Cannabis Sativa

Content deleted Content added
Chuz Life (talk | contribs)
mNo edit summary
Line 50: Line 50:
|}
|}
|}<!--Template:Welcomeg-->
|}<!--Template:Welcomeg-->

== Abortion articles and 1RR ==

As I see you've been going back and forth a bit with other editors on {{la|abortion debate}}, I wanted to make sure you're aware that abortion-related articles are subject to a 1RR rule (that is, no more than 1 revert per 24-hour period). To be clear, I don't think you've ''violated'' that rule - I just want to make sure you're aware of it. As you might expect, the rule was instituted to try to reduce edit-warring and increase talk-page discussion in this controversial topic area. There's more background at [[WP:ARBAB|the relatively recent Arbitration case on abortion]], including information about the discretionary sanctions to which the topic area is subject. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 19:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:22, 19 January 2014

Your constructive User comments are welcome here. --Chuz Life (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All you would need would be a textbook or journal article that supports your opinion to be heard. Wikipedia is primarily based on third party reliable sources.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already said in the discussion forum, this will one day take carer of itself. If that source is not already available, it will be soon.; "The differences between anti-abortion and pro life" --Chuz Life (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well when proper sources are available we can than add this. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had time to read my latest version, Doc? --Chuz Life (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I edit many things and do not have time to read everything. You will have me and many others convinced if you can provide either a textbook or a peer reviewed journal publication. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I have found and have provided now are already being recognized by Wikipedia in other articles.
As you are the only editor who has shown any real interest, I was hoping you would comment on my latest edit suggestion. --Chuz Life (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The legality, prevalence, cultural, and religious views on abortion vary substantially around the world.
In many regions there are prominent and divisive controversies over the ethical and legal issues of abortion. Abortion and abortion-related issues feature prominently in the national politics in many nations; Frequently involving the Abortion Rights [X] and the Anti-Abortion social movements. Incidence of abortion has declined worldwide, as attitudes have shifted and access to family planning education and contraceptive services have increased.[5]"
Can you provide a link here to the ref you wish to us to support this. Thanks --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure I can. Which part in particular would you like to see support for? The Terminology is supported here. And the observation that the first paragraph contains "framing" is indicated in several places including the two I just linked to.--Chuz Life (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Doc is looking for verification from one or more third party reliable sources, not links to the internal Wikipedia articles which you feel have a bearing on the topic. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Doc can speak for himself. And the Wikipedia articles already have as their sources the supportive links that I am using in my amendment. Those sources are precisely what makes the first paragraph on(Abortion)inconsistent with the other Articles on the subject. More specifically, those articles and their sources illustrate that paragraph one on Abortion is not consistent with the call for neutraluity and a "world wide" application expected by "wikipedia."
"Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" are (as the articles explain) primarily American lables used to "frame" the issue and to demonize the opposition. As such, the terms have no reasonable place in paragraph one on the "world wide" subject of "abortion."--Chuz Life (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Yes it is third party references I am looking for. Which are the refs are you using specifically? Can you link them here please? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear as to what specifically you are asking me to support with a 3rd party source. The fact that "pro-life and "pro-choice" are loaded terms? Why isn't the AP article (already cited) suffiecient for that? Just the same, I found this article while searching for others...
I'd like to share this post from another editor that pretty much shares the same sentiment and concerns that I have.
"Pro-life is not a good name for Wikipedia to use. It's misleading and unclear. It does not include the issue in the name and is really a self chosen marketing term used to make it sound all very positive. Outside the abortion sphere many anti-abortionists are anything but pro-life. They may support war. They may support capital punishment. A similar argument could probably be made about pro-choice, but not quite so strong. Giving people a choice is a less absolute position. This discussion highlights the difficulty of using simple and simplistic labels for people with diverse views on a complex issue. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)"
At least I'm not alone in my observations. --Chuz Life (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry maybe I was not clear. I am asking for either a textbook reference or a journal article reference. Thanks. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That part is abundantly clear. You want me to provide references. I get it. What is un-clear is what it is (specifically) that you would like for me to find a reference for, and in support of. Having read several of your other exchanges, I have to conclude that you already know better than to suggest that I have not supported my views. But, I'll bite. Why don't you just tell me what it is (specifically) that you want me to provide references in support of? --Chuz Life (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Welcome!

Hello, Chuz Life! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Abortion articles and 1RR

As I see you've been going back and forth a bit with other editors on Abortion debate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I wanted to make sure you're aware that abortion-related articles are subject to a 1RR rule (that is, no more than 1 revert per 24-hour period). To be clear, I don't think you've violated that rule - I just want to make sure you're aware of it. As you might expect, the rule was instituted to try to reduce edit-warring and increase talk-page discussion in this controversial topic area. There's more background at the relatively recent Arbitration case on abortion, including information about the discretionary sanctions to which the topic area is subject. MastCell Talk 19:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply