Talk:Dolores Bernadette Grier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

[edit] Wording choice

I notice that one editor is deliberately changing pro-abortion to pro-choice. This is not a POV issue! However to change it to pro-choice is! This change is for political reasons. This same editor removed a source then labeled that the article needed sources! Makes a lot of sense to me! Dwain 15:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I will address both your concerns. First, the wording absolutely is a WP:POV issue. The phrase "pro-abortion" is a pejorative, with an entry in Wikipedia's List of political epithets. By definition, it is a phrase used to mock or insult a certain political view and its supporters. A similar action would be substituting the phrase "anti-woman" for "pro-life". Another article that addresses this specific issue is Power word. It is POV to describe a pro-choice organization as "pro-abortion".

Your second concern: the source was removed because it was unverifiable. A personal web page quoting someone as saying something does not constitute verifiability. Same with the content you included that you attributed to Envoy magazine; if there's no reference, it can't be included. Jimmy Wales recommends "aggressively" removing such content. I recommend that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Verifiability and other such resources. Joie de Vivre 16:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Another note: I realize that the other references cite Envoy magazine as referring to a group as "pro-abortion", but this usage is still POV. The events can be described without using verbatim quotes containing POV material. Citing sources verbatim is not meant to be a way to frame Wikipedia content from a certain point of view. Joie de Vivre 17:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that User:Dwain removed the phrase "pro-choice" from a direct quote by Dolores Bernadette Grier. It is extremely important to quote references verbatim, with no additions, changes, or omissions. Also, there is no reason not to clarify Planned Parenthood's stance on abortion as pro-choice. They certainly are not pro-abortion, they don't promote abortion to anyone, they promote access. Joie de Vivre 15:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I realize that we are to assume good faith, however after seeing your tactics and reading what you are spewing you are a liar. Planned Parenthood, which is not even mentioned in this article, is an organization that promotes and facilitates abortions. They do not deliver babies they kill them. You have a real nerve to lie on this issue. Planned Parenthood makes their money by providing abortions. Planned Parenthood is pro-abortion.

Further you are changing at your own whim sourced information it does not say "pro-choice" in the sourced info. You are deliberately causing problems when I removed the the "pro-abortion" you put back your propaganda.

As far as changing the quote, that was an accident. You however are changing sourced information for your own political motives. The quote has been restored and "pro-abortion" is now removed and that should be the end of your problem with this issue. Dwain 16:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that you admitted your mistake in changing a direct quote from Grier. However, you are grossly mistaken in claiming that I changed sourced information at whim. This is entirely false. I challenge you to point out which "sourced material" I changed in violation of Wikipedia policy. Joie de Vivre 17:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed what has been going on here. I added most of the information to this article and it is ridiculous for you to be vandalizing it as you have been! You are absolutely out-of-line inserting pro-choice when the other editor in an apparent compromise removed what you found so offensive. I take offense at what you have been inserting into this article and I am going to change it back to the last edit. Friuli 22:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"Vandalism"? I didn't anticipate being attacked and labeled a "vandal", for using a term that both sides of the abortion debate have agreed on. Joie de Vivre 23:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)