User talk:Chase08

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Chase08, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Pro-life
Hi Chase08. Thanks for joining Wikipedia. Having your first edit reverted isn't much of an encouragement to continue, so I'll explain why I did it. Although many would describe the Pro-life movement as "anti-abortion", for some it is seen as a derogatory term. Unless there are good reasons not to, we typically refer to a movement or organisation by the terms it chooses for itself to avoid accusations of bias. (For example, many American organisations that one might ordinarily call "right-wing", are, on wikipedia, described as "conservative", as that is how they describe themselves.) The Pro-life article has a section on terminology (Pro-life) so we're not censoring the use of "anti-abortion". The article is also very clear that they are anti-abortion. All the best, VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In addition to what VsevolodKrolikov said, please keep in mind that many people who call themselves pro-choice would not call themselves pro-abortion. We let groups name themselves whenever possible, just to avoid this sort of situation. Please think this through and try to put yourself in the mindset of those you disagree with. Only then can you begin to understand what it would take to change their mind. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Your edits
After reverting your edit on pro-life, I looked at your contributions so far. You appear to be trying to insert your own political views into several articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Please edit according to the policy of presenting a balanced and neutral point of view.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are referring to the edit of the eco-terrorism page, I can say without hesitation as an academic who specializes in terrorism that it is full of inaccuracies -- at least one of which, the passage portraying the Unibomber as an eco-terrorist, is demonstrably false. It is not a "political view" to eliminate this falsehood. Please defend you restoring those passages, with citations that are not suspect.
 * As for the National Animal Interest Alliance and NAIA Trust, that site appears to be wholly written by the NAIA and supporters itself, and does not list its own political agenda, which is lobbying for agro-industry, animal research, and pet shops, etc. This, also, is demonstrable.  Wikipedia does not allow Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd or PETA to write its own entry, so why should the collective "we" allow NAIA to do so?  This is a double standard, and no in any way "neutral" according to Wikipedia's pillars.--Chase08 (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As an academic, I'm sure you recognise the difference between interpretation and uncontroversial fact, and also the importance of sourcing. Your edit on [[eco-terrorism] read:
 * "'[attempts to try and criminalize legitimate civil disobedience by associating it with terrorism...] was particularly true during the administration of George W. Bush, during which terrorism committed by right wing groups (anti-abortion violence and murders, for instance) was underplayed by comparison'."
 * Who was underplaying it? How and where? Whose opinion on the merited weights of attention is being given here? Why is anti-abortion violence right wing? (Who put it in that category in opposition to eco-terrorism)? Wikipedia, (in practice especially) on subjects which get edit-warring from different camps, requires sourcing to notable analysts and organisations for such statements.
 * For the NAIA, I absolutely agree that the page is severely lacking a criticisms section, as they appear to get a fair bit of it. However, what you can't do is, in the lede, state boldly "NAIA is a front group and industry funded lobbying organization for animal commerce and agribusiness based in Portland, Oregon" as an unequivocal description of them, especially without any sourcing whatsoever. You also inserted weasel words like "claim", when it should be "state" - which is what sets off POV red flags for other editors. It's not a matter of being nice to them, or having a 50-50 balance of praise and criticism. If there's a great deal of criticism, put it into a criticism section - with sources. Who says it has a political agenda? Who says it lobbies for agro-inudstry? I can find a few sources that mention it with a google scholar/book search, although I'd rather something a bit meatier (NAIA doesn't seem to get a great deal of attention). You may have better material on your shelf.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)