Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pro-Life Supporters & List of Pro-Choice Supporters

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tally

[edit]

Keep - 11 - Netoholic, Dpbsmith, Mikkalai, Timothy001, Rex0741404, Benc, Darksun, Dmn, Samuel J. Howard, GenesisMcClain (user with no contributions), The Land, FBarnes

Delete - 24 - Neutrality, FZ, Xed, Mirv, Sean Curtin, Livajo, Geogre, Lucky6.9, Lyellin, JamesMLane, Gamaliel, lanb, Gene Pool, Ambi, DJ Clayworth, Niteowlneils, Wile E. Heresiarch, KeithH, Jiang, Antandrus, Func, Zoney, Yath, Lacrimosus, Jerzy

Neutral - 1 - Func

Comments

[edit]

Both "List of Pro-Life Supporters" & "List of Pro-Choice Supporters" are:

  • Inherently POV (the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are loaded)
  • Inherently subjective (what defines "pro-life" and pro-choice"? There are so many varying degrees)
  • Inherently unencyclopedic (The relevance of Britney Spear's position on abortion is nil)
  • Inherently useless (has little to no informational, artistic, or entertainment value — can never be complete)
  • Also poorly worded ("Supporters" shouldn't be capitalized, and you can't support an adjective anyway)
(I guess, the vote is Delete (mikkalai))[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 21:30, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • And, of course, it would require constant updating everytime someone changed their mind! There's no point in having a list of the opinions of living people in an encyclopedia; it's too time-sensitive. Delete. -FZ 21:36, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
As noted below earlier, this can be dealt with by dating each entry according to when the opinion was expressed.
  • Delete. Would suggest keeping it if it wasn't so tediously Americentric.--Xed 21:39, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Given some time more people could contribute names from people all over the world. Timothy001
  • Delete: who cares what Pat Boone or Christina Aguilera thinks about abortion? —No-One Jones 21:44, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Who cares whether Berenice Abbott is gay? Who cares whether the Statue of Liberty is 46 meters high? Who cares If the sky cares to fall in the sea?/Who cares what banks fail in Yonkers/Long as you've got a kiss that conquers... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:36, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Okay, but Berenice Abbot's sexual orientation isn't on a page titled "List of Gay People and List of Straight people", or is the height of the Statue of Liberty on a page titled "List of Tall Structures and List of Short Structures". Laen 23:56, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I do not like that this VfD action seems to be more about the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate than anything else. Neutrality seems to be very opinionated on the issues (see Talk:List of Pro-Life Supporters), and this VfD is just adding fuel to the debate. The list of people was split off the main article pages to try and de-fuse the problems. They may still have value so long as the list contains only people who have outwardly described their views. -- Netoholic @ 22:07, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Please confine your remarks to the vote, and not to the personality of the nominator. Geogre 00:33, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately the nominators personality is very much at issue here. Timothy001 01:36, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, pointless - might as well create list of people who have voted Republican and list of people who have voted Democrat. Lists of activists are relevant, as would be lists of party-affiliated politicians who've "broken ranks" over such issues; lists of random celebrities' random opinions are not. -Sean Curtin 23:20, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. (Now, personally I detest both of the terms "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice," both of which are euphemistic and grotesquely inaccurate. What's wrong with "anti-abortion" and "pro-abortion?" But that's a completely different matter). As Jimbo Wales has said, "what people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view." Assuming the lists are accurate in their representation of the views of the people on them, it seems to me that this is legitimate material; at least as much as, say, List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people. I would much prefer it if these lists were careful to accompany each name with a verifiable citation of a source showing that they actually hold the opinion they are said to hold. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:25, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry to butt in, but the problem is that many who would call themselves "pro-choice" are not "pro-abortion" ("safe, legal and rare"). A better phrase might be "pro-abortion-rights" and "anti-abortion-rights", but that might connote that abortion is in fact a "right". [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:54, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)
  • Keep both. I second brief confirmations of positions, for verification. Mikkalai 23:38, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see the point of either list. Are they likely to be linked from any other article than Lists of people, Pro-life or Pro-choice? No. Is it really relevant which movie stars and singers support/oppose abortion/affirmative action/marijuana legalization/gay marriage/etc.? I don't think so, unless they play an active and significant part in the movement, in which case there is no reason they could not be mentioned on the pro-life or pro-choice page instead, along with something about why it's notable information. It also doesn't really matter to me whether the person who posted this on VfD is opinionated on the issue or not; the articles are not encyclopedic. Livajo 23:37, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, this is a reasonable proposal, to list only active supporters. I'd say random celebrities hardly stick to their views. Mikkalai 23:40, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: These are horrid lists and not NPOV at all. Further, neither is encyclopedic. The list names could be argued as participating in the polemic, to start with ("pro-life" or "anti-abortion?" "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion?"). These are US lists with no meaning to outsiders. Finally, even replicating what the groups call themselves is to admit to this as a political issue, and a flat list is far worse than an in-depth analysis. These can act as hit-lists for either side. Tremendously irresponsible articles that immediately and irrevocably involve us in politics. Geogre 00:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP I think that these lists are of interest. How can Neutrality try to dismiss them by suggesting that the words themselves are POV and therefore should be erased. Where else but an encyclopedia can you find a competent list of people who believe one way or another on abortion or whatever it is. Are the lists of Christians and other religions now going to be erased because who cares whether Mel Gibson is a Catholic? These lists are informative and relevant. How come Neutrality doesn’t put up List of people who died with tortoises on their heads? Since there is only one person on this “so-called” list it should be erased. What makes the List of cities with Hard Rock Cafes anymore informative or important? Are people really going to plan their vacations to which cities have one? These lists are informational and informative. Some names are surprising, even, Jack Nicholson being pro-life, who knew? Britney Spears doesn’t show up on either list Neutrality where have you been looking? Wow, the biggest reason so far is that “Supporters” is capitalized. Give me a break, fix it and move on. You’re not fooling anyone Neutrality, you have a grudge and don’t want those lists there because you kept erasing the articles turning them into re-directs and I and others reinstated those articles. Xed you are right, the lists right now are mainly Americans, but possibly you and others could add to these lists over time and they could be revised to be all inclusive. But it seems Neutrality does not want to give these lists enough time to grow and be improved upon. Why that should be I don’t know. His reasons stated are pretty lame. Timothy001 01:28, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • For the record, I'm very much pro-life. I've had some rather lively and interesting e-mail conversations with another user here who is extremely liberal and I know we've both had fun during our debates. Still, these are as unverifiable and potentially contentious a pair of lists as I've seen in a long time, starting with the titles. Even the contents are questionable. Mel Gibson is a shoo-in, but what backing is there for Jack Nicholson's position? These need NPOV titles and verifiable sources. As they stand, I vote delete, though I'd like to see these brought back as encyclopedia articles. For the record, ditto pro-choice/pro-abortion lists of a similar nature. - Lucky 6.9 02:30, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep - or else also delete the list of "gay and bisexual people" [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 02:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) If one list is worth keeping, so is the other. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 02:31, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Respectfully disagree. A list of famous gay and bisexual people can be easily verified. This, I fear, cannot. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an ideological battleground. This is one time where common sense has to win out over personal opinion. As I stated, I'm conservative, pro-life, right-wing, whatever. Whoopie. It just doesn't apply in this case. FWIW, I have voted in favor of subjects that I found to be offensive. True, I blew up over one about a month ago. Still, these lists are just not a proper use of these resources. My vote stands. - Lucky 6.9 02:39, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Difficult at best to confirm, if not impossible. Titles alone are POV, and hardly accurate. Too many other options that people can support. What about Those who support abortion but only if the mother was raped, and the various other permutations. Lyellin 03:17, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I see no encyclopedic value to recording someone's position on abortion rights unless his or her position on that particular issue was notable in that person's life (through activism on the issue, backlash from people who disagreed, etc.). A list limited to "activists" on each side would be more justifiable but open to interpretation questions as how much activity constituted activism. The better way to present any significant information from these lists is to include it in the article about the person, the way the article on Janeane Garofalo mentions her TV appearances in opposition to the invasion of Iraq. JamesMLane 05:05, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Should we have lists on every single political issue? No thanks. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 05:41, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is far too subjective (problems of definition, open to abuse), individuals' (apparent) opinions on particular subjects are not notable unless they have been in some way actively involved. The subject is also very US-centric - most the rest of the English-speaking world is not really into this debate. --Ianb 06:01, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and send to cleanup. There are some big problems with the articles' content right now, but there is no question that these articles deserve to exist in some form. Major problems to fix: (1) notability: these lists should only include people who take an active role in reinforcing their side of the issue. (2) objectiveness: cite sources! • Benc • 06:14, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Any terminology involving the word "choice" is inherently POV. If such lists are to be included they should be titled List of pro-abortion activists and List of anti-abortion activists - and those listed should only be persons whose opinions on the subject are of relevance. The opinion of pop singers and supermodels are not notable.--Gene_poole 06:44, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. As it is now, it's patently useless - do we list every person with a biography in Wikipedia? However, Gene poole's suggestion would make a lot of sense. Ambi 09:33, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, although possibly reword the title to be less loaded. Also, make sure all the people on the list have explicitlly stated their standing on the issue. Darksun 10:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. DJ Clayworth 14:18, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Transient, hard to verify, etc. as above. The locations of Hard Rock cafes are quite verifiable, and other than the occasional new one, fairly stable. Trying to keep these lists accurate and current just wouldn't be worth the effort, as the information is subjective, relative, etc. and not relevent in a timeless encyclopedia covering the universe. Niteowlneils 01:07, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: transient, politically motivated. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:50, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless they're a key person for a group agitating for either side (like Kate Michelman, founder of NARAL Pro-Choice America, or Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue) it's counterproductive to put a list that intends to be an exhaustive list of ALL supporters. It'll probably grow to an unmanageable size (basically, you'll want to include most Democrats in Congress on the pro-choice side and most Republicans on the pro-life side...and then the page will balloon from there). KeithH 07:24, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Comments. I feel some social pressure here; I'm actually surprised at the weight of opinion to delete from users whom I respect. As I look at the lists, though, I continue to feel that I recognize enough of the names on them to think it very likely that most of them are correctly listed (in the sense that the person involved would, if asked, agree with their inclusion on such a list) and likely verifiable. I do feel that there should be a goal to provide citation for each and every name on the list, preferably a brief quotation of their position in their own words. I decided to try to perfunctory fact-check on one of them, just as a test. To be a valid test, I needed pick one whom I didn't expect to be on the list. Nat Hentoff on the pro-life list surprised me. Well, our own article quotes him as saying "I'm a Jewish atheist civil-libertarian pro-lifer" and a Google search on the exact phrase quickly picked up a Village Voice article in which he says so himself. So, based on one data point, I think the lists are very likely as accurate and as verifiable as the List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people.
Now, as for who gets included on the list, or its becoming unmanageable: well, these are, broadly speaking, celebrities and notables. I don't As with all issues involving notability, it is possible to conduct endless debate, but I know who at least half of the people on each list are and I'll be you do, too. If the lists become unmanagably long, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. As for whether the content is encyclopedic, like much of our content it is borderline, but I think that lists of celebrities on either side of a political issue is a mildly interesting social note about contemporary life and times. By the way, Helen Hayes on the pro-life list is dead; are these supposed to be lists of living supporters?
Finally, with regard to "opinions change," this can be dealt with by dating the citations. Actually I'll go back and do that now for Nat Hentoff. It is a verifiable and stable fact that in the year 2000 Nat Hentoff wrote "I'm a Jewish atheist civil-libertarian pro-lifer." If he says something different in some other year, that can be added. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:33, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I read Hentoff regularly in the Voice and I'm fairly sure he hasn't changed his position. If we confined these lists the way I suggested -- to people whose position on the issue was of some significance -- Hentoff would qualify, because he's been actively defending his position in a generally liberal publication. Brooke Shields, however, does not qualify, unless she has some notable activism on the issue that I haven't happened to hear about -- which is entirely possible, but just being a celebrity, by itself, isn't enough to make her views notable. Nor is it significant that a celebrity's views are reported somewhere, because they often get asked about such topics even if they haven't been involved in the issue in any way. I just don't see the value of combing through such sources to report the opinions of various entertainers and athletes. JamesMLane 02:42, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this crap. --Jiang 22:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 23:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Forces people into a simplistic binary division on a complex topic; unencyclopedic. I can understand why some would want to keep it, and I respect that point of view, but I don't feel this kind of list belongs in Wikipedia. Antandrus 02:47, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Wow, I have to submit my first Delete. This is really useless information, (except maybe for the tabloids or something). Just one comment, however: when used together, "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are the least POV possible terms to use. Of course they are euphemistic, but they are equally euphemistic. What would people prefer, pro-death vs. no-choice? func(talk) 03:08, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
And further more... ;-) I agree with Livajo and Mikkalai, if there is to be lists at all, then they should only include truely active supporters. In particular, supporters who have written magazine articles, attended all the rallies, whatever. What is most objectionable is all of the celebs and their soundbites. It looks like both the pro-life and pro-choice articles are relatively short anyway, bringing the need for these lists into question. func(talk) 03:39, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There are enough interesting points being raised that I guess I would prefer to simply be neutral. func(talk) 23:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and generally second comments of Dpbsmith. I think a lot of pwople are discussing how they don't like the way this debate has evolved in American political discourse. This may or may not be an appropriate position, but it is really beside the point for encylopediasts (sp?). Given the discourse we have, it is reasonable to report where notable people have notably place themselves in this discourse.--Samuel J. Howard 07:05, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree with reporting "where notable people have notably place[d] themselves in this discourse." That phrasing implies that there's also such a thing as notable people nonnotably placing themselves in this discourse, which is what makes up much of each of these lists. Such nonnotable statements by notable people don't belong in Wikipedia. That applies to the pro-choice Kevin Bacon as well as to the pro-life Brooke Shields. You're right that I don't like how this debate and a lot of others have evolved, with singers and movie stars getting more publicity for their views than do people more worthy of our attention. Just because People magazine does it doesn't mean that we have to, however. JamesMLane 07:33, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I feel that for some reason people are setting the bar higher for this material than they might for other articles. Wikipedia has quite a lot of "People"-magazine-worthy stuff in it. It's often observed that Wikipedia has more of an emphasis on popular culture than traditional encyclopedias have, and I think that's usually seen as a good thing, not an error requiring correction.
How would you vote on List of Christian entertainers were it to come up on VfD? How about List of famous gay, lesbian, or bisexual academics? List of Jewish Nobel Prize winners? In each case, I have to feel that making such a list implies a mild but tolerable POV—in support of Christianity, GLBT orientation, or Jewish ethnicity, respectively. Why "tolerable?" Because, well, gosh, it's interesting. To me, anyway.
The presence of crap in Wikipedia should not affect the judgements we should make about this material. But I'm thinking that perhaps this material should go back into the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice articles from whence they came (where, incidentally, the issue with the names is well dealt with by calling the terms the "preferred self-descriptions" of those holding the views). And probably should be identified as "list of celebrity supporters". [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 11:36, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No, I would actually vote "keep" on List of Christian entertainers for one simple reason - it's objective. We know that the people are the list are Christian and are notable entertainers. With the abortion lists, "pro-choice" can mean a whole range of positions. So can "pro-life." It's ambiguous at worst, and misleading at best, to try and peg people's positions on complex subjects. Is Wikipedia going to create Those who support the right to abortion but only in cases of rape, Those who support the right to abortion in the first trimester only, etc.? It's impossible and insane to keep this list. 15:34, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I'll bet the range in meaning for the word "Christian" is far wider than the range in meaning for the word "Pro-Life." How do you determine objectively whether someone is "Christian?" Cross-examine them on the filioque clause? Quiz them on the XXXIX Articles? I don't think so. For Wikipedian purposes, all we can do is ask them. That is, we make the term "Christian" objective by defining it to mean "Persons identifying themselves as 'Christian.'" We can do exactly the same for "pro-choice" and "pro-life."
Here's where I'm at. I don't think the verifiability of the lists are in serious doubt. I don't think the factuality of the lists are in serious doubt, i.e. if we were punctilious about trying to verify the lists I don't think we'd find many mistakes. I don't think the objectivity of the lists need be in doubt if we define the lists carefully, e.g. "List of celebrities who are willing to be publicly identified with the term 'pro-choice'/'pro-life'".
The only place where I genuinely see a debatable question is: given that celebrities' self-identification with a "pro-choice" or "pro-life" faction are verifiable facts, are they encyclopedic facts? My own answer to this is "borderline" and I prefer to err on the side of inclusion. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:23, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In other words, of [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality's five original bullet-point objections, I agree with "poorly worded" but that's fixable. I think the only one of the five that we should be discussing is that the lists are "Inherently unencyclopedic (The relevance of Britney Spear's position on abortion is nil)" Just my... oh, at this point it must more than $0.02 [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:32, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep There aren't many places that do not refer to either side as "Pro Abortion" or "Anti Choice." This site is one of very few. This is not one of those irrelevent topics that no one cares about, it's a global issue that deserves attention, and neutrality is very important. --GenesisMcClain 17:04, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • This vote is a probably sockpuppet. The user has three edits, all of which are to this page. Also has a red link for both user and talk pages. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 03:48, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete The lists are inherently inaccurate due to the dynamic nature of their content. There is no way to keep them accurate. They do not enhance the description or the discussion of the issue(s). They seem inherently "Non-Encylopedic".--Jjk 23:28, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The first two problems can be solved simply by dating the list entries, e.g. "Nat Hentoff identified himself as pro-life in 2000." We do not object to characterizing Rick Santorum as "a Republican U.S. Senator representing Pennsylvania" although being "Republican" and "a Senator" and "representing Pennsylvania" are also "dynamic" and could change. These objections, made by you and by others, do not seem to me to hold water. Your comments that they "do not enhance the description of the issues" and "are non-encyclopedic" make more sense, and I think this is what we should be discussing. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:53, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
WHS. The Land 09:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - provided factual information is provided and supported, there is no reason to delete these pages. It is conceivable that people could want to look up the views on abortion of certain celebrities... and we shouldn't stop them. While I'm no fan of List pages, I'd vote to keep List of Nazi leaders and List of important monkey species as well ;-). The Land 09:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV/unencyclopaedic/subjective/etc... zoney ▓   ▒ talk 15:30, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • You can make it NPOV and non-subjective, if you delete all entries with missing confirmation of the stand. Mikkalai
    • "unencyclopedic", pardon me. It will be, in 10 years from now. I guess historians would love to have these lists (provided only active supporters will be listed) Mikkalai 23:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Hence you arguments are void (but your vote is not, of course). Mikkalai 23:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- though I needn't all caps and bold type just to vote. --Yath 22:49, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Bold is to tally up easier. Some people first rant then vote. Mikkalai 23:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment from unregistered user in favor of "keep": As the creator of [1] (which is where most of the celebrity quotes on these pro-life and pro-choice pages come from), I can confirm that the quotes have been verified. While celebrities who are not connected to the abortion issue (whichever side) should not have a voice on this topic, many of them do speak about it. And the public is interested in what celebrities have to say; therefore, both pages should remain on this site. I use the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" terminology because that is what each side prefers to be called. It is the most unbiased way to approach this controversial topic. -Victoria
  • Delete for Neutrality's reasons three and four. Lacrimosus 12:16, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • keep interestingFBarnes 15:48, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Del (self-tallied). Self-declaration is objective, but not useful, bcz they are all talking about different things and the fact they have self-declared for the same term has no significance. Putting them on the same list clouds the fact that they have nothing meaningful in common and don't belong on a list together. --Jerzy(t) 02:16, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Pro-Life_Supporters_%26_List_of_Pro-Choice_Supporters&oldid=1248673701"