This article was nominated for deletion on 14 March 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
I removed both, after I added orphans and categories.-- Momo Monitor ( talk) 01:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
This entire article is a ridiculous screed. I'm tempted to send this for TNT rather than attempt a complete rewrite to free it of POV language, to make sure all the sources actually discuss the topic, etc. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Really disgusting comments you are coming with. It's not about propaganda. It's a word that was highly discussed in my country (Denmark). -- Momo Monitor ( talk) 16:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Just maybe you could do what Wikipedia is there for? Edit an article, to make it better? But of cause, why do something useful, when you just can delete an article you don't like and want to 'nuke from orbit'. Sigh. -- Momo Monitor ( talk) 16:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
You actually don't want to delete the article out of one of those points ... -- Momo Monitor ( talk) 18:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Triacylglyceride ( talk) 04:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you'll find that there is more than enough reliably sourced material on this subject. I know that scholars such as James Q. Wilson and George Akerlof with Janet Yellen have written on the related phenomenon (and attendant problems) of men assuming such a right based on a woman's right to abortion. I also see that Wikipedia already has some decently sourced material on the subject; ex. Child support (A man's right to choose), Matt Dubay child support case, and Paternal rights and abortion (Opting out). Motsebboh ( talk) 00:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC) That being said, the article as it presently stands is dismissively smug and one-sided, but I sense that editors who want to quickly get rid of it are being the same. Motsebboh ( talk) 00:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
After substantial revision, it seems that the NPOV tag is now unnecessary, feel free to undo my edit removing it if you believe that I am in error, and comment here to discuss further NPOV issues. Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
While I think that the opposition section is all right and well-written, I removed two words: Significant and often. They are biased and try to create a mood against Paper Abortion. So I deleted both words. The citations do not cover it anyway; it was just three journalists writing their personal opinion about paper abortion. They did not say if there was significant or often opposition against this subject. Well, we could of course just write significant opposition and write a significant support to make it unbiased, since both statements are true. But it would be very unspecific and will just fill without giving any gain. So I deleted the biased words. If you look at the Danish section, we can see that 40-70% approves on this subject, while the rest are against it. So there we have specific information. -- Momo Monitor ( talk) 19:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Karen DeCrow, N.O.W. President 1974-1977, wrote a NYT Op-Ed advocating the idea in 1982. https://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/09/magazine/l-no-headline-123813.html Frances Goldscieder has a 1991 Op-Ed article, also supporting the idea, credited with coining the phrase "financial" abortion. https://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/Op-Eds/Goldscheider.html To balance out the "Eurocentric" complaint, US Safe Haven laws could be cited as an existing method by which men could abandon an unwanted child, in theory, though in practice they are only effectively accessible by women, which would tend to conflict with the them of the article that "paper abortions" are for MEN ONLY or some kind of new MRA talking point, rather than something that originated in feminist advocacy for reproductive rights and something women are already able to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.126.15 ( talk) 12:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Like Évelyne Sullerot says, adoption is a very important issue in this matter.
88.1.39.5 ( talk) 12:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The book of Sullerot is a very reliable and important source.
88.1.39.5 ( talk) 12:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
It would be interesting to look if some don't predict more actual abortions if this practice was legal. There are two other lives involved, that of the woman and that of the child. A woman knowing she'll lack support could feel pressured to find other people or to avoid giving birth (despite the possibility of being less likely to voluntarily avoid contraception too). — Paleo Neonate – 19:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 14 March 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
I removed both, after I added orphans and categories.-- Momo Monitor ( talk) 01:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
This entire article is a ridiculous screed. I'm tempted to send this for TNT rather than attempt a complete rewrite to free it of POV language, to make sure all the sources actually discuss the topic, etc. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Really disgusting comments you are coming with. It's not about propaganda. It's a word that was highly discussed in my country (Denmark). -- Momo Monitor ( talk) 16:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Just maybe you could do what Wikipedia is there for? Edit an article, to make it better? But of cause, why do something useful, when you just can delete an article you don't like and want to 'nuke from orbit'. Sigh. -- Momo Monitor ( talk) 16:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
You actually don't want to delete the article out of one of those points ... -- Momo Monitor ( talk) 18:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Triacylglyceride ( talk) 04:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I think you'll find that there is more than enough reliably sourced material on this subject. I know that scholars such as James Q. Wilson and George Akerlof with Janet Yellen have written on the related phenomenon (and attendant problems) of men assuming such a right based on a woman's right to abortion. I also see that Wikipedia already has some decently sourced material on the subject; ex. Child support (A man's right to choose), Matt Dubay child support case, and Paternal rights and abortion (Opting out). Motsebboh ( talk) 00:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC) That being said, the article as it presently stands is dismissively smug and one-sided, but I sense that editors who want to quickly get rid of it are being the same. Motsebboh ( talk) 00:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
After substantial revision, it seems that the NPOV tag is now unnecessary, feel free to undo my edit removing it if you believe that I am in error, and comment here to discuss further NPOV issues. Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
While I think that the opposition section is all right and well-written, I removed two words: Significant and often. They are biased and try to create a mood against Paper Abortion. So I deleted both words. The citations do not cover it anyway; it was just three journalists writing their personal opinion about paper abortion. They did not say if there was significant or often opposition against this subject. Well, we could of course just write significant opposition and write a significant support to make it unbiased, since both statements are true. But it would be very unspecific and will just fill without giving any gain. So I deleted the biased words. If you look at the Danish section, we can see that 40-70% approves on this subject, while the rest are against it. So there we have specific information. -- Momo Monitor ( talk) 19:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Karen DeCrow, N.O.W. President 1974-1977, wrote a NYT Op-Ed advocating the idea in 1982. https://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/09/magazine/l-no-headline-123813.html Frances Goldscieder has a 1991 Op-Ed article, also supporting the idea, credited with coining the phrase "financial" abortion. https://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/Op-Eds/Goldscheider.html To balance out the "Eurocentric" complaint, US Safe Haven laws could be cited as an existing method by which men could abandon an unwanted child, in theory, though in practice they are only effectively accessible by women, which would tend to conflict with the them of the article that "paper abortions" are for MEN ONLY or some kind of new MRA talking point, rather than something that originated in feminist advocacy for reproductive rights and something women are already able to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.126.15 ( talk) 12:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Like Évelyne Sullerot says, adoption is a very important issue in this matter.
88.1.39.5 ( talk) 12:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
The book of Sullerot is a very reliable and important source.
88.1.39.5 ( talk) 12:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
It would be interesting to look if some don't predict more actual abortions if this practice was legal. There are two other lives involved, that of the woman and that of the child. A woman knowing she'll lack support could feel pressured to find other people or to avoid giving birth (despite the possibility of being less likely to voluntarily avoid contraception too). — Paleo Neonate – 19:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)