? You have put me through all this and you couldn't even check the sources to determine that the Proclamation of Tehran (sourced by a UN hosted UN document of the actual proclamation and an additional peer-review journal) was the product of a UN conference? THERE IS NO WAY YOU HAVE READ THE SOURCED ARTICLES.
 * I removed pro-life sources because (as I remember) they were unreliable sources with no reputation for fact checking, NARAL and Planned Parenthood do have reputations for fact checking. Again, if you think their presence is inappropriate, I invite you to remove them.
 * If you are unwilling to make the smallest effort to attribute a sentence or fix something, stop complaining about it. If you don't like something, the onus is on you to fix it - it is uncivil and unreasonable to expect others to do your work for you.
 * All sorts of things are possible, this doesn't mean we have to account for them in WP articles. As I have stated many times, I am always open to the introduction of peer-reviewed material. Perhaps you could a) provide peer-reviewed material or b) clarify what aspects you think could be disputed? That UN proclamations are not evidence of reproductive rights being introduced as a subset of international human rights? The fact that RR are a sub-set of human rights, or that its primary focus is women and reproductive health? Because that's about all I have asserted with my cited references. If so, good luck. If you think it's out there, you're the one that has to do the legwork to prove your case. I'm no expert but I studied this discourse for 4 years. I was able to easily provide excellent sources to support the facts. As no reliable evidence of disputation has been provided (though repeatedly requested), I see no reason to provide for the possibility. You are the only person who finds the facts to be particularly controversial. If material does appear, we can easily change the article then - this is a wiki after all.
 * As for your absurd assertion of OR - get real. I'm tired of addressing your allegations (on yet another page) when you have OBVIOUSLY not read the articles. Your argument that the article couldn't source the sentence because it didn't contain the phrase "reproductive rights" has been shown to be baseless (it does) and has proven that you have not read the article and the citation quote (either that or you are just being difficult). The material is cited, I have gone above and beyond reasonable expectation to establish this. If you remove the cited material again, I will RfC you. You admit that you are unfamiliar with the topic, assume a little good faith: the person who can easily provide good sources might just know what they are talking about.
 * Blackworm, your behavior has been most unjustified. I'm going to step back to get over the fact that you have engaged in disruptive and mendacious wikilawyering. I seriously recommend you reassess your interactions with me and begin to assume good faith, lots of good faith. Phyesalis (talk) 07:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The document was hosted by a UN-affiliated web site, but there is no mention of the UN in the document. The article statement is vague, not reflected by the source, and biased (since using the term "recognized" implies a truth).  For example, if we said "The Nazis recognized Jews as evil," we are agreeing the Jews were evil, which does not conform to WP:NPOV.  If we say, "The Nazis considered Jews as evil," then we are rendering opinion fact through attribution. Further, it would really lend weight to your case if the 1968 document would have been ratified by the General Assembly (like the 1948 International Bill of Human Rights was), but I see no evidence of that, or in fact any binding international agreement on the subject of reproductive rights.


 * Your expressed reason for deleting pro-life links and retaining pro-choice links is invalid. Even if you could provide evidence from a reliable source that NARAL Pro-Choice and Planned Parenthood have better fact-checking than the pro-life sites you removed (which you haven't, and I suspect, cannot), this is a "Links" section, where groups holding viewpoints on the subject are linked to.  Their fact-checking and reliablility is to be assessed by the reader, not you.


 * On, the contrary, I've been making a HUGE effort here -- rather than simply fix the sentence, to teach you why it violates policy in hopes that the remainder of the article can be so repaired. Your demands are inappropriate -- material violating policy is to be removed.  It may be re-added if it is made to conform to policy.  Changing material to conform is preferable, but infinitely more time consuming, and removing material is perfectly acceptable, in fact called for by WP:V.


 * Your argument is backwards. You can't write up an incorrect and unattributed summary of a source ("Reproductive rights first became an internationally-recognized subset of human rights at the United Nations' 1968 International Conference on Human Rights") then, when challenged, demand to see reliable sources that contradict your interpretation.  I have already shown how your interpretation does not necessarily follow from the quoted source.


 * I invite you to "RfC" me -- in fact I encourage it. From the very beginning your attitude toward me has been unacceptable, and public scrutiny and a round denunciation of your behaviour may assist in getting you to rethink your attitude and continually expressed hostility; it might also allow editors who follow and understand Wikipedia policy to edit certain articles.  Blackworm (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well the authoritarian approach is a bit lost on me. I'm not sure it's really your job to teach me a lesson. Perhaps it would be better if you decided to teach by example (as in attempt to fix that which you otherwise only revert and complain about). I cited the material. Your objection is not supported by any source, mine is. It's in the article you haven't read. If you remove the citations again, I will proceed with alternate methods of recourse. Pretty simple. Phyesalis (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If it's in the article, quote the relevant section. The article text does not follow from the section you have previously quoted.  And, I repeat: you can't write up an incorrect and unattributed summary of a source, then, when challenged, demand to see reliable sources that contradict your interpretation.  Per WP:NOR, the onus is on you to show that the source supports the article material.  Blackworm (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

LGBT Reproductive Rights?
I see no mention of lesbian struggles to insure that they have access to reproductive technology as one area of reproductive rights, nor any awareness related to lesbian, gay and transgender parenting and family formation issues. This needs to be remedied.

Calibanu (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Calibanu


 * I agree - the article just recently came off of stub status, so it's missing a lot of things! If you would like to add some material, it would be a great contribution. Phyesalis (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There's also no mention of male castrati having the basic human right of free reproductive technology -- this also needs to be addressed. Blackworm (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what Farinelli has to do with modern reproductive rights. But hey, if you can find some peer-reviewed sources that contextualize it specifically within the reproductive rights discourse, add it to the mix. Phyesalis (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What the "attribution needed" tag means
It means, "this statement needs to be attributed to the people who claim it." It doesn't mean "this statement needs more cites from people with the same views." The first sentence of this article is an opinion, not a fact. No amount of evidence from the UN, AI, or any other groups will make it a "fact."

What you are doing in this article Phyesalis, is writing unattributed "facts" which are challenged by other editors. In response to the challenge, you demand to see evidence to the contrary -- this is not a correct approach. If the views you wish to present are those of a majority, or even universal, you need to find a source that says so, then specifically write that in the article text. For at least the fourth time, you cannot present opinion as fact in this encyclopedia.

You write that (all unattributed "facts"):


 * Reproductive rights are a subset of human rights
 * Reproductive rights includes the right to abortion

By making these claims without attribution, you are making the Wikipedia article claim that abortion is a human right. Clearly this is not a universal view -- do you agree or disagree? Do you, Phyesalis, believe that it is a universal view that abortion is a human right? Because that's what the article says right now. Blackworm (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you are not familiar with the topic, I will point out that International Reproductive rights/Human rights discourses are not US abortion discourses (give it a commutation test). In Intenrational reproductive rights discourses, abortion is considered to be part of women's inalienable human rights. As this is the majority view (I have yet to see any mention to the contrary in the numerous legal documents (some cited in article), in CEDAW the ratified human rights treaty, and in various academic RR discourses) I'm thinking you're going to have to do a lot of leg work to prove otherwise. As I have provided secondary and tertiary sources that establish this, and you have provided none, you need to provide evidence for your claim. Wikipedia is not about "truth" it is about verifiability. Until the time that you have provided evidence of your POV, please refrain from slapping attribution tags on basic facts. I will repeat this one more time for emphasis: Get some sources or stop being disruptive. If you keep tagging cited material I will RfC this. Phyesalis (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you appear to believe it legitimate and correct for Wikipedia to claim, without attributing the claim to any party (paraphasing): "Reproductive rights, including the right to abortion, are a subset of basic human rights," then I rest my case here. Blackworm (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop. Get a source. Or attribute it yourself. Phyesalis (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead
Regarding "human rights", first, thanks Coppertwig, I really appreciate you taking the time to bring about a solution. It's nice to see someone take a constructive and pro-active approach to the dispute. This is my issue: there are three sources which state that RR are HR, I don't think that removing the citation and mention of human rights is productive, as so far, no one has provided citations to support the contrary. Until the time that someone does provide citations, I'm thinking it would be counterproductive to remove the mention of human rights or the citations. I'm all for WP:BRD as for as general rewording, but I think the human rights aspect is well-documented. For the time being, I'm fine with the addition of "often held to include", though I think this might be more appropriate when discussing advocates. As far as the attribution for the first sentence of the second paragraph, does any editor honestly dispute that reproductive rights are associated with the pro-choice position? I added this sentence in an effort to start to differentiate general reproductive rights discourses and the more specific abortion debate. If you feel that the lead would be better without it, we can remove it or reword it. I think that if an editor does actively dispute this, I'd appreciate some kind of statement as to the logic for this, otherwise I'm going to remove the tag. Sound good? Phyesalis (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Find a source making the exact claim you wish to include, then attribute the claim to that source, especially if the claim is challenged.  That is how Wikipedia works.  Blackworm (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Documentation for RR as human rights
So, in addition to the footnote I added to the citation for the article "Advancing Reproductive Rights Beyond Cairo and Beijing", Cook and Fathalla use the terms "human rights" and "reproductive rights" virtually interchangeably (HR is the greater category and RR is the subset). For example, they state:
 * Meticulous documentation can show that human rights abuses represent systematic state policies rather than merely individual abberations. Evidence in court cases can show that a government has failed to eliminate and remedy reproductive rights abuses, and such evidence can be used to analyze conscious patterns over time. Complaints before national, regional and international legal tribunals and incidents publicized by nongovernmental human rights organizations can also be used to direct attention beyond the facts to the underlying conditions of abuse of reproductive rights for which states are legally answerable. (pg 117)
 * Under the subsection "Applying Human Rights", first sentence: "Reproductive rights may be protected through specific legal rights. Which rights are invoked and how they are shown to have been violated depend on the particular facts of an alleged violation and on the underlying causes of reproductive ill-health. The rights addressed here are not exhaustive, but only suggest some of the approaches that may be developed to advance reproductive interests. Table 1 shows the relevant provisions of the respective international instruments that relate to each right. Moreover, we indicate only certain ways in which specific rights may be applied to reproductive interests and how the Cairo Program and Beijing Platform can be used to add meaning to them. As human rights laws are applied more vigorously to reproductive interests, a variety of ways of applying them will emerge to serve reproductive interests. (end paragraph,pg 117)
 * The Cairo and Beijing texts suggest a variety of strategies for effectively protecting and promoting reproductive rights at every government level, from local government to international agencies. The Beijing Platform recognizes that legal literacy and legal service programs are required to ensure that women understand their human rights, how to use them and how to gain access to courts to enforce their rights [paras. 232-233]. Moreover, the Beijing text recommends support of those who try to uphold human rights, sometimes at great odds [para. 232] Important efforts towards this end include hearings held at Cairo and Beijing nongovernmental forums, where women testified about violations of their reproductive rights. (pg 120)
 * The Cairo and Beijing documents recommend that the health professions develop, disseminate and implement ethics codes to ensure practitioners' conformity with human rights, ethical and professional standards...Overall, the Cairo and Beijing documents develop the content and meaning of reproductive rights. (p 121)

Response? Phyesalis (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Find a source saying "Reproductive rights are a subset of human rights." Then we can say, "This source claims that reproductive rights are a subset of human rights."  Until then, all you have presented is an argument in support of that claim, which by definition is original research.  Blackworm (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I did, check out the Amnesty international citation: "Reproductive rights - access to sexual and reproductive healthcare and autonomy in sexual and reproductive decision-making - are human rights; they are universal, indivisible, and undeniable. These rights are founded upon principles of human dignity and equality, and have been enshrined in international human rights documents. Reproductive rights embrace core human rights, including the right to health, the right to be free from discrimination, the right to privacy, the right not to be subjected to torture or ill-treatment, the right to determine the number and spacing of one's children, and the right to be free from sexual violence. Reproductive rights include the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children, and the right to have the information and means to implement those decisions free from discrimination, coercion, and violence. Reproductive rights also include the right to the highest standards of sexual and reproductive healthcare." Phyesalis (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Amnesty Internation citation is fine -- attribute the view to them, and all is well. You may not, however, claim that because AI claims reproductive rights are human rights, that it is a fact that reproductive rights are human rights.  Clearly groups opposed to certain practices claimed as reproductive rights (e.g., abortion) disagree that they are human rights, thus the claim is not fact but opinion, which must be attributed.  Blackworm (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverting
Coppertwig made changes and invited users to revert them as he had not discussed them on the page. I made this edit [] in which I added additional footnotes as requested by Coppertwig. I posted much discussion and additional citation (above). The problems with the subsequent revert [] are these: I'm going to reinstate my edit and request that further reverts be discussed on talk as this is part of an ongoing dispute. I'd like to request that editors follow WP:BRD, with emphasis on the (D)iscussion. Phyesalis (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * revert removed cited material and disrupted a constructive and good faith attempt between two editors to solve the dispute, while making no attempt to ameliorate the problems
 * revert of disputed material, though not done in response to vandalism, was not accompanied by a discussion on talk
 * revert asserts OR, while removing citation, but does not support contention with any source or argument


 * Material violating Wikipedia policy is to be removed. Your edit claiming without attribution that "reproductive rights are a subset of human rights" violates Wikipedia's "no original research" policy.  As I have told you in the past, there is no requirement for editors to cite sources contradicting original research.  If you wish to include a claim, you must cite reliable sources making the exact claim, which may then be required to be attributed to the source should they be challenged in any way.  Blackworm (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the content of this debate. I'm going to say that both of you need to stop the edit warring, or else risk having this article protected in the wrong version. One of you be the bigger party and let the other side "win" for the time being. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 00:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would rather see it protected, even in what I consider the "wrong" version, than allow original research to remain and grow in this article. Perhaps page protection would draw attention to this article; attention it desperately needs to be made verified, free of original research, and neutral.  As of now, it fails miserably in all three aspects.  Blackworm (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to stop editing the article for a few days. I only started now because Coppertwig and I were moving things forward. He asked for the additional info and I asked him to offer up a suggestion.  When I saw the revert, I did not address anyone directly and kept my comments to the material and the effect on the article, as well as a general request to follow BDR. Do we think discussion can take place over this period of time, or should we both step back and then discuss the issues. Phyesalis (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We've discussed this at length, and cannot seem to move past fundamental issues. You believe that Wikipedia should assert as unattributed fact that reproductive rights, and by extension abortion, are "human rights."  I believe that violates WP:NPOV and WP:V.  Impasse.  If you have other suggested edits, I invite you to present them.  Blackworm (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've actually tried really hard to create space for the abortion issue. I didn't start this stub, and was working The sentence that keeps getting reverted is sourced by 2 peer-review sources (Cook and Freedman) and Amnesty International (which states flat out "Reproductive rights are human rights" ). It doesn't say anything about abortion. It is difficult for me to understand what the issue is. The statement is sourced per R and V, it contains no weasel words, yet it repeatedly gets reverted because of "OR". How OR can it be if I can cite it almost word for word from reliable sources? As for NPOV, I have repeatedly asked for sources and/or suggestions regarding the wording of both the opening sentence and the lines that deal with abortion. It is terribly discouraging to repeatedly add footnotes and citations only to have them reverted edit summary "rv WP:OR",  es: "revert original research again".

And yes, I stated that I believed (when asked) that abortion is a reproductive right. I have a POV, I'm fine with the transparency, it keeps me honest. I am not trying to push a pro-choice POV. I have no problem with an editor going in and trying to clarify the relationship between abortion and RR. I've been trying to work from the lead and the history on down, so I haven't gotten to it yet. The first constructive edit offered by Coppertwig yielded some good results. I added more footnotes, we moved forward on "often held to include" I like the phrase, but I think that it should be applied to the section talking about advocates to specifically qualify abortion. Phyesalis (talk) 03:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I sympathize both with your difficulty in understanding, and your discouragement. Coppertwig's edits indeed yielded some good results, especially his reversion of "[RR] is a subset of human rights" which was clearly challenged opinion not attributed to any source.  No one disputes that the right to have an abortion is widely regarded as an inseparable part of the concept presented as "reproductive rights," therefore, it is grossly unacceptable that this encyclopedia state that "reproductive rights are a subset of human rights," since those who may fully support even the broadest opinions regarding what human rights exist, do not necessarily believe that the right to have an abortion at will exists.  More specifically, the "right to life" is cited universally as an example of a "human right," and yet the phrase "right to life" is more commonly associated with the pro-life movement than "reproductive rights" advocates.  Some notable groups (for example, [many if not most Catholics]) believe the opposite of your assertion, namely, that "reproductive rights" stand in opposition to "human rights."  Clearly the view that the rejection of any reproductive rights is a rejection of some human rights (logically implied by the phrase, "reproductive rights are a subset of human rights") is just that -- a view, not shared by all and contradicted by a significant minority (at least).  Certain groups that express a belief in a specific set of reproductive rights and claiming them to be human rights is notable, as at least several prominent organizations have done so.  But the article, with your edits, begins by simply asserting that abortion is a human right (since abortion is listed as a reproductive right), despite the existence of notable contrary opinion from a not-tiny group.  This violates WP:NPOV, which states, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." (Emphasis in original.) (The debate as what opinion is in the "majority" is irrelevant, per WP:NPOV, other than dealing with undue weight issues, which this is not).
 * Coppertwig's edit is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Someone makes an edit, which better conforms to policy than the previous edit.  Finally, remember that "of course, others here will edit what you write. Do not take it personally." (WP:BOLD.)  Also, "it is important that contributors do not edit recklessly. 'Being Bold' does not excuse a disregard for verifiability, neutrality, and the other guidelines/policies that comprise the five pillars of Wikipedia." (WP:BOLD.)
 * Another good one I'll throw out there is, "when you see a conflict in a talk page, do not be just a 'mute spectator'. Be bold and drop your opinion there" (WP:BOLD.) Blackworm (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Re "additional citations as requested by Coppertwig": this may be based on a misunderstanding, or possibly I'm forgetting something.  I don't remember asking for any additional citations, except via a citation-needed tag for the phrase "While the term is often associated with the pro-choice position", which I am asking to be either deleted or have a citation provided to support it;  and I don't think the footnotes Phyesalis provided address that particular phrase.  The misunderstanding seems to be that Phyesalis believes that "reproductive rights are human rights" is a fact and that it can be supported by citations and that perhaps if we have a problem with it, more citations will help.  Actually, more citations are not likely to be of help there.  To me, the words "reproductive rights are human rights" have the meaning of a normative statement, equivalent to a statement containing the word "should".  Organizations such as AI or the UN make those kinds of statements.  Wikipedia does not, regardless of how many reliable sources can be found which support the statement.  The fact that the words mean something different to Phyesalis is not enough reason to keep them.  Instead, words should be found which are unambiguous, which mean the proper meaning to all readers or practically all readers.  I don't think I'm by any means the only person in the world to interpret those words in that way.
 * I agree with Blackworm that there is also still a problem with the treatment of abortion in the lead. It does seem to be implying or stating that abortion is a human right.  Wikipedia certainly does not make statements like that.  Wikipedia can make statements (if they are true) like "Organization X has declared abortion to be a human right."  Not "Abortion is a human right" nor "reproductive rights are human rights" nor "reproductive rights are a subset of human rights." --Coppertwig (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Re this edit by Phyesalis: I invited people to "Feel free to revert and discuss on talk."  I may not have made it clear, but that was supposed to apply to both (or all three) of my edits -- i.e. I was not intending to invite anyone to revert without explanation.  Phyesalis, you have reverted as I invited you to, but you have not, as far I as see,  explained on this talk page the reason for reverting.  Please explain -- why do you think the article is better the way you changed it back to?  I don't think your post above addresses this at all.  Maybe I'm missing something.  I need to see it stated clearly. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see the above section for my comments and arguments. Please provide a source that contradicts the sourced fact that reproductive rights are human rights. I have provided sources, neither you nor Blackworm have provided a single source. I'm having a hard time assuming good faith in light of this. Phyesalis (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You haven't added anything that hasn't been responded to. Blackworm (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've already explained to you, Phyesalis, that "reproductive rights are human rights" is not a fact, but an opinion. There is no problem if the article says something like that as a quote, or with prose attribution as in "Organization X says that ..." There is no requirement for us to provide any source other than to refer to WP:NPOV. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that in your opinion, Phyesalis, it's a verifiable fact that "reproductive rights are human rights". However, in my opinion, it's not the kind of thing that can be verified as fact.  It's a statement like "chocolate ice cream tastes better than strawberry ice cream" or "the tax rate should be high enough to avoid a deficit," -- the type of statement that Wikipedia doesn't assert.  --Coppertwig (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The facticity of reproductive rights as human rights passes the duck test. Sources like the UN see number 216 and 223 and WHO Gender and reproductive rights call reproductive rights a set of human rights. Reproductive rights were ratified in a human rights convention, CEDAW. There were sources that discussed them but they have been repeatedly removed by Blackworm. My sources are peer-reviewed journals and books by authors from a bibliography on Human Rights from the Human Rights Center, UC Berkley. Like I said, I have challenged your assertion of "opinion" and have politely asked you and Blackworm to provide documentation to support your argument. You seem to be refusing to do so. Do I understand this correctly? Phyesalis (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I don't understand your argument about verifiability. They were ratified in a human rights convention - how much more verifiable do you need? Your argument would hold that human rights are merely an opinion held by the majority of people and not verifiable. I'm thinking it seems like unsubstantiated POV, and WP definitely isn't supposed to support that. Phyesalis (talk) 00:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize if my objection has cited the wrong policy. If they were ratified in a human rights convention, it's appropriate to mention what convention, when, and where.  If that is done, it meets WP:V.  If the edit states more than the undisputed facts, such as the unattributed idea that "reproductive rights are a subset of human rights" is an undisputed fact, it fails WP:NPOV.  My objection has nothing to do with whether "human rights are merely an opinion." Blackworm (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the apology. Thank you. I still don't understand your argument about unattributed facts.
 * WP:V states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I did this, but you have removed my inline citations and yet you repeatedly tell me I have to attribute it. I don't understand the divergence in your use of "attribution". WP says to attribute statements with inline citations, how do you mean "attribution" and where are you getting this in policy? If you would provide me with a quote or two from a policy, that would be most helpful.
 * WP:NPOV states that "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly." I still don't see a conflicting verifiable perspective from a reliable source. This would be the hypothetical source I have been asking for over the last few weeks.
 * NPOV on facts v. opinions is primarily discussing superlative commentary, not whether or not a fact is a fact. Your argument would make sense if I were positing that "Reproductive rights are the most important human rights" or "The violation of reproductive rights is the worst human rights abuse." Those statements contain superlative opinions. "Reproductive rights are a subset of human rights" on the other hand, is about as basic and fact based as one can get on the subject without obfuscating the subject's predominant context - international human rights discourses. Phyesalis (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll address your three points in order below. If, during the course of my reasoning, I make any claims you dispute, please point them out specifically, and preferably one by one.
 * You don't need to explicitly (in the prose) attribute the view to a source because of WP:V. If the source was merely making a non-controversial statement, or at least, a self-referential statement, such as "we view reproductive rights as human rights," that requirement of WP:V would also be met, and it would also pass WP:NPOV.  I view WP:V as a minimum standard, a pre-test.  WP:NPOV seems to indicate that if one can show a reasonable prevalence of doubt or disagreement on the assertions made by the article text, then the text must be treated as an opinion, a point of view: "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one."  Now again, see the link to the Catholic News -- here, I'll [quote] some:




 * Since the "fundamental right to life" is a generally recognized human right, and many seem to believe abortion, something universally associated with the phrase "reproductive rights," conflicts with human rights, then the view that "reproductive rights are a subset of human rights" is clearly disputed. Since there is a dispute, there is clearly a difference of opinion.  Opinions must be attributed explicitly to the source, per WP:NPOV: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves." (Emph. in original.)


 * The beauty of Wikipedia, when it works according to its ideals, is that all notable views have a place, and the reader is left to form their own opinion. Says WP:NPOV: "Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions."  Next point.


 * One source is quoted above. Next point.
 * You seem to begin your argument that reproductive rights are human rights, based on the assumption that a consensus in an international discourse (that did not specifically mention abortion) proves that "reproductive rights" (a phrase usually taken to include abortion) are human rights. I dispute your primary assumption.  Gotta run, have to Skype my friend in Australia.  I love international discourse, and we agree on a lot of things. Blackworm (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Whiskey tango foxtrot? I am not trying to argue that abortion is a ratified human right (because it is not and because there is a significant debate about its role in reproductive rights), that would be why I have no problem with Coppertwig's edit that added "often held to include" to the lead. Your continual interjection of the abortion issue is somewhat confusing. I'm just talking about the phrase "Reproductive rights are a sub-set of human rights". Abortion is a separate issue to be dealt with once we can get past the first 8 words of the article. My argument is that reproductive rights are human rights because they have been internationally ratified by human rights organizations and governments. Your narrow argument about abortion does not apply to the general category of reproductive rights. Phyesalis (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * But to take your points in order:


 * You have to have reliable sources (that would be at least two sources that disagree) to have NPOV issues.
 * Your quote disputes that abortion is a human right. It does not dispute the fact that reproductive rights are human rights, rather it argues that abortion is not a human right. Your logic that because one aspect of reproductive rights is disputed, all reproductive rights are disputed and therefore a matter of opinion is fallacious.
 * Given the level of semantic exactitude that you have held me to, I must point out that your source does not state "reproductive rights are not human rights". To paraphrase you, find a source that states it that explicitly. But it might be a useful quote in a section dealing with abortion as a disputed reproductive right. So, still, provide me with one source that states that the set of reproductive rights are not human rights (because your SYN logic does not suffice, nor is it in accordance with the expectations to which you've held me). If you cannot provide me with a reliable source disputing this, there can be no NPOV dispute, as this is about facts, not superlative opinion. Phyesalis (talk) 08:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I specifically asked that you point me to the first claim I make that you dispute, and quote the words you dispute directly. Since my argument seems to logically follow, perhaps if you could point out the specific moment I make a logical mistake, either in my assumptions, or my proceeding from my assumptions to my conclusions, it would be much more helpful.  The best I can deduce at the current time is that you disagree with the statement, "abortion is a reproductive right."  If you wish to state explicitly, in the article, that "abortion is not necessarily a reproductive right" then this would make your argument stronger; however I doubt that is acceptable to you, and I would disagree with its inclusion regardless, also on WP:NPOV grounds.  The important (and yes, challenging) task we have is to present an undisputed treatment of the subject, which leaves room for the "truth" of several views.
 * Your claim regarding the number of sources needed to disprove your assertion is untrue. On multiple occasions, you have used the word "majority" seemingly in an argument that the view you wish to present should be the only view presented; I remind you again that is a fallacious argument, directly contradicting WP:NPOV. Blackworm (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Re this wording: "Reproductive rights have been established as human rights in international human rights documents" in this edit by Phyesalis. Thank you for paying attention to concerns that were raised, Phyesalis. This wording is much better, in my opinion, than some previous wordings. However, I'm not sure that it is supported by the footnotes. If only the AI supports it, then "international human rights documents" would seem to mislead the reader into thinking it's the UN or something. But the (first page that I'm able to read of the) other reference given does not seem to me to state that reproductive rights are human rights. It lists certain reproductive rights of women specifically (a pretty comprehensive list, but it states women, it does not mention men at that point) and calls them human rights; however, it does not state that all reproductive rights of women are human rights, it only mentions the ones listed. It also points out that protecting human rights is necessary to achieve reproductive health, but I think that is referring to normal human rights like rights to be free of things like unfair imprisonment, violence etc.; it does not seem to me to be stating that reproductive rights are human rights. Maybe you could quote the part that you see as saying that. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'm not sure I understand your first point. Are you disputing that there are international human rights documents regarding reproductive rights? There are cited sources regarding Cairo and Beijing. Are you disputing that Amnesty International is asserting a basic fact? Clearly AI is not the only organization that sees it this way (the UN sees it this way per CEDAW, Vienna, Cairo, Beijing). Numerous other NGOs see it that way. This is all basic info in the discourse of reproductive rights that is documented in the article (except CEDAW and Vienna, haven't added them in yet.).
 * As for the wording, good point, how about "Certain RR" or "A number of RR". Maybe this would mitigate the first issue?
 * If we could come to an agreement or compromise about a few basic aspects of this topic, I think it would really move things along. 1)RR are predominantly related to women (as women are the ones who do 99% of the biological reproduction). 2) Reproductive rights have been defined as human rights by international consensus (with dissenting opinions) and a number of them have been ratified as such. There is some debate over contraception and abortion as "rights". What do you think? Phyesalis (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break
(I added this section break to make it easier to edit.) No, I'm not disputing that there are international human rights documents regarding reproductive rights. I recognize that there are international human rights documents regarding reproductive rights, and thank you for finding references to some. I'm disputing that "reproductive rights have been established as human rights in international human rights documents."

I would appreciate it if you would revert this back to the earlier wording while we discuss it. Please re-read my previous comment now that I've clarified what I'm disputing. Note that I asked you for quotes supporting the material you wish to add, and you haven't provided any quotes. WP:V says, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." The reason you need to provide quotes and try to convince me that the reliable sources support the sentence you're trying to add is that you're trying to add a disputed sentence. As far as I know, I'm not trying to add any material at the moment which anyone is disputing, i.e. which anyone is saying is not supported by the reliable sources; that's why I don't have to provide any sources at this moment.

I think that from your point of view, the sources support what you're saying, but that there are other ways of interpreting the words in the sources and not everyone sees them as supporting exactly what you're saying. Since you think of reproductive rights as facts and I think of them as normative things (sort-of like values, not like facts,) it's not surprising that we'll interpret the same words differently. Usually in such a dispute, the best thing to do is to have this article use words that are closer to the exact words in the source, possibly even as a quote, rather than a paraphrase that can be interpreted differently by different people.

It could be that I just didn't notice the particular sentence in the source that supports the material you want to add. If you quote the sentence(s) here on this talk page, that may help. On the other hand, it may be that you and I are interpreting things differently, which is why when I look at the source, I don't see support for what you want to add, although you do see it. It's also possible that the materials is past page 1 and I can only see page 1, in which case it will help if you quote the material here on the talk page.

Re your comment on my talk page: Thank you very much. However, I think it would probably not be a good idea to mention abortion in the lead. I'm not trying to mention abortion in the lead -- I'm sorry if what I said about that wasn't clear. I want to mention abortion, and also property rights, here on this talk page in arguments about the wording of the lead. I don't want to mention either abortion or property rights in the lead itself -- I think they would probably be out-of-place in the lead. The lead needs to be neutral, to be acceptable to people with a broad range of views on abortion, property rights, etc. That doesn't mean it has to mention either abortion or property rights. By the way, from my point of view, abortion is not a "small" controversy and therefore cannot be a "small" part of a set of rights. Also, from some points of view men are equally, or almost equally, involved in or affected by reproduction as women.

There's one further way that I dispute the wording you want to add. Suppose we vind a UN (or similar) document (not just AI) that declares that reproductive rights are human rights. I don't accept that we can necessarily conclude from this that reproductive rights have been established as human rights. I think we can conclude (if we find such a source) that reproductive rights have been declared to be human rights by the UN (or whatever organization the source is from). That's not the same thing. Whether reproductive rights are human rights or not remains an opinion, (from my point of view,) even if there are declarations to that effect.

As I see it, we have three options:
 * (1) Have the article state that reproductive rights are human rights or that reproductive rights have been established as human rights (Phyesalis' most recent edit) or similar wording.
 * (2) Not state something directly as in option 1, but have the article state something with prose attribution, for example that the UN has stated that reproductive rights are human rights (if we can find a document that supports such a statement.)
 * (3) Other.

As I see it, the status of these options is:
 * Status of option 1:
 * Blackworm and Coppertwig have objected and provided arguments citing WP:V and WP:NOR. Phyesalis is not convinced by the arguments.
 * Phyesalis has provided counter-arguments to argue that the arguments of Blackworm and Coppertwig are not valid. Blackworm and Coppertwig are not convinced by the counter-arguments.
 * Status of option 2:
 * No-one has provided any arguments against option 2.
 * Status of option 3:
 * No-one has made any alternative suggestions.

Given this status, it seems reasonable at least until there is further discussion to keep the article in a state that conforms to option 2. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of employment in order to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, the same rights, in particular: [...] f) The right to protection of health and to safety in working conditions, including the safeguarding of the function of reproduction. -from CEDAW" Go with attribution it's better from the point of view of fact checking-- Cailil   talk 16:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Outside view. Go with option 2.  While Phyesalis is not completely wrong to say that reproductive rights are human rights it is more appropriate for encyclopedic writing to attribute a claim of reproductive rights as human rights to Amnesty International and the Cairo and Beijing UN conferences.
 * The problem with claiming straight out that reproductive rights are human rights is the compromise at the heart of CEDAW. It says something other to what many people mean by reproductive rights.  "Artcle 11


 * First, thanks for joining the discussion. The fact that certain reproductive rights have been ratified as human rights is exactly that, a fact. WP policy states that facts are equitably "attributed" with an inline citation (as noted previously). The statement is attributed per WP policy. I think edits that attempt to diminish due weight seem like censorship.


 * I have already suggested an alternate wording but no discussion of this compromise has taken place. I went ahead and changed the wording of the second sentence, in an attempt to move this issue forward. I am not going to revert the statement that "Various reproductive rights have been ratified as human rights in international human rights documents," over an unsupported assertion of POV. The statement itself is documented and supported by the majority of the ref'd content in the article. Nothing in the body of the article contradicts this statement and no relevant documentation has been provided to dispute the fact that (certain) reproductive rights have been ratified in international human rights documents. Mostly, because it is a fact. There is plenty of room in this article to discuss the contraversial nature of contraception and abortion, but disputing basic facts it is not conducive to WP goals.


 * I have made a number of attempts to compromise on this issue. I think moving treatment of human rights to the second sentence and changing wording for clarity to be a reasonable and productive compromise. I'm going for one, per my most recent edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phyesalis (talk • contribs) 17:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Phyesalis, I understand your position but I think it does no harm to the article to attribute statements - even in the lede. Also the point I'm making above about CEDAW is that its mention of reproduction is limited to a provision for maternity leave and access to proper health care.  The statement it makes is exceptionally flimsy due to the compromise it takes to write such a document, and honestly it leaves out more of what many people (myself included)  understand as reproductive rights than it includes.  To my mind something like stating when the UN stated reproductive rights are human rights would provide context here as well as being a thoroughly verifiable statement-- Cailil   talk 19:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The harm is a perceived skewing of weight. Also, if anybody could start objecting to basic facts and could demand and occupy large amounts of time, think about how disruptive that would be on a WP-wide scale. This is a general statement about documents in general. This is the beginning of a stub on its way (hopefully) to a GA article. Seriously, this seems pretty straight forward. I've made my compromise, but I see no need to cave to what are (in my estimation) unsupported POV pushes. Considerations to Pro-life POV, while no material is in the article is a lead violation (no unique content in lead). If there is no content in the article, there is no need to treat it or consider it in the lead (right, Coppertwig? I believe we agreed on that on your talk page.) Phyesalis (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I've dropped a line to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights for input from people involved in human rights articles-- Cailil  talk 01:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Phyesalis (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Phyesalis, I'm sorry I haven't kept up with this discussion for the past few days. Thank you for attempting to address my concerns by inserting the word "various" in "reproductive rights have been established as human rights in international human rights documents".  However, while it's an improvement, it doesn't address all the problems with that statement, and I repeat my request that you self-revert that sentence out again while we discuss it.


 * As I see it, a human right has an abstract reality. A person can believe that something is or is not a human right, but a person cannot change whether it's a human right, as I see it.  Similarly, as I see it, the UN can recognize, assert or affirm that something is a human right, but it cannot make something into a human right that wasn't already, therefore it cannot "establish" something as a human right.  Just as it would be useless to try to provide a lot of reliable sources to support including as "fact" a statement like "God really exists" or "God really does not exist" in a Wikipedia article, so also it would be useless to try to change my personal views on the relationship between the UN and human rights.  In cases like this in Wikipedia, we stick to verifiable facts like "So-and-so says that God exists," etc.  Therefore, the statement with "established" has to go, as unverifiable.


 * Phyesalis, I recognize that as you see things, it's a fact that reproductive rights are human rights. I'm not trying to change your opinion on this, but I ask you to recognize the fact that I see it differently:  that I see it not as a verifiable fact, but as a statement like "God exists" or "God does not exist", which Wikipedia should not assert.  I would appreciate it, however, if you would explain in more detail what you mean by calling it a fact:  are the human rights something created by the UN the way laws are created by governments, in your opinion, or if not then in what sense do you see it as a verifiable fact?


 * Another problem with it is the word "documents". As I see it, we have only one source stating that reproductive rights are human rights:  the AI source.  Therefore, a singular noun should be used, not "documents";  also, it's not clear to me that the AI source is a "document".  A "document", it seems to me, is something that is signed or at least dated and that has some special significance, such as a contract, treaty, or evidence of something;  not just a web page or "fact sheet" that can be updated whenever the organization chooses.  So the word "document" seems inappropriate.  Also, the phrase "international human rights documents" seems to imply something like the UN.  AI is an advocacy group with a particular philosophy and focus, quite different from a governmental organization such as the UN, and I think that needs to be clarified in the way the prose attribution is worded.


 * I suggest changing it to "Reproductive rights have been asserted to be human rights by an international advocacy group."


 * If you think there are other sources that support a similar statement, or if you think that some of the paragraphs in the AI source that refer to other sources support it (as opposed to just the opening paragraph of the AI source), then please specify exactly which passage in which source you think does that. Otherwise, I'm operating on the assumption that there is only the one source supporting the statement.  I've looked at the sources and don't see anything that seems to me to support the statement, but if you specify a particular passage I can look at it more closely and possibly re-think how I interpret it.


 * I thought Phyesalis had provided an argument against option 2, that is, against using prose attribution somewhere, but now I can't find it. (I would appreciate it if someone would point it out.)  Anyway, what I was going to say in reply is:  I have counterarguments, but before giving them I'd like to move that argument out of the realm of the hypothetical:  please specify (again) what particular sentence you want to put in without prose attribution, and please also specify (for the first time, I think) what passage in what source you believe supports that assertion, and then I'll give my counterarguments to your argument against using prose attribution for that statement.


 * Phyesalis, you said you thought I had agreed to something on my talk page. I don't remember agreeing to that and I don't agree to that.  I may possibly have agreed to something that was worded a little differently.  Since we have different POV's on some of these issues, what seems to you an insignificant change in wording could be significant to me.  If you want to bring up stuff we previously discussed on talk, I would appreciate it if you would either re-state those things from scratch, or else provide diff links (or links and quotes so that the specific passage can be identified by searching for that quote on that page), to the specific posts you're mentioning.  I'm sorry if that sounds overly bureaucratic, but I think it's important to be specific in order to be able to move the discussion forward.


 * Phyesalis, you talked about whether the right-to-life POV should be "consider[ed]" or "treat[ed]" in the lead. Would you please clarify what you mean by "consider" and "treat" in this context?
 * Maybe you mean presenting right-to-life assertions in the lead with or without prose attribution, such as "Having an abortion is not a human right," or "Organization X says that being born is a human right." As far as I know, no one is currently suggesting including such material in the lead.
 * Maybe you mean writing the lead in such a way that a person with pro-life views can read the lead, compare it with the reliable sources it's based on, and agree that everything in the lead is verifiable fact. Doing this is required by Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and also by WP:NPOV, which states "None of the views should be [...] asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. "
 * Maybe you mean something else.
 * Please clarify.
 * I understand your frustration in wanting to get this article written and up to GA status, and getting stuck spending a lot of time on one sentence. I encourage you to continue writing the rest of the article, if you are interested in doing so, while this discussion is ongoing.  You might want to write a draft of the article in userspace or off-wiki so that you can concentrate on writing without necessarily disputing at the same time.  I would like to point out, though, that GA status requires that the article be "verifiable ... neutral in point of view, stable,...".  In order to be widely seen as being any of these three things, it has to avoid assertions that strike many people as being in a similar category to asserting that "God really exists".
 * Thanks for participating in this interesting discussion. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC) edited my comment by adding a few words in small print --Coppertwig (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside opinions
The debate surrounds several issues: Thank you. Phyesalis (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the statement "Various reproductive rights have been established as human rights in international human rights documents" as sourced by Amnesty International in the lead (a general statement covering material cited in body of article - also previously sourced by Cook) a fact or an opinion?
 * If it is a fact, as it is attributed per WP policy with an inline citation and covering other material in the document, does it need additional attribution/contextualization (as in the suggested "Amnesty International holds that reproductive rights are human rights" regardless of the fact that various rights have been ratified by the UN)?
 * Does requiring additional contextualization as suggested skew the weight of a documented fact in a fashion that reflects Pro-life ideology so as to suggest the fact is an opinion?
 * If yes, does the fact that article contains no content (documented or otherwise) expressing Pro-life criticisms mean that treatment of a Pro-life perspective is a lead violation (no unique content) and/or a POV violation (favoring editorial opinions without documented sources)?
 * Is the section "Abortion as a men's issue" on one organization's fringe position on "financial abortions" for men in the US based on one court case a valid contribution to an article on sexual and reproductive health?

Feedback
Phyesalis asked me to come by and see if I could help out as an outside observer of the discussion here. I'm not here as her ally or to support one side or the other.

First I think the article needs to be focussed better and organized accordingly. I'm particularly thinking of the lede section. Ideally, the lede should summarize the contents of the article. It shouldn't be the place where arguments over content are wrestled. Please look at Lead section for some tips on this. In general, citations are discouraged in the lede to aid in making it more generally accessable. This isn't an absolute rule but it is recommended, particularly for featured articles.

By focussed, I mean specifying exactly what is to be covered in the article. As it stands now, it apparently encompasses RR worldwide and this means it needs to represent that perspective. Unless sections are begun on at least some other countries, representing just the US views seems like, in my opinion, an undue weight presentation. If the article is international in scope, an international perspective is called for. Since many of the current sources cite international organizations like Amnesty International or the UN, it would be helpful if additional sources do the same unless dealing with specific countries' views of RR. Otherwise, it's comparing apples to oranges. For example, official Catholic views on RR would be appropriate since the church obviously has international scope, reach, and influence. Note my emphasis though: A bishop's pronouncements would probably only be applicable to his diocese. (Is that the right jurisdiction for a bishop? I'm a little unclear on that.)

Also by focusing, I mean it might be a good idea to change the title of the article to reflect the content more accurately. Maybe not. Just a suggestion.

I have more to say but I've got to run right now. I'll be back later. Cheers, Pigman ☿ 20:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Pigman. Perhaps you could give a suggestion or two on the renaming? Personally, I think the current title is the best, but I'm certainly open to new and different information. My plan for bringing this from a stub to GA was to start with the broadest context (international) and work down to various national or sub-cultural debates. Perhaps we could c&p the US text here until future expansion makes it more applicable? Looking forward to more of your input. Phyesalis (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Pigman, WP:NPOV seems to say that we shouldn't give undue weight to one view. In the case of this article, I also take this as meaning that we cannot cover a topic in an ethnocentric manner.  That does not indicate to me that a group's international reach deserves any special status, or that a group prominent enough to warrant mention in reliable sources is to be excluded because it lacks international reach.  It may indeed be cited, and in fact may need to be cited in order to present a more neutral point of view.  In any case, if the context of this article topic is going to be "international discourse," the title definitely needs to change.  I do not believe that necessary or desirable, as it seems like an unnecessary POV-fork -- the other issues would indeed need to be presented elsewhere.  Blackworm (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why does the name have to change? They're called reproductive rights. Does someone have a suggestion as to what it would be called? Phyesalis (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Blackworm, the reason why I emphasized the international aspects is because the current sources in most of the article focus on groups and events with international scope and reach. The exception is the info on the USA "men's right to choose". Amnesty's statement and the UN sponsored events do not address a single country but attempt to define RR on a broad scale. This doesn't preclude having individual countries' responses and/or approaches to RR in the article. Indeed, I think that would be a good structure.


 * I'm afraid I don't quite understand the "...we cannot cover a topic in an ethnocentric manner." comment. I'm certainly not advocating an ethnocentric approach. And, no, organizations don't have to be international in scope to be used as sources and I'm not saying that international organizations are more important than others. I'm particularly wary of focusing overmuch on abortion in this article because that, indeed, would seem to be undue weight when RR seems to encompass a wide range of aspects besides abortion.


 * Blackworm, you said: It may indeed be cited, and in fact may need to be cited in order to present a more neutral point of view. I believe you're labouring under a misunderstanding of NPOV. That is, that all oppositional views need to be represented equally. This is not true. What is required is "...all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)" be represented (emphasis in original). If WP:V and WP:RS can be found that oppose RR in toto or even in general, of course they should be included. However, if the opposition is specifically to abortion and even more specifically from groups in one country, then I think that needs to be noted in a subsection about that particular aspect. From what sources are currently in the article, RR is apparently a global phenomenon. Opposition to it would have to be shown to be significant and international as well to have proportional representation in the article. I can understand your mistake about NPOV; news organizations in particular these days have a tendency to present two views as equal when there is actually a enormous imbalance between support/opposition viewpoints. But an encyclopedia should attempt to parse out the significance and ratio of differing views. Just because an opposition viewpoint exists, this does not mean it needs to be given equal prominence or space.


 * I haven't looked carefully at the back history for sources that may have been deleted but I don't see any significant WP:RS so far presenting a counterpoint position to information currently in the article. I noted this one was apparently used at one point: http://www.prolife.com/ABORMETH.html but it doesn't remotely pass muster as a WP:V or RS. Cheers, Pigman ☿ 05:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no need to "structure" the article in such a way to give international sources more weight, especially since the international sources downplay or dilute mention of abortion, the thing most commonly associated with the phrase "reproductive rights" and clearly its most controversial aspect:
 * Abortion: At the core of reproductive rights is the principle that a woman has the right to decide whether and when to have a child. When faced with an unwanted pregnancy, only she can decide whether she will carry the pregnancy to term. Governments are bound to respect this basic human right by ensuring that women have access to the full range of quality reproductive health services, including abortion. - [Center for Reproductive Rights]


 * Abortion-related charges as a means of controlling women's sexuality - In some areas where termination of pregnancy is illegal, marginalized women are sometimes charged with abortion-related offenses as a means of controlling them. [...] Amnesty International condemned these violations of civil rights and noted that international human rights documents which state that women should not be imprisoned for seeking to terminate their pregnancy. - [Amnesty International]


 * There seems to be an ongoing attempt to present abortion as a universally-recognized "reproductive right," and in turn as a "human right," seemingly as part of advocacy of legal abortion. This article must not engage in that advocacy.  It is not "undue weight" to discuss abortion's characterization as a "reproductive right" since it is clearly RR's most controversial aspect.


 * I have no misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. There has been no opposing view to the NCM material presented.  There may be other discussions of "reproductive rights" that do not include discussion of the rights sought by that group, but that does not change the notability or relevance of this material.


 * I do not know what specific "information currently in the article" you are referring to in your last paragraph. Blackworm (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see your point about universally-recognized "reproductive right," and in turn as a "human right,". This wasn't clear to me. You read the phrase "reproductive rights" as almost entirely concerned with pushing abortion as a "human right" whereas I view the phrase as encompassing a broad range of things (contraception, STD and cancer screening, pre-natal care, sex education, etc.) of which abortion is but one aspect. A highly controversial aspect to be sure but not the sole or even the central motivation of RR advocates in my view.


 * Unfortunately, I suspect that if you want that information and viewpoint presented as a counterpoint, you may have to find reliable sources to do so. The onus is not entirely on those who have shaped the current contents of the article to completely provide for all aspects of balance within the article. Without sources, just inserting the rationale you provided above amounts to OR. The sources in the article on the UN conf. seem solid to me. You can contest the Amnesty source over on Reliable sources/Noticeboard but I doubt you'll get much support. AI is a fairly respectable organization with an international reputation and their reports generally get favorable press. It can't just be dismissed.


 * Re: the NCM material: I don't have a strong opinion on keeping it or not. The independent sources (Salon.com and Time) both indicate the case was filed but I didn't see anything about the outcome. The importance of the case seems limited although I think it's worth including as an unusual and different perspective on RR and it obviously has good WP:V sources. Cheers, Pigman ☿ 08:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. After some opposition on common sense grounds, I respected Phyesalis' request to find one reliable source presenting a counterpoint.  Please see, on this page, my edits of 10:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC), and especially 07:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC), in which I quote one source in detail.  Subsequent to that presentation, which was dismissed, I was asked for two sources, giving me the impression that no amount of sources would satisfy Phyesalis that the statement "reproductive rights are human rights" is opinion, not undisputed fact.  Blackworm (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally, you suggest that I am dismissing ("AI [...] can't just be dismissed") Amnesty International -- I must say I consider that suggestion odd considering I just quoted them at length to make my point. I am not dismissing them or their views, in fact I've said almost nothing about them.  I only used their statements to support my claim that some cited international organizations dilute references to or otherwise distance themselves from abortion, despite it being clear they are in favor of legal abortion.  This makes it unwise, in my opinion, to segregate the views of international organizations and other groups in the article prose.  I am sorry for the misunderstanding.  Blackworm (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I flagged the history section for because the wording of the text of the section seems to be favorable to the subject matter (for example, "While the UN declaration was the first international legal document to delineate human rights, it failed to mention reproductive rights,") whereas it should be neutral towards the subject matter, neither favoring nor disfavoring it. 69.140.159.161 (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

RR as men's rights
Would anyone care to discuss the deletion of the cited material in this section? What part was "blatantly sexist"? If editors are going to remove cited material, would they please discuss reasons on for the removal on Talk? I'm going to reinstate the material. Perhaps someone could reword it or give some contextualization? Phyesalis (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the NCM "men's abortion rights" material is part of the current dispute. Moving the explicitly US material on abortion up into the the broader int'l section is counterproductive. In an effort to achieve some kind of productive environment, I'm going to ask Blackworm to revert his edits of the disputed material. Please? Hopefully we can agree to leave the contested material alone until this dispute can be resolved. Phyesalis (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The sexist paragraph implies the logical impossibility that heterosexual men are somehow more responsible for the spread of STD among children and heterosexual women than the women are. It reads like a radical feminist pamphlet bashing men for loose sexual mores, preaching and criticizing along the way.  The edit is unacceptable, violated WP:NPOV most blatantly and heinously, and is to be removed on sight.  Imagine if someone attempted to add this to the article:


 * Women's reproductive health status and behavior are critical factors in maintaining standards of men's and children's health. Women who have unsafe sex outside of monogamous relationships can become infected and transmit that infection to their partners. Sexually transmitted pathogens can increase the chance of developing cancer. Most cancers of the penis, anus, vagina, cervix and vulva are now believed to be caused by the human papilloma virus (HPV). The main method for women's prevention of STDs, viral and bacterial, is the latex female condom.


 * You will not successfully argue that the above is not sexist, because it is; similarly, it is sexist when "men" and "women" and "male" and "female" are reversed -- regardless of who said it or what reasons they had for saying it. If you wish to use this source, you must attribute this (sexist) opinion at the very least, and I would also strongly suggest posting a web link to the source and/or a supporting quote to ensure the author is really as sexist as this text implies.


 * You have been opposing the NCM paragraph since its inclusion weeks ago, but you have no grounds to oppose it. Also, I've noticed you've been making multiple personal requests to editors you have had contact with in the past to comment on this dispute.  I believe you should be aware of WP:CANVAS should you choose to continue in this avenue.  Blackworm (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have grounds to oppose the NCM material because:
 * I'm still unsure how it relates to sexual and reproductive health.
 * I oppose the US specific info being in a section that has an international context.
 * Regardless of the single mention in Time of the lawsuit, it's fringe. As RR are predominantly women's issues, I find this to be included on a basis of undue weight.


 * I discussed some of the issues with Cailil, he suggested I ask Pigman for an outside opinion. I did. What are you suggesting?


 * I'm having a hard time AGF when material that is under dispute is repeatedly reverted during the course of the dispute in such a fashion that makes no effort to compromise or move the dispute forward. Phyesalis (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As I have already said, your uncertainty on the material relating to health is irrelevant, since the topic is reproductive rights, not reproductive health. The information documents a group's claim of reproductive rights and a corresponding legal case; the fact it is from the US is irrelevant.  It is a view not to be marginalized or suppressed due to its not being "international," for reasons I state above in my response to Pigman.  As for the material being "fringe," that seems to be your opinion, as is the opinion that "RR are predominantly women's issues," which seems to be based on your opinion that "women are the ones who do 99% of the biological reproduction."  I do not share these opinions, and in fact am offended by their expression, because I believe they are sexist statements.
 * I am suggesting that you read WP:CANVAS if you have not already done so. Now, are you stating that you have only contacted two editors to comment on disputes you have had with me on this topic, or have you contacted others you have not mentioned as well?  The answer is not clear from your response. Blackworm (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to suppress NCM, I was willing to afford the WP process and you a bit of respect and leave it in there during the course of the dispute. I was at least ok with leaving it in a US section, but you've moved it to the international section - this I am not ok with. If you suspect me of canvasing, please take up on my talk page. Phyesalis (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no "international section" in this article. You have no basis to oppose the material.


 * I note you haven't disputed the fact that the paragraph I deleted is sexist. Please do me the courtesy of either engaging me in that particular discussion, or self-reverting the sexist paragraph I removed and you restored.


 * I will take the fact you will not directly answer my question regarding the true number of individuals you have contacted regarding this dispute, as evidence you do not wish to discuss that subject. I am not interested in any discussion involving you on either of our User pages.  Blackworm (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not answering directly because this isn't the appropriate place for this discussion. If you have an issue, I have invited you to discuss it on my talk page. Do I understand you correctly? You have refused my invitation and feel that the article talk page is a more appropriate place for this discussion?


 * Regarding your assertion of sexism, I'm not removing the cited material. I don't understand your logic in the substitution of women for men. If you can find a reliable source that states the same thing about women, I invite you to include it in the article. Also, I would suggest (again) that instead of deleting cited material (which if repeated over a prolonged period of time looks like vandalism), you first make some kind of attempt to fix the problem. Fixing issues of purported POV is generally the WP norm as this is much more constructive than deleting material. Perhaps you could explain why you think the statement is sexist in greater detail? Would anyone else like to jump in and opine on the alleged "sexism" of the contested info (above)? Phyesalis (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am done discussing your multiple solicitations of outside opinions to specific individuals for the moment, since you will not directly answer my question. The answer is relevant to this page because you appear to imply on this page that you have only contacted two editors (one, at the suggestion of the other) and have not contacted any other editors to comment on this dispute.  I believe this apparent implication may be false, and would rather you clarify in case you did not imply what I inferred.


 * You say, "I don't understand your logic in the substitution of women for men." That is a real pity.  There is no room for asserting someone's sexist opinion as unattributed fact in Wikipedia.  Again, I am willing to flatly assert that you do not understand policy in this area: Material violating policy may be deleted.  It is not my responsibility or any other editor's to make violating material conform to policy rather than simply deleting it, which I will do in this case should the sexist paragraph remain as-is (in violation of policy).  Blackworm (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(<<<outdent) I support this edit, which removes the passage referred to above. The passage is biassed against men, talking about men picking up infections by having sex outside monogamous relationships while saying nothing about the possibility of women doing the same thing. It's biassed against non-monogamous relationships, talking about the possibility of getting infected in non-monogamous relationships while falsely implying that it's not possible to get infected by having sex in a monogamous relationship. It also states the unverified assertion that the main method of prevention is the condom. I'm not convinced that the main method of prevention is not abstinence (i.e. limiting the number of sexual partners, whether to zero, one, or some other small number.) The citation is to an article which quotes someone making similar assertions. Therefore, these assertions may simply be that one person's opinion. They haven't been verified, in my opinion.

In general, editors are encouraged to improve material rather than just deleting it. However, in my opinion editors are not required to do so. Sometimes, an editor sees no way to improve the material, or else it would be a lot of work for that editor to do so (whether there's some reason why it would be harder for that editor, or whether it would be a lot of work regardless of who does it). In such situations, simply deleting the material is a good option, in my opinion. I don't see any one sentence of that passage that could be left standing and be reasonably verifiable and also fit in with the flow of the article. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Quotes partially supporting Phyesalis' position
I looked at a couple of the sources again and found the following statements. They don't use the word "subset" and I don't think they have "human rights" and "reproductive rights" in the same sentence, but they can perhaps be seen as supporting a position similar to what Phyesalis is trying to assert. Hopefully we can use these to help build a compromise:
 * Human rights and Reproductive Choice, Freedman and Isaac (currently a footnote in the lead): "Almost invariably, discussions of reproductive health strategies acknowledge the close connections between health and law, and include as a basic tenet the importance of reproductive choice as a universal human right." A weakness of this quote is that it refers to "discussions", not to declarations, ratified documents, etc.
 * Advancing Reproductive Rights Beyond Cairo and Beijing by Cook and Fathalla. "The Declaration and Platform for Action adopted by 187 UN member states in Beijing reaffirm the Cairo Programme's definition of reproductive health (para. 94), but advance women's wider interests. 'The human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence.'" A weakness of this quote is that it applies only to women, not to men.  It also emphasizes health but isn't clear on freedom to choose whether to have children.

The lead currently says "Various reproductive rights have been claimed as human rights in international human rights documents ..." and I see that my replacement sentence suggested in the "Reverting/Arbitrary section break" section won't fly without changing what comes after, since what I just quoted isn't the full sentence. The word "claimed" needs to be changed, IMO, because in a similar way that "recognizes" implies truth, "claims" tend to suggest falsehood. I suggest changing it to "Reproductive rights have been asserted to be human rights by an international advocacy group, and various reproductive rights have been discussed in international human rights documents, particularly with ..."

Later in the article, more detail can be given based on these same quotes. I'm trying to make a concise statement that will fit into the lead, that doesn't necessarily cover all the information in the quotes. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

UN Documents
Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) engenders the right to health. Note also the link to the general comment on its implementation. There's a focus there on women.

Hope this helps.

There's also an instrument which is either still under discussion or originally was, that discusses human dignity and the embryo on an international/multinational level. I suppose that may be relevant. Sephui (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of reproductive rights
I might have missed this in a quick search/skim, but there doesn't seem to be any criticism of the right to have as many offspring as one wishes. This is discussed in Hardin's essay The Tragedy of the Commons (see 'Freedom to breed is intolerable'). This view is no doubt an unpopular one, especially among liberals, but he is far from the only one to hold it. Richard001 (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This essay and this particular criticism do seem quite relevant. If you wish, why not add a sentence or two to the article, and cite this source?  Or perhaps suggest an edit here?  Blackworm (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's difficult to insert because the article structure doesn't seem to offer any suitable place to add it in. There needs to be a new section created that presents criticism of the notion of reproductive freedom in the sense of being able to have lots of children if you so wish, and then counter-criticisms of the arguments of Hardin etc. Richard001 (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you suggest some wording here, I'm sure we can find a place for it. I tend to prefer not to have a criticism section anyway; notable criticism of a view is relevant whenever a view is presented.  Blackworm (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have very limited knowledge on this matter so without doing further research I can only provide a quick summary of Hardin's views on the matter:


 * Garrett Hardin was a critic of the idea that everyone should be free to have as many children as they wish. The problem with this belief, he asserted, is that some people (e.g. the poor) will have many more children than others, which will lead to unsustainable population growth and the degradation of the environment for posterity. He considered this situation of "laissez-faire in reproduction" a form of the tragedy of the commons, where people that have more than their 'share' of children are like farmers overgrazing common land for selfish personal gain. He considers the problem to be made worse by the welfare state. He attacked the argument that people can control their population growth voluntarily, arguing that those who with a strong conscience will be selected against, with those ignoring such appeals giving rise to more children, and such conscience being 'self eliminating'. Whether conscience is transmitted genetically or culturally, he felt the outcome was inevitable. He argued that we should adopt 'mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon' to prevent this problem. He concludes that "The only way we can preserve and nurture other and more precious freedoms is by relinquishing the freedom to breed, and that very soon. "Freedom is the recognition of necessity"--and it is the role of education to reveal to all the necessity of abandoning the freedom to breed. Only so, can we put an end to this aspect of the tragedy of the commons."


 * Richard001 (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow. While all that is very interesting, it is much too much information for this article.  The so-called "right to determine the number [...] of one's children" is but one part of the topic of reproductive rights, and not one that is fleshed out in detail in this article.  It would likely be a violation of WP's policy on undue weight to detail his view in more than a sentence or two.  Not to belittle your efforts here, but an appropriate edit may simply be: Hardin challenges the right to breed without limit, pointing to limited resources.  He writes, "The only way we can preserve and nurture other and more precious freedoms is by relinquishing the freedom to breed, and that very soon."   Even that might be too long, and perhaps only the first sentence should be used.  Someone interested in the subject could follow the reference and learn more from the article.  What do you think?  Blackworm (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess it's a matter of taste really... On matters of values (as opposed to facts), what we include in the article is basically based on appeal to popularity. Ideally there would be a more specific article where it would warrant more space. Personally, I prefer to just deal fully with an issue on whatever page I can and let it be split off (and summarized, of course) when necessary, but that's a very 'work in progress' attitude.


 * Anyway, that sounds like a good start. Having read the article through I'm even less able to see where it could possibly go in the current article structure (and certainly not in the lead, which can only summarize information below). Still, if you can fit it in there somewhere without creating a new section, by all means do so. Richard001 (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've incorporated the above in this edit, with a minor change, questions the validity of a [right...] instead of challenges the [right...]. I believe the latter is making the assertion that the right exists, and the former follows WP:NPOV better by avoiding the assertion.  Do you think it fits where it is?  Blackworm (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, it seems a bit weird to put it under the section 'Cairo Programme'; for one thing it doesn't really fit historically (Hardin wrote this in 1968). Imagine you were a reader and had to guess which part of the article you would find that information in - I certainly wouldn't have any idea where to look. But it's also only the view of one person. There are others who have raised similar points and surely no shortage of critics of such arguments. So, I guess what I'm saying is it should have its own section, but as it is it would be a very brief section with a narrow range of views. Also, don't forget to include internal links wherever you can - most people won't know who Hardin is. Richard001 (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the chronological order of the publication of views is relevant. Wikipedia isn't a history text.  I also think it's not too much to demand from a reader that they read the whole article; but I believe the problem here is undue weight given to the Cairo programme -- I don't believe such declarations should have their own section, but rather that individual aspects of proposed reproductive rights should have their own sections.  If we were to create a "Right to determine number of children" section, and include a shortened treatment of the Cairo programme and other similar views, as well as criticism, I believe the article would flow more smoothly and be more useful for a reader seeking the information.
 * Finally, I don't agree that authors' full names and credentials are to be mentioned when quoting their views. I agree with linkifying "Hardin," if indeed he has his own WP article, but once we begin to "introduce" sources as ecologists, etc., we open a can of worms that potentially invites non-neutral POV.  I've seen arguments over such prose introductions, along the lines of "It should say reknowned, respected sociologist Smith!!!"  "No! It should say discredited, quack scientist Smith!!!"   The standard many others and I have adopted in controversial matters is simply to use the last name of the author without introduction, to avoid these issues.  Blackworm (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how saying what someone does or where they are from can introduce POV. And adding their first name just makes it clear who you are talking about - there are many people with the surname Hardin. As for chronological order, that's what you normally expect in a history section. We're going from something in the 90s to something that was published decades earlier. If I read an article on the history of genetics, I would hardly expect to hear about criticisms of gene therapy in between Mendel and Thomas Hunt Morgan. Richard001 (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, anyone with an attributed view in an article is notable to the article only inasmuch as their published statements are notable. The fact Hardin is an ecologist is irrelevant; what's relevant is that his view that is directly related to reproductive rights was published in a peer-reviewed journal.  Adding his first name gives us no information as to his identity that isn't already clear from the cited reference, so I don't share your view that his first name is relevant either.  I totally agree that in the context of a history article, or even a history section, a different treatment of views is called for.  In this case, however, we are not talking about the history of reproductive rights, but merely about reproductive rights.  Hardin's view is not a response to the Cairo document, true, but then the Cairo document is not a response to Hardin.  I think it appropriate in this article to present the information supporting the reproductive right in question, followed by criticism, rather than the other way around.  Blackworm (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You say we are not talking about the history of reproductive rights, yet we are precisely talking about the history of reproductive rights - that's the name of the very section in question! Hardin's criticism is not historical in the context given - it occurred long before the 'Cairo Programme' and is relevant to the topic as a whole, not just that programme. Richard001 (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right about the section name. Sorry, I hadn't realized that.  I don't think that section should exist.  Given the wide diversity of what different groups claim reproductive rights are, and what reproductive rights exist, I'd much rather see a separate treatment of each right listed under the banner.  I'm not strictly opposed to a "criticism" section, and indeed one existed until an editor recently deleted the entire section (along with any pro-life links).  I'd prefer, though, to see major changes to the layout of the article.  Unfortunately, there are currently several open disputes relating to this article, and I'd like to allow a bit more time for them to be solved before beginning to make these changes.  In any case, the information is now in the article, and the reference is there if we want or need to cite more.  If and when the layout changes, the information will be put in the correct place.  Blackworm (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I realize my comments above may be interpreted as suggesting ownership of this article. Just to be clear, no one "owns" this article, and you should feel free to edit it as you please, naturally following WP policies and consensus.  Blackworm (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm i don't know if i exactly agree... this is quite a intreging idea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.167.114 (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Men's reproductive rights
The section on "men's reproductive rights" only covers sexual rights and doesn't mention reproductive rights at all. It is in definite need of improvement. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 02:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Mens Right to control reproductive function
The following was added under mens rights, but it needs some work on wording and citations. I am moving it here because it seems to be commentary/discussing possibilities, rather than covering what is/is not reproductive rights. (Or perhaps that is a matter of improving the wording.)

Another possible issue of male reproductive rights is the right for a man to ensure against unauthorized use of his semen to produce a child he does not want, such as by a woman soliciting intercourse while falsely claiming to be under the effects of birth control, with the intention either of entrapping the man into marriage or of abandoning the man and raising the child. However, such situations are relatively uncommon due to the traditional cultural preference that men wish to "sow their wild oats" and that recalcitrance to bear a child must always be a female trait. While a few men's magazines such as Playboy have addressed the issue of "sperm theft", it remains an uncommonly vocalized concern.

While the basic concept seems reasonable, it is unclear why it should be under mens rights, rather than under general reproductive rights. The rights to control reproductive material apply equally to women. (Both in terms of possability of contraceptive sbotage and in terms of controlling use of stored genetic material.) The assertion that such concerns apply more or less to one gender or another in a particular culture need citation, but unless there is reasonable evidence that such concerns only apply to one gender in virtually all cultures, I think this would be more evenly handled outside the men/women split. Zodon (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Another possible issue of female reproductive rights is the right for a woman to ensure against unauthorized use of her body to produce a child she does not want, such as by contraceptive sabotage. That seems to be covered by abortion, mentioned earlier.  Also, the woman is given the privilege to choose whether to raise the child, and also may sue the father for child support (and possibly also for the contraceptive sabotage).  A man has no such rights and privileges.
 * Another possible issue of female reproductive rights is the right for a woman to ensure against unauthorized use of her eggs to produce a child she does not want, such as by controlling the use of stored genetic material. Presumably, the difference there is that the woman would, at the very least, not be sued for child support by the surrogate mother as the latter raises her biological child against the former's wishes.  A man may be so sued.  Blackworm (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think the first case is covered by abortion. It is clearly a separate right to be free from contraceptive deception in any form.  In any case I encourage a gender-neutral wording if it can be made neutral.  Blackworm (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

History of reproductive rights unbalanced
The section History of reproductive rights is unbalanced in that in only covers the history of reproductive rights for women. I suggest that it be renamed to History of reproductive rights for women or include content about the history of reproductive rights for men (e.g. information about Dubay v. Wells, which many masculists, rightly or wrongly, dub Roe v. Wade for men). JCDenton2052 (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems like we already have info on that case. Do you have any other sources? We have to readily acknowledge that the term "reproductive rights" is for the most part used in a specific context of women's issues. What men's issues do the "Center for Reproductive Rights" and the "National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League" tackle (or even the WHO for that matter)? If we have sources, then all means we should expand that coverage, while keeping in mind undue weight. I searched google for "reproductive rights for men", but became discouraged when I found a lot of blog and forum posts and other content that doesn't meet WP:RS, and no major national or international organizations. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place, so if you could help find some sources, I'd be glad to work with you to expand the coverage. -Andrew c [talk] 14:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A Google search turns up some sources:, , , , , , , and . Are any of these WP:RS? JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because the history section focuses more on women than on men does not mean that it is unbalanced. Some of the material in it does deal with men, (and some of it could use a bit of more neutral phrasing as far as sex), but much of contraception and reproductive health focuses on women.  So issues of weight come into play.  No objection to increasing the coverage of mens reproductive rights, but since much of the work in the area has focused on women a preponderance of women's issues is neither surprising, nor out of balance compared to the field.  Perhaps an expand template would be more appropriate? Zodon (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I too think it makes some sense that the history section focuses more on women. Of course, from my view, that's because it seems like reproductive rights is practically synonymous with abortion in the U.S. and Canada.  The only controversy in the U.S. on reproductive rights seems to be whether abortion actually is a right.  Blackworm (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Part of the greater focus on women's reproductive rights may be because in many societies women have had fewer reprodutive rights and less power. So now there are some efforts to adjust that.  It shouldn't be too hard to come up with material on history of men's reproductive rights, especially if you look at histories of sexuality dealing with times before the women's rights movement.
 * At this point I don't see renaming it women's reproductive rights, would rather try to keep things generally integrated and expand coverage, rather than segregating it. Zodon (talk) 04:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I would say the greater focus on women's reproductive rights is because in many societies women have all the reproductive rights while men have none, and women in general have more legal power than men. And now the research reflects that.  Then again, both our theories are irrelevant.  Blackworm (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Clean up
I have cleaned up some fo the language so that the clean up tags can be removed. I have taken out the following statement, which may be included in the article where appropiate (cant think of where right now and the language needs looking at).--SasiSasi (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The late American ecologist Garrett Hardin questioned the validity of a right to breed excessively, pointing to limited resources. He wrote, "The only way we can preserve and nurture other and more precious freedoms is by relinquishing the freedom to breed, and that very soon."

I have also taken out ref to paternity fraud as it is not clear how this relates to reproductive rights of men. I have added paternity fraud as a link in see also: Paternity fraud is the act of falsely naming a man to be the biological father of a child, particularly for the purpose of collecting child financial support (also referred to as child maintenance), by the mother when she knows or suspects that he is not the biological father. According to Steve Scherer, a senior scientist in the department of genetics at the Hospital for Sick Children (Toronto), 10% of babies born in Canada are victims of paternity fraud. A 10% paternity fraud rate was cited during a science seminar for Canadian judges in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada in November, 2002 by a panel of medical experts. A self-reporting national poll of 5,000 women in Scotland conducted in 2004 concluded that half of the women said that if they became pregnant by another man but wanted to stay with their partner, they would lie about the baby’s real father.

Also, I have taken out the US section as it is not refernced. Please only move this section back into the article once its referenced:

Reproductive rights in the United States In the United States, the public debate surrounding reproduction rights is often about abortion rights. Reproductive rights advocates support women and men's right to abortion and contraception from within the context of the right to privacy, or freedom from governmental interference, supporting legalized contraception and abortion.

In the United States Constitution, the right to privacy has been interpreted to include reproductive rights, as seen in numerous Supreme Court cases. Three important cases are Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), and Roe v. Wade (1973). In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme court overturned a state law prohibiting the use of contraceptives, which established a constitutional right to privacy and legalized contraception for married people. Eisenstadt v. Baird extended the right to use contraceptives to unmarried people. Roe v. Wade legalized abortion on a federal level.

The term procreative liberty was coined by John A. Robertson, a professor of law and bioethics at the University of Texas School of Law.

--SasiSasi (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Compulsory sterilization weight
At the moment, compulsory sterilization section seems to put too much weight on China. It seems like should give a brief summary of various issues/instances and leave the details for the main article. Zodon (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean, its partly because its the only example of forced sterilization and abortion I can think of, but also because the issue in the context of population control is very current (eugenics is no longer that prevalent). One reason why the section is rather long is because I could not find a source that clearly explains the legal situation. Also, I have added a ref with regards to crimes against humanity and war crimes, although it does not really need extending as no prosecutions have been brought under these laws (only rape). Eventually I would like to extend the issue of forced sterilization and abortion with regards to disabled (I think it is still legal in a number of jurisdictions and very much a current debate), I also have to check if the recently adopted Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities includes reproductive rights. The section certainly needs rounding off, so feel free to edit and extend. --SasiSasi (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Mens rights - "Male abortion"
A recent edit restored the phrase "leaving the informed mother with the same three options" and said it was a very important point in the edit summary. It is not obvious from the entry here, or from the article on Male abortion that this phrase is particularly important, it seems more like extra words saying what is blindingly obvious (a change in circumstances that doesn't eliminate any of your options leaves you with the same options). If it is an important point, its meaning/importance should be clarified in the Male abortion article. (The phrase is there, but there is no particular mention made to explain its significance.) (Note: I am not saying that it isn't important, just that it isn't clear that it is or why it is, and therefore it would improve the coverage of the topic to explain it in the main article.) Thanks. Zodon (talk) 22:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * From having discussed this with people in the past, it is not at all obvious that the woman is left with the same three options -- many people believe that supporters want to force abortions on women, or force adoption, or that the woman would not be informed early enough to make an informed choice involving all previous options. The woman being informed, in fact, is a crucial part of the concept, and one which would not be mentioned if the phrase were removed.  I don't see the motivation behind removing the nine word clarifying phrase unless one wants to create the impression that it is not the case that the woman is left with the same options.  Blackworm (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Was just trying to shorten the entry and cut out what looked like needless words.  Zodon (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Tragedy of the commons
The question was posed in an edit summary about how Tragedy of the commons is related to reproductive rights. Couldn't come up with a short enough answer for edit summary, so here is a longer one.

The tragedy of the commons deals with individual choices resulting in over-use or destruction of common resource, specifically with relation to human overpopulation. "To couple the concept of freedom to breed with the belief that everyone born has an equal right to the commons is to lock the world into a tragic course of action."Tragedy of the commons Curtailment of individual reproductive rights may be necessary for the common good.

So the tragedy of the commons is a commentary on the right to determine the number of children a couple has, which is among the rights some claim as reproductive rights. Zodon (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't see the above discussion from earlier this year when I removed Tragedy of the commons from the see also section. Still, I think there could be a sentence or two about it somewhere in the article, but in the see also section it just looks unrelated. --Apoc2400 (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

addition to intro
"Because the concept of "reproductive rights" often refers to the controversial practice of abortion, the term and concept of such "rights" are themselves extremely controversial, inasmuch as they represent a preference of women's rights over the rights of nascent human beings. "

I dont see how the source supports this statement (I am not saying its wrong or right). cant we find a better source. Also, the language will have to be more neutral. Ta--SasiSasi (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Also:
 * Abortion is only one small aspect of reproductive rights.
 * Controversialness of abortion varies by country/culture.
 * Might also want to note efforts vilify practices/ideas/etc. by claiming they are controversial or trying to simplify/link them to some easily vilified/controversial aspect. (Like how a decade or so ago in the US if one mentioned the Internet it was widely associated in the public mind with pornography.) Zodon (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at it the article does cover a lot of abortion related issues (women’s' right to abortion, male abortion, forced abortion), even though abortion (of any kind) is only one of the numerous rights that may come under the umbrella term that is reproductive rights.
 * I want to extend the "reproductive rights issues" section, to cover some of the other rights/issues that may be covered by "reproductive rights". Most of these should have their own wiki article, so it would be mainly a case of covering the issue in terms of the reproductive rights debate and linking to the main article for more details. I/we also have to finally cut down the "Compulsory sterilization and abortion" section.--SasiSasi (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Confused about wording
Under Compulsory sterilization and abortion: Compulsory or forced sterilization or abortion violate these rights, particularly when they occur in the context of eugenics programs. Just wondering why it being part of a eugenics program makes it violate the rights more. Surely it either breaks them or doesn't?

--152.78.174.10 (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your right, I will check the sources to see if it supports this wording, the section needs rewrite anyway.--SasiSasi (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The paragraph seems a bit weasely and OR-ish: we start with what "some" understand RR to include, then discuss what we seem to believe is an example that violates that interpretation, then assert that it "violates" "rights."  I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to attribute these views to their adherents, or find a source discussing eugenics in the context of reproductive rights (or at least human rights, which might be an acceptable stretch).  Blackworm (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * jep, I will try and get some reliable sources of the next couple of days and update the article. In the moment the section on compulsory sterilization and abortion is too much original research, there must be some specific sources on the issue. This would also help to cut down on the detail.--SasiSasi (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes to article
I have done some work to the article, still needs work though. I have not got round to changing the particular wording discussed above (eugenics).--SasiSasi (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * On footnote style, where many references to the same book are used, please consider putting the details of the book in once, and then just footnoting with the author and page (see for instance, human rights and Bibliography).  Makes it a lot easier to read/edit.  (Also, combining of duplicate references helps.)  Thanks. Zodon (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Eugenics stuff
I did a bit of work on it but did not finished, I have removed the eugenics bit from the article because its too much original research. Have to find better sources. In the meantime, I put the removed section below:--SasiSasi (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Forced sterilization and forced abortion, as part of a widespread or systematic practices, are listed as crimes against humanity by the Rome Statute Explanatory Memorandum, which defines the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Reproductive rights are understood by some to include "the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence." Compulsory or forced sterilization or abortion violate these rights, particularly when they occur in the context of eugenics programs. The Eugenics movement in North America and Europe at the beginning of the 20th Century led to the widespread forced sterilization of vulnerable populations, including the mentally or physically disabled. In the case of mentally or physically disabled women, proponents of compulsory sterilisation have argued that it is in the women's best interest.

Expansion of reproductive rights issues section
I have put an expansion tag on this section to signal that it is work in progress. Please feel free to contribute.--SasiSasi (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Terminology - Population policy vs. control; Family planning vs. birth control
A couple of suggestions on terminology.


 * We should try to keep straight the distinction between Population control and population policy. Population control describes a subset of population policy.  The terms are not interchangeable.  (At the moment Wikipedia is weak in this area, with an article on population control, but not much about population policy in general.)


 * Family planning is sometimes used as a synonym for birth control, but they aren't the same thing. It can sometimes be difficult when interpreting a source to determine what they mean when they say family planning.

To avoid confusion we should try to keep these terms as clear and distinct as we can in our writing here. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Zodon, re: family planning, we've been through this before, and couldn't seem to reach a consensus on how the term should be used. It seems to me now, based on sources, that "family planning" = "birth control" + "treatment of involuntary infertility (artificial insemination, etc.)"  You don't seem to agree with that, but IMO it isn't clear that we can define "family planning" based on what "family planning clinics" provide, as you've done in the family planning article.  If family planning clinics provided STD testing, for example, would that make getting an STD test "engaging in family planning?"  I wouldn't say so.  Blackworm (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of links
This edit has as its edit summary, "remove links included in template." None of the removed links appear in the "Rights" sidebar, and so I ask what template are these links already present in, and where in the article does this template appear. Blackworm (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See this edit. It is the reproductive health footer template.-Andrew c [talk] 19:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)