Talk:Anti-abortion feminism/Archive 2

Expert Needed

It's difficult to try to write about this article in a more neutral, unbiased tone, and I noticed some people who edit the article always are biased against the pro-life feminism. There are really many pro-life feminist views across the world and this article should reflect this, not the views of their oponents in excess.85.242.239.146 (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The article should reflect the anti-abortion feminists positions taken from the 18th century to the first half of the 20th century. Then, after 1969, it is exactly when we can talk properly about pro-life feminism, around the world.85.242.239.146 (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I am a reviewer and I will do my best to expand the article and exemplify the modern pro-life feminist stances. Not a easy task but it should be done.Mistico (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Like I wrote before: "Pro-life feminism, as an organized movement only developed in the second half of the 20th century, specially after the 1960s, when the pro-choice movement become more influencial. It makes however all the sense that modern pro-life feminism claims to be in the heritage of the anti-abortion feminist tradition of the past, in the same way that pro-choice feminism reinvidicates the same about the 19th and 20th century feminists who supported legal abortion. The same goes for modern anti-death penalty supporters who use the heritage and the stances made against the death penalty in the past from people like Thomas Paine and Victor Hugo, or for the death penalty by people like Thomas Aquinas and Abraham Lincoln. The times change but these controversial issues remain."Mistico (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You cannot improve this article by removing any of the text based on scholar Laury Oaks. For instance, this edit from Mistico removed an important point about pro-life feminism's refusal to split up the abortion issue into its various legal, moral and medical components in the way that many women do. Binksternet (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

This was Laury Oaks POV and it is very arguable.85.243.70.254 (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The Oaks cite is a peer-reviewed scholarly work, the highest level of sourcing possible by Wikipedia guidelines. Her viewpoint is a scholarly one and her cited text cannot be removed. Binksternet (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm finding these arguments rather unconvincing, seeing as your attempts to supposedly reach NPOV include deleting information from the only scholarly source cited, removing attributions in favor of having this encyclopedia state as if it were fact that "pro-life" feminists are carrying on a nineteenth-century tradition, and changing the text to pretend that "pro-life" feminists are a substantial number of feminists instead of a fringe group that's rejected by the feminist movement as a whole. (You claim that "pro-life" feminists are a majority elsewhere, but you've yet to prove it. Numbers, please.)

Please read WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV: "Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution." Please read WP:UNDUE: "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view."

Perhaps you do have useful things to contribute to this article, but we haven't yet seen them. Maybe you could begin by writing content instead of by deleting it?

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

19th century feminists

Not all 19th century feminists felt the same way about abortion. We cannot put the names of three women in a row if we describe them in ways that do not fit all three. We have this sentence beginning:

• Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Matilda Joslyn Gage, who considered abortion to be an evil forced upon women by men...

All three agreed upon this aspect. They thought the world that men controlled was a world that brought about the problems of abortion and illegitimacy, prostitution and infanticide (the killing of a newborn). The 19th century feminists thought, perhaps too optimistically, that if women were strong in politics, if they held the vote, that abortion could be eliminated, along with a host of other societal ills.

But abortion as a crime? Anthony never expressed an opinion about abortion being a crime. In fact, she typically did not advocate any kind of law that focused its restrictions on women. She advocated laws that lifted restrictions. A rare exception to this was her stance on prostitution which was very liberal, legalizing prostitution in order to control its bad effects, or on the fence, unsure about what would be best, until the early 1870s at which time she sided with those who wanted to make prostitution a crime. Maybe she wanted to make it illegal for a man to seek out a prostitute... Anyway, Anthony cannot be lumped together with more fiery, more religious orators as Gage who did consider abortion a crime. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem very biased against pro-life feminism of nowadays and the anti-abortion feminist stances of the past. I have no problem in having a article explaining the pro-choice feminism and their heritage and I certainly wouldn't like to see it written in a biased way against them. Excuse me, but from all evidence I ever read Susan B. Anthony really saw abortion as a crime, and Matilda Josylin Gage was an atheist! This is what Anthony said about abortion: "Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!"[1] The historical context of the 19th century feminism is very different from nowadays. Most feminists opposed abortion in principle and were against it's legalization. You are trying to enforce your POV in the article claiming that modern pro-life feminists are less feminists then modern pro-choice feminists, calling them mainstream feminists. Pro-choice feminists can be a majority in the United States but this article is about pro-life feminists in the world. The article should reflect the 18th cand 19th century feminist views on abortion, taking their historical context. Back then very few voices support legal abortion and the most widespread view was that abortion really could be eliminated. I am trying to select a proper bibliography about that and different stances on abortion taken by leading feminists. There were already some feminists in the 19th century who supported the legality of abortion. The first half of the 20th century saw many of these anti-abortion stances by leading feminists and also the rise of modern pro-choice feminists like French writer Simone de Beauvoir. Since 1960, we can talk with more propriety about pro-life feminism, as opposing pro-choice feminism, and it is a movement widespread across the world. We can't center this article exclusively in the United States. In fact, from what I have read, pro-life feminists are very influencial in Latin America and the Islamic world.Mistico (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I invite all the editors of this article to read carefully Wikipedia policies of NPOV: [2].Mistico (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV is my guiding light. I know it inside and out.

You are wrong about Gage, and you are wrong about Anthony. Gage was religious, helping Stanton write The Woman's Bible, but she seriously questioned religion, from the inside. Anthony did not write the quote you think she did... it was anonymous, signed only 'A'; a manner of signing that Anthony never used. Anthony never stated, not once, any opinion about abortion being made a crime.

Regarding the difference between U.S. ratio of pro-life to pro-choice feminists and the global ratio, you will need to cite some sources. Scholar Laury Oaks is the cited source saying pro-life feminism is the minority. You cannot remove that simply because you do not like it. If other cites are brought into the article, scholarly ones that can stand up against Oaks, which counter her viewpoint, then you can modify the Oaks statement to say that other experts have arrived at a different conclusion. You cannot remove any Oaks-cited text as it is at the highest level of scholarship as judged per Wikipedia guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm seriously worried about applying the labels "pro-life" and "pro-choice", both fairly modern terms invented for propaganda purposes, to people from the 19th century who would not even recognise them. There is no historical continuity from e.g. Anthony to modern "pro-life" feminists. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly nobody in the 19th century can be absolutely named as pro-life or pro-choice, but we can quote reliable sources who say they think so, keeping to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Which portion of the article are you worried about? Binksternet (talk) 06:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this NPOV: "Having failed to gain a respected position within traditional feminism,[1] pro-life feminists have aligned themselves with other anti-abortion, "right to life" groups. This placement sets them against the feminist movement, and erodes the sense of an identity separate from other pro-life groups, despite the pro-life feminist "pro-woman" arguments that are distinct from the "fetal rights" arguments put forward by others.[1]" What do you mean with traditional feminism? I guess nobody really can talk about pro-life and pro-choice feminism except after the 1960s but modern pro-life feminists can claim the tradition of the 19th century and 20th century first half feminists that were anti-abortion. How can such a claim in a article based and pretend isn't biased against pro-life feminism? Should this article be totally subservient to Laury Oaks bias?82.154.80.225 (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this article, like all articles, should reflect the highest-level sources we can find. If you are able to locate a pro-life scholarly source then bring that information to counter (not remove) Laury Oaks. Other non-scholarly sources must remain "subservient" to Oaks. Binksternet (talk) 19:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Germaine Greer

Is not pro-life. Simply no question about it. Disliking the way in which abortion is currently practiced, preferring to focus on prevention of unwanted pregnancy, criticizing the movement's focus on abortion - are not equivalent to opposing abortion, and your personal belief that she is "pro-life," based on your own interpretation of one essay (when she's written time after time about her support of abortion rights), is not an acceptable substitute for reliable sources.

(As for the other parts of the revert: WP tagging policy is that tags are not to be used as a badge of shame, but rather to advertise ongoing discussions about how to improve the article. There are no ongoing discussions. I removed the links because they are for individual organizations, and should be linked in those organizations' articles but not from a page on the general principle. And we have no reason to say "Laury Oaks states" as though it's her personal opinion.)

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"Germaine Greer advocate(s) a clear warning about abortion on demand." Would you say that is not an accurate assessment of the source? And though I didn't write the statement, from my perspective it looks like the editor is trying to say that the existence of Pro-life feminism doesn't mean that all other varieties of feminism are mainline Pro-choice. Decenting opinions do exist. Is that an inaccurate statement to make?

As for the other part of the revert, would you not say that the article could use the benefit of an expert? And in my opinion we are debating a POV issue right now. Other political articles include links to individual organizations or directories of organizations including Feminism, and I have not be able to confirm the context of Laury Oaks's comment as the link isn't currently working for me, so given I had just hit the revert button I didn't see any reason to keep that specific change. PeRshGo (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether it's an accurate paraphrase is irrelevant. It might belong in the Germaine Greer article. Greer not opposing abortion, it doesn't belong in an article on feminists who oppose abortion.

No, I don't see the need for an expert. Nor was the reason for that tag ever explained, in fact; it seems rather like the person who originally added it thought it meant "o no this article isn't promoting my POV!" rather than "let's get someone in with scholarly background in the subject."

The only EL that leaps out at Feminism is the link to Women's Forum Australia; all the other links appear to be historical/scholarly/news sources. I'm not terribly invested in removing the links, but it does give the impression of "'Pro-life' feminism is represented entirely by these three organizations, only one of which is notable."

What would you say is the POV problem we're currently discussing? I certainly see a BLP problem, viz. calling a living person "pro-life" when she is not, but that's a different policy.

-- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, also, if you have no objection with removing "Laury Oaks states" but, as you said, just reverted it blindly, would you mind restoring it? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether it's an accurate paraphrase does matter. If it's accurate and contributes to the article it shouldn't be removed. It never says she's a Pro-life feminist and in fact it says the opposite. As for your assessment of the tag, well that's your POV on their motivations. If I look at this article now I can certainly say it looks like it could use someone who knows what they're talking about. As for the external links, the primary issue I had was just leaving it empty when there are obviously organizations it could link it. The POV problem, and in the reality the only reason I even looked at this article is I noticed a couple of editors seem to be Wikilawyer Pro-life oriented subjects into the dust. I wasn't even watching the subject, I'm just stuck at my in-laws and thought, wow these actions are painfully blatantly against the sprit of Wikipedia policies, someone should say something. PeRshGo (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

So, wait, you're agreeing that Greer is not in any way an example of "pro-life" feminism and you still want to keep her in an article on "pro-life" feminism? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The only point being made by their edit was that even mainline feminists will have negative things to say about abortion. It was never said she was a pro-life feminist. PeRshGo (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Then it doesn't belong in an article on "pro-life" feminism. This isn't a clearinghouse for every possible criticism of abortion coming from a self-identified feminist. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Then what source would you suggest properly backs up the claim that even some mainline feminists criticize abortion? PeRshGo (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

A third-party source would be preferred, but this is something to bring up on Talk:Feminism; since it isn't about "pro-life" feminism, this is not a good place to discuss it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Greer's attitude(s) toward abortion should not go in this article but into other relevant ones such as feminism or abortion or Greer.

And Laury Oaks does not have to be attributed as she is a top scholar giving a neutral appreciation of the topic.

And the tags at the top are old. They have already done whatever good they were intended to produce, and they should be retired.

Finally, this article should not be linking URLs to groups that are not pro-life feminists. Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

So now that you have made a comment you feel comfortable reverting the article to your previous edit with no consensus made? PeRshGo (talk) 19:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing better arguments for removal of Greer, removal of tags, removal of off-topic URL, removal of "Laury Oaks said". An essential step in achieving consensus is that the arguments of one group are convincing. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course you find the arguments better, you reverted to an edit that you yourself made first. Roscelese simply repeated it. But it does make me realize the sad truth looking me in the face which is that consensus is a numbers game and that’s one thing I just don’t have. PeRshGo (talk) 22:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Laury Oaks COI

Laury Oaks is a mainstream feminist scholar commenting on a movement that she states herself broke away from and now is at odds with mainstream feminism. There should be some statement making the reader aware that this possible conflict of interest allowing the reader to decide how much weight they wish to give it. Listing authorship is not discrediting. PeRshGo (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't how conflict of interest works. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

So members of an opposing viewpoint get the final say on their opposition? PeRshGo (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If they meet our RS standards, which, as scholarly sources, they do. Dressing up the same old argument in "she has a COI!" won't fool anyone. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually that's not true. The RS guideline doesn’t weigh in on conflict of interest issues, but taking conflicts of interest into account is most certainly important in balancing POV. Usually this is achieved by putting the view of opponents in to a criticism section or mention the author’s position before the view is stated. PeRshGo (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If there were a conflict of interest, then we could discuss whether that devalues the source, but "no longer anti-abortion" is not a conflict of interest. Again, this is the same argument you've already tried and had rejected with Gordon and Sherr - "She doesn't agree with me, so she's not RS" - but now you're trying to dress it up in a new policy in the hope that it'll work this time. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you think I'm talking about? Though it's off topic I've never considered Gordon not to be RS, and I still do consider Sherr more TV personality than scholar, like the consensus made on other articles. But right now I'm stating that Oaks is a mainstream feminist commenting on a movement that is at odds with her own, and it should be framed as such PeRshGo (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. Let me phrase it a little differently: Not opposing abortion is not a conflict of interest. Read WP:THIRDPARTY. Trying to claim that Oaks is writing as a representative of some organization or establishment could charitably be described as original research, but I'm not so charitable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Oaks is a verifiable mainstream feminist. By her own account Pro-life feminism split off from mainstream feminism and is now at odds with mainstream feminism. It is the equivalent on giving a Catholic Priest the final say on Lutheranism. There is a clear conflict of interest. This does not mean we should remove the information because it is important for the reader to be aware of what the parent movement thinks about its offspring, but the statement should be correctly framed. Also note from the very policy you linked to me it is mentioned that it is best to mention how the source is connected to someone with an interest in the topic if there is even a possible conflict of interest and it is most important to do so in controversial subjects. So what is the problem with giving the reader information on who wrote the statement? PeRshGo (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Selectively quoting parts of that paragraph is a waste of time, because if you'd look at the rest, you'd see that disagreement does not constitute a conflict of interest. I don't know how many more ways I can say this. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

So do you have any reason why Oaks's statement should not have information about who made it? PeRshGo (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it's an admitted attempt to treat her as an antagonist instead of as a scholar. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it incorrect to state that she is a mainstream feminist, and that by her own statement pro-life feminism broke away from mainstream feminism, and is now at odds with mainstream feminism? If it isn't then what possible grounds do you have for your argument? PeRshGo (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Because, as I already said, it's pretending that she represents the antagonist position instead of the scholarly position. In short, what you failed to do with Gordon and Sherr, but now you're claiming it's a COI issue. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I never made this argument with Gordon or Sherr. My issue on that OTHER article was that they were attempting to make a statement of fact on a matter of opinion. Now unless you’re going to try to make some rebuttal to my argument on THIS article I see no reason why not to change it back. PeRshGo (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I've rebutted your "argument" half a dozen times and I see no reason to copy and paste it when you can just go back and read it. Take the source to a noticeboard if it offends your "pro-life" sensibilities. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

All you have said is you don't like the argument. If all you have is bad faith accusations I'm changing it back. You can't just complain about it without responding to its content. PeRshGo (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would you make that claim when anyone can look at this thread and see that it's not true? Do you really think that people will take your word for it about what I said when they have my comments right in front of them? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You have made no argument! Unless you can prove that my assertions aren’t true all you're doing is stating your dislike for my changes. PeRshGo (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

These false claims are wasting my time and they're wasting yours. Like I said: take it to a noticeboard. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Will do. In the mean time, take a look at Wikipedia:ATTRIBUTEPOV. PeRshGo (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

As the name would suggest, ATTRIBUTEPOV is only relevant for POVs. If you'd read the paragraph, you would notice that it refers to "biased statements of opinion," not to research published in peer-reviewed journals. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be continuously ignoring the fact that this is a mainstream feminist writing in a mainstream feminist journal about a movement that splintered off of mainstream feminism and is now at odds with mainstream feminism. Parent groups as a whole on Wikipedia, or anywhere are not considered impartial when commenting on sub groups that have rebelled against them. You are trying to argue that Feminism should somehow be an exception to the rule here without providing a reason for the exception. It not suiting your POV isn’t a good enough reason. PeRshGo (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Feminist Formations is a scholarly journal, not the Pravda of the "mainstream" feminist movement. If you want to include "mainstream" feminists' opinions on "pro-life" feminists, I'm sure there's plenty of material out there, but Oaks's research is not an example of that. You're really going to need better evidence discrediting the author or the journal if you want to claim that the statements represent a simple POV rather than research, as you are doing when you cite ATTRIBUTEPOV. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Oaks is a scholar, period. If you have another scholar in mind who rebuts her position, bring it into the article in a way that balances the two views. If no other scholar is brought, Oaks stands. Binksternet (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not advocating removing Oaks. Oaks standing or not was not and has never been the issue. PeRshGo (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese, you’re strawmaning. No one is trying to trying to eliminate Oaks or somehow make a statement to discredit her. You even reverted someone else’s change to just listing her as “feminist scholar” complaining that it didn’t address your strawman. I would have been fine with that change. Laury Oaks is a Feminist, and she’s commenting on a movement that is according to her own statement at odds with mainstream Feminism. There is no policy “violation” in attributing her claims. In fact if anything it’s encouraged. So unless you can find a policy that is opposed to listing authorship you have no case. PeRshGo (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Claiming that her research represents the "mainstream" feminist POV instead of peer-reviewed scholarship is an attempt to discredit, yes. Attributing the statement implies the invocation of ATTRIBUTEPOV when no POV dispute exists. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that being published in a peer reviewed journal somehow equates to 100% impartial, but it doesn’t. Noam Chomsky for example regularly has work that is published in peer reviewed journals, but given his political beliefs and highly regarded status his authorship is more often than not mentioned when one of his articles is cited. This is true with most articles about political belief systems. Libertarianism for example name drops on nearly every source. There is no reason this article should be an exception. PeRshGo (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

There you go again pretending that Oaks's research reflects only her personal opinion! Chomsky is not a political scientist or historian, so duh, his political opinions are going to be attributed. When do we attribute his uncontested statements on linguistics, his field of study? (Note "uncontested" - if there were a scholar that had a different view of "pro-life feminism," we would obviously write "Oaks says A and Bloggs says B," but absent any disagreement, there's no need for this, and poisoning the well is in any case inappropriate. Same reason there's all that attribution at Libertarianism - because we present different views. Also because many of the names are being cited for their political opinions rather than their scholarship.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the key points about Oaks is that her article was given a high level of peer review before it was printed in NAWSA Journal. Nobody on that journal's editorial board would allow mere opinion to be printed. We apply the article as The Truth until another scholar is found who says differently. Binksternet (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Chomsky is a linguistics, political, and philosophical scholar, his work has been published in peer reviewed journals covering a variety of subjects, and his statements, many of which come from such journals are attributed to him more often than not. Also peer reviewed journals do not simply publish statements of fact but also scholarly opinions on matters with the peer review process existing to eliminate outright falsehoods. On top of that even views that are uncontested are very often attributed to the article especially if the subject matter of the article is controversial. But with the arguments you’ve presented you still don’t address the fact that this is a feminist’s comments on a splinter group in opposition to her own and there is no policy or good reason that recommends not attributing authorship to a statement. In fact it is outright promoted in things like Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Writing_for_the_.22enemy.22. Listing authorship shows no bias, and in no way discredits. The only possible reason that you would want to not attribute authorship would be to hide it. PeRshGo (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I've explained half a dozen times that pretending Oaks's research represents The Feminist Opinion instead of sociological research is a misrepresentation that attempts to discredit the best source thus far cited. The fact that you don't want to believe it doesn't mean that, as you claim, I haven't explained it. If you still feel that it's important to pretend that Oaks represents a side instead of scholarship, take it to a noticeboard and see if you can find people who agree with you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Despite her being in your opinion the best source (a source that mind you has only been referenced by other issues of the same journal) she still is a feminist who by her own admission is speaking about a group which is at odds with feminism. On top of that there is nothing discrediting about listing authorship. Why hide her? PeRshGo (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No one's "hiding." Her name and the journal are very clearly listed in the references, because that's how citation works. Adding information about her in the article text supposes that it's her opinion. For the twenty-fourth time (I'm not counting, this is a nerdy allusion), personal disagreement does not constitute conflict of interest or scholarly bias. Your unwillingness to try and resolve this through the normal channels for content disputes, instead of by just repeating your already discredited "arguments" and making easily disproved claims about other users' comments, does not reflect well on you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I actually have attempted to go through the "proper" channels but no one wants to touch this one. I can’t even get a third opinion. Controversial issues on Wikipedia are a garbage dump of POV and no one wants to get involved in that tangled web. That’s why the abortion wikiproject died out. The only thing that reflects bad on me is I don’t know when to quit arguing with POV pushers. You claim that mentioning her name supposes that it's her opinion. So the fact that listing authorship is recommended as I have demonstrated is just set aside? The reality is you don’t want it to be clear that nearly the entire article is cited to the work of one mainstream feminist writing about a movement she sees at odds with her own. It’s plain and simple and the only reason you’re getting away with it is because the debate is more or less just you and me, and you’re more than willing to edit war over it rather than reaching for a compromise like the edit Haymaker made. PeRshGo (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You got a third opinion and you didn't like it. The next stop is a noticeboard. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Bink isn't exactly uninvolved, but if you want to count everyone Haymaker made their own edit on the issue and you reverted that too. I still have a notice up for a genuine 3rd opinion. PeRshGo (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Try reading WP:3O again. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I did. "Third opinions must be neutral. If you have had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute." PeRshGo (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

3O is for bringing a third person into a dispute between two editors. How many editors do you count here, arguing about Oaks? More than two, so 3O is not the proper venue for your concerns. Binksternet (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

My 3O request predates you chiming in and I still feel a neutral opinion from someone not involved in the regular editing of these articles would be greatly beneficial. But with you back involved you two basically can keep any one person from editing to the article given the one revert rule sanctions so I might as well take a break from the issue for now. Hopefully time will bring more editors and a hope for a more neutral POV. PeRshGo (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Previous involvement is irrelevant; you had a two-editor conflict, it's no longer only two editors, you cannot use 3O anymore. Stop complaining about meanie editors reverting you in the interest of NPOV, and take the issue to a noticeboard if you don't feel that your position can't stand up to scrutiny. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Laury Oaks named in article text?

Should feminist studies professor Laury Oaks be named as the source of information about the pro-life feminist movement? Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I rephrased the question neutrally. Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Above rewitten by Binksternet, original RFC below.

• Named. Currently the Pro-life Feminism article is primarily cited to one source, a journal article written by feminism scholar and mainstream feminist Laury Oaks, and primarily portrays the movement in a negative light. Oaks herself sees the movement as at odds with mainstream feminism and being a mainstream feminist herself I see this as a possible conflict of interest. The journal article itself has only been cited by the journal that originally published it but since it is scholarly journal and a well-known author I see no reason to remove it, only that her authorship be mentioned so that the reader is aware that the content primarily comes from one author and that author sees the movement as at odds with her own. The two editors that more or less run the abortion related articles will not hear of this and see any mention of authorship as an attempt to discredit Oaks and oppose any attempts at compromise on this or any issue that relates to balancing article's point of view. I don’t usually take things to this level but I don’t generally edit these types of articles and I think I’m just out of patience. PeRshGo (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a violation of the rules related to filing RfCs. Please rephrase your request in a neutral tone that does not bias users in favor of or against one side of the disagreement. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Rephrased per guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

To elaborate on the arguments for and against, which I like to do:

• One user believes that because the subject of the article is a splinter movement from feminism, Oaks is biased against it, and her article should be taken as the feminist opinion and attributed as such.
• Other users believe that, Oaks's article having been published in a scholarly journal, it is inappropriate to treat her as the representative of a side, rather than as a scholar, by attributing these facts as though they were her opinion.

Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Now who is being non-neutral? 1st User:Haymaker also edited the article to reflect oaks authorship, and that was the original state of the article before you and Binksternet changed it. 2nd I do not think that it should be listed as her opinion, only her authorship be listed, and third "Other users" specificaly represents you and Binksternet, no one else. Please do not hide numbers in phrases such as "other users." PeRshGo (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"Other users" still means a number that is more than one. What, would you have me say "another user," when that doesn't reflect the current situation? I'm not going to pretend I can't count just so that our position looks like it has less support; that's not what neutrality means. Your claim that the article originally listed Oaks as the author is, additionally, both false and irrelevant.

By acting as though your rant is still the RfC, rather than Binksternet's neutral summary of the issue, you are still violating the rules on filing RfCs. I am going to add a note that makes it clear to other users that this is your vote, rather than the RfC notice.

--Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Just listing the debate as me vs. others is both an inaccurate and an intentionally slanting view of the situation that ironically mirrors article problems. Stating “Binksternet and I believe…” would have been more accurate. Also the article was written as “Laury Oaks says” when I came to this article. This is a fact and not up for debate. The relevance is that it makes me one of at least three editors which have added that to the article. PeRshGo (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• Not named. Naming Laury Oaks is an attempt to downgrade her study conclusions from the mainstream scholarly view to a skewed opinion from a non-pro-life point of view. I would be happy to name her if there were other scholars making contradictory statements, coming to contrary conclusions, but there are none. Absent disagreement among scholars, it must be assumed Oaks states the mainstream version. The main version does not need attribution. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• Not named. We have, at present, no other research cited on the history of the "pro-life feminist" movement, and naming Oaks in the article text, absent any contradictory research, implies that the research reflects only her opinion, rather than sociological study. I'm opposed to using her name, but I'm even more strongly opposed to using the phrase "Laury Oaks, a (mainstream) feminist scholar" - there are plenty of things to say about Oaks, and choosing "mainstream feminist" is an (openly admitted) attempt by PeRshGo to poison the well and pretend that she represents the feminist opinion (which we could easily provide with statements from feminist organizations if we chose to do so) rather than peer-reviewed scholarship. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• Name it (for now). Right now, this article just isn't that great. More than half of it is cited to the writings of one woman. Hopefully in the coming weeks that will change but until it does, we may as well let the reader know who accounts for about 2/3s of this article. - Haymaker (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Named No attempt to discredit. Perfectly reasonable to inform the reader who she is, especially since most of the article is based on her work. Lionel (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Name it. I don't see her name as a tool to discredit her, and in my experience, scholars no matter what their credibility are named on Wikipedia articles describing contentious debates and movements (for example, see how Tibet during the Ming Dynasty is replete with names). Also, although I'm trying to be sympathetic to the side that argues that Oaks does not represent a POV, I have seen little direct refutation for an alarming body of evidence for a strong polemical tendency in her writings. Quigley (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

So with all the "name it" folks listed, is anyone interested in making the edits? I'm reluctant to do is myself out of worry that anything I do may be construed as "edit warring." PeRshGo (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I've already done it, you're one step behind. ;) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Name her, I don't think it's a tool to discredit her, it just shows that there is a limited amount of research on the adherents and that the information in the article is derived from her research. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Religion section

I tagged it as OR six months ago, and no one's bothered to add any references, so I see no reason to keep this uncited and unverified content in the article. It contains one source, which does not mention "pro-life feminism" in any way; the rest of the section, which makes claims about the religious beliefs of "pro-life feminists," is totally uncited. Is there any particular reason another user is insisting on adding this made-up information? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph is cited, and makes the connection between Pro-life feminism and the predominantly Catholic New Feminism. The second is uncited and probably should be. PeRshGo (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly - it "makes [a] connection" that isn't supported by the cited source, which doesn't mention "pro-life feminism" at all. This is what "original research" means. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Pro-life feminism is a topic, New Feminism is a type of Pro-life feminism. Why? Check the New feminism article, it’s pro-life, and it’s feminism. There is nothing wrong with talking about in the Pro-life feminism article. PeRshGo (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope. "Pro-life feminism," according to our sources here, means that the principles of feminism (equality, nonviolence and so forth) inform some people's opposition to abortion. "New feminism," on the other hand, opposes abortion because it believes that women's purpose is to bear children, and it calls itself "feminism" for God knows what reason. Your "pro-life" + "feminism" = "pro-life feminism" is classic synthesis. Would you like to take the question to WP:NORN? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Your response is OR. Calling a pro-life feminist movement pro-life feminism is not. But it's irrelevant till tomorrow. Someone came by and swept up the edits without being involved in the talk page so I guess it's a dead issue for now. I even found some sources. Well I guess they’ll have to wait. PeRshGo (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm the "someone". I haven't contributed to the talk page lately, but I've followed it. I tend to read more than I write. In any case, if you're waiting for 1RR to time out before reverting again, you're missing the point. PhGustaf (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If I thought there was a chance Roscelese would act in good faith I would restore the religion section with proper sources, but I can say with a certainty that it would be used against me in the already pending 1RR litigation. There is no consensus attempted on abortion articles, just bullying and wikilawyering. PeRshGo (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. Simply reverting once a day is not the way forward. Building a strong argument and gaining adherents is. Binksternet (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You can’t argue with people who aren’t genuinely interested in improving the article because they literally hate the subject matter. The only thing you can hope to do is create content that is so full of citations that editors will not remove it out of fear of being undeniably outed as pov-pushers. PeRshGo (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say both editors aren't genuinely interested, but one certainly isn't. And if we're wrong, please prove it by trying to work with us, not shutting us down. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

No intelligent editor interested in improving articles would bind his hands by blindly agreeing to "work with" editors who may or may not help make the articles better. This notional editor would analyze each new change independent of who made the change. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If you distrust us, that's your problem. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

Part of this article was very biased against pro-life feminism, while it is totally centred in the United States. I think an expert is needed.85.240.22.35 (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Almost the entire article can be attributed to one author who is an outspoken critic of the movement. It could use neutral sources. PeRshGo (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The most heavily relied-upon sources are scholars. They have taken a neutral look at the issues and stated their conclusions. What you see is not bias but a neutral appreciation of the issues which puts pro-life feminism in a non-mainstream, minority position relative to feminism. Of course, proponents of pro-life feminism will not like being called a minority position, but that's the scholarly assessment. Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In the United States, if pro-life feminists are a minority, in a way or another, that is not the point. Not all the pro-life women are feminists. Same goes for the pro-choice women. Obviously if they were the number would be much larger. The question is that they have their own beliefs and go back to contemporary feminists who use, like them, all the typical feminist argumentation about a woman right to choose, their reproductive rights, while rejecting abortion, because they see pregnancy as the ultimate right to choose and value pre-natal human life to wish it to see it protected by law. I know this is very controversial and needs better and reliable sources. For example, the article seems to forget that pro-life feminists use an argumentation that refutes all the pro-choice claims about who defends more or better women's rights. For example, pro-choice feminists don't regard abortion against the will of the woman as a crime while pro-life feminists do it. The question isn't about who is less or more feminist, it all depends of the point of view and this isn't to promote anyone views, just to present information neutraly. I found several books tackling the pro-life feminist question on google books, some sympatethic, others more neutral or hostile, and I will try to select some of the most significant so they can be used to improve the article.85.242.236.140 (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Laury Oaks is totally biased against pro-life feminism, like her quotes showed it. She even could be a pro-choice feminist and try to see it more neutraly, but it's not her point. The article seems to indicate that feminism in the United States is intrinsicaly pro-choice and pro-life feminists aren't even worthy of calling themselfs feminists! Based in Laury Oaks source, the article sated: "This placement sets them against the feminist movement, and erodes the sense of an identity separate from other pro-life groups, despite the pro-life feminist "pro-woman" arguments that are distinct from the "fetal rights" arguments put forward by others." This is too subjetive and the article should show how feminist stances on abortion evolved during the 20th century feminist movement until the current situation.85.242.236.140 (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You've been going at this article for a year and your argument that we should ignore peer-reviewed scholarly research because it's not promotional enough has always been rejected. Why do you keep re-hashing this argument from slightly different IP addresses? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

First off, those who wish to improve this article need to step up to the scholarly plate and deliver a strong source from, say, a university sociologist or similar. The Laury Oaks source is frank and honest, and it is scholarly. Equally strong sources are needed.

The personal arguments I am seeing on this page are not sufficient to make any changes to the article. One of them is that "Not all the pro-life women are feminists". Well, gee, this is not the pro-life article, it is the pro-life feminism article. In fact, Oaks says that pro-life feminists were forced into the arms of the pro-life movement in general (including non-feminists) because they found that mainstream feminists did not embrace them. So the personal argument is aligned with one of Oaks's points. I don't see any need for action relative to the neutrality template that has been tacked onto this page. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we ask in what historical context she refers to? The 1960s? The United States after 1973? What she says is: "pro-life feminists were forced into the arms of the pro-life movement in general (including non-feminists) because they found that mainstream feminists did not embrace them." Wait a minut? Wheren't pro-life feminists already a part of the pro-life movement?! I am sorry, read the Wikipedia policies, then you should show to what exactly particular context is Laury Oaks pointing to. By the way, the article rather obviously doesn't show a universal view of the subject. It needs an expert.85.242.236.140 (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

We're already citing an expert, but you're dismissing her because she doesn't promote your movement hard enough. That's not how RS works. If you want to know what timeframe she's talking about, why don't you, I don't know, read the article? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I found some books about pro-life feminism [3]. I can mention: Gail Grenier Sweet, Pro-life Feminism: Different Voices (1985), Rachel MacNair and Mary Krane Derr, Pro-life Feminism (2006), Randy C. Alcorn, Why Pro-life?: Caring for the Unborn and Their Mothers (2012). They can be used by those who know them as sources. This last book states that pro-life feminists "They argue that they stand on two hundred years of prolife feminist history, and that it wasn't until the 1970s that the women's movement embraced abortion. Polls indicate that more women than men affirrn the unborns' right to life." This is arguable but, in fact, there is an important question that needs to be answered: when exactly the feminist movement become more conotated with the pro-choice stance? In the United States I really think it must have been in the 1960s, from what I know.85.242.236.140 (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this a joke? You come in claiming that we need expert sources, and you ask us to rewrite the article from the perspective of Randy Alcorn and Life Cycle Books? If you do not present a policy-based reason for the presence of the POV tag, I will be removing it soon. "Wikipedia doesn't promote my organization" is not a neutrality issue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Randy C. Alcorn? Don't make me laugh. Alcorn has no place in Wikipedia. Rachel MacNair is an expert sociology and psychology source, not so much Mary Krane Derr who is an amateur historian. Unfortunately, the book you offer is only compiled by MacNair and Derr, a collection of essays written by other people. Gail Grenier Sweet is just a journalist and may be used for dates and facts but not to dispute Laury Oaks. Binksternet (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Policy based position? You have a pro-choice activist writing an article for a group she actively works against. It's a clear conflict of interest and if you can find a policy that states just because someone is a professor they can't be biased, please present it. PeRshGo (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The Oaks piece is in a scholarly journal. We assume that scholars are sufficiently neutral. There cannot be a violation of WP:COI if Oaks has not edited Wikipedia to promote a position. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn'tWP:COI, this is a real world conflict of interest, and I see no indication that "we assume that scholars are sufficiently neutral." I am aware of no Wikipedia policy that backs up this up nor any logical rational. PeRshGo (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Show me the Wikipedia guideline that says we cannot use scholars who hold an opinion on a topic within their main area of expertise. Of course we can use such scholars; most scholars fall into this category. And scholars are our best sources. Binksternet (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

To see how this article is American centered, I didn't even knew who Randy C. Alcorn was. Now that I know him I get your point (lol). What about other titles in the google books list? By the way, nobody answered my questions about when feminism become more conotated with pro-choice stances. It is really difficult to improve this article and some users fixation with Lauryn Oaks is to say at least strange, since nobody else tries to present other RS. I did what I could.85.242.236.140 (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think Sidney Callahan is a RS, since she is a renowned psychologist and ethicist. Here can be found some of her books about pro-life feminism and life issues in general: [4]85.242.236.140 (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying we can’t use Oaks, but taking into consideration Oaks position on the matter it needs to be balanced by someone who doesn’t oppose the movement they’re commenting on. The current state of the article is no better than if the article on the Democratic Party was written entirely by Republican scholars. PeRshGo (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. The current article is based on all of the best sources I could find. If I were writing the article about Democrats I could certainly find scholar after scholar on both sides of the fence and also from third parties and from other countries. However, this topic is so specialized that one scholar is a gold mine.

You cannot "balance" Oaks with a lesser source. The only way to rebut her position is to bring another scholar who contradicts. Binksternet (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That is why I have tagged this article with systemic bias. We have the majority group writing about the minority group with no attempts to balance the article by allowing minority group to present their position. Not only are you stating that you are aware of the systemic bias but are actively enforcing it. PeRshGo (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If you think systemic bias is the same as accepting high level scholarly sources before lesser ones than I don't know what help you can be here. This article is not here to promote the minority position. Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Nor is it here to oppose it, which is why we don’t base nearly the entire article on the voice of one person who opposes the subject. PeRshGo (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Also given the journal's description on its website it publishes the work of activists alongside scholarly articles. "Feminist Formations is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal publishing groundbreaking work by scholars, activists, and practitioners in feminist, gender, and sexuality studies." And frankly given the lack of genuine scientific study in Oaks' article it much better fits under the category of activism. PeRshGo (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You sank your boat by pressing the "peer-reviewed" button. That settles the question in favor of using Oaks as our most reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing tags

I removed the globalize and systemic bias tags because they were not relevant. The topic is primarily about American viewpoints, so there is no need to globalize it. Also, no sources have been suggested from non-American observers, or about non-American aspects of the topic.

Wikipedia acknowledges its bias in favor of scholarly, peer-reviewed sources. That bias is not part of the problematic "systemic bias" which works against gaining a broad base of scholarship. This article has nothing to do with Wikipedia:Systemic bias, nothing at all. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

What about providing more sources to improve what is said in the article instead of the Laury Oaks fixation?85.241.205.185 (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You are abusing the 1RR policy in collusion with Roscelese to remove a tag that references an ongoing debate. PeRshGo (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The debate was over a year ago, the last time you and the IP user made the exact same claims without any support. There is no serious question about the neutrality of this article; there's only the joke proposal that we rewrite it from the perspective of Randy Alcorn and Life Cycle Books instead of peer-reviewed scholarship. Please do not continue wasting the community's time in this way. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Re Binksternet: Oaks actually has an article (which I can't access) on "pro-life feminism" in Ireland, so it isn't confined to the US, but I somehow doubt this is what the IP-hopper was thinking of. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

User above already showed several times her malevolence, due to her personal bias. Read what she write in Talk:Christianity and homosexuality, where she argues that Christian denominations who oppose homosexual behaviour are anti-gay. For some reason she was already blocked from editing other articles several times. There was no "joke proposal" (sic) to rewrite the article, there were references to better shources, like Sidney Callahan, who left her speechless. By the way, no one yet was able to provide direct quotes from Laury Oaks book about what historical context was she talking about, nobody went to look for a history of feminism so it could be used on here, etc. By the way, if we are talking of a organized movement or not, there are pro-life feminists in other countries of the world, like United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, etc.85.241.205.185 (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a group called Feminists for Life International according to the Feminists for Life article.85.241.205.185 (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll make you the same proposal I made the last time you tried this nonsense a year ago: if you have real sources (not nonsense sources from activist publishers) and have global material to contribute, add it. So far, your edits to the article have consisted of removing sourced, scholarly material, which makes it rather difficult to believe that your claims of US-centrism are being made in good faith. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I took out the 'globalize' tag again today. This topic is primarily USA-centric, with much smaller contingents in other countries. It is fair to say that the other countries should be represented but I cannot say their absence is a major problem, worthy of a big tag. Instead, the adding of other countries should be welcomed but not demanded. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I added information about Ireland. No globalize tag necessary. Also, I would appreciate it if Roscelese and you Binks could check to make sure that I didn't commit any blunders. I would absolutely hate to misinterpret and misrepresent what Ms. Oaks wrote. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I haven't been able to look at the article yet and thanks again for getting a hold of it. If I see any problems I'll change them but I'm sure you're doing fine. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

"Irish women"

Collect, would you like to explain why you're falsely claiming that Oaks attributes a position to "Irish women" when the bit is in a section on anti-abortion activists, preceded by several iterations of the comment that Irish anti-abortion activists are trying this tactic of promoting motherhood, and immediately preceded by the remark "Anti-abortion activists are poised to address this very problem"? When you scream that I need to "read the source," where in the source are you actually looking, since your edit bears no resemblance to what Oaks writes in it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I am using what Oaks writes in an accessible article on the topic. Provide the text of the unavailable article if you feel it supports the edit you wish - else it is under WP:BLP in the nature of a weak contentious source at best. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you personally cannot access the article (Bink, Sonicyouth, and I all have it) is not grounds to misrepresent it. The accessibility argument is weak anyway since you're also misrepresenting the accessible article, which repeatedly states that these are the positions of abortion rights opponents, not "Irish women," who in your view apparently all hold the same political views: "some antiabortion advocates have attempted to identify the 'root causes' that lead many young, pregnant women to choose abortion instead of motherhood when confronted with an unplanned pregnancy...Breda O’Brien, a mother, teacher, journalist, antiabortion advocate, and founder of Feminists for Life of Ireland...This represents the Irish articulation of an antiabortion perspective that also has been expressed in the United States...From the antiabortion perspective, the commodification of the components of a women's life choices and the inversion of the place of children in a woman's life from 'cake' to 'icing' suggests that attempts must be made to alter young, middle-class women's values and expectations...Of most urgent concern to antiabortion advocates is how abortion becomes seen as the best option..." These are all quotes from the source you linked. Even the part where O'Brien is described as a "pro-life feminist," which you seem to think needs to be taken in isolation and elevated over the entire rest of the article, is in a big section on anti-abortion advocacy. Where the hell do you get this idea that you can make these completely rubbish claims about the monolith of Irish women? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Breda O'Brien

per [5] by Laury Oaks - Breda O'Brien is a "pro-life feminist." Seems that where the person cited uses a specific term, that that is a proper term to ascribe to the cite. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You know what would help? If you read the source that's being cited, instead of other sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The source cited in the article is unavailable without paying $36 -- so I used a source from the same author which specifically called O'Brien a "pro-life feminist" - I would think you would welcome a more accessible cite from the same sauthor you would use to deny that term to. And, by the way, Wikipedia does not say only use the source which no one can verify. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't get to misrepresent a cited source because you personally do not have access to it. I know it's April Fools' Day, but some of us are still trying to work, so please stop editing disruptively. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

And I just checked out the article that you linked and it doesn't even say what you're claiming it says! Like the cited source, it also says over and over again that this promotion of motherhood is a tactic of Irish anti-abortion activists, not "Irish women"! You really need to step away from this article before you deliberately misrepresent any more sources. Let people who are interested in WP:V take the stuff that's obviously too difficult for you to handle. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

And it refers to O'Brien as a "pro-life feminist" -- sorry -- but eliding what you do not want to read makes others doubt whether you read the source at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

And? You're attempting to remove the fact that Oaks uses O'Brien as an exemplar of anti-abortion activists and pretending that she's supposed to represent the positions of Irish women. We already state that she's the founder of FFL Ireland, so it's very silly to whine that anyone's trying to suppress the fact that she's a "pro-life feminist" - why are you still trying to misrepresent Oaks's research by writing that O'Brien's position is generally held rather than being held among a cadre of activists? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

We use what the source says and not what we know to tbe the truth You appear to "know" that O'Brien is an anti-abortion activist and not a pro-life feminist. But since Oaks does not say that, we can not use what you "know". Is that clear? Collect (talk) 12:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually Oaks is very, very clear about what position she's using O'Brien as an example of. That's why she says, over and over again, that anti-abortion activists, not "Irish women," use these arguments. Like I said before: if you're unable or unwilling to read the sources, you are not qualified to be editing this article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Collect has no basis for argument here. The cited source must be read to be understood. Binksternet (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(od) the "cited source" has not been given as a quote, and is unavailable. I invite anyone to provide the exacr quotes from the cited source - but as of now I regard the source as unverified as far as WP:BLP is concerned. Rosce -- can you cite the exact quote of the section you are using to have Oaks characterise O;Brien as not being a "pro-life feminist"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't need to, because no one is making the claim that she is not a "pro-life feminist." You are required to substantiate the claim that Oaks designates her as representative of the positions of "Irish women," since that's the text you're trying to add and since it's at variance with what Oaks actually says as I detail above. You're not a n00b; you should know by now that the burden lies on the editor who adds or restores material. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The claim is made that the source calls her an "anti-abortion activist" for which a reliable source as a contentious claim is required by WP:BLP. Calling her a "woman" is un-contentious, or if you feel it is a contentious claim, ask at BLP/N. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Luckily, it's in both the cited source and the source you provided, but unfortunately for you, it's not the claim that she is a woman that's contentious but the claim that her position is representative of Irish women, which appears nowhere in the source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The online source specifically characterizes the person as a "pro-life feminist". Calling someone anything not specifically in a source is contrary to WP:BLP no matter who it is or what the characterization is. Cheers. Now anyone going to furnish solid material from the cite used? Collect (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The online source also specifically characterizes the person as an "antiabortion advocate." Or do you not read the sources you're citing, either? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Collect is being disruptive.[6] Does he think that the founder of "Feminists for Life Ireland" is not an "abortion opponent"? On the other hand his edit makes it appear that Breda O'Brien represents what Irish women believe. And Collect says he has not even read the source. When Collect makes these time-consuming and ultimately pointless edits, it detracts from improvements to articles and discourages editors who come here to improve articles not to get into silly arguments with people who know nothing about the subject. TFD (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not "know" anything - I rely on what the reliable sources state. When a reliable source is asked for, it ought to be provided. What you are doing here is injecting a personal attack on an editor - somethingabot which you have been warned in the past. Cheers - and kindly stop stalking me. Collect (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Laughable stalking accusation following the loosing of your frustration at AN. Once it's at a noticeboard, people notice and join in. Binksternet (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No reliable source says, "Irish women... valorize child-bearing and are critical of the notion that women have "a 'right' to an identity beyond motherhood". That is just a promotion of an ethnic stereotype. TFD (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Oaks states repeatedly that the self-identified "pro-life feminists", including Ms. O'Brien, are opposed to abortion and as such are anti-abortion advocates. There are dozens of passages I could quote. To use just one: "Pro-life feminists contend that they have been unfairly ignored by the feminist movement, and argue that "Marginalizing pro-life women out of feminism silences women's voices in the same way that they were silenced by patriarchy. Their opposition to abortion stems from concerns both..." [I added italics for emphasis]
By contrast, the source does not claim that Irish women are critical of the right to an identity beyond motherhood. You tried to misrepresent the source, Collect, got corrected, and are now sore about it. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that I used "women" as a gender indication - not as an indication that all Irish women fell into one group here. The issue was that the source quote was not given, and that per WP:BLP/N discussion, Roscelese has amended it. WP:DEADHORSE applies when an edit I am comfortable with was made tonight by Roscelese, and one which is far more in line with the source than the prior edit was. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Collect, this was a waste of time - "pro-life" means opposition to abortion (viz., the life of the unborn). You should learn tidbits of information like that when you decide to edit articles such as "pro-life feminism". TFD (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Again? Roscelese made a WP:BLP compliant change. And talking down to editors who actually give a damn about WP:BLP and discussions at WP:BLP/N does not show you off in a particulary good light. At this point your posts are not gonna mean anything here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Look Collect, click here is a link to the Feminists for Life website. It says, "The Feminist Case Against Abortion goes to Ireland". Do you seriously believe that this group not against abortion? TFD (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Look TFD - my issue was the BLP issue about O'Brien and the sourcing used -- which has been answered by the BLP/N discussion and Roscelese's amended edit. I do not "know" anything other than what the RELIABLE SOURCES SAY. Is that clear? It is NOT up to me to "know" anything per Wikipedia policy. Nor is it up to you to berate a WP:DEADHORSE after the issue has been resolved. My concern, and my only concern, has been the proper application of WP:BLP policy - which was agreed at WP:BLP/N. Now can you stop beating the poor animal? Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would you challenge "abortion opponent", yet keep "founder of Feminists for Life Ireland"? From a BLP violation perspective, would it not be even more egregious to say incorrectly that one founded an anti-abortion group than to say one was an abortion opponent? Do you plan to ask editors in every BLP article to supply sources you cannot access? TFD (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

1RR query

Is this article specifically covered by a 1RR restriction? Can someone show me where this is done? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

All abortion-related articles are, per the arb case. (That's also why the article is semiprotected.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Then ask an admin to label it as such. Else it is not enforceable to be sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that's not a statement of intent to continue violating 1RR. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

After a personal warning, continued reverting is enforceable. Any editor, even Collect, is able to add the 1RR notice at the top of this page. Binksternet (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Requires an admin to issue the warning. And I note you did not warn the editor who is at 3RR <g>. You can not have it both ways, Binksternet. Collect (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it does not require an admin. Admins have no special power apart from the tools. Anyways, considere the warning duly delivered by an admin. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Collect, why do you keep pretending someone is at 3RR here? The only person edit-warring is you. Are you hoping to obscure that fact by flinging around false accusations? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I noted that 2RR was reached - and that saud person was not warned. Also note that the note by SSch is not a "warning" of me violating any restriction, as no one can be held to a restriction not previously placed on an article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the restriction was placed from the moment the community decision was made as the decision seems to be that all abortion related articles are placed under a 1RR, not that they can be placed under a 1RR at the discretion of an admin. The fact that the restriction was not noted previously is unfortunate but is unlikely to prevent enforcement if someone is aware or made aware of the restriction. In particular, if you've been informed of the restriction, it's unwise to break it simply because of the lack of an admin being the one to tell you (as that isn't required). If you have doubts that the person's claim is accurate, seek clarification rather then violating the restriction. If you don't have doubts, refusing to abide by it because you haven't been informed by the right person or because it isn't noted in the article talk page is likely to be seen as WP:wikilawyering. I'm a bit confused who else you're saying violated 1RR but it isn't necessary to warn someone if they've already been warned or are otherwise aware of the restriction, an admin may still take action if they feel it necessary, but feel free to give a warning if you feel it justified (as me and others have noted, it doesn't have to come from an admin). Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

)od) Please note Sarek has posted a request for clarification on the matter. I suggest that such is the proper venue for this, as I fear some nuances might otherwise be elided. Note also that my specific attempt to self-revert was made impossible (as I noted elsewhere), as I abide as far as possible by all restrictions on articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Subjective generalizations presented as fact

All sorts of highly opinionated generalizations presented as fact in this article. For example:

    "Pro-life feminist activism in Ireland is, if anything, more 'pro-mother' than 'pro-woman.'"

    " . .  Irish abortion opponents valorize child-bearing and are critical of the notion that women have 'a "right" to an identity beyond motherhood . . .'"

    "Irish pro-life feminists present themselves as apolitical . .  thus leaving the question of whether women should have a legal right to abortion unanswered. "

    "having failed to gain a respected position within traditional feminism . . "

The article basically should be rewritten. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I once had access to the entire Laury Oaks paper from 2009, "What Are Pro-Life Feminists Doing on Campus?", during which time I wrote the article entries based on it, but now I do not see more than the abstract. I remember that Oaks is very clear that pro-life feminists tried to establish themselves as a valid subset of mainstream feminism, I think in the late '60s and all through the '70s. Oaks emphasizes that they failed to gain respect for their position; failed even to be acknowledged as feminist. Once they declared as pro-life, they were ejected from mainstream feminist circles.

Regarding Irish women, I never had access to the relevant Oaks paper from 2000, so I cannot comment. Binksternet (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I do have the Oaks papers from 2000 and 2009, to which these facts are cited.

"the pro-life feminist ideology is less pro-woman than it is pro-mother"

"Pro-life feminists' valorisation of women's child-rearing in the home..."; "While O'Brien [Breda O'Brien, Irish anti-abortion advocate] is critical of the 'right' to an identity beyond motherhood which young women feel, she voices a feminist-based acknowledgment of the risk of embracing motherhood as women's main contribution to society"; (O'Brien, on feminism:) "a central capability of women is seen as a handicap to overcome, not a difference to be celebrated" etc.

"obscures its position on whether women should have the right to legal abortion"; "the volume [Swimming Against the Tide] never takes a policy position, and effectively backs away from the political arena...neither assumes a political stance nor asserts that abortion should remain illegal in Ireland or elsewhere"; "skirt the question of legal access to abortion" etc.

"Pro-life feminism largely has shifted its focus from claiming to seek a respected place within the mainstream feminist movement to offering an alternative and oppositional version of feminism, one that has found the anti-abortion movement a better ally than the feminist movement. Not finding a home within the 1970s feminist movement, pro-life feminists reportedly were welcomed by the Right to Life movement..." etc.

Bink, I thought you had the paper from 2000 as well? Sonicyouth sent around a copy a while ago. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes, thanks for reminding me that I have a local copy on my computer. Binksternet (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Oaks's writing as presented in our article seems rather like opinionated commentary on "pro-life feminism" as opposed to an historical narrative. Speaking of historical narrative, our article, strangely, makes no mention at all of legal developments, such as Roe v. Wade in the USA, which broadly legalized abortion in many nations during the latter 20th century. "Pro-life feminism" and the "pro-life movement" in general developed, of course, as a response to these legal changes but one wouldn't know that from reading our article. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Where does the the formulation "traditional feminism" as used in the above quotation come from? From Oaks or from one of our editors? Either way it seems a bit presumptuous. What "tradition" are we talking about here? Certainly not the tradition of most 19th century feminists who had little good to say about abortion. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Referring to editor Roscelese's comments above, she says that has Oaks's papers from 2000 to 2009 "to which these facts are cited" but most of what she then cites are clearly opinions not facts. Saying that "the pro-life feminist ideology is less pro-woman than it is pro-mother" is giving one's opinion, not stating a fact. Badmintonhist (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I would be more sympathetic to a change in our article wording if there was even one scholar who said that pro-life feminists were not promoting motherhood more than womanhood in general. Absent of that, Oaks is describing the situation as she sees it, assumed to be backed by evidence. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

How many scholars besides Oaks have even raised the issue in academic writing?? Yes, she is describing the situation as she sees it. It is her opinion about an inherently subjective issue. However, the sentence in question presents the statement as fact rather than attributing the opinion to Oaks in-line. Wikipedians of the mid 1800s might have had difficulty finding a single reliable source of the day positing the proposition that descendants of Black Africans were intellectually equal to Caucasians, but a statement by some esteemed associate professor of anthropology of the day that Black Africans were inherently inferior to Caucasians (assumed to be backed by evidence) would still require in-line attribution as the professor's opinion. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for the hypothetical because there is nothing ambiguous about this situation. The information is cited to a reliable scholarly source; policies like WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV do not apply. I think the "pro-mother"/"pro-woman" bit could potentially be rephrased for the article (and you are free to suggest other cosmetic changes - eg. "mainstream" for "traditional" feminism?), but there is no fundamental problem with the sourcing of these statements. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is precisely the requisite policy here, and I thank you, Roscelese, for saving me the trouble of having to remember it by name or look it up again. That policy makes no distinction as to whether or not the opinion, (POV) comes from a reliable source. If it is an opinion, not a fact, and the notion that pro-life feminism is more pro-motherhood than pro-woman is clearly an opinion, then the source of that opinion must be attributed to it in-line. The case could not be clearer. Happy Holidays! Badmintonhist (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The distinction it does make is right in the first line - "biased statements of opinion," not uncontested scholarly statements of fact. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. And here the baseball example that illustrates the point is instructive. A highly respected authority on the sport of baseball might say in all sincerity, and using all of his considerable knowledge of the sport, that "Willie Mays is the greatest all-around baseball player in the game's history." Wikipedia, however, shouldn't state that opinion, unattributed in-line, as fact. It is clearly an opinion no matter how astute we may think it is, and must be presented in Wikipedia as such. Whether or not political movements are "more pro-motherhood than pro-woman" or "more pro-fatherhood than pro-male" or "more pro-sexual freedom than pro-feminist" are inherently subjective judgments and need to be presented as such. The idea that "pro-life feminism" (in Ireland or anywhere else) is "more pro-motherhood than pro-woman" is clearly a matter of opinion (one I'm sure that you share) AND NOT A MATTER OF FACT, no matter who states it. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Very well put. PeRshGo (talk) 06:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

One of the differences in the baseball example would be that there are presumably other commentators of equal rank who might say differently. We're still waiting for you to even pretend to look for a source equal in caliber to Oaks's article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it as opinion because the greater focus on motherhood could have been established by facts taken from surveys, or any other reasonable method of deduction. Again, who is it who think pro-life feminism is focused equally on the woman and mother rather than more on the mother? Binksternet (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

First, your authority here, Assistant Professor Oaks, apparently doesn't say that pro-life feminism (in Ireland) is more focused on mother than on woman, she says that it is more pro-mother than pro-woman which isn't quite the same thing. At least that is what Wikipeia, using her as its source, is currently saying in our article. Second, if the overwhelming academic consensus (coming, surprise! surprise!, from women's studies programs) is that pro-life feminism is more pro-mother, "if anything," than pro-woman, then why aren't certain editors here producing any reliable sources other than Assistant Professor Oaks? Could it be that most self-respecting scholars, even in women's studies programs, aren't rash enough to pass off inherently subjective musings as academic facts? Finally, what exactly constitutes "pro-woman" policies? Permissive abortion laws? The legalization of prostitution, polygyny, polyandry, or same sex marriage; gender-neutral eligibility for military conscription; an end to alimony? What is, and what is not "pro-woman," just as what is and what is not "pro-humanity," in general, has been argued for millennia and will continue to be argued long after any of us are still around. It is an inherently subjective question. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not our business to analyze reliable sources, we just report what they say. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

If it is an opinion, and this clearly is, we report it as an opinion by attributing the opinion to its source in-line. The objective FACT that we are reporting here is that one particular feminist scholar thinks that that "pro-life feminism" is more pro-mother "if anything" than pro-woman. The objective FACT is decidedly NOT that "pro-life feminism" IS more pro-mother "if anything" than pro-woman. Since when do Wikipedia rules and guidlines dictate that we take subjective opinion of ONE particular academic who has expressed an opinion about a an inherently subjective subject (whether or not "pro-life feminism is more pro-mother than pro-woman) as objective fact?? Badmintonhist (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

What makes it "clearly" an opinion other than the fact that you disagree with it? I'm sure there are also users who might disagree with, say, the article's pointing out in the first section that for many women the issue of abortion is more complicated than unconditional support, but personal disagreement does not invalidate a reliable source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

No, my agreement or disagreement has nothing to do with it all. In fact I think that there is an element of truth in what Oaks says here. For example, in my opinion, "pro-life feminists" probably are more concerned with motherhood than "pro-choice feminists" are, but this isn't exactly what Oaks is saying and even if it were it would still be an opinion. No, if some scholar said that, say, "pro-choice feminists" are more concerned with sexual freedom than with the welfare of children it would definitely be an opinion though I might think that there was an element of truth in the opinion. As for the OPPOSITE of Oaks's proposition ('pro-life feminists" being more pro-woman than pro-motherhood) why would any substantial number of people be even be thinking about the issue? It isn't as if most pro-lifers go around thinking about how to rid themselves of the terrible tag that some highly obscure feminist academic has given them of being more pro-mother than pro-woman. So why would anyone even propose the opposite view from our pal Oaks? Hope this helps. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You're just trying to hit this from every possible angle, aren't you? Relevance seems to be the main one you're trying to go for in this comment, though of course the obvious point being made is that when anti-abortion views and feminism conflict, self-identified pro-life feminists prioritize the former. Again, if the phrasing is the problem, I've been asking you to suggest alternate phrasing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps that's because I'm right from every possible angle. The phrasing "problem" could hardly be easier to fix. Simply attribute the OPINION to the author,Laury Oaks, in-line as we are supposed to do. Some might think that even this solution gives her undue weight but I'm willing to be generous in this holiday season. The main point of calling oneself a "pro-life feminist," of course, IS TO ADVANCE THE IDEA THAT PRO-LIFE VIEWS AND FEMINISM DON"T CONFLICT. What Assistant Professor is trying to do, on the other hand, is to basically say that they do. Why this would be anything more than HER opinion, essentially a begging of the question, remains a mystery. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You are saying that you think the pro-life position and the feminist position do not conflict. However, everything I have read says they do. Oaks also thinks that they conflict; she lays it out plainly. I am willing to entertain the no-conflict viewpoint if it is forwarded by a scholar, but not if it is forwarded by a Wikipedia editor. In the absence of a scholarly paper with a contrary conclusion I don't think there is any change necessary to this article. Binksternet (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I expected better discernment from you, Bink. No, I am NOT saying that the pro-life position and "feminism" don't conflict. Nor am I saying that they DO conflict (and before I proceed I am talking about feminism in its broadest sense, NOT the current dominant "feminist position" in most western nations which, of course, is "pro-choice" and in conflict with "pro-life" sentiments). What I am saying is BOTH VIEWS ARE OPINIONS. Feminists who are pro-choice often tend to think that a a person cannot truly be a feminist without being "pro-choice." For these folks, by definition, "pro-life" means NOT A FEMINIST. On the other hand there are a substantial number of "pro-lifers" who think that the idea of feminism, properly understood, IS NOT IN CONFLICT with being "pro-life." Nor, by the way, do they think being "pro-motherhood" conflicts with being "pro-woman." For them, one complements the other. All of this is somewhat reminiscent about the old debates about socialism and democracy. Some folks, pointing Stalin's Russia, said that socialism was incompatible with democracy while others, referring to the socialism of their hearts and minds, said that democracy was impossible without socialism. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Ultimately Oaks is a reliable source for her own opinion and any research she presents. If she referenced a poll she had conducted or any other scientifically collected source of data there would be no reason to do anything less than simply list it. The issue is she presents no reason to believe that her idea on pro-mother vs pro-woman is anything outside of her own musings so it should be attributed as such. PeRshGo (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course! Though I must add, even if she did conduct a poll or collected some other kind of political data, by what objective criteria could one really establish whether an idea or policy was "pro-mother" at the expense of being "pro-woman" or visa versa? Such categories are inherently subjective. Just because someone is an academic and makes a rather hazy assertion ("if anything" is hardly precise scientific language) it doesn't mean that Wikipedia should accept this assertion as objective fact. I think we're giving Oaks the benefit of the doubt by even including her assertions as opinions. Badmintonhist (talk) 07:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I am reminded again that neither of you have even read the source in question. Oaks accompanies her statement here, as one does, with quotes from self-identified "pro-life feminists" about their goals and statistics relating to those goals. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Then, Ros, why don't you produce the relevant quotes and statistics so that your fellow editors can form an opinion as to whether they support Oaks's conclusions? Badmintonhist (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get round to typing them up at some point, but I'm very concerned that you don't understand that it is not your place to decide whether the evidence supports the conclusions. WP:NOR is pretty clear. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I just scanned WP:NOR and must have missed it. Perhaps you can tell me where it says a consensus of editors can't determine what cited information goes into an article. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Cute. Among other statements in that policy page, "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source." Wikipedia doesn't care if your personal analysis of the evidence finds that "pro-life feminists" are indeed "pro-woman"; it is the sources' conclusions which WP uses, not your own. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What we may be concerned with here is whether a certain editor has already "drawn conclusions not evident in the reference," having not ourselves "read the source in question." Badmintonhist (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I quoted you the conclusion, so the argument that it is OR on my part or Binksternet's is unconvincing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Just good natured needling. I'm fairly aware of the strictures against original research, but those strictures don't prevent editors from judiciously editing source material. If editors find that a source's conclusions don't seem to match the evidence that he/she presents they are under no obligation to present the reader with either. What they can't do is make up their own conclusions in addition to, or in place of, of the source's and insert that original research into the article. WP:NOR doesn't prohibit editors from analyzing the sources we consult. It prohibits us from using those sources as a cover for giving the reader our own take on the subject. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the opposition to the (trimmed) statement: "Pro-life feminist activism in Ireland is more 'pro-mother' than 'pro-woman.'" I should think Irish pro-lifers would be proud to agree, and pro-lifers from other countries would be right behind. At any rate, absent an opposing source contradicting Oaks, I think this discussion has wandered far enough on its way to nowhere. Let's wait until there is another scholar to quote. Binksternet (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't change the subject. This isn't about once scholar contradicting one another, or a lack there of. This is about knowing what is based on research and what is based in personal opinion, and not simply accepting their opinions as fact because they fit your personal politics PeRshGo (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect - the presence or absence of opposing opinions is one way we distinguish opinion and fact. Even if Oaks is the only scholar to research "pro-life feminism," that doesn't make her research less valid than (let's choose another niche at random) Jennifer Hall-Witt's on English nineteenth-century opera spectatorship. WP policy doesn't get suspended when the subject is political. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

First, addressing editor Binksternet's self-professed lack of understanding, the question isn't whether or not Irish pro-lifers would be proud to agree with Laury Oaks's conclusions about the nature of "pro-life feminist activism in Ireland," the question is whether or not Oaks's conclusions should be presented to the reader AS FACT in Wikipedia's voice. Had Oaks's concluded that "pro-life feminist activism in Ireland" is more 'pro-woman' than 'pro-mother'" the problem would be exactly the same. Both conclusions are self-evident opinions, nor objective facts, and should be handled by Wikipedia as such.  ::::::As for Roscelese's latest offering: P-L-E-A-S-E !! There are all sorts of folks, including academics far better known than Laury Oaks (Mary Ann Glendon, for one) who would certainly dispute Oaks's conclusions about pro-life feminism in Ireland (a country that has had TWO RECENT FEMALE AND PRO-LIFE PRESIDENTS for Chrissake!). If no one can find them it is a commentary on the general obscurity of Associate Professor Oaks and her writings. As I said before, substantially including her OPINIONS in our article AS OPINIONS is probably giving her the benefit of the doubt. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC) PS: Where does that "if anything" come from in our article? Oaks or an editor? Just curious.

We've been asking you this entire time for opposing conclusions and you choose now to claim that you have some? Please produce them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The Irish woman presidents have had three children each—they are pro-life mothers and clearly lead heterosexual lives. Both are sympathetic to gay rights, however. Why do I bring this up? I think that non-mothers were a strong force in second-wave feminism; career women who were heterosexual but chose to have no kids, or very few, and women who were homosexual and, kids or no, were forced to deal with traditional womanhood issues from an outsider's standpoint. These pro-woman elements were strong then and are still part of feminist scholarship now. Oaks is saying that this type of pro-woman contingent is not as strong among Ireland's pro-life feminists as is the pro-mother majority. That's what I get from it. Binksternet (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

NO. You're missing the whole point, Ros. WE don't need to. Unlike Oaks, few (if any) other folks, academic or otherwise, have DIRECTLY addressed the "issue" of whether or not Irish pro-life feminism is more (if anything) pro-mother than pro-woman. Were an obscure academic in an obscure forum to conclude that "Irish pro-choice feminism is (if anything) more pro-abortion rights than pro-woman the same lack of direct response might well obtain. How many pro-choice feminists go around thinking about whether they are more pro-abortion rights than they are "pro-woman" (whatever the author would mean by that)? For them there is no conflict between the two, just as for pro-life feminists there is no conflict between being pro-lfe and pro-woman. In the hypothetical case of the academic who concludes that "Irish pro-choice feminism is (if anything) more pro-abortion rights than it is pro-woman" Wikipedia editors would NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN PLACING IT INTO A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE AS FACT, just as you and Binksternet are not justified in placing Oaks's rather haphazardly stated ("if anything") conclusion about pro-life Irish feminism into thae article AS FACT. Badmintonhist (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comments are becoming less and less coherent. Whether a self-identified pro-life feminist personally believes his or her beliefs are in conflict is interesting and clearly relevant to the article, but does not cancel out a scholarly view to the contrary. I do not see the value in your hypothetical scenario; if for some reason we were in the position of judging such a view from a sociologist with several published papers on the Irish pro-choice movement, we would obviously not dismiss it out of hand as a personal opinion as you are encouraging us to do. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

There is not a shred of justification for including Oaks's "conclusion" about "pro-life feminism in Ireland" as fact in Wikipedia's voice rather than as the opinion it clearly is. Not a shred. Facts need to have concrete meanings and what we have here doesn't. What, pray tell, does WIKIPEDIA mean when it says PRO-WOMAN?? We basically know "pro-life" and "pro-choice" mean, have a pretty good idea what "feminism" means and could look it up if we wanted to, but what do 'pro-mother' and "pro-woman" mean? We don't tell readers that "pro-life feminism is more pro-mother (you fill in the meaning of that term, reader) than pro-woman (you fill in the meaning of that term too, reader). We Don't pass off an academic's unarguably nebulous statements as fact here on Wikipedia unless we are inveterate POV pushers. I suggest we try mediation. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

*facepalm* How many times have I said that if the problem is rephrasing, there's no problem at all? Mediation is not necessary; all that's necessary is that you quit moving the goalposts and ignoring policy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Uhmm . . . not too many time since I joined the conversation, which has just been for this thread starting a week ago. By all means propose away, but the devil is in the details. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I've suggested it three times already in this conversation - which, as you said, has been running for a week. It would be easy to paraphrase Oaks's conclusion (given additional info in her previous paragraphs) as, say, pro-life feminism advocating stay-at-home motherhood rather than supporting working women who become pregnant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed Binksternet's latest offering. Interesting!! What he seems to be saying is that Oaks's "pro-mother" and "pro-woman" are basically terms of art, the former referring to ideas, including feminist ideas, informed by traditional heterosexual life experiences and the latter by alternative life experiences. This, of course, invites the question of HOW THE HELL IS THE AVERAGE READER SUPPOSED TO KNOW THAT FROM WHAT IS PRESENTLY IN THE ARTICLE?? Badmintonhist (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

They're not. PeRshGo (talk) 13:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Roscelese's suggested rewording above is rather half-baked and ambiguous. Could someone suggest a specifically worded sentence to replace "Pro-life feminist activism in Ireland is, if anything, more 'pro-mother' than 'pro-woman.'"? Badmintonhist (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Dubious statement of "fact."

My tag of the following statement in the article was recently removed:

Irish pro-life feminists present themselves as apolitical and consider abortion at strictly a social level, thus leaving the question of whether women should have the legal right to abortion unanswered.

Here, once again, we are placing Laury Oaks's generalizations about "pro-life feminism" in Ireland (and generalizations that are about four years old now) into Wikipedia as FACT in Wikipedia's voice. I find it quite hard to believe that in a nation with severe restrictions on abortion, where the issue of under what circumstances abortion should be allowed is CURRENTLY being hotly debated, and which has had two very recent Pro-life female presidents, that "pro-life feminists" there are simply taking a pass on the legal issue. It doesn't have the ring of truth. In this case, however, I would think that there should be a fair amount of recent primary source and secondary journalistic source info that contradicts Oak's now rather dated conclusion. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Great. Find those current sources and use them. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. Here's one [7]. I'm sure that working together we can find some more. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Finally, some effort. For what it's worth, I agree that "pro-life feminists," like any run-of-the-mill anti-abortion activists, seek to legally ban abortion, but we have to go based on sources here. (A third-party source would still be better than an op-ed, even if the writer of the op-ed is a prominent "pro-life feminist.") –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's another column by O'Brien (the only Irish pro-life feminist mentioned by name in our article) which addresses the issue of abortion legislation: [8]. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC) PS: As for your latest salvo, Ros, I'm reminded of the famous Groucho Marx line: "Who are you going to believe: me or your lying eyes?" Badmintonhist (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC). PSS: What you are also saying, Ros, is that you never really believed what Oaks was saying about "pro-life feminists" in Ireland or elsewhere but you decided to leave her assertion unchallenged. How conscientious! Badmintonhist (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese's point about getting reliable third party sources to reinforce the idea that Irish "pro-life feminists" are engaged in the the debate over the legality of abortion in their country would be important if we planned to make a positive statement to that effect in our article. However, if we merely eliminate Oaks's contention that they are not, which I am about to do, then we don't really need them. Editors should be judiciously selective about the information they glean from a "reliable source." We were under no obligation to include everything that Oaks said about Irish "pro-life feminists" in the first place and, in this particular case, that information has been shown (at least presently) to be dubious. Badmintonhist (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Oaks sources need to be revealed or removed

The text in the article which is currently being edit warred over now departs extremely from how it was originally when the Oaks papers were cited and I have no reason to believe either party is now referencing the source. Someone either needs to produce the Oaks papers or remove them from the article, because clearly what is going on now is a sham. Two people arguing over what a source "might" say is not Wikipedia editing. PeRshGo (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you personally can't access the source doesn't make it unreliable - see WP:OFFLINE. Since I've quoted the exact passages that the disputed text is referencing, your throwing up your hands and claiming you have no idea who's referencing the source is foolish. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Your lack of access to the article does not mean it should be removed. Binksternet (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Bink, I believe you were the editor who first used first used the term "second-wave feminists" (see Talk section below). Did Oaks ever use that term in discussing "pro-life feminism's relationship to mainstream feminism or was this a bit of (perfectly forgivable) WP:OR? Badmintonhist (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Roscelese, the offline nature of the source isn't what has made it unreliable, the fact that you have seen fit to interpret it in drastically different ways all claiming they reference the source is what has. An offline source isn't a license to write whatever you want. PeRshGo (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Oaks specifies the time frame—the late 1960s and early 1970s, especially regarding events leading up to Roe v Wade as well as reaction to it—as the time when pro-life feminists were denied by mainstream feminists, denied as feminists because of the absolutism surrounding the abortion issue. That time frame defines second-wave feminism, which is why I used the term. It is not original research, rather, it is a succinct summation. Binksternet (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but when I changed the order of the information in our article so that this Roe/immediate post-Roe era rejection of "pro-life feminism" was presented first, our esteemed colleague Roscelese suddenly discovered that Oaks didn't support it. I think there some truth to PRG's contention that ol' Ros is using Oaks here as a catspaw to enforce her ideas about the article. Badmintonhist (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Roscelese is misusing the source material. In any case, you can add further viewpoints from other books. Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly some confusion is arising here. I agree with the use of "second-wave" to specify which wave the feminist movement is in at the time "pro-life feminism" comes into being (and is rejected by the movement, goes to the anti-abortion movement, as we discuss). However, we must not seize the opportunity to falsely suggest that "pro-life feminists" are welcomed by the third wave, as Badmintonhist's edit does in casting feminists' rejection of anti-abortion beliefs in the past tense and insisting that it's the second wave that believes in reproductive rights. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yuh gotta be kidding me! I did not "falsely suggest that 'pro-life feminists' are welcomed by the third wave." Quite the contrary; my edit said "this placement [with other pro-lifers] sets them against the contemporary mainstream feminist movement [i.e. third wave feminism]." The initial "mainstream" feminist rejection of pro-life feminism, however, DID come during the "second wave" (in the 1970s basically) which IS in the past thus explaining my use of the past tense. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Your edit buries any suggestion that the modern feminist movement doesn't agree with the anti-abortion position in the last sentence of the second paragraph. There is an argument to be made for some sort of chronological order, but it does not entail concealing the current state of affairs. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, "buried" in the last sentence of a five sentence 125 word section!! Nobody who read the article as I edited it could possibly have thought it "suggested" that pro-life feminists are welcomed by third-wave feminists except, maybe, Roscelese. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Relationship to other movements

One reason for my recent (and recently deleted) edit of Relationship to other movements was to present the information more chronologically. Rejection of "pro-life feminism" by the "second-wave feminists" of the 60s 70s and 80s took place prior to pro-life feminism's (continued) rejection by "contemporary mainstream feminism," so it is reasonable to refer to the second-wave feminist rejection first. As for Roscelese's point that Oaks' uses the term "mainstream' rather than "second-wave" feminism, one then has to wonder why, in the following paragraph, we then say "Having failed to gain a respected position within second-wave feminism, pro-life feminists have . . ." using Oaks as our source. Does Oak's ever actually talk about "second-wave feminism's" rejection of "pro-life feminism"? If not, why are we saying it using her as our source? Badmintonhist (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we expand our search to other writers? Oaks is good but others have points to make. The book Gender and Women's Leadership: A Reference Handbook has some text about the incomfortable relationship between socially conservative pro-life and pro-mothering feminists, and liberal mainstream feminists. The relationship between second-wave and third-wave feminism is discussed with regard to the various issues of motherhood. The author of this chapter is Kathleen Ianello, an associate professor of Gettysburg College. I'm sure other observers can be found as well. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, one problem with you latest edit, is that if we say "During the second-wave (feminist) era of the . . . (time period) " the reader is expecting the full time period not a part of it. We wouldn't (or shouldn't) say "During the Cold War era of the late 40s and early 50s" because that is only part of the era. Also you (or Oaks) is incorrect in maintaining that this rejection of pro-life feminism took place almost exclusively in the late 60s and early 70s. Keep in mind that Feminists for Life wasn't even formed until 1972 and its founders weren't purged from their state chapter of NOW until the mid 70s. I was rather close to someone in the mid to late 70s whose mom was a fairly prominent NOW member and there were still some folks then in their membership who opposed their pro-abortion rights position. The late 60s and early 70s ARE important not because pro-life feminism was completely rejected during that time (it took a little longer) but BECAUSE THIS WAS PRECISELY THE TIME DURING WHICH ABORTION WAS LEGALIZED IN NATIONS SUCH AS THE US AND BRITAIN. Badmintonhist (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It's just a matter of punctuation and flow, I think. Note the difference in the following:

• "During the second-wave era of the late 1960s and early 1970s ..."
• "During the second-wave era, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, ..."

Perhaps that will suit.

Regarding the timing of legalized abortion, I have a complementary complaint to make: do not belittle the second wavers by implying that legal abortion was their only, or even major interest. The major interest was to codify equal rights between men and women. Binksternet (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In what way am I even vaguely implying that legal abortion was their only or primary concern?? Actually, in a way, you are a lot closer to implying this than I am. Had the 'early "second-wavers" been that obsessed with abortion rights they really would have gotten rid any pro-life heretics in their midst by the early 70's or even sooner. The fact that it took somewhat longer, as I contend, shows that they were not. Widely legal abortion didn't really become a feminist sine qua non until after Roe not before. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think either one implies a single-issue focus on abortion - Badmintonhist's wording is clunky and bad, but Binksternet's could stand to state outright that feminists support the right to abortion - but this comment is just silly. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Mother Teresa was a Pro-life feminist

She founded the Missionaries of Charity, which focuses on many women's issues including: Child care, Female education, as well as more general issues such as combating poverty, homelessness and HIV/AIDS. At the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Teresa stated "Yet we can destroy this gift of motherhood, especially by the evil of abortion, but also by thinking that other things like jobs or positions are more important than loving." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk • contribs)

References

Sorry, but nobody calls Mother Teresa a feminist. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

She has, in fact, specifically indicated opposition to feminism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Similarly, REAL Women of Canada is an explicitly antifeminist group. Ontario Teacher seems to be assuming that all women are feminists, and that therefore all anti-abortion women are "pro-life feminists." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Rona Ambrose is a Pro-life feminist

Rona Ambrose, the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada is has been active in "organizations including the Status of Women Action Group and the Edmonton Women's Shelter, and her education at the University of Victoria and the University of Alberta reportedly included an undergraduate degree in feminist studies". She was the Minister of Status of Women from 2010-2013. Furthermore, Ambrose self-identifies as a feminist. Ambrose is an outspoken opponent of Sex-selective abortion. She has also been described in the media as being a feminist by prominent journalists such as Barbara Kay from the National Post and Naomi Lakritz from the Calgary Herald. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk • contribs)

References

Sorry, but you have not shown a source calling Ambrose a pro-life feminist. Instead, you are arguing that she is pro-life because of her voting record and that she is a feminist because of her education, and position in the ministry. However, this is a violation of WP:SYNTH as it tries to bring disparate sources together. In any case, there are many who challenge Ambrose's supposed feminism, saying that she does nothing to advance the cause of women, or worse.[9][10][11] Instead, Ambrose is a social conservative who pushes back against the advances made by feminists. She is anti-feminist. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:Binksternet,

Thank you for joining the discussion. Firstly, I must point out that feminists disagree on a number of issues. Ambrose is definitely a social conservative who champions women's issues from a conservative perspective.

For instance, some feminists, like Ambrose, believe that Prostitution in Canada should be remain illegal, while others believe it should be legalized. Some feminists believe that the Niqāb is a repressive garment. Others believe it is a symbol of religious expression. Ambrose supported the Universal Child Care Benefit, which was a conservative approach to address issues of childcare. Many conservatives believe in a tax-credit approach for privately run daycare centers in order to make childcare more accessible (as opposed to a socialist approach of unionized government workers administering childcare, or a liberal approach of tax credits which only go towards low income households). Perhaps you disagree with many of Ambrose's positions, but that does not mean she is not a feminist. One might disagree with Elizabeth May on certain environmental issues, but that does not mean that May is not an environmentalist.

In addition to her education and career background-- which is substantial (as she has dedicated her entire life towards feminist causes), I have cited numerous sources which specifically describe Ambrose as being a feminist, and she self-identifies as such.

Do you believe that being a feminist and being pro-life are mutually exclusive? If so, than you would believe that all of the names of pro-life feminists should be deleted. Do you believe that being socially conservative and being a feminist are mutually exclusive? Please remain open to the fact that feminists disagree on several issues. Holding a different perspective on a political issue does not necessarily preclude one from being a feminist. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm well aware that feminists disagree on many issues. The problem with Ambrose is that she's not described in any one source as a pro-life feminist. If you are forced to use two sources for this description then you are violating the WP:SYNTH guideline. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:Binksternet,

In 2 of the sources I have previously posted (The Barbara Kay and Naomi Lakritz articles), Ambrose is identified as being both pro-life and a feminist. I have added 2 more.

1) Barbara Kay, a prominent journalist from the National Post writes, "Rona Ambrose, minister for the status of women, dared to vote her conscience on Motion 312 — a private member’s bill endorsing the creation of a committee that would define when human life begins... Rona Ambrose is a better feminist than the women who criticize her."

2) Naomi Lakritz, a columnist from the Calgary Herald writes, "Ambrose hasn’t stopped upholding Canadian women’s rights. Her support for a bill that is concerned with fetal life does not mean she doesn’t support equal pay for equal work, or the right of working moms to quality daycare, or the upcoming International Day of the Girl on Oct. 11, or Ottawa’s National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking, or any other initiative to make women’s lives better. It simply means she has serious concerns about the life of the unborn... Unafraid, Ambrose spoke for herself. That, to me, is the most basic definition of a feminist."

3) Fulcrum contributor Malika Bourboun writes, "In an article published by the Calgary Herald, REAL Women of Canada (RWC)—a pro-life women’s group that lobbies in support of anti-abortion legislation—commended Ambrose for her “courageous stand in support of life”. Others, like ProwomanProlife blog founder Andrea Mrozek, contend Ambrose’s stance signals a more inclusive type of feminist discourse that encourages Canadian women to be both supportive of women’s rights and willing to discuss abortion or its opposition. According to Mrozek, there are “many women, [Mrozek] included, who do not see so-called abortion rights as part and parcel of women’s rights”."

4) There is an article published by WeNeedaLAW.ca, which states: "Ms. Ambrose has endured a barrage of ad hominem attacks over the past 48 hours. Her crime? Voting in favour of Motion 312, a motion calling for a Parliamentary committee to study the definition of a human being. The resulting backlash has exploited a deep divide among this country’s feminists. “It’s quite telling to observe the likes of Libby Davies and Joyce Arthur throw a fellow feminist under the bus because of their ideological bias,” said WeNeedaLAW.ca director, Mike Schouten."

Moreover, in response to your suggestion that "There are many who challenge Ambrose's supposed feminism, saying that she does nothing to advance the cause of women, or worse", none of the 3 sources you provided say anything like this at all! The Women Suffrage article disagrees with her pro-life stance. That's it. The Globe and Mail article features NDP MP Francoise Boivin, who actually praises Ambrose for fighting to end violence against women abroad in Afghanistan and domestically in native communities, but argues that Ambrose should do more in terms of research and advocacy. The last source is a rant against Conservatism in Canada in general. It mentions Ambrose only twice, with nothing negative said specifically against her in either instance. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Boivin said[12] that Ambrose let women's rights slip backwards in Canada during her tenure as Minister of the Status of Women, that Ambrose did nothing to advance the issues of equal pay, that she aims for showy results in aboriginal violence without addressing the core issues that lead to violence against all Canadian women. The Conservatism in Canada book says that Ambrose is a strong example of the Canadian Conservative effort to undermine the advances made by feminists, that Ambrose uses the language of "choice" to destroy the programs that had been set in place by feminists. Binksternet (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Binksternet,

Criticism from a politician from a rival political party does not qualify as a fact, and moreover, Boivin does not state that Ambrose is not a feminist! Boivin states, "In response, Ms. Boivin said that although it’s clear Ms. Ambrose is committed to combatting violence against women, “there is so much missing” in the government’s approach... The New Democrat said that it’s good Ms. Ambrose is putting money on the table but she is critical of the fact the money is going into “in-your-face” programs and not research and advocacy aimed at addressing the “core issues” of what causes violence against women.... “I do think Rona is sincere and it’s coming from the heart,” she said. “She’ll need to push on her cabinet and on her Prime Minister mostly and they need to realize, especially for natives when they are making 46 cents for every dollar, it’s already bad for women – but it’s even worse for them." As you can see, Boivin argues that Ambrose is making advances for women, but it is not going far enough. Furthermore, the author of the article, Jane Taber, is quite favourable towards Ambrose stating, "The minister – who had just returned from a Canada Day visit to Kandahar where she and other Conservative minister said “thank you” to departing troops – spoke about violence against women, what Canada has contributed to help women and girls in Afghanistan and programs for aboriginal women in Canada... Ms. Ambrose, who also spoke of programs aimed at helping 50,000 women and girls in Libya who are at risk of sexual violence being carried out by the Gadhafi regime, noted that the government announced support Sunday for the Girls Action Foundation, which is aimed at helping young aboriginal women."

Please provide a quote supporting your interpretation of the The Conservatism in Canada book. Your reference to the language of choice to destroy programs that have been set in place by feminists is questionable. The author is referring to childcare. Ambrose helped establish the Universal Child Care Benefit. Childcare has never been a federal institution. How can she destroy something that has never existed? While the Universal Child Care Benefit is not perfect, is it certainly a step in the right direction (i.e. it is more than any previous federal government has ever done in addressing childcare). As we discussed earlier, feminists disagree on whether childcare should be run privately or publicly (through unionized government workers).

Also, please respond to the 4 sources I provides that describe Ambrose as a Pro-life feminist. You did not respond to any of these sources at all. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)