Talk:Silent No More Awareness

WP:COPYVIO

I have tagged this entire article as a copyright violation, cut and pasted from various websites. Unfortunately, the pro-life websites involved are raising red flags at Google for being infested with malware. I have reason to believe that these were false reports, but please be very careful in your investigation, if you do visit the original sites, to take proper precautions against infection, in case the reports have merit. Elizium23 (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Trying to understand what the violation is

The websites in question are not at this time being flagged by Google for being infested with malware, so I'm unsure what it is you're talking about. The links and websites are ok, unless I'm missing something. Also, you're claiming that some of the articles are copy and pasted from various websites - can you expand on that? Because I haven't copy/pasted anything. This is the Duplicate Report from the Duplication Detector that's on the Investigation thing (yes this one is going to be a copy paste but I don't know how else to show you this report)

Warning: Duplication Detector may in some cases give no results or incomplete results. This does not necessarily indicate copying has not occurred. Manually examine the source document to verify.

Comparing documents for duplicated text:

   http://wiki.riteme.site/w/api.php?action=query&prop=revisions&titles=Silent_No_More&rvprop=content&rvstart=20120803153630
   http://www.priestsforlife.org/government/07-01-29-chris-smith.htm http://www.lifenews.com/2003/09/03/nat-96/

Downloaded document from http://wiki.riteme.site/w/api.php?action=query&prop=revisions&titles=Silent_No_More&rvprop=content&rvstart=20120803153630 (132375 characters, 16596 words) Downloaded document from http://www.priestsforlife.org/government/07-01-29-chris-smith.htm http://www.lifenews.com/2003/09/03/nat-96/ (311 characters, 14 words) Total match candidates found: 0 (before eliminating redundant matches)

Matched phrases: Matching phrases found: 0

Sooooo what's the deal? I'm so confused! Cath 220 (talk)(Cath 220 (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC))

"pro-life" or "anti-abortion"

Note: This discussion took place at User talk:Elizium23, but it seems it should be on this talk page before edits based on it are made, and for further participation.

Prior discussion

I'm sorry about the scare quotes. I thought they had been introduced by Cath 220's edit, missing that some of them were older than that.

But I can't agree that "pro-life" is NPOV in the way "anti-abortion" is. Someone not familiar with the terminology used would have no idea what "pro-life" (or indeed "pro-choice") mean, and given that many American "pro-life" people are pro-capital-punishment, it pretty clearly doesn't mean what it says. "Anti-abortion", on the other hand, seems fine to me, describing a position that is opposed to abortion. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"Anti-abortion" is only used by outsiders to describe the movement and poorly describes its aims. Someone who doesn't know what "pro-life" means can certainly click on a wikilink to find out - that is the whole point of Wikipedia, yes? Elizium23 (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Most people are outside the movement, so I don't see the problem there; on the face of it, a term from people outside the movement is far more likely to be neutral. I think it describes its aims excellently; the movement is anti abortion. It could hardly be more neatly described.

No, I don't think the whole point of Wikipedia is to use loaded propaganda terms to encourage people to do more work to find out what they mean. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

One of the things commonly permitted by Wikipedia is to allow movements and organizations to self-identify. It seems to me that insisting on "anti-abortion" is to tilt things out of neutrality by stripping the ability of the pro-life movement to self-identify. I realize I am spitting into the wind here because the fight is already lost. "Pro-life" redirects to Anti-abortion movements, while "pro-choice" stands on its own, as well as Abortion-rights movements. It's obvious how widespread WP:CONSENSUS feels across the project. Elizium23 (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is true. Of course their self-identification should be noted, but Anti-abortion movements (for example) mentions the (largely American, another reason I think it should be avoided) term "pro-life" prominently. However, I don't think their self-identification should be trusted - most movements and organisations tend to think they're the best thing since sliced bread, because they're not in a position to make a neutral assessment. (I also think "pro-choice" is a bit of meaningless warm-fluffy terminology and would avoid it in favour of "pro abortion rights".)

However, it is polite of you to accept that the consensus is what it is. In view of that, I suggest the following. Revert to "anti-abortion". Revert the lead wording changes by Cath 220 ("men and women, who had had experiences of abortion, could offer and gain support when they started the Silent No More Awareness Campaign" both has spurious commas and doesn't say what it is meant to). Edit the second paragraph a bit ("various abortion testimonies are given. These testimonies are about an individual's personal experience with abortion." is rather repetitive). Insert pro-life before "ministry" in the lead, since they would so self-identify. Move this discussion to the article talk page since, on reflection it belongs there. What do you think? Pinkbeast (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that all sounds fine to me. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)