User talk:Lion's Heart

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! - Please do read the linked pages. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Health effects of abortion
I notice that you recently got involved in an edit war on the Abortion page. I would appreciate it if you would also contribute to the associated discussion on Talk:Abortion. Thank you. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 14:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Greetings, I reverted some inappropriate edits on Abortion, and accidentally went back one too far, also reverting your edit removing the image from the Fetal pain section - my apologies, I have restored that edit and commented on the talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's OK. There's a lot going on at the abortion page. It's hard to keep track, but you caught it. Lion&#39;s Heart 17:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It tends to get busy in waves, usually (as now) when a new editor arrives who has a strong POV. Currently we have several POVs battling it out, so the odds are good we'll arrive at an acceptably NPOV consensus. Real problems arise when the balance is off. Thanks for your kind words on my talk pge, btw, which I have removed - I prefer not to split threads, it leads to confusion - and I have enough of that in my little head already! KillerChihuahua?!? 18:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I got SheffieldSteel's message and have to say I went to the abortion talk page, was completely overwhelmed, and turned around (not very lionly, am I?). The problem seems to be that you have a few strong voices on both sides of the fence and not many mediators in between. It's like they're trying to outdo each other instead of focusing on the real issues. I've got this funny picture in my mind of the abortion article bouncing between looking like Conservapedia and a Planned Parenthood brochure. (Oh, BTW, hope you don't mind that I changed my signature in line with your funny comment on your talk page). Lion's Breath 19:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind my chiming in. I think I may be one of the strong voices. I am pro-life, and I have enough academic training to keep it (mostly) under control. I try hard to outline and respect arguments instead of stated or implied ideological affiliation. However, I do have a POV, so I am the first to admit that I need good arguments AND (at times) good mediation to help me see where NPOV is. There is a good reason why debates are never scored by their participants. The thing I find most harmful to dialog, especially on the Abortion pages, is when people refuse to own that they have a POV and use the legalistic application of Wikipedia rules to push a POV while they pretend that they are ideologically disinterested. Consequently, I totally agree with you that it would be great if we had many more moderate and moderating voices involved. Do you or KC have any practical ideas about how that might be accomplished?LCP 19:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There's the Assume Good Faith rule. Unless someone's got a history of changes to the page that are very obviously to one side of the fence then I'm thinking you shouldn't assume that they're serving some hidden agenda. If you're pro-life, and someone disagrees with you, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're pro-choice, or that they're out to sell that view. And just because someone is pro-life doesn't necessarily mean that they're out to use this site as a platform for their thoughts. Just because someone has a POV doesn't mean that every suggestion or change they make arises from it. I really do think that people can act in a neutral way even when they have a very strong opinion. I read over the abortion talk page and it sort of seemed like a lot of people were treating it like pro-life vs. pro-choice. Like Slacker said, this site isn't a battleground, and I don't think changes should be made just to "rebut" the other side. As I understand NPOV, it's more like a newscaster reporting a story without commentating on the subject, then letting two speakers in a debate have equal time. Then everyone will try to squeeze their word in on everything and pretty soon the article will be very disorganized. I don't know if my response is really any use or if it reflects Wikipedia's rules. Honestly, I only know what I've read on the rule pages, but there's sometimes a big difference between a rule and how that rule is applied. How I'm interpreting the NPOV policy page might be very different from what is practically considered NPOV on an article page. Lion's Breath 21:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you. Perhaps if you sit in for a while, you'll see what I am talking about.LCP 21:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean the abortion talk page? Lion's Breath 21:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes.LCP 21:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I try to call it when I see a seriously biased POV edit or push for same; I enforce policies and bite ankles without bias regarding the "side" anyone is "on". Other than that, there is the usual Try to work with others to find consensus, Common sense, etc. I don't think there is much more that any of us can do, really - some people try to edit NPOV, and some don't, and of those that try, some are more successful than others. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)