Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Pro-Life

The following discussion comes from Categories for deletion. This is an archive of the discussion only; please do not edit this page. -Kbdank71 18:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:Pro-Life
Used to categorize people ostensibly "who are against abortion and who are Pro-Life." Never mind the fact that abortion opponents are not singular regarding what exceptions or reasoning they may believe in, but categorizing individuals by their position on a single issue is simply inappropriate. Postdlf 02:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme prejudice. Neutrality/talk 02:19, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Unlike another contentious category, terrorists, Pro-life people call themselves as such and so I vote to leave the cat open. --Hooperbloob 02:31, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) Advocacy groups Advocacy groups by issue Abortion Race relations Gun control etc.. Listing the topic as opposed to the names of the groups themselves might be an easier way to go --Hooperbloob 17:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Rick Block 02:41, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * KEEP Perfectly legitimate category. I think some people's personal beliefs are getting in the way of logical thinking. Categories are all single issues. I mean, since the Category: People from New York is one issue, should it also be deleted? People who play guitar? Murderers? If there are people who identify themselves as being for or against something and they have made statements or done things to make this known then they should be allowed to be in a category. FroggyMoore 03:53, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Whether or not someone is from New York is not an opinion that individual holds. And my personal beliefs are not the issue.  I don't want to see a category for pro-choice individuals either.  Postdlf 05:41, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: misnamed - shouldn't it be something like "Pro-life supporters" instead of just "Pro-Life"? --Whosyourjudas (talk) 04:31, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with FroggyMoore in that some folks are finding it hard to drop their POVs--Hooperbloob 05:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether the category be kept or not, the term "pro-life" is not NPOV. Dysprosia 05:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Cat name is very much not NPOV; if such a cat is necessary it should be Category:Abortion opponents or Category:Opponents of abortion.  The term pro-life is not in any way neutral; its very use implies an acceptance of the ideology's tenets. (Note that I also objected to Category:National liberation movements on the same grounds; the name, although that's what they may call themselves, makes a judgement in the group's favour.) &#8212;Tkinias 06:03, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Reorganize In looking at the general issue we currently have Category:Political advocacy groups in the U.S. but within it we have a similar problem: Category:White supremacist groups in the U.S. How would the NAACP article fit in relation to that cat? Create a counter-cat? I'd suggest we reorganize it as follows:
 * Delete. Jxg 21:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete or Rename - Bad category. For one, despite its widespread use, it's part of the whole political doublespeak, and thus, POV.  If you interpret the term literally it should only include people who are opposed to abortion and the death penalty.  And hey, I'm opposed to both, even though I believe in preserving a woman's right to choose (since I believe that it is none of my business).  Secondly, categorising people on the basis on their political views seems rather strange - do we have categories Republican (American), Democratic (American), Independent (American)?  Or worse yet, "Pro-Germ Theory of Disease" (or Pro-Wearing Clothes of More than one Fibre" vs. "Biblical Literalist"?  "Anti-Abortion Activist" (or, if you must give in to the doublespeak, "Pro-Life Activist") might be a valid category.  Guettarda 23:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Either DELETE because it is POV (using the term Pro-Life is inherently POV), or rename to Anti-abortion activists. Quite a few suppposedly Pro-Life people support the death penalty, so they are categorically *not* Pro-Life, and are just hypocrites. Ofcourse there are also the vegan animal rights extremists who question the use of pro-life term, when so many of the pro-lifers eat meat, and don't give a damn about non-human life. Atleast the Pro-Choice people are honest in saying what they are, when they label themselves. 132.205.15.43 23:46, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * By this argument, the Pro-Choice label is completely meaningless. Do "Pro-Choice" people support the right of any person to make any choice?  For example to choose to speed, committ fraud, marry their sister, or muder their child?  Of course not.  Would you say that their failure to support "choice" under all circumstances makes them hypocrites?  Johntex 20:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I wonder if there's a pro-abortion category for China and Japan, where abortion is a favoured means of birth control (especially in Japan, where the Pill is banned).


 * I'm totally fine with Category:Anti-abortion activists, because it is proper to categorize people by what they are notable for doing, and activism is necessarily active conduct rather than expressed opinion. Simply categorizing people based on their opinion on a single issue is inappropriate, however.  Otherwise, I'm creating Category:PATRIOT Act supporters, Category:Bush tax cut opponents, Category:People who support prayer in schools, Category:People who are against Ten Commandments monuments on public property, Category:People who supported the invasion of Iraq, Category:People who believe in a right to privacy, and Category:People who disagreed that Titanic should have won the Oscar for Best Picture, and all their opposites.  Postdlf 00:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Anti-abortion activists and Category:Anti-abortion activist groups or delete. -Sean Curtin 01:37, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete or Rename. The current name is POV. --Gene s 08:32, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice is the common nomenclature used to describe supporters of respective sides of the abortion debate in their own terms. --MPerel 09:46, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. If this is to be kept, then the category "Terrorists" must be renamed to "Freedom fighters". The term "Pro-life" is biased and subjective. Some argue that it should be kept, as the anti-abortion activists refer to themselves as "pro-life". However, using the same argument, you could say Al-Quaida don't refer to themselves as "terrorists", thus they should be put in "freedom fighters" category. The same goes for most every terrorist organization in the world. A violent criminal is not referred to as "innocent", even if this is what he claims to be for himself. The whole point is; that if we are to be objective, we cannot give anyone the priveledge of naming themselves this way, no matter what our subjective opinions are. This cannot be stressed enough. TVPR 12:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * When it comes to controversial topics, terminology is inherently subjective. The only way in these cases to preserve a neutral POV is to make sure opposing sides are equally represented.  In the case of Al-Qaida, there's no reason why the organization couldn't be classified under multiple categories, "terrorists" AND "freedom fighters".  Likewise with the abortion issue, the neutral way would be to include proponents of each view under multiple categories, the ones described by themselves, and the ones described by opponents. --MPerel 23:10, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * In reality, I agree with you, but this would make things a tad too complicated. But you are correct, naturally; there is no way in which we can name any group in a neutral way. The closest would be Category:Pro-Life -> Category:Anti-abortion activists, and Terrorist groups -> Non-governmental semi-military activist groups. This won't work either. So I'm at a loss. I still think "pro-life" gives a false connotation, seeing as many anti-abortion activists both eat meat and warmly support the death penalty - hardly pro-life, or even pro-human-life. My view is that the most correct, least biased way would still be classifying pro-life in particular, and everything else in general, in the most NPOV way possible. Pro-choice, for instance, would be Pro-abortion activists, as "pro-choice" also is a connotative phrasing. Okay, I'm rambling, so: whenever possible, use least biased title. Any group of people called "pro-x" where x has clearly positive or negative connotations should be promptly renamed. Any with the word "terror", "liberty" etc. should also be renamed, as these are very emotionally laden words. The page Terrorism should naturally remain, as it serves to give the word a definition without pointing out particular groups, while on the other hand, the pages Terrorist groups and Freedom fighter groups (should this ever appear) should both contain only a link to a page with a more correct, less POV name in which both lists could be merged. --TVPR 08:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I would not find "Pro-abortion activists" an appropriate NPOV term to substitute for "Pro-Choice". Many pro-choice advocates, including moi, are not "pro" abortion, and actually find it an abhorent choice, but support the autonomy of women facing such a situation to make reproductive decisions about their own bodies rather than having governments deciding for them. As for the hypocrisy of the term "pro-life", I agree, however the two movements identify themselves as the "pro-life" movement and the "pro-choice" movement, and each has its advocates. NPOV doesn't necessarily mean everyone agrees with how a movement identifies itself. For example, does everyone believe members of Hizbullah really belong to "the" party of God? --MPerel 04:29, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * How about "Pro-Choice" -> "Abortion access activists" ? 132.205.15.43 05:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Comment: I didn't nominate this for deletion because it used the designation of "pro-life" for abortion opponents.  I listed it because it tries to classify people by their position on abortion.  I really don't care what terminology is used&mdash;categorizing by opinions on specific issues should be per se invalid.  Categorize instead people notable for being anti-abortion or reproductive rights activists.  Or make a list article, and annotate the source of the alleged position ("Britney Spears said in a Rolling Stone interview that abortion was 'wrong'") and the substance of their position ("...but agrees there should be exceptions for cases of rape and incest.")  Please keep the discussion on this point, and then if the wrong decision is made to keep this type of classification, then talk about terminology, and about what kind of meaningful limiting principle would then keep individuals from being categorized by every conceiveable specific opinion.  Postdlf 00:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying, I didn't realize until after taking a closer look that the items in this category are all people. I disagree though with your statement that "categorizing by opinions on specific issues should be per se invalid". I think if public figures publicly identify themselves as supporters of particular movements, in this case the pro-life movement, there's nothing wrong with categorizing them as such. Since the items in this category are all people, however, I do think it would be appropriate to rename the category "Pro-Life Advocates" and that there should also be a "Pro-Choice Advocates" category. Supporters aren't necessarily "activists" though, so "advocates" or "supporters" probably better describes their status. There are lists out there of advocates of each of these movements: Pro-Life Supporters, Pro-Choice Supporters.

--MPerel 04:29, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Just because that's what people label themselves as doesn't mean it's an NPOV position. So... if we rename Pro-Life to Category:Anti-abortion advocates and Pro-Choice to Category:Abortion access advocates, as this is in fact what they are all about, access to abortion, versus no abortion, wouldn't that make it NPOV? Notice that categories about Conservatives and Liberals have been deleted because of the POVness of it. There should probably be a Category:Pro-abortion advocates, since some people are pro-abortion as a means of population control (no choice, government edict instead). 132.205.15.43 00:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete: I agree with Postdif that this kind of categorization is not encyclopedic. DCEdwards1966 00:36, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: A list of people who advocate a certain position is useful, so long as opposite sides of the issue are given exposure, and so long as it is kept NPOV.  On the subject of the name itself, both the "Pro-Life" movement and the "Pro-Choice" movement identify themselves, and often each other with these terms.  Sure, they have chosen names partly for their positive connotation.  You don't see very many people identify themselves as "Anti-Choice" or "Anti-Life".  That does not mean that use of the commonly accepted names is POV.  Johntex 20:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: both a self-identification and in widespread use in the media and public discourse. And I hate to have to mention this, but I don't think Life should be capitalized here (or choice in a parallel)... Samaritan
 * COMMENT: Anti-Abortion is also a term in widespread use in the media and public discourse. 132.205.15.43 03:31, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't think we need categories for every opinion, and if we do it should be called "for the right to abortion" and "against the right to abortion" or something.  --fvw *  03:38, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree we don't need categories for every opinion.  I'd be OK with Category:Anti-abortion activists for people who've invested time and energy on that side of the issue, as opposed to merely expressing a position when asked by a reporter. JamesMLane 19:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. But a list of notable advocates of this position would be fine. Gdr 12:23, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. It seems to me that allegations that those in favor of deletion can't drop their POV is unfounded. In addition to being quite poorly named, this category inherently obfuscates what it intends to categorize. The dichotomy Pro-Choice/Pro-Life is a false one if it is not enumerated and explained, for the issue has many nuances and distinct points of view. A category of abortion activists that subcategorizes with these different views would be perhaps acceptable, but it would be hard to do so without muddying and oversimplifying views. It's the insistence on polar opposition in this issue that makes progress, and even actual discussion, so incredibly hard. IMHO, that's not something in which Wikipedia should be engaging. Timbo 02:12, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Also, if anyone attempts to rename/recategorize it, he/she should definitely take into account the concerns expressed by Timbo.
 * Strongly keep Pro-life is a core value that goes beyond issues like abortion and euthanasia. It also includes things like respect for the individual, the healing arts, food supply issues, war and peace issues and more. Calling it simply anti-abortion, is simplistic POV spin-doctoring, even to the point of being somewhat pejorative. Pollinator 04:08, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * That would be great if it were that simple. How exactly are we defining Pro-Life? It's a term that has been so politicized that it has little meaning. As has been said above (I think) there are certainly plenty of anti-abortion, pro-death penalty people who describe themselves as pro-life. I know people who are anti-death penalty and pro-choice; they consider themselves pro-life in the sense that they think that human lives should be preserved, although they think abortion does not equal the killing of human lives. So if we want to make a category that describes advocates of the pro-life definition you describe (and not the simplistic and often inconsistent definition commonly bandied about in the media), then Pro-Life is a decidedly inadequate category name. Timbo 03:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)