Wikiquote:Votes for deletion archive/Abortion


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: no consensus. — Jeffq 09:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Abortion

 * NOTE: THIS IS NOT A VOTE IN THE CLASSICAL SENSE. This is an attempt to assess the will of the community. If you have no user, feel free to comment (especially if you have new information which has not been presented here), but any recommendation in bold you make will be struck out to help the closing admin count recommendations correctly. If you make a recommendation with a newly created user, especially one with few or no edits, it will not be struck out but might be discounted by the closing admin, per his or her discretion. There is absolutely no need to vote multiple times, and in fact, such practice is frowned upon. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Note: Please sign all your comments with ~ . Please put new comments in new bullets or subbullets. Please do not modify bullets posted by others, with the exception of striking out anon votes. If any remark is not in a proper bullet, you can move it to bulleted form, and then you must add a subbullet documenting your action, and preferably also comment on the identity of the poster if the original is unsigned. Thank you for your co-operation. Mis-signatures and other such modifications will be reverted to keep the vote authentic and coherent. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

What could be a useful, balanced article on the topic is repeatedly and consistently made into an anti-abortion crusade. We have made many different efforts to get balance, but they are inevitably sabotaged by the sheer amount of time that anti-abortion supporters have devoted to turning the pro-choice section into anti-abortion advocacy by overwhelming it with the worst possible quotes from pro-choicers. One anonymous user has clearly demonstrated through her talk-page postings that she believes there is really only one side, and no amount of effort from the sysop staff has been able to stem her mission to ensure this article promotes her opinion. As I believe I suggested before, if we can't have true balance or neutrality on this subject, we should simply delete the article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * VOTE CLOSES: 12:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * VOTE CLOSES: 12:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Procedural comment: My knee-jerk reaction is to extend the discussion by one week to December 8. I feel that this article had enough prominent contributors and is on an important enough subject that a decision should not be taken lightly. Currently I don't believe we have any clear policy on who is allowed to extend votes, but in general the consensus tended to be "any sysop". If there are no objections soon, I will extend it. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Extended to December 8, as per my intention stated above. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I support the extension to my original deadline. I had pretty much expected both the fervent arguments and the extension to accomodate them anyway. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * VOTE CLOSED. Result: no consensus (default keep) (3 Deletes; 4 Keeps; 1 Keep struck for no proper signature; 1 Keep discounted because of improper signature followed by confusing attempts to verify and standardize; all anonymous, unsigned, and policy-violating multiple votes discounted). WELL. This may have been the sloppiest votes I've ever seen on Wikiquote. Between the irritation of the sysops at the POV editing, the cries against censorship, the illegal and occasionally indecipherable votes from anonymous editors, and the deck-stacking through freeping, I'd say I (perhaps needlessly) proved how hard it is for Wikiquote to address this subject calmly and rationally. In the end, however, there is no consensus to delete the article, and probably would have been a clear Keep consensus had more supporters voted properly. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is not possible to achieve NPOV in this article when the only frequent contributors are avowed anti-abortionists who consistently sabotage the inadequate attempts of pro-choicers and sysops to restore balance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not quite sure how I feel about this one. On the one hand, I understand that this page has become a nightmare to maintain, and yet I feel a bit uncomfortable about simply deleting it when there are some valid quotes to be found on the subject. Can we protect it instead? I know this raises other concerns -- namely that it limits the addition of new quotes (unless someone asked an admin to add it and admins would have a say over whether a quote that someone wants to add is valid), and an admin's personal bias could intrude. But again, I'm reluctant to just delete the page. I would like to hear some more discussion before rendering a vote. UDScott 21:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep : The article is a horrible mess, and is no doubt one of the single biggest "headache" articles we have here... and probably will long remain such. I think this leads most of us to simply avoid it, so much as we are able to, but I am against deleting it or protecting it permanently merely for those reasons. It is an issue about which many statements are made... and they should be given place for expression, even if one particular editor seems fixated on mis-characterizing all manner of statements in ways that will most support and promote her particular views. I am removing it from "featured article" status on the Main Page though... something I have wanted to do very early on, even before it became much of a problem, but felt uncomfortable doing merely because of my own preferences not to draw to much attention to the subject. I think most of us can agree the article itself is one of the worst, most POV-intensive, and most frustrating that we have and shouldn't be on the main page. ~ Kalki 22:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep (and keep unprotected) - this is a slippery slope, in the direction of censorship. You want to delete Guns too? It's filled with quotes by people who haven't yet heard the news that the gov has nuclear weapons, and thus their guns won't protect them in case the gov becomes tyrannical. Also, my understanding is that some of the quotes there are taken straight from NRA magazines, and thus might be fraudulent - need someone who cares about this issue (and isn't lazy) to check it out. The wiki process is what people make of it. You, as an admin, have no obligation to protect a page against (what you consider to be) POV sabotage. If all the people who wish to contribute are anti-abortion, then you can assume that all the people on earth are anti-abortion. If other people start to contribute, and complain to admins about anti-abortion vandals (e.g. vandals who delete quotes, or don't accept majority vote), only then you should make the effort and help, by banning vandals perhaps. If neither you nor anyone else wish to make the effort and remove the "sabotage" from the page, then you should leave it as it is, and wait for people who do wish to invest their time in this page to do so. iddo999 23:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Jeff, perhaps try to see a positive side too: if the sabotage is so horrible, then keeping it as it is would probably increase the probability that other people who come across this page and have different views on abortions would start editing it, and then perhaps also edit other wikiquote pages. So don't try too hard to guard pages against POV sabotage, unless it's a page that you personally care about right now. Let the wiki process fulfill itself, with perhaps the positive side-effect of gaining new wikiquote editors. iddo999 23:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The comments of the others echo many of my feelings about whether or not it is approrpiate to remove a page simply because it is controversial and is subject to a lot of heavy maintenance to keep it viable and neutral (as much as possible). I remain uncomfortable with the idea of deleting a page when there are numerous valid quotes associated with a topic - it smacks too much of censorship to me. As painful as this page can be to us all, I think it should remain. UDScott 23:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah? This page is painful for all of us? I have no idea what you and Kalki are talking about. How can it be painful if I've never even bothered to look at it? iddo999 22:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace with a message summarising the reason, and protect it. I've thought a lot on this issue. The page, as it is right now, is pure crap as far as I'm concerned. I do not see it as becoming non-crap without significant work, but I am not prepared to do the work myself. Here is my suggestion: blank all the page, keeping only something like "This page is now protected since no version was of sufficiently high quality. If you are interested in helping, please feel free to work on a prototype of this page in your userspace, and make a note of it in the talk page. On your prototype, you are free to insist on only editing it yourself or you can allow others to edit it. If some prototype achieves wide consensus in the talk, please alert the Admin team so they can instate the consensus version and unprotect the page." Any thoughts? ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 21:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The solution is not to censor accurate quotes, but rather to edit out any inaccuracies and edit in quotes that satisfy your own view of balance. Not sure how a quote page is supposed to be balanced, though.  As long as the quotes are accurate and pertinent, they ought to be on the page.   Quotes generally have a POV.  Abortion is controversial, so POV of the actual quotes will be strong in many cases.  Presenting those POVs to readers is the goal of a quote page for a controversial topic - to see what views people have on that controversy.  What is the actual problem? Are any quotes inaccurate? Have quotes from others with different POVs been deleted? Have people not been permitted to add quotes with oter POVs? Or are the quotes that people find objectionable simply ones that expose the weakness of one POV and highlight the strength of another?  Again, the solution is to add quotes that represent a POV you think is under-represented. I use the page as a source for abortion quotes because the quotes listed are amazing. I cannot believe that abortion providers and feminists have said some of the things they have said - but I have verified each and every one of them, and they all come from reliable sources. What is the underlying basis for the disappointment some of you have with the page as it currently exists? I don't see any history of trying to work the problems out, or of being specific as to why most of the quotes are objectionable.  If a quote is in the wrong section, move it to the right one.  If a quote is not accurate, explain why you believe so, ask for input, and then consider removing it. Censoring the page by deleting or blanking it is simply a heavy-handed extremist tactic.  Mr. Grace 21:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem with the page is that the only people who have time to edit it think that a quote which starts with "In no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning" should start the pro-choice section, and when people object, they cry out "then edit it to be better". However, the content should not be decided by who has more energy to invest in edit wars. This is why I feel forcing everyone to come to a consensus, and I'm pretty sure that enough will object to any "compromise" which isn't really, will finally get the edit-warriors to come to their senses. If you are interested, you could help in making the page not be crappy...that is likely to save it from deletion, even if you have to actually find quotes which do not support your POV. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 22:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The content should be decided by those who wish to edit that page. If you're not one of them, then just leave it alone and wait for other people to improve it. If there're vandals who e.g. don't accept majority vote of the people who edit on that page, then we can ban them. If you don't like the content, don't wish to edit it, and still want to delete what others do there, then it's censorship. iddo999 22:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Why is that quote listed first? The protocol for a "theme" page (such as the abortion page) appears to be very simple.  Following it would address your concern. Mr. Grace 22:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete:
 * Let's consider that these disputes and sabatoges we're discussing here and on the Abortion article talk page have been ongoing since at least  July .
 * I'll repeat the [Talk:Abortion#NPOV_and_accuracy|objections] I made on the talk page for the article:
 * Some, . . . have spammed th[e] article as well as th[e] talk page to advertise Gordon Watts's activism. A [Wikiquote:Vandalism_in_progress#Abortion|thorough complaint] about this was filed.
 * Many "quotes" are listed without links. This makes their authenticity questionable, especially because some anti-abortion organizations have been preported to publish false discredits and stories in the past (take . . . the frequently-referenced-yet-bogus "study" that attempted to imply abortions cause cancer).
 * Opinions of and interview segments with quacks and other kooks have been pushed to the top of the "Pro-choice" section. Most of the more intelligent quotations have been pushed to the bottom of that section. Some genuine pro-choice quotes that seem strong arguments for pro-choice positions were relocated to the "Indefinite" section, which is deep at the bottom of the page. This implies that fringe views are more important to read and more prominent than mainstrean ones. That organization is obviously biased, thus not a NPOV.
 * "Dismemberment and extraction" is not a medical term. Wikiquote is something of an academic nature, and so medical terminology is appropriate and unmedical pregoratives as substitutes are not.
 * The quotes from Madonna, Thomas Jefferson and the U.N. . . . were from discussions that were not about abortion. (Note that neither person has ever been known publicly to advocate against abortion.)
 * Some of the quotation from Tori Amos was not about this particular topic; note the inclusion of ". . ." in that quote. Methinks this was done to make it read like an focused ramble, thus making it seem bad.
 * One credit for each of two pro-choice quotes - each quote a common medical assertion - reads "contradicting late-term abortionist Dr. George Tiller (see below) and abortion industry spokeman Ron Fitzsimmons (see above)". (And, again, some of the "quotes" seem questionable.) This seems to indicate that some editors were trying to make the page an expose' (accurate or inaccurate) of the pro-choice movement. That's not what this page is for. And it conforms to a particular POV.
 * Some of these biased editors . . . have reversed overhauls and other edits that made the article more appropriate, particularly edits that gave it a NPOV. In those cases, they've reverted it back to versions pretty much identical to [certain user]'s versions, and administrators deemed [certain user]'s versions biased and questionable.


 * And a further [Talk:Abortion#Troll_problem.3F|objection] I made later:
 * Mr. Grace removed the NPOV and Accuracy tags, when none of the controversies raised were fully resolved. His explaination on the edits page was ("no explanation as to which quotes are inaccurate or biased, nor any attmpt to edit to address concerns") doesn't mean there isn't a controversy. It's not even a valid excuse; the issues have been discussed on this talk page for some time now, as Mr. Grace has probably read our detailed objections, and his edits have done only a little to address the issues we've raised. Because this issue hasn't been fully resolved - in fact, it mostly remains unresolved - I've reinserted the tags. Mr. Grace clearly knows the truth of these disputes, as he has obviously read the discussions; he certainly knew enough to attack my arguments in the NPOV & Accuracy section of this talk page.


 * And an [Talk:Abortion#Neutrality_of_quote_sources|observation] from Jeff Q, who put this better than can I:
 * I hope I'm not opening another can of worms here, but I see a real problem with adding sourced quotes to this article. Without any qualifications of the source, it is child's play (no pun intended) to find the most rabid pro-life or pro-choice source to quote an opponent in the worst way possible, especially if it provides an opportunity for major slanting. This occured to me when I noticed 80.42.214.120's addition of Maxine Waters' ironic quote about marching for her mother's lost right to an abortion. I found three different sources for that quote, but they were all from ultra-conservative websites who all referred to the rally at which it occured as a "pro-abortion" rally, which I rather suspect is not what it was called. That made me wonder if the quote itself was accurate, especially given some of the other supposed quotes I saw cited, which were almost certainly not correct.


 * In today's bleak landscape of attack journalism, one cannot trust a radical pro-life website to cite such a juicy quote accurately, any more than one would expect a NOW or other radical pro-choice website to provide anything but the most self-defeating quotes from pro-life supporters. . ..
 * Maxine Waters' idiotic statment was quoted by several reliable sources (Wall Street Journal, Wash Times and National Review  - and Tucker Carlson even debated James Carville about the statement on CNN and Carville defended Waters, but did not deny she said it) - with your statement above you have proven yourself to be  either a terrible researcher or to be very hasty in rushing to judgment - and perhaps to have an extreme bias against anyone with views that differ from your own (such as a website that espouses views that you think should not be voiced, or exposes certain views to be shallow.  The fact that any mention of Waters' participation in the rally (where she made the idiotic statement) has been scrubbed from nearly all old media reports of the event (and even edited out of the CSPAN coverage) demonstrates the extreme bias of most "reliable" media outlets. Imagine if a conservative congressman had said something as dumb as the extreme liberal Waters did - it would be on CNN every 5 minutes for 2 weeks. Instead the mainstream media has largely hidden Waters' incoherence or stupidity from its readers and viewers to protect her and the pro-abortion facade. Mr. Grace 22:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If it's quoted in the WSJ news section, then it's reliable. But if it was quoted by the yoyos in the WSJ op-ed section, then it's useless. WashTimes is less reliable, they even fabricate quotes by people that they like when it suits them, such as Tom Delay . Carlson and Carville are also obviously useless. It's supposed to have been shown on TV? Why don't you seek for a video footage then? There're plenty of anti-abortion people with video recorders... For example, the conspiracy theories crowd managed to get the Fox News live broadcast on 9/11 where their correspondent who went on air after the 2nd plane hit the WTC said that it's a cargo plane that doesn't have windows. iddo999 01:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure where this ends, as you have now pointed to an obscure blog website (that claims a certain quote is bogus) as your reliable source to note that some websties are not reliable. Ardent apologist (Carville) for all things liberal admitted that Maxine Waters made the idiotic statment. Several highly-respected media outlets also reported her rant. Not sure what your standard of proof is - seems like liberal blogs and liberal newspapers (NYT, for example) are good sources, but conservative ones are not reliable. That is a standard that is thoroughly unacceptable. Mr. Grace 06:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The "obscure blog" links to the WashTimes article, and mentions what the Repub senator said on CNN, so it's as credible as the senator is. If you meant that the blog fabricated the senator's words, and you're too lazy to even check this out, then here - but then you're probably way too lazy to seek for video footage that you claim that the big brother at C-SPAN removed into the memory hole... Getting such footage is a lot easier than 9/11 footage, because the rally was known in advance. To repeat, the WSJ news section is very reliable, much more than the NYT I'd say, but again, info from the WSJ op-ed section is useless. Do you know how that quote appeared in the WSJ? Anyway, I suggest that for now you should be graceful and remove that quote into the talk page, pending a proof. iddo999 14:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * When former White House advisor (Carville) discusses Maxine's rant (and in doing so admits the rant occurred) you find it meaningless, but when a senator fails to elaborate on why he thinks a quote was false you find it definitive as to whether the statement was made. Your standard of proof is slippery at best - and certainly biased toward getting your way. Maxine's rant was widely published in 4 well-respected publications with no retractions and therefore it is most definitely "sourced" - its not going away. The only lazy user here is the one who has claimed that the page is filled with bogus quotes, offered no proof, and then demanded the page be deleted. Mr. Grace 07:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "senator fails to elaborate"? The senator said that the WashTimes fabricated the quote. What else is there to elaborate on? You want the senator to elaborate on the motives behind the decision to fabricates quotes? I just used this example to show that the WashTimes is less reliable than e.g. the WSJ. I'll assume that the point was taken. What Carville used to say on the Crossfire circus was meaningless in general, and certainly meaningless with regard to the sourcing of quotes in particular, so I have no idea why you keep coming back to that. Why don't you answer my question about how the quote appeared in the WSJ? I urge you again to be graceful and remove that quote until there's a proof for it. iddo999 11:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As Jeff Q also put it on the same page (again, better than can I) about one abuser (sic), which I believe can accurately others editors:
 * She simply doesn't understand or accept that her beliefs are neither universal, nor accepted as fact. . . . she cannot be permitted to subvert it [the article/Wiki standards] in order to destroy her hated opposition either by sabotaging the organization or by overwhelming the . . . staff.


 * Let's consider the anti-choice side's insistence on continuing to do those things, and insistence on keeping the article that way or reverting it back to that way
 * Conclusion: I think the only permanent remedy would be to would to permanently protect the article, and I'm not sure if Wikiquote's administrators are willing to permanently deny us nonadministrators any editing of an article. Unless the administrators can agree to do that, then the article is like a severly medically risked patient's fetus w/ 100% chance of quick terminal illness outside the womb: sadly, it has no hope, and the best thing to do would probably be to mercifully abort it. Dr. K 06:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yikes, all this does sound very bad... However, I consider your solution to be even worse. In general, the solution for removing quotes from dubious sources is to stop being lazy (i.e. use nothing but google?) and try to research the issue. However, it can be quite hard to prove a negative, so if the only sources appear to be fraudulent (as indeed in your examples above), then I think that it would be a good idea to remove them (into the talk page, perhaps), pending a reliable source. The solution to POV comments next to a quote is simply to remove them, because other than info that's really relevant to a particular quote, everything else should go to wikipedia - we should seek to editorialize as little as possible. If the anti-abortion crowd refuses to follow such guidelines, then you should report it to admins who will revert what they do there and perhaps ban them. But first, there should be an effort by editors of that page to create a good version - if you just leave the page to the anti-abortion crowd to do what they want there, then we can leave them alone until other people would come and try to improve it. iddo999 10:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This is one of my first times using this site. It is amazing, and has been extremely helpful to me in preparing a case study on Abortion for a Medical Law & Ethics class. I was really disturbed to see that it was being considered for deletion. I believe in free speech, and that we, the public, have the right to be informed. Therefore, I equate deleting a page such as this, with an incredible amount of useful information, to "book burning." Simply because the totality of content seems weighted towards one side of an issue, is NO REASON to DELETE IT! I am NOT making this statement based on personal bias. If something is out of balance - then BALANCE IT! Put the simple facts of this question in to almost any analogy: If preparing a meal, and some parts are done before others, do you throw it ALL out? If you plant a garden, and one crop grows faster, and more abundantly than another - do you plow under the whole plot, and tell yourself "I'll try for more EQUAL growth next year..."??? Of course not! From my perspective, as new to this site, this argument seems rooted in issues other than the benefit/accuracy of the information presented. Yes, the bulk of information presented represents one position over the other ... but that doesn't make all that is there inaccurate or with out value. PLEASE, consider it a work-in-progress, and don't "burn the book" to teach someone a lesson! KellyD
 * Moved to standard format by me, including striking out the vote because it came from an anon (as per our policy that anon votes are ineligible) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 10:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * KellyD, why do you lecture us about how you think that other people should improve the page, instead of offering to do it yourself? iddo999 18:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps what KellyD is sayingis that: 1) the page is accurate and therefore should not be censored, and 2) additional accurate quotes should be added by those who do not like the current (and accurate) content of the page, and 3) the responsibility to add aditional accurate quotes belongs to those who find the current accurate content disturbing enough to do the work.Mr. Grace 06:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As I understand you, this is a misstatement of a crucial policy: writing for the enemy. The responsibility to keep NPOV and balance belongs not "to thos who find the current content disturbing", but to everyone. I realize it might be hard to add quotations which actually refute your point of view, but it is crucial for the proper functioning of the wiki. Please see my suggestion above, tantamount to deleting the page, for a way to force the various POV warriors here to seek consensus. Please note that intentional violations of NPOV are disruptive to wikiquote, which is the reason Jeff suggested the deletion, to reduce disruption. The more I hear the arguments against that decision, the more I believe he is right, since not one argument appeared relevant. Perhaps when wikiquote grows to have 20 regular editors (commited to NPOV) and 6 active administrators, we can deal with the disruption brought about by such a page. As it stands, I believe that this page draws more heat than light. Thanks ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Whats with the censorshiip? Aslan
 * originally posted 2 December 2005 (UTC) (comment originally added by Mr. Grace, moved to subbullet by me) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This is this user's only edit (done as two edits: one to add the vote, one to sign it) ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 08:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Following "votes" are all by the same anon: ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks ok to me
 * Keep I think it is an excellent page
 * Keep Sure, why not?
 * Keep Dont abort the abortion page!!!!
 * Keep Babies arent that cute.
 * Keep Keep it.
 * Keep I have thought long and hard on this and I say keep.
 * Keep Keeping it is a good idea.
 * Keep Keep good. Delete bad.
 * Keep I agree with many others...keep!
 * Following vote is by another anon ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP--DO NOT CHANGE A THING. You are part of an open forum that debates ideas. People DO COME HERE to get informed. DON'T HINDER THAT.
 * Short note: Wikiquote is NOT an open forum which debates ideas, it is an encyclopedia of quotations. Just in case anyone thought it is. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Anon 'vote' in a separate section moved here by me ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "Keep" It's not the fault of us "neanderthal womyn oppressors" if some of the pro-choice comments look REALLY bad. If you are going to censor it now because advocates like Margaret Sanger (a racist supporter of Eugenics and Nazism) and Pete Singer (an unqualified homicidal maniac urging 'postnatal abortion' up to the age of 2) don't represent your side in the best light, you betray your bias and put the whole WIKI institution at risk as an objective resource.  It's bad enough that no High School or College would (ok, should) accept Wiki as a suitable bibliography.  We've got Nicolae Ceaucescu (a Communist dictator who ended up at the right end of the firing squad he used to terrorize the population) on the Pro-life side.  Not exactly the kind of candidate we want but, why not?  It's in the interest of fairness, isn't it? BTW, I've got a quote for you: "Because of my role in Roe v. Wade, how that decision came about, and my experiences working at abortion clinics, I can provide the Court with information and a perspective unavailable from other sources. I have a compelling interest in this litigation. My case was wrongfully decided and has caused great harm to the women and children of our nation. I have an interest in stopping that harm and I have an interest in disclosing the facts which expose the weakness of the underlying assumptions which led to that incorrect decision. 3. Virtually the entire basis for Roe v. Wade was built upon false assumptions. No meaningful trial to determine the real facts was ever held. The misrepresentations and deceptions that plagued Roe v. Wade are presented to this Court to show why there is a dire necessity for a trial to ensure that the true facts regarding the nature of abortion and the interests of women are heard. These facts, which were neither disclosed to me in 1970 nor to the plaintiffs of this case before they had an abortion, are critical for understanding the issues involved. They point out the deficiencies not only of the procedure in Roe v. Wade, but in the Court's decision which was rendered in a vacuum devoid of findings of facts." Norma McCorvey's, Jane Roe of "Roe v. Wade", Affidavit to the US District Court of New Jersey. PS: For claiming to be unbiased, there are a lot of "anti-choicers" and "anti-abortion" epithet thrown around.  Should I call you guys then, "pro-death"?  It's only fair if you choose to denigrate us at every turn.
 * Keep
 * "13:46, 7 December 2005 Jwindle (adding signature of poster Jwindle who did not sign, anon below merged his comment with Jwindle's)" (this is a comment by Mr. Grace, moved to std. format by me ~MosheZadka (Talk) 15:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC))


 * The fight becomes controversial only after your fighter hits the canvas after receiving a Mike Tyson uppercut. Work and train 'em harder? Beef up your arguments? Or quit and recognize the Championship is not within your grasp? Sorry for the sports analogy. But what this is mostly about is, "If I can't win I'm going to take my ball and go home!"
 * Unsigned comment, moved to std. form by me ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 15:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would recommend to whoever closes this vote to discount any and all voters with less than 50 edits excepting the VfD page itself, Abort and Talk:Abortion. I don't suppose it will change the result of this vote (as it is going so far), but I think it would make a nice precedent, similary to how I closed the Tarmy vote, which would make at least one good thing come out of this VfD. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 16:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Your attitude is certainly no way to expand the number of active users on Wikiquote. And please do try to be more courteous when making this section look how you want it to.Mr. Grace 17:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Being "active" only on one vote and POV-warring on one page is not my idea of "active". If you wish to prove me wrong, feel free to make useful edits on a bunch of pages unrelated to abortion: we have a large number of pages which could use expansion (The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, which I started), accuracy checks (Sherlock Holmes) or format improvements (Morton Feldman). Since the goal of VfD is to assess the will of the community, we need to have some definition of community. I truly hope, but sadly, I do not expect, that you will decide to join the community by improving wikiquote. Perhaps this will give you an idea of why the regular editors are overworked enough that they do not have time to respond to ultimatums on Talk:Abortion ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 02:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Pro-abortion rights users are perfectly free to add their quotes as well. There is no reason such an article need be censored.  It's open to all.  --Jakes19 06:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This was the user's first edit, less than five minutes after being created. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 07:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)\
 * I spend most of my time on Wikipedia as Jakes18. I intended on creating an account here, but never got to it until a few days ago, when I saw this garbage was going on and felt it necessary.  Does the Abortion article portray abortion rights supporters in a negative fashion?  I think that's what most would come out with.  Does it matter?  No.  They are true quotes.  To delete them would be more or less censoring true statements you are not comfortable with.  If pro-abortion rights Wikiquotians are unimpressed with the page, they are perfectly free to edit it themselves.  Should we delete "Bushisms" because it sheds a negative light on GW, and that may annoy his supporters?  No.  --Jakes19 18:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The expiration date of this vote has passed - our busy sysops have not had the chance to tally the vote. Looks like there is no consensus to sensor the abortion page. Please do not vandalize this comment by deleting it. I am simply making a reasonable and relevant note in this section regarding this vote. Mr. Grace 20:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: The large puppet contingent was due to a Freep: I scanned this section and didn't see anyone enter this information, apologies if this was known. Just thought you might like to know. KillerChihuahua 23:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.