text:
Talk:Abortion/Archives/01

Moved here ~ MosheZadka (Talk)

Additional tweaks to the format added by: --GordonWattsDotCom 7 July 2005 11:32 (UTC)

 * DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
 * DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
 * DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

 * This archive page covers approximately the dates between July 03, 2004 and July 06, 2005.

 * Post replies to the main talk page, copying and pasting the section to which you are replying, if necessary. To post a reply, you merely click on the appropriate 'Edit' tab, and then you type in your comments and click on 'Save page' -unless, of course, you want to preview it first, in which case you would click on 'Show preview'. (See How to archive a talk page.)

 * Or, ask for help, if you're not sure how to do it. Thank you.--GordonWattsDotCom 7 July 2005 11:32 (UTC)

User comments belong on Talk Pages, and User Pages
'' "I find It Funny That Most People That are against abortion, insisting that the doctors are monsters and murders, are all for the death penalty, and some of the more extreme antiabortion/prolife activists will happily kill the doctors that preform abortions." ''- Though this was perhaps redeemingly labeled by an "Unknown" it seems to have been a personal expression of opinions by IP 135.214.66.240 so I placed it here, until such time as a valid source can be cited. I am upholding the idea that the only personal comments that are justifiable within the articles are short notes of explanation or introduction beneath quotes and headers, and these should definitely be as NPOV as possible. ~ Prot 00:27, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Have all the anti-abortion/pro-life quotes been removed?
It appears so... it seems obvious enough, given the page history. (Perhaps each side of the issue should be given its own section or page?)
 * I have reverted the recent deletion. I think it would be a very good idea for each extreme of position to be given it's own section, and perhaps a section for the rarely respected or even recognized middle ground: of those who might be hostile to the practice of abortion, but not so much as to declare it a murder, or to treat it as such. There are some who would assert abortion is often, or even usually an improper intervention, or prevention of a development of a human life, and a human will, and thus usually an error of human judgement and will, but not so much so as murder of an existing human life and human will, and should never be treated as if it were. Extremists on both sides tend to view such moderation as a corruption of the stances, that in their polarizations they take to be the one of sole virtue. Therefore it seems relatively rare that someone would occasionally be bold enough to declare, against the intense passions of people at both extremes, that it might be the one that is actually most likely to be virtuous, and least likely to lead anyone into vile or evil actions.
 * I thus propose sections for "Pro-Abortion and Pro-choice", "Anti-Abortion and Pro-choice", and "Anti-abortion and Anti-choice". Many extremists at either end of the spectrum would prefer to indicate themselves as if theirs were the sole position that is Pro-life or Pro-liberty… but I honestly do not see either extreme as entirely such. I must confess that these are obviously the views of someone inclined to the "middle" stance, and one that I have held since my earliest youth, and I do not consider this to be one of improper "compromise" as many might, but of good sense and fair will. I recognize that I will likely offend many of both extremes to the extent that I express my views that both poles of the issue, are in fact radical extremes: the most vociferous people who are pro-abortion seem to want to feel entirely good about themselves and the decisions that support policies of even the most casual abortion… and to hate people who oppose them, and the most vociferous anti-abortion people seem to want to believe and to treat any act of abortion to always be as entirely as vile and as unjustified as deliberate murder, and to hate people who would permit them. I honestly perceive both positions to very often be positions with an emphasis on perceived justification to be unreasonable and unreasoning in their stances of hatred and hostility towards other views, rather than to accept or even respect appeals to be more reasonable and considerate about the sincere opinions of others. I have perhaps been a bit "wordy" here, but feel proper specification of some of my perspectives have demanded it.
 * I actually will be very busy for much of the next few days, and might not have time to do many of the things that might be appropriate to do here, and on a few other pages, but I did feel some response and suggestions on dealing with these matters were warranted. I might actually create these sections on the page within the next day or two, if no one objects to having the three sections, or can suggest better titles. I recognise that it might actually be hard to come up with quotes from people who are so "bold" as to be moderate, and do specifically assert the middle stance: most such people very often simpy choose to be silent, recognizing the often extreme and sometimes dangerous unreasonableness of the people they are attempting to position themselves between, and that they could become the targets of hostility from both, and from those sensationalists of little sense who simply have an appetite for promoting such polarizations and hostilities for the sake of maintaining situations of controversy and drama. ~ Kalki 17:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Kalki, in light of your recent chances, I agree with your categorization. While difficult, it is perhaps worth trying to separate the feminist/liberterian issue from the moral issue of conception.  In practice, though, it's near impossible.  The very assumption that a woman's choice is separable from "thou shalt no kill" probably does not go over well with "pro-life," hence the name. SteveSliva

 * I deleted multiple quotes from a comedian - and left one, suggesting to whomever thinks his thoughts are relevant to consolidate. Also, Monty Python quote is not about abortion at all - how strange to think he killing of a sperm is an abortion.   I also deleted the headings as they in evitably are biased in that whichever "heading" is listed first automatically is advantaged as having more influence and impact on the reader.  What could be more non-POV than to let the quotations speak for themselves?   The viewpoint of the speaker is not what is relevant, it is the words they spake.  In fact, this is actually a benefit to the reader and neutrality as the words are evaluated without regard to the label one chooses to give to the speaker. 214.13.4.151 14:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Seuss quote and bible quotes

 * "A person's a person, no matter how small."
 * Dr. Seuss (Horton Hears a Who!, 1954)
 * (Note: Abortion was not actually the express topic of this quote)

I removed the above quote because, even with the note, it unreasonably implies pro-life support on Dr. Seuss's behalf. If taking quotes out-of-context were permissable, one could find fervent supporters of one position or another and quote their statements unrelated to the topic to make them look foolishly arguing against themselves. Surely there are enough noteworthy quotes for the pro-life argument that we don't need to invent positions for others.

On the other hand, if Seuss was ever asked about abortion and quoted himself using these words, it would be fair game, but only if cited as part of the question, not from his book. Another possibility for using this quote is if it has been used by notable people or in notable circumstances (like a rally, perhaps?). In that case, the situation should be cited, and something like "quoting out-of-context from Dr. Seuss's Horton Hears a Who" could be added. — Jeff Q (talk) 02:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * This still allows fervent yet shrewd supporters of one position to quote out-of-context statements by fervent supporters of another position in a notable circumstance (such as an Awards program), and then have the original author's name appear in a context that the original author would deplore. It also requires vigilence on the part of page maintainers to see that out-of-context disclaimers are not surreptitiously added or altered.
 * I suggest all Theme pages carry a disclaimer at the top that they are strictly for entertainment value, and that nothing in the quote should be interpreted as indicating the quoted author's advocacy of any policy or position. Suggested template name: "TheDevilCanQuoteScripture"--Eustace Tilley 14:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that the Monty Python quote was meant in humor and, in fact, the entire song can be interpreted as a mockery of pro-abortion ideals.

I agree -- the Monty Python song seems to clearly be satire to me, and I am unsure why someone would interprut it as being anti-abortion. I moved the quote into the "Indefinite" list for this reason. 4.233.128.129 18:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC) CS42

I plan to remove the bible quotes, too, for the same reason the Dr. Seuss quote is removed: the topic is elective abortion as a legal issue (which why the quotes are subdivided by "pro-choice" and "pro-life"), not about miscarriage brought on by criminal assualt (as in the Old Testament scruptures quoted). While the quotes from the bible can cause one to think about elective abortion, so too can the quote from Dr. Seuss. But neither is about elective abortion and whether it should be legal. I am removing them - or else I am putting the Dr. Seuss quote back up. 214.13.4.151 12:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * 214, the context of the Dr. Seuss quote has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion, the artificial termination of a pregnancy; it is about tiny persons (who are outside of and living independently from the womb, in case you need me to be pedantic about what Seuss's "person" means) vs. not-tiny persons. As for your talk of "criminal assault", I infer that you wish to remove the Biblical quotes about men hitting a pregnant woman. This is a completely unrelated issue to the Seuss quote, and Wikiquote is not a horse-trade forum; what matters is the relevance of each individual quote. However, addressing the Exodus 21:22 passages specifically, I don't think they belong in the "Indefinite" section. The second passage says nothing at all about "abortion" per se. The third passage can be interpreted as implying that the "departure of her fruit" is not considered harm, let alone a death, but such language leaves open serious questions of translation. I don't see that it adds anything to the debate, in light of the more specific first passage. That one seems to be relevant to abortion, as it suggests a punishment for the (accidental) termination of a pregnancy, but it isn't at all indefinite. By saying that a miscarriage (resulting in the termination of the unborn child/fetus) isn't considered a fatality by the ancestors of Christians, it directly undermines the Catholic argument that life begins at conception (something whose exact beginning was not understood by the ancients, and therefore had to be debated by latter-day believers). As it specifically cites a reason to consider unborn children/fetuses as non-living (incapable of experiencing a "fatality", and therefore presumably not inherently entitled to a right to life), it should probably go in the "pro-choice" section. I think, however, that most pro-choicers would not appreciate the case being made in the terms I just used; I imagine that there is more interest in the subversion of the "pro-life" argument (and label) on its own terms, than there is in any implied support for a woman's right to choose. Perhaps there should be an "anti-anti-abortion" subsection of "pro-choice"? (Oh, the headache is coming back.) — Jeff Q (talk) 28 June 2005 14:14 (UTC)

 * In the spirit of being courteous, I shall notify this talk page of my recent minor entry: I just added a quote from the Old Testament Bible relating to God knowing Jeremiah before he was born; It is hoped that this entry is beneficial. If you wish to offer me feedback, I am new to this "Wikiquote" concept, but I do frequent Wikipedia under the same screen name; for feedback you might leave me a message on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GordonWattsDotCom which is my Wikipedia talk page, or email me at: Gww1210@aol.com Thank you all in advance, and take care,--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 14:55 (UTC)

''(I am recopying your answer to me on my talk page from here for contiguity/continuity and clarity:

 * Welcome back and thank you for your patience. As for the biblical quotations, I think KJV is more preferable due to copyright problems, but one or two lines might be okay as fair use. But if you have KJV, it would be kind of you to replace it, because some countries don't accept Fair use but put a different kind of restriction to the quotations from copyrighted sources. Thanks! --Aphaia 2 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)

 * You're welcome; and, thank you for your help. Here, at this diff, I think I got it right; Additionally, I noticed the edits right before our edits by 214.13.4.151, apparently, a military IP address in Virginia (according to http://www.arin.net/whois that is), and this user seems to have put a lot of effort into making some good edits contributions. While I did not get a chance to review them, they seemed like they might have potential, even as Kalki says in this diff's edit comments and explained more fully in this talk page diff. I don't frequent this "Wikiquote" page much, and in fact, may not have much time for Wikipedia either, but thank you all for accepting my edit; I wish you all the best of luck.--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 18:35 (UTC)

Pro-choice vs Pro-life
I find the pro-choice, pro-life categories inappropriate. In American politics, it is straightforward to identify: Absolute fetal priority: If complications arise during birth and the physician can save either the mother or the fetus, let the mother die, because the father can re-marry.Mother's life over fetal life: If complications arise during birth and the physician can save either the mother or the fetus, let the fetus die, because the parents can have another child; but if the fetus can be saved at the cost of the mother's health, save the fetus.Mother's health over fetal life: If complications would render the mother permanently injured, including the loss of the ability to have more children, spare the mother's health.Maternal Responsibility: Abortion is acceptable in the case of rape.Family Cruelty: Abortion is acceptable in the case of incest.Quality of life: Abortion is acceptable if the fetus is grossly deformed.Parental Responsibility: Abortion is acceptable if the couple were using birth control conscientiously, and suffered a failure.Governmental Responsibility: The government has an absolute right to decide whether a mother shall carry a pregnancy to term.

Family Responsibility: The mother's family has an absolute right to decide whether she shall carry a pregnancy to term.

Control of body: Mothers have an absolute right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

Laissez-Faire: Mothers have the right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term but no one else is obliged to pay.

Maternal health: Mothers have the same right to a medically safe termination as they do to any other medical procedure.

 --Eustace Tilley 04:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Recent deletions and additions
The most recent deletions and additions of IP 214.13.4.151 were so massive that I rolled back these edits to regain the structure, which though imperfect, had existed for some time. I will now attempt to re-add any additions that were made, within the categories that have existed. ~ Kalki 14:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The same IP decided to revert Kalki's changes. I reinstated Kalki's version, until further consensus is sought. MosheZadka 14:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am happy to add any quotes that people really think belong here. But I ask you to address the point I made above about the labels. It is inherently biased to apply lbles to the quotes. The words of the speaker stand on their own, unless taken out of context. If a speakers words have been taken out of context, then they should be removed. 214.13.4.151 14:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * People obviously have very polarizing and hostile views on this issue, that have tended to be categorized into stances that have been given various names by both adherents and opponents of them. It is not inherently biased to place most quotes into such general categories, though some properly do not fit into either of the dualistic categories that are most used. ~ Kalki 14:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In your POV, it is not POV to place labels on persons who make statements, rather than letting their in-context statements stand on their own. I put the labels back on since youu insist on having it that desptie being inherently POV to do so. But, since the prr-choice links have been listed first for many many months, I put pro-life first. There cannot be a cogent argument nade that pro-choice should always be listed first. Anti-abortion sentiment is just as popular and just as valid - nd should not be perpetually hidden. 214.13.4.151 15:04, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Listing the pro-abortion quotes first is inherently POV. My choice was to remove the labels and then mix all quotes in to be fair. That was rejected - why no one has really explained given the inherent unfairness of having pro-abortion quotes perpetually listed first, and the inherent POV involved in not letting the words people have uttered speak for themselves as to where they stand on the issue of abortion. For heaven's sake, do you think the readers of wikiquotes are boobs? "Give me liberty or give me death" needs a label to know weather it is pro-freedom? Please resolve this quickly so that the bias that has existed on tis page for a long time is removed quickly.

Also, the freeze out has removed all the quotes I added - once people complained about what I did I immediately replaced anything I removed - everything - and then simply put the anti-abortion links first. There is no reason to lock the page. You seem to be afraid of a challenge to the paradaigms you all have.

214.13.4.151 15:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * "We all" hardly can be said to constitute a solid block of opinion on any issue. I did not lock the page, and I thought doing so was a little premature and unfortunate, but did not dispute the matter because I had been involved in the editing that was going on, and actually had other things to take care of. I had intended to replace any quotes that you had added, within the organization that had existed. On this contentious issue there should perhaps be a permanent "Table of Content" section at the top linking to all the sections. I cannot agree with the idea that the sections should not exist, as they were originally added for convenience, and to help to minimize the edit warring that had previously occured, with a few people adding or erasing quotes willy-nilly all over the page. Complete chaos in the providing of statements on a subject is something that I do not think greatly appeals to very many people. The sequence of listings may or may not appear to be fair, but I do not think that periodic rotation is all that great a solution, and would likely result in continual edit wars of the uninformed or dogmatic. I would like to see more than two categories, and think 3 or 4 are necessary for a fair spanning of the issues and escaping from the dualistic paradigms that have been largely embraced by both extremes. ~ Kalki 20:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi, 214.13.4.151, welcome to talk:Abortion. And relax. You seem to be tensed and a bit feel hostility to other editors, if I misunderstand, I feel free to make an apology. But your argument doesn't sound productive. If we put pro-choise and pro-life in turn at the top, we got many not factual editing. And it is not nice. I think mechanically-alphabetically order C to L is nice, though I myself is pro-life. Because this order is de facto standard among us. And your opinion sounds to me not so attractive (because if so, after some months, we need to turn the order again ...) --Aphaia 15:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Do you honestly think people come to WQ to formulate their opinion on abortion, and seeing the pro-choice first would cause them to suddenly decide that abortion is OK? I somehow doubt it. Sure, that means there isn't good reason for one or the other, but that is also good reason to not alternate between two versions every few months, inflating the histories for no good reason. There cannot be doubt that the range of opinions is much larger than "for" and "against", despite what some media would have one believe. However, consider that wikiquote, as a quote collection, exists in order to help people, no matter what their agenda, find quotes they need. Do you think that someone writing, say, a pro-life brochure would not appreciate the hard work that has been done here, collecting pro-life quotes so that he could choose which ones to use? Surely, the fact that the labels might help a hypothetical individual suggests that the labeling, in and of itself, is useful information. Since wikiquote exists to provide useful information relating to quotes, this seems to me like good reason why there is such a strongfelt emotion here against removing the labels arbitrarily. If you look elsewhere in the talk page, you will find some suggestions for better categorization. Please see if any of them seems better to you, and continue the discussion. While the article is currently protected, in order to give all of us opportunity to cool off and reason about this, we would appreciate you coming back to improve the page in a few days. With thanks in advance for all future contributions to Wikiquote, MosheZadka 15:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cetainly, if you have no concern about the matter then you should have not concern about my change. ( But you DO have a concern about my change. ) I am happy to rotate it every other month. There. Sounds like a great solution. There has still not been any argument made against mixing the quotes in and letting them stand on their own. Again, I am happy to ensure the POVs of the speakers are evenly distributed and even would not object to having a pro-abortion quote listed first. It seems that wikimedia is not about having stuffy paradigms that cannot change - but about being open to creative unbiased ways to provide information in a neutral and benficial way. The current listing does not do that. 214.13.4.151 15:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * A few edits have been made while I was typing a preliminary response to some of the above issues...
 * To my knowledge I have never placed labels on people as belonging to any particular stance or another, but many statements made by people can properly be categorized as either for or against having abortion as a legal option, or for or against it ever being considered a moral option, dependent upon circumstances. As I have indicated in previous comments, my own stance is one that opposes the casual practice of abortion, that is all to common, and all too casual, and yet I also accept that there are cases where abortions can be justified, and I am against such laws as would equate the woman's decision with that of the murder of a fully independent and viable human individual, and those which would eliminate it as a legal option entirely.

 * I would like such a stance, that of course does not sit entirely well with extremists on either side, to be acknowledged as something more than a stance of indifference or non-committal compromise, but rather an assertion of actual conviction against both extremes; yet I did not insist upon keeping the section for it when it was erased, months ago, as there seemed to be few quotes of people willing to get blasted and mischaracterized by those at both extremes of the issue. I actually do think that such stances do deserve a section. I myself have not sought out any quotations on this subject as yet, though I have included some that touch upon it, in my work on other pages. ~ Kalki 15:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Administrative request: would an admin mind making a null edit so the new protection template I have crafted will be used? Thanks, MosheZadka 15:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protection & rotation proposal
I protected this page because it seemed to be edited without substantial changes and doubted to follow Wikiquote customs. Now rotation in every month is proposed, but I am afraid if it is a good idea. As Moshez said, such edit policy will increase history and it is bad for my eyes to edit without substantial nr administratively useful changes.

So I would like to unprotect it after our anon editor agree to follow our concensus either rotation nor stable. As for me, I oppose to rotation and support for alphabetical order in general, in particular for sorting topics on dispute. But I don't oppose any other admin unprotect it if he or she thinks it useful.--Aphaia 01:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fine: "Anti-Abortion" or "Abortion Opponents" would come first in apphabetical order. Sounds like a wonderful solution. Everyone's concerns would be resolved. 214.13.4.151 (appended from history)

 * Hmm, I am not against you, but it sounds to me bizzarre. But it is only my sense. I would like to listen to others too. And to the editor 214.13.4.151, please sign with " ~ " for accountability. I don't mind if you aren't register at least on talk (on the contrary, for vote, please register first and then vote), but I would like you to know a comment without signature is confusable and often considered "rudeness" on the wiki.
 * As for protection, I'll unprotect it for now, because I expect you won't begin to edit it radically before we establish its new edit policy. Not only I but perhaps other editors will be happy to collaborate with you who is an industrious editor on a good faith. --Aphaia 10:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: division of the page
A friend of mine suggested we could divide page into two in another way; left and right. It is possible to divide with "table", and each of column can be easily edited thanks to section edit feature. "Others" could be placed on the bottom. Any comment? --Aphaia 11:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well - that seems to be a good solution. But I will restate my view that a truly neutral and informative presentation would be one that mixes all the quotes to gether and lets them stand on their own. It seems an unneccessary and unhelpful to tell people what the quote says rather than letting the quote speak for itself. Please explain how it benefits users beyond making it easy to find a group of quotes that is in favor of supportive or against abortion (it seems by having the abortion section that already makes it very easy for the user).214.13.4.151 12:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Your way is mechanical and therefore helpful "which should be at the top" like dispute. But I think an lengthy article is better to have a sort of organization. Grouping in themes are fine, if it is well designed. By the way, a bit off topic here (properly at the next section) would you explain why did you remove "Hippocrates' Oaths"? At least another one editor admited it deserved to add here. --Aphaia 16:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I do not recall removing Hippocrates' oath. In fact, I would think it very appropriate to include it. 214.13.4.151 07:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * You did ;-p (and I beat you, nah), so I expect you don't mind anyone to get it back?  I'm happy to find the point we share an opinion. Aph.

I think I have a solution that may work: have categories that are less controversial, such as 214.13.4.151 07:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * medical professionals
 * politicians
 * activists
 * religious figures
 * celebrities
 * academics & philosophers
 * historical texts
 * legal texts
 * Thank you for your constructive suggestion. You cast another and reasonable light to this matter, I think. Each section will be ordered chronogical or arphabetical (just before I found those two orders are recommended on our project; see Guide to layout). Besides my own favor, we would like to listen to other editors? How do you think folks? --Aphaia 10:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I took a stab at dividing the page in accord with these comments. 214.13.4.151 08:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I note also that I alphabetized all quotes within the sections. 214.13.4.151 10:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I do not think this "works" at all, other than to ultimately create a deplorably dis-organized mish-mash of ideas, scrambling the expressions of various views and various people together in an ultimately chaotic manner. That might be the hopes or aims of some people, but it is hardly an appropriate aim for a compendium of quotations where the aim is to provide easy access to some of the most famous or notable statements that people have made about various subjects, either on pages for such people, or on pages relating to those subjects.  People of all manner of professions and all walks of life have different views on this issue for many different reasons, and their particular vocations are not extremely relevant to the issue. The general categorizations of any statements that they may make is. IF someone objects to such categorizations as something that they imply "should be obvious" by the nature of the statement, why is their such a hostility to classifying statements into obvious categories, rather than into those that actually have little or no relevance at all?
 * Obviously someone has spent a great deal of effort to sort these quotes as they did, but that effort has in no way increased the usefulness of the page, and I believe it to have resulted in a diminishment of both clarity and usefulness, and I thus intend to revert the recent changes, any additions that might have been made could be added in either the categories that had existed, or if necessary in some new category, ideally created after a discussion, but not necessarily so.
 * There are pages in wikiquote that I do consider to be poorly organized, or which could be somewhat improved, but this is one page, among a few others where I believe that retaining recent "re-organization" efforts would leave them far worse than before. ~ Kalki 10:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I posted my plan to do this for 4 days with no expressed opposition and with some suuport. You should have the courtesy to do the same. I am reverting back, and you can post your thoughts and wait for consensus. 214.13.4.151 10:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps nothing is more controversial than war and peace. The precedent for such volatile topics has already been set at Wikiquote; go to war or peace, and you will see no division. The quotations speak for themselves and stand on their own - and none of the quotes is labeled as for or againist war or peace. Why, in your view, MUST abortion be treated differently? 214.13.4.151 11:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * On the issue of consensus; a relatively STABLE consensus had been arrived at that had endured for many months. Though I consider it to be far from perfect, and the page itself in need of further work, I consider it far more appropriate than the massive alterations that have occured, apparently by a single individual.

 * On another issue that has been raised there is somewhat less of a need to divide up the quotes in the pages on "War" and "Peace" because the pages themselves ARE to a great extent a self division of subject matter, which in many ways might be comparable to the creation of pages for quotes on "Acceptance of the right to abortions" and "Rejection of the right to abortions" or "Acceptance that human rights begin at conception" and a page for views that reject that. This would be an extreme measure which I do NOT advocate.

 * If there were any need to accommodate widespread contentions about either War or Peace, or a clear convenience involved on either page to divide these pages into sections that plainly included those "For War" or "Against Peace" as well as the far more common expressions "Against War" and "For Peace" I do not believe I would be against that. I do not perceive that there is such a need.

 * It is quite plain that you for some reason have objections to very simple and plain categorization schemes. I do not presume to clearly understand why this is so. My own views impel me to reject many of the extreme positions held by many on either side of the dispute, but I am definitely for an inclusion of expression of ideas from ALL sides. On so polarizing an issue, I remain adamantly against the chaotic peppering of divergent views upon the page in a manner that has no regard as to the very real and very prominent polarizations that exist. They exist because of often irreconcilable notions of when human life begins, and at what stages such life acquires or loses human will and human legal or social rights; and as to what measures should or should not be taken for the protection of human life against human, inhuman, or animal will, rather than against such divine will or blind fate as usually seems indifferent to all. Though I would encourage all people to be respectful, so far as possible, of other people's views, and to be absolutely respectful of their rights to express them, I do not believe that people who are seeking quotes for or against either side of the issue should need to sort through a whole gamut of expressions from those who are often extremely insulting or presumptuous on the other side of the issue to find what they are looking for. ~ Kalki 12:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I did make the effort to invite input, and I recieved some level of agreement from Aphaia. As to your noting that thiss page has been f ine for such along time: in reality this page has not been very active, so the "consensus" is probably more apathy than consensus. In any event, your arrival and reversion after I took great pains to follow wiki-ettiquette are disappointing. I now wonder if anyone really does try to follow that ettiquette.

I once again state that dividing the "camps" up will never enlighten anyone. With my edits, anyone can come here and see what various types of people have said, and NOT have to sift through the comments of comedians if they want those of scholars. Likewise, people benefit from seeing the comments without being forced to view them organized by "POV". I doubt there is any real problem with people arriving here to do research, and finding with dismay that the comments are listed by category and alphabetical. As to your comments on war or peace, you miss the point: there are comments for AND against each on the pages for BOTH entries! And we can see that by reading the words. I think there is an exteme bias to treat this page differently as if abortion cannot be treated in a neutral fashion. 214.13.4.151 12:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * On the general subjects of War and Peace there is actually very little controversy: most people would assert that they are against War except in extreme necessity, and for Peace except in the case of opposing extreme oppressions. The incidental occasions as to where and when such extreme necessities or intolerable oppressions occur are the more commonly contentious issues. Very few people, even the most belligerent, would claim that they advocate War at any opportunity that arises, nor are their many of the most benevolent who would advocate an absolute pacifism against all forms of oppression no matter how ruthless. Thus, though both pages might need better work and organization, there probably is no need to divide them into "For" or "Against" categories.
 * There ARE many people who take extreme positions that ALL abortions should always be acceptable, with no legal barriers or social obstacles at all, or that NONE should ever be, for ANY reason.
 * Though as individuals we might wish to help to enlighten people's minds upon various issues, and encourage understanding of many points of view, impelling an exposure to such extreme positions as might insultingly oppose their own usually is not going to do a great deal of good, and is not the reason this page of quotations should exist. It should exist so that people can most easily find such quotes as they are looking for.
 * I would hope that people would read a broad range of opinions on the issue, but I do not think it is proper to seek to impel them to do so by refusing to recognize that there do exist definite categories of opinion around which people tend to gravitate.
 * Another issue that is involved is that "randomizing" the quotes makes it MUCH harder to gauge as to how balanced or imbalanced this page is upon a very controversial subject, without regularly reading or re-reading the whole damned thing.
 * When the quotes are arranged into the categories that are actually pertinent to the issue, it becomes much easier to tell how balanced or imbalanced the page is tending to be, and people with a major interest in the matter on either side may attempt to remedy the situation by adding some for a better balance.
 * I seriously doubt that there are very many people who would object to there being an "under-representation" of comedians relative to scholars or clergy, but I do not doubt that MANY would object to any extreme under-representation of either "Pro" or "Anti" stances on either side of the Abortion issue. ~ Kalki 13:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You assume people coming here will want to peruse quotes simply of certain viewpoint categories - and will be burdened if they have to read other views. I really find that an odd assumption. And certainly not necessary. I suppose you also find that the phone directory unfairly "impels" one peruse other entries until finding the number one seeks. Again, odd. But I am open to another suggestion that was made: that the page be split with anti-abortion on the left, and pro-abortion on the right (for example). But that would be a compromise solution. Until then, listing pro-abortion quotes first 'impels' (as you put it) one to view those first, even if one does not wish to see those views at all. (Of course, I do not share the whole "impel" viewpoint that you do, but if YOU make the "impel" argument, then you will be held to it; no one should be impelled to view pro-abortion comments when they first come to this entry, as was the case before I edited the page). 214.13.4.151

 * Whatever assumptions people might make about others motivations or assumptions, I have not assumed that people who open the abortion page are totally oblivious to the fact that there are extreme controversies involved in the matter, nor assumed that clicking a table of contents that is displayed by default in most browsers is an extraordinary imposition upon anyone, if they simply wish to get to views that are commonly labeled "pro-life" and are not interesting in reading any views that are commonly labeled "pro-choice".

 * This is one of those issues upon which I have long felt there is far more heat than light involved in the positions of many of the most vociferous, and one that I have generally tried to avoid becoming overtly involved in, but not to such a degree that I have ever relinquished my own views, nor quiescently accepted any or all of the measures that those on either side of the issue might seek to promote.

 * The side by side idea is not one that I have objected to, and it might possibly be a workable format, but I fear that it might also involve complicating the page structure to such a degree as novice editors might find daunting. If this is not the case, I who hold a view which rejects BOTH extremes, would not object to such views as my own being relegated to the bottom of the page... but others who share such views might well do so... and then such attempts at creating "balanced" exposure would mean there would have to be three columns, or more...

 * As to the sorting of quotes within the sections, whatever layout is chosen, there remain the options of attempting to primarily sort them alphabetical by name of the quoted person, chronologically, or alphabetically by phrase. I would somewhat favor either of the first two ideas, but know that sorting chronologically would be the most difficult, and thus most favor the first.

 * Whether or not their should be an attempt at side-by-side columns of the two most prominent positions in the debate is something that remains open to debate, and such efforts at formatting as others might wish to make. ~ Kalki

 * To make clear, 214 you said
 * " I recieved some level of agreement from Aphaia."
 * NO, you mistook my wording, sorry. I appreciate you because you sat on the table and show an constructive attitude. And I didn't think you would change the format completely without clear consent. On my part, my own proposal is to use a table for parallelism and keep three divisions, and not support for your own radical alteration. --Aphaia 18:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reversions of 214.13.4.151's edits
The above statements were some I had typed before I was prompted to actually begin attempting an active edit of the page myself, rather than a simple reversion, and in examining the page and its recent history a few things became quite apparent... Actually making an attempt to go through the whole thing it became obvious that there were very many entries that seem to be disingenuous in some categories...

Examining the differences in the recent edits since June 13th, even before today's it is quite apparent that there has been a concerted effort over the past week to add quotations by people who would be considered in the "Pro-abortion" group that would hardly qualify as anything but statements as those in the "anti-abortion" group would like to publicize, and I can see plainly why this person would like to obscure this GLARING imbalance and disingenuous additions to such sections by removing these particular categories altogether.

 ie: The state of the page as it existed prior to the June 13th edit of 214.13.4.151 compared to the state it existed in this morning even before attempts at further revisions. I will assert that many of the arguments that have been made against my comments have not been very coherent responses, and there has been little cohesion or consistency in the arguments for the radical changes that have been made, nor of these with the actual edits that have been made by 214.13.4.151.

This seems to me to be an obvious attempt by a person with a VERY pronounced point of view to keep whatever imbalances they CREATE relatively obscured amidst the confused and IRRELEVANT categories they have recently attempted to add.

I have never denied that I have definite point of view, nor attempted to obscure or disguise what that point of view is on the matter. I have insisted that ALL sides should be heard, and I have been accused of having an unfair bias by someone who has apparently attempted to conceal or obscure their own, and the extreme imbalances that they seek to create in the article. This editor has attempted to erase comments they did not like, and to add comments that they found useful for promoting their positions into categories where they can hardly be said to properly belong.

I am thus reverting the whole thing back to the point BEFORE 214.13.4.151's edits. This page obviously needs further work, but it does NOT need someone with a pronounced point of view in one camp obscuring the amount of additions they make in an attempt to "enlighten" the poor totally ignorant and confused folk in the other camp. As I have stated, I believe there to be plenty of ignorance and confusion evident in people on BOTH sides of the issues, and I do NOT expect that adhering to that stance will actually bring me a great deal of peace. I am certainly not looking forward to getting into arguments with people from either side of this issue, especially when they attempt to conceal many of their own biases and assumptions, but I feel this page has been RAVAGED by 214.13.4.151's edits.

Before this present dispute, the most recent edits I had made that even touch upon the matter was the addition of parts of the poem "The Mother" by Gwendolyn Brooks when I recently created a page for her. This poem of a woman's anguish and sense of guilt at the abortions she has had can hardly be viewed as having a having a pro-abortion stance, and quite possibly some portions of it might belong to the anti-abortion/pro-life section of this article. I am hardly someone who can be accused of wishing that only one side of an issue be heard.

Comments and suggestions by other editors are invited, but I can thoroughly understand anyone not wishing to get involved in the dispute. ~ Kalki 17:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Speaking as a disinterested party on this article, with only minimal contributions (one blatant POV reversion, 1 pro-life addition, 1 out-of-context P.L. quote removed), it appears to me that this article is being held hostage by a single anonymous user, and that this person remains adamant in refusing helpful suggestions made by respected Wikiquote editors. I find myself having a hard time coming up with any reasonable compromise, because it seems to me that none will be accepted by the single person complaining about the previous status quo. This is not to say that they didn't have some good points, but I can't take anyone seriously who refuses to discuss compromises. I apologize for not having a solution to offer. — Jeff Q (talk) 02:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I have a compromise to suggest: how about keeping the current pro-choice/pro-life/indefinite distinction, but within each, divide it according to "vocation" or something like that? This would tend to satisfy 214, seemingly, since the claim is that the only wish is for a comedian's words not to be mistaken for a medical doctor's. I am willing to make an example edit in a subpage of the talk, so people can judge if it looks good, perhaps later today. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kalki, JeffQ and Moshezadka - you need to slow down and at least try to be accurate. First, I preserved ALL quotes that existed prior to my arrival here. ALL of them. Second, you have a fixed paradigm and accuse others of incoherence when they don't comport with your paradigm - not a very open-minded viewpoint. Third, I did in fact seek input prior to making changes, and it is disingenuous of you all to pretend that this was any breach of protocol. As I pointed out yesterday here, certain people choose to treat the abortion page in a special way. There is no basis for that. It should be treated neutrally. If there is a lack of balance, then people need to add quotes they find that would put it in proper balance. I am sure Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy and Al Gore have made pro-abortion comments that one could post here if that would provide balance, in your view. And certainly the words of abortionists are VERY relevant - perhap you can add other quotes from abortionists that express balance, in your view. Not sure how "balance" is even at issue - because anyone can add quotes to add "balance". I think there is an attempt by you all to supress views that make the current paradigm (abortion is legal for any reason at any stage in pregnancy) look extreme and/or inhumane. The ideas and words should stand on their own. There are quotes from plenty of pro-abortion speakers to post here if you feel the need to balance. And if you want to freeze the page, you should not do so to eliminate the quotes you don't like. And as for you, Aphaia, you could easily have frozen it at a much later period that preserved all quotes AND preserved the former organization that existed prior to my arrival (sections by POV). In the end, I will compromise to a solution that has two viewpoint sections as long as the anti-abortion section is listed first on the page. 214.13.4.151 05:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I am sorry, your suggested "compromise" doesn't seem much like a compromise. You agree to compromise to your very first edit on the page? I am sorry, but that does not seem like seeking out consensus. Can you explain what you find troublesome about the organization I suggested (first by POV and next by vocation, keeping Pro-Choice first, as it is now)? The table of contents in the beginning will allow people to find quotes from POVs/Vocations they prefer, but as there are two POVs (roughly) and a potentially infinite number of vocations, it seems more rational to have the main article be by POV, and the subsections to be organized by vocations. Of course, even that has its problems -- while the POV (of a *quote*) is easy to determine, the vocation is harder. There are many philosopher/novelists, comedian/philosophers, novelists/doctors, clergymen/novelists and so on, and I am afraid classifying "in what capacity" a person said a quote is problematic. Of course, it makes perfect sense for the same person to be quoted in both pro-choice and pro-life if they indeed made quotes in favour of both. My personal feeling, and I hope I will be proven wrong, is that it seems nothing will satisfy you unless the page won't begin with pro-choice quotes, because you feel this somehow elevates one point of view over the other, and you are willing to lower the value of this page in order to accomplish your goal. One reason, perhaps, that the page was not heavily edited was because many people did not want to go into these arguments. However, that cannot be used as an excuse to reformat the article by claiming you are the only one who edited it recently. Thanks, ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 05:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * 214.13.4.151, you are being disingenuous by selectively choosing which arguments to take on (a tactic not unique to you here), and by grouping anyone who disagrees with you on any point (which appears to be everyone else on at least one issue each in this page) into a monolithic cabal. Don't put words into my mouth about how I feel on this topic. I have no "fixed paradigm" to "comport" with, other than wiki-like cooperation, compromise, and honest discussion (something that I've never heard from either side in any abortion debate, which is why I usually avoid the topic).

 * Personally, I don't care if these quotes are mixed, categorized, subcategorized, rotated, or deleted en masse, although I do object to any of the following:
 * large numbers of quotes supporting only one side being deleted,
 * I agree. My edits kept everything. 214.13.4.151 07:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * quotes being mischaracterized or taken out of context,
 * I agree. My edits never did this. 214.13.4.151 07:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * headings being made needlessly inflammatory,
 * I agree. I never once added an inflammatory heading. 214.13.4.151 07:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * all of which have been done to this article in the past. Until now, we've been able to handle such rude, agenda-driven behavior on this article.

 * You, on the other hand, are single-handedly causing me a headache because, until your arrival, we didn't need rapid-revert policy to protect Wikiquote from strident one-note crusaders.
 * Funny - I choose to edit things that I find worth my time editing, and I try to add what I think are thought-provoking quotes, and I am somehow evil in your mind. 214.13.4.151 07:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Your complete lack of contribution to this project on any topic except abortion, combined with your determined insistence that we accomodate your views (which themselves have some merit), and with your uncivil responses to people who are trying to find workable compromises, strongly suggests that you have no interest in the project itself and are only trying to promote your single fervent cause. That is the very definition of disingenuity. It makes me believe that the Wikiquote community will never reach any accomodation with you other than by complete submission to your desires, or by banning you, neither of which strikes me as desirable. I am simply registering my disgust at your stridency, which is not becoming in a wiki editor. (I'm ashamed to be lowering myself to this level in reaction, and for that, I apologize to the Wikiquote community for my own lack of civility.) — Jeff Q (talk) 06:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hippocrates
By the way, why don't we have the phrase of "Hippocrates' oaths"? Is it one of most famous quotes "pro-life" or not? Anyone have its legitimate translation? --Aphaia 10:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I doubt it is. It deals with "saving lives", but does not say anything about when life begins, which is the chief point in debate. MosheZadka 11:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * PS The full text of the oath can be found in Hippocratic Oath MosheZadka 11:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And of course, I'm stupid. It does. Feel free to put it in :) MosheZadka 11:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Nope, don't so blame yourself. I myself wonder if it could be "pro-life" in the modern meaning. I added it on the top of the section. Thank you for your information! --Aphaia 11:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

relevent quote that is not there but fits well
Dear Admins: please add this quote -if you see fit - to the wiki quotes on abortion:

The Lord calls the prophet to service

"Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 'Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations'." (Holy Bible, Jeremiah 1:4-5; New King James Version Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.)

Thank you. PS: Please email me at Gww1210@aol.com to let me know your decision. I don't have a page in wiki quote, but I do have one in en.wikipedia ... Thank you.--GordonWattsDotCom 06:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * No problem: thank you for your contributions, you are always welcome on Wikiquote. Cheers, --Aphaia 3 July 2005 02:23 (UTC)

 * I don't follow the significance of this quote. What is it supposedly saying about abortion? — Jeff Q (talk) 3 July 2005 05:57 (UTC)

 * You have obviously not hanged around the far-right religious crowd enough (probably a smart idea). The point is that is that he was a "human being" before he was born. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 3 July 2005 06:20 (UTC)

 * I'd like hear from a pro-lifer, because I think the intent is to use this as a pro-life quote, and I want an assessment of this quote's abortion connection from a supporter. What the Lord "knows" of Jeremiah is clearly not his body, as it doesn't yet exist; presumably this concerns his soul. But abortion isn't about souls; it's about bodies, essentially during pregnancy. I don't believe any creed I'm aware of considers that abortion destroys the soul, so relevant quotes should probably focus on the treatment of the body of a nascent person (i.e., the morality of preventing the birth of an individual). Terminating a pregnancy after birth is, I believe, uncontroversially considered murder. Terminating a pregnancy before conception is commonplace and apparently uncontroversial, unless one considers menstruation a sin. (I know many religions consider women "unclean" because of this, but wisely do not insist that they somehow "stop" it upon pain of everlasting torment.) This is why I'm suspicious of any use of Biblical quotes either supporting pro-life or trying to undermine it. The ancients didn't know about sperm and egg cells, the physical mechanism of conception (beyond the act of sex, of course), and the development from zygote to fetus to "birthable" child, elements that are so crucial to modern abortion debates. In my mind, this means that such any quotes not specifically addressing the treatment of physical individuals (at least from conception) are being used out of context. But I'm not sure about this. Can some pro-lifers chime in on the specific relevance of this quote, or perhaps the general philosophy of using such quotes? (Don't feel compelled to in order to save this quote; I'm just curious and plan no action, whatever the answer.) — Jeff Q (talk) 3 July 2005 07:21 (UTC)

 * I'm going to reverse myself and say don't bother responding, folks. The purpose of this talk page is not to indulge my curiosity; it's to determine issues about the content of the main article. If others want to debate the cited quote, they're welcome to, but I've already said I don't plan to take any action. Apologies to the community for going off on a tangent. — Jeff Q (talk) 3 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)

 * That's OK, Jeff: Your points made me think! (My poor brain woke up and got much needed exercise, lol.) Since I proposed the quote and about as pro-life as they get, I will offer my two-cents worth: I will agree that this first part ("Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee") could appear to refer to the soul (and it might). However, using the logic of Continuity, we find the Lord says that He knew the prophet before he was conceived ("before I formed thee" would qualify as conceived, because we believe that the Lord knew about conception.) The Lord also knew about the prophet after he was born. (This is obvious because knowing about a person after they are born is easy, much easier than the previous.) Therefore, the "intermediate" part would be covered: Because the "before and after" were covered, the "middle" must be covered. (We assume that the Lord knew ALL things, both body and soul, so the "body" part is covered, even "before" conception.

 * Next, however, is my best explanation of fit: The next part of the quote says: "...before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." This means that the Lord made some description of the prophet Jeremiah before he came out of the womb. This would imply the physical body was known, because, the prophet was in the womb, a "physical" entity. In addition, taken in context of the first half of the Bible verse, it is obvious that the "womb" part was after the "formed...in the belly" part, thus meaning it is different, different enough that it has a different meaning. (Lastly, it is a favorite Biblical quote of those who are pro-life, whether the logic is good, bad, or ugly, and for that reason alone, it is newsworthy to report.)--GordonWattsDotCom 4 July 2005 09:07 (UTC)

Vote: unprotect or not
In my first plan, this protection was somehow experimental, and I would unprotect it after 24 hours, that is, after 21:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC); I was inspired by MosheDeska's suggestion and protected the page in question instead of putting a 24 hour blocking on a certain editor.

 * You would block an editor who sought input, and then after recieving no expressed opposition, made the proposed changes? Amazing. 214.13.4.151 10:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But now discussion seems not fruitful for me. The editor in question has left (and won't back for a while). Or not. Anyway no new opinion came from 214 after Jeff Q made his comment.

So I would like you Wikiquote registered editors to show their opinion. Here I ask only if this article should be unprotected or kept protected, and don't question if a certain editor should be blocked or not. In my opinion, a talk page is not a suitable place to discuss an user-specific matter. Here we go

You support unprotection of the article at 21:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) or later

 * Vote closes: 9:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes
 * 1) Aphaia 23:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) At the moment there is no on-going discussion and I love experiments in general. --Aphaia 23:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * No

 * Comment
 * Currently I have no opinion, though my mind which is fond of something new inclines strongly to follow the original plan. Aphaia 19:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration, even if you would decide not to vote! Aphaia 19:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * There was no vote before deadline, so I extended it for 12 hours. Aphaia 23:56, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I really have no strong opinions either way on whatever measures are taken to temporarily protect the page, nor much zeal for actually attempting to wade into the mess, and deal with the massive doses of extreme presumption that is evident on both sides, but I might again attempt to make an active editing of the page, to include all the recent quotations added, but properly categorized by stance, rather than improperly obscured as to that very important element. ~ Kalki 06:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, after reviewing this talk I don't think it is a good idea to unprotect the article right now. Thank you for your comment, Kalki. --Aphaia 16:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A brief summation of my stance and edits
There are some quotations that were added by 214.13.4.151 that definitely are appropriate to the page, but often not in the categories to which they were being added, and the wholesale changing of categories is something I consider to be an attempt to camouflage the massive addition of such quotes as would be promoted and publicized by someone definitely working from an anti-abortion stance.

I have no objection to someone with definite views on one side or the other adding quotes to support their views, if they do it an honest and straightforward fashion. I do not maintain that it is any individuals duty to seek to "balance" their own contributions, but I believe that there are enough people interested in promoting different points of view that an appropriate balance would tend to be maintained. I do object to attempts to obfuscate the nature of their contributions and to pretend to themselves or others that they are working from some "neutral" of "objective" stance, such as hardly can be said to exist on this issue (if it can be said of any), while they are actually seeking to FLOOD the page with quotes designed to promote one range of views, and make any others seem entirely contemptible.

If a person made a comment ten or twenty or more years ago in opposition to abortion rights, that comment belongs in the anti-abortion category, and NOT in the "pro-abortion" category, no matter that these individuals have subsequently changed their opinions and abandoned or rejected their previous stance. The placement of such quotes in the other category, or in categories where such clear demarcations are not such a barrier to anyone's polemics and polemical arrangements is one that is clearly designed to make such people seem little more than hypocrites.

People can change their opinions about things for various reasons, good or bad, over various stretches of time. This can be considered either progress or decay from the viewpoints of others, and hypocrisy can sometimes be involved in the changes, but so can further enlightenment regarding other viewpoints or other issues. It is to simultaneously hold a stance of advocating or pretending to advocate one thing, and to actually do another that constitutes true hypocrisy, and true hypocrisy is what has become more and more apparent by some editors actions and re-actions to any criticisms of their efforts to make this page into little more than a personal soap-box for their own particular views, and to imply that anyone opposed to that effort is unfairly biased.

'In all my time with this project, I have only become involved with this page, and disputes upon it because of others edits, extractions, and extreme changes, from people motivated by either'' of the ends of the issue, and it is not one that I have had any great zeal to become involved in. I am NOT even greatly concerned about maintaining any "balance" to the article, but I AM greatly concerned about preserving the integrity, the relevancy, and the honesty of any of the categories into which the quotes are divided.'''

I now give a brief overview of my involvement with this page, which I, like others, have deliberately avoided due to the highly dogmatic opinions of people involved with the subject. I have no great zeal to dispute with people who are regularly disposed to argue with intense hostility and hysteria against anyone who would disagree with them, and I have encountered such people on BOTH polarized extremes of the issue.

My initial edits on the page were in response to massive deletions of anti-abortion views, and involved simply a division of the page into categories, to help make the nature of edits clear, and to provide each side a section where they could add their own quotations, without a temptation to engage in constant edit warring prompted by random exposure to views or expressions they might not like. This was accepted, and for a long time stood, without any problems.

My last active edit of the page itself, rather than a reversion, was on 6 July 2004, where my creation of 3 categories was accepted as a mediative measure in the disputes that were occurring at the time, after their had been massive deletions of "Pro-life/anti-abortion" views, which I replaced. I don't believe there were ever any quotes added to the middle category, and I never sought any out myself, so I don't believe I objected when it was deleted months later, though I do remember noting it. Indeed, after that I believe my only edits to the page were the removal of some massive spam vandal postings, until the current massive edits of 214.13.4.151 began. I do wish to note that my very last edit, as of this writing was a rapid reversion of an unsigned comment by someone with an ostensibly pro-abortion stance, and not actually a reversion involving the edit dispute with 214.13.4.151. ~ Kalki 06:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Kalki, without doubt, you hastily (and perhaps without much forethought) did a whole-scale reversion [] precisely because you did not like my edits. You did not even bother to find out the history and discover that I had followed wiki etiquette.
 * As for my stance, it should be obvious. I object to having the pro-abortion comments listed first.  I favor having no such categories at all, but if some insist on having these catgories, then I will insist on having the anti-abortion comments listed first.
 * There is nothing sinister about noting the eloquent pro-life words of some famous former pro-lifers who changed their public stance solely to be a suitable candidate to run for the Democratic nomination to be US President.
 * The solution here should not have been to revert and accuse of sinister motives. You should have edited to make the way you want it without deleting quotes.  In fact, you, Kalki, did just that.  I understand that it may have been unintentional.  But you should apologize for creating this silly situation rather than coming here and editing and commenting and coming to consensus.
 * I can hardly be accused of taking action without any warning or attempt at gaining input - or against the views of others. As such, you should have had the courtesy to read up, see what was going on, and then edit - not just revert at will.    214.13.4.151 10:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * We understand that you object to having the pro-abortion comments listed first. However, you have not given any clear reason why, aside from the fact that you find that position not to your liking. I think ample reasons have been given why some position should be first, and since both positions annoy some people, some neutral criterion was chosen (alphabetize the TOC). Again, like before, I ask you to make an edit only adding quotes which you feel are relevant, within the current organization. If nothing else, this would show goodwill and willingness to work with the community -- not holding the additional quotes hostages, so to speak, until the community at large accepts what everyone except you maintain is a less useful organization. The recommendation at wikipedia should apply here as well -- try to help on some pages which you feel less strongly about, because pages you care about will, of necessity, might cause you grief. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 11:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * "Abortion Opponents" is near the front of the alpahbet. 214.13.4.151 12:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "Anti-abortion" is also near the front. 214.13.4.151 12:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "Against Abortion" also works and is accurate. 214.13.4.151 12:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The widely-accepted terms in the debate are "pro-life" and "pro-choice" (at least, in most English-speaking countries). I fail to see the utility in inventing terms which have the alphebitzation of your choice. It can be noted, of course, that people who have the opposite view to yours can of course invent more and more terms with their choice of alphabetization, so once again, the symmetry-breaker would tend to be what are the popular terms. In any case, I consider the case closed, and my opposition to change the order, or reorganize any other way, final since it does not appear that any compromise is likely. Please feel free to add any quotes you deem appropriate, but please do not reorganize the page until and unless you see that there is wide support in the community (and not mere silence). Thanks, ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 13:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't support coinages, it seems an attempt on a bad faith to put his own opinions at the top. If 214 will be stick on his opinions, for other editors' convinience, I don't oppose to block him from Wikiquote editing for a while (like a month). --Aphaia 16:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * At this point I do not support a block, as 214.13.4.151, despite being very opinionated has not absolutely refused to abide by any consensus that develops, but it might be a good idea to keep the page protected for just a few days, and allow for further thought. ~ Kalki 17:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, 214 violated 3RR apparently, though it is not our official policies yet, and seemd to show an opinion placing a block on him or her due to 3RR was unfair (see "Vote" section). So I found there a sign of bad faith and neglect of project policies. So I don't oppose any sysop bans him or her if he thinks it necessary, but as for current situation, I think there is no necessity since no edits came from 214 recently. As for protection I support to keep it for two or three days. And I hope other editors who are truly interested in this topic show their opinions. --Aphaia 03:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please defend you allegation by posting precise links directly to each of my 3 reversions that you think violate a policy that does not exist. 214.13.4.151 03:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: unprotect
Five days passed from the last time 214 came. I suppose we can try to unprotect it. And when 214 comes back again without any change of his or her attitude, I propose to place a 24 hours blocking on this IP address. --Aphaia 28 June 2005 04:06 (UTC)

 * By the way, Aphaia, you never backed up your allegation (just above). I have been waiting for 5 days since you made it.  I invite you again to back up your baseless allegation about 3rr. 214.13.4.151 28 June 2005 12:49 (UTC)

 * I don't withdraw and your word the above sounds you don't understand our policy and manner on this wiki. I invite you to back up your statement the above. --Aphaia 28 June 2005 22:55 (UTC)

 * I see, Aphaia, you get to brand me as a rule violator without any basis, and I am supposed to just accept that injustice because I am new and don't, in your opinion, understand the wiki way. Back up your allegation (you cannot) or else apologize for overstating the reasons why you want me silenced and marginalized. 214.13.4.151 29 June 2005 05:24 (UTC)

 * Unless someone can come up with a compromise that 214 can agree to and doesn't convolute the article needlessly (two caveats that so far appear mutually exclusive), I concur with Aphaia's plan. — Jeff Q (talk) 28 June 2005 04:28 (UTC)

 * I also think it's a good plan, considering all my compromise offers were rejected out of hand by 214 admitting he has an ulterior motive. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 28 June 2005 06:25 (UTC)

 * What happened to the wiki rule to assume good faith? (Conveniently applied selectively). There has been no rejection or convolution.  As I mentioned a loooooooong time ago here, since you are not willing to compromise and have categories, I am happy with the alphabetical listing of the categories, using the categories "anti-abortion" and "pro-choice".  Its useful and accurate, and follows every one of your preferences - with only one small concession to me.  214.13.4.151 28 June 2005 12:47 (UTC)

 * Actually, I think 214 has a point with "anti-abortion" and "pro-choice". Although the debate is usually drawn using the latter term with "pro-life", the fact is that "pro-life" is a vague label (one can argue that fetuses aren't quite alive, or that sperm and ova are, so the "pro-life" line is somewhat arbitrarily drawn at a point which the ancients didn't even understand before medical science learned enough to know exactly what conception entails). "Anti-abortion" is rather more indicative of (what I think is) the common position, that artificial procedures (as opposed to natural, unassisted processes) that terminate a pregnancy between conception to birth should be verboten (or at least severely restricted). "Pro-choice", likewise, is more descriptive than the loaded term "pro-abortion", as many pro-choicers themselves are against abortion in general but feel it should be the choice of each woman. Now, obviously 214 came up with this term (and others) to justify putting his/her favored position in front, but as we've (mostly) agreed, something is going to be up front. Since these labels fit, I suggest we try this. If it causes more flak, we may need to evaluate it later, but we can give it a honest chance. (I am still not in favor of "rotating" the sections periodically.) — Jeff Q (talk) 28 June 2005 13:29 (UTC)

 * What happens when a pro-lifer comes with more convincing arguments for yet another set of labels? This set of labels has the distinction of being A. what the various sides call themselves and B. extremely popular labels. I fail to see how the alternative set of labels increases the value of this page (which is all I happen to care about). ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 28 June 2005 14:17 (UTC)

 * MosheZadka, why would a pro-lifer come up with another set of labels? The pro-life/anti-abortion arguments would be first. Your argument would make more sense if a pro-choicer did so. This makes me suspect that either (A) you are dead set against changing the current format, which is not the same thing as only being interested in the "value" of the page, and suggests you aren't interested in the possibility of useful compromise, which inherently involves movement of both sides toward a middle ground; or (B) you are actually defending having the pro-choice arguments first, and using the best-known terms as a defense against dislodging pro-choice from its coincidental up-front position. (In case you're wondering whether I've joined the anti-abortion side, I'll tell you something that I find irrelevant to my opinion on the utility and logic of organizational arguments but valuable to those seeking out hidden agendas: I am very much pro-choice. I feel neither I nor anyone else except the father (to some extent) have any right to interfere with a woman's decision — not right — to have an abortion. And I believe the state has no business sticking its nose into this matter, especially when it's justified by religious beliefs that are by law not permitted to become part of government policy, i.e., a de facto imposition of a specific religious creed on the people.) I am not saying that "anti-abortion"/"pro-choice" is the final word on this issue. I am saying that we have enough problems on Wikiquote that we don't need to spend so much effort bickering over a coin flip when there is a logical alternative to the current organization that hasn't been tried. HOWEVER, see my next note below for even more confusion. — Jeff Q (talk) 28 June 2005 14:47 (UTC)

Man, I hate to reverse myself after I've seen a potential compromise, but after reading many of the current quotes and re-reading Eustace's "Pro-choice vs Pro-life" section above, I have to agree that these two categories (however they're titled) don't really address the scope of the quotes placed under them. Many of them seem to be anti-opponents more than they are pro- or anti-issue. Undermining your opponent's argument isn't necessarily the same thing as supporting your own, and the awkward globbing of all the arguments into two camps only makes subtle (and often deliberate) misinterpretations much easier. I really don't want to get even more involved in this debate than I already am, but might I suggest that the various parties review Eustace's list, consider the possibility of anti-opponent style subsections in light of the existing quotes, and contemplate whether any of this might be more appropriate than a simple black-and-white division? — Jeff Q (talk) 28 June 2005 14:47 (UTC)

 * 1. Obviously I meant "pro-choice" and did not proof-read carefully. :( I am sorry there is so much confusion. My own position is irrelevant, I believe.

 * 2. I have agreed, many times over, that a re-organization is useful. I have invited 214 many times to suggest a reorganization which would make sense more than the current one, and added that I believe one is possible. However, he seems to only want to reorganize to put the pro-life quotes first, and I have a problem with granting a "boon" to such tenacity -- this would only mean the next edit-war-monger would assume they need only stick out long enough until they get their own way. My opinion on abortion is irrelevant, but I am firmly on the side of anti-edit-war :)

 * 3. Here is a constructive suggestion: anyone can, in a subpage of the talk page, show a prototype of a useful reorganization. If 214 cared to make a reorganization distinguishing between more subtle differences of POV, I think it would be interesting to see how it looks.

 * Already done, here: http://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&oldid=67281 (but you don't like it). 214.13.4.151 29 June 2005 05:24 (UTC)

 * I am sorry to say that time after time, you show an ability to only read a part of sentences. I hope that this stems from mere carelessness, and not a desire to cause annoyance -- if so, I ask you to read what is said more carefully in the future. The reorganization you point to does not distinguish between POV at all, and of course does not distinguish between subtle shades of POV by extension. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 29 June 2005 05:34 (UTC)

 * 4. I feel it is pretty obvious I have stopped assuming good faith. That assumption stopped when 214 explicitly admitted an agenda -- no pro-choice quotes first, no matter what and no matter how it effects the page's usability. I am sorry, but I think "assume good faith" is a guideline similar to "presumed innocence" -- it is disqualified when sufficient evidence to the contrary arrives.

 * 5. Does anyone really feel that changing the titles to "Anti-Abortion" and "Pro-Choice" would improve the usability of the page? I feel usability (as opposed to "what would have been a name that made the best sense for the position") is a better guideline, even if it is fuzzier and harder to distinguish. This stems from the fact that wikiquote is an attempt to describe the world (specifically, the quotations the world made) and not to change it, as I see it.

 * With apologies to the length of this note, ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 28 June 2005 16:44 (UTC)

 * I think it's hard to know what is "obvious" much of the time in any debate involving such a hotly-contested issue as abortion. I apologize, MosheZadka, for mistaking a mental typo for an agenda, but I think you can see my concern about hidden agendas. I don't believe that changing "pro-life" to "anti-abortion" will improve the usability of the page, but I don't think it will decrease it, either, as there is no ambiguity about the term, and it is a widely-used label for the position (and more accurate, as I pointed out above). Just because it is probably the second-most widely used doesn't automatically rule it out as a useful heading and therefore a potential compromise. I also, in general, do not support rewarding the tenacity of someone who is fighting a one-sided agenda (as I also made clear in earlier sections), but I am trying to consider the arguments on their merits, not on the personalities arguing them. I still maintain that, although the switch to anti-abortion/pro-choice (A-A/P-C) organzation would be a neutral change except for the coincident reversal of the (incorrectly) presumed priority of the positions, Eustace Tilley's suggestion about separating quotes into more specific groups and possibly adding sections/subsection that address opponent rather than issue opposition has more merit at this time. With that statement, I am signing off of this debate (I hope!) except possibly to participate in votes and execute adminstrative tasks. — Jeff Q (talk) 28 June 2005 22:14 (UTC)
 * From NPOV we must not be normative and don't reject the word used in general. At least I understand so. So the best practice we can do is we use both term in a proper way, and shouldn't leave them unmentioned. And NPOV require us to show which is the majority. So I think there are three candidates:
 * Anti-Abortion (CL) "mostly called Pro-Life"
 * Pro-Life/Anti-Abortion (by frequency and for readability)
 * Pro-Life "also called [or "widely similar to]" Anti-Abortion.
 * --Aphaia 28 June 2005 22:51 (UTC)

 * I am in favour of the second one, keeping "Pro-Choice" as the opposing side (as long as we keep the two category distinction, which seems to be inevitable considering the only person who is willing to do big reorg work is an editor with a history of not working within the consensus. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 29 June 2005 05:34 (UTC)

 * I want to keep the names of section as simple as possible, so 3. is the most preferable, but 2 as "Pro-Life or Anti-Abortion" is not bad too. I don't support 1, because we need to esteem the majority somehow, and I don't think there is so drastical difference between A-A and P-L. And anyway P-L and P-C are symetrically and good to memorize. --Aphaia 1 July 2005 02:58 (UTC)

Unprotect
I'll unprotect the article from now. It aims to allow people who wants to add their favorite quotes or correct misquotes. And we haven't reached any consensus if the current sectionalization should be changed or not. So I urge all editors, both logging-on and anons, not to change section names before we reach concensus we are now discussing here on the talk page. If anyone tries to do so, he or she may be blocked temporally. --Aphaia 1 July 2005 03:01 (UTC)
 * I placed a 24 hours block on 214 because he or she changed the structure of section without concensus. I leave the article now, and if someone feel my judgement was haste, please unblock him or ask a sysop to do so, and revert to his or her revision. Thank you.--Aphaia 2 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)

Aphaia, you are out of control. I made edits in conformance with discussion. Yout opinion is not paramount. You can bully me all you like, but you will fail in the end. I put quotes in alphabetical order under the rules that were in place prior to my arrival here. I added quotes that are relevant. You reverted it all and with no explanation - and certainly no cogent rationale. 214.13.4.151 4 July 2005 07:47 (UTC)

 * Someone asked me (by electronic mail) to look at the abortion quotes page and offer my feedback with respect to reversions; it will take a few minutes or longer for me to analyze the edit history of the article and compare it with the discussion on the talk page. I will see what I can figure out, and I hope to be finished soon with some helpful feedback.--GordonWattsDotCom 4 July 2005 09:13 (UTC)

 * Update: I am finished reading the very lengthy discussion on this talk page, and I hope to offer my feedback on each of the disputes, but please be patient, as this is a lengthy task. Before I make any specific points, I want to mention that I think 214 means well, as evidenced by his (or her?) suggestion that the page could rotate back and forth, in this diff, where she said: "I am happy to rotate it every other month. There. Sounds like a great solution." While her idea is not (in my opinion) any more or less useful than the other two proposals (keeping "pro-choice" first --or putting "anti-abortion" first), this offer indicates to me that she does not favor pro-life bias, but simply wants to eliminate bias that emanates from having one section first. Also, she clearly waited four days before doing massive edits. However, sometimes four days is not enough, especially when we have "real life" distractions that compete with a NONPAYING JOB of making edits. Therefore, I would hope 214 would not be impatient while we try to sort this out. Some of her proposals seem good (sub-categorizing by vocation), but one proposal seems bad (mixing the types of quotes together). Some minor accusations made against her seemed to me to be false, but I think these were not made maliciously or in bad faith. Everyone seems to have good faith but some impatience and a lack of time to devote, so I ask for calm while I analyze further. Lastly, many of the suggestions many of you made were very good -and very well thought-out. Thank you,--GordonWattsDotCom 4 July 2005 12:35 (UTC)
 * You failed to or intentionally avoid mentionging accusations made by 214. If you want to be a mediator, I think it is partial you pointed out only remarks toward her. --Aphaia 5 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)

 * At that time, Aphaia, I was too tired & fatigue (after spending many hours just reading the whole talk page) to fully address all of the disagreements, but I felt that I should mention at least a few that showed polite respect to all sides, simply as a signal that everybody's concerns were being heard and listened to. I failed in mentioning all the problems you outline only because I ran out of energy and time. I hope to finish my analysis today; If I miss anything, others are welcome to follow my format and identify other problems and point out suggested solutions.--GordonWattsDotCom 5 July 2005 00:46 (UTC)

title: Talk:Abortion/Archives/01


text:
User:TimDuncan

Hi, pleased to meet you :-)

There's some info on my Wikipedia user page, and I tend to check there more often, so that's the place to leave any messages. Thanks.

-- Tim

Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing. -- Mark Twain

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:TimDuncan


text:
User talk:TimDuncan

Hi. Welcome to English Wikiquote.

You could ask a help or talk with other editor, visit our Village pump.

And I would like you know the redirect to the other project, like you put on your user page, is currently disabled. I hope you would like to have your own user page, and put a link with a message like "please leave a message on there''' ", or a simple link, instead of a disabled redirect. ;-)

Anyway I hope you enjoy browsing Wikiquote boldly. Again, welcome! ;-)--Aphaia 6 July 2005 14:17 (UTC)

title: User talk:TimDuncan


text:
User:194.72.110.12

~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 14:54 (UTC)

title: User:194.72.110.12


text:
User talk:Phobos042~enwikiquote

~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Phobos042. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Phobos042~enwikiquote that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Phobos042~enwikiquote


text:
Bessie Hyde

Glen and Bessie Hyde (December 29, 1905-1928) were newlyweds who disappeared while attempting to run the rapids of the Colorado River through Grand Canyon, Arizona in 1928. Had they succeeded, Bessie would have been the first woman to do so.

Sourced

 * We of the night will know many things of which you sleepers will never dream.
 * Moving Waters Exhibit Gallery 12

title: Bessie Hyde


text:
User talk:Christop~enwikiquote

~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 17:09 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Christop. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Christop~enwikiquote that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Christop~enwikiquote


text:
User talk:K1vsr~enwikiquote

~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 17:11 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called K1vsr. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name K1vsr~enwikiquote that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:K1vsr~enwikiquote


text:
User talk:212.138.64.176

~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)

title: User talk:212.138.64.176


text:
User talk:172.216.100.206

~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 21:42 (UTC)

title: User talk:172.216.100.206


text:
Avatar: The Last Airbender

 * Seasons: 1 2 3 | Main | The Legend of Korra (1 2 3 4)

Avatar: The Last Airbender (2004-2008) is an American animated television series that aired on. The series follows the adventures of twelve-year-old protagonist Aang and his friends, who must bring peace and unity to the world by ending the Fire Lord's war against the other three nations.

Opening narrations

 * [Opening narration for the first episode]
 * Katara: Water. Earth. Fire. Air. My grandmother used to tell me stories about the old days—a time of peace when the Avatar kept balance between the Water Tribes, Earth Kingdom, Fire Nation, and Air Nomads. But that all changed when the Fire Nation attacked. Only the Avatar mastered all four elements. Only he could stop the ruthless firebenders. But when the world needed him most, he vanished. A hundred years have passed and the Fire Nation is nearing victory in the war. Two years ago, my father and the men of my tribe journeyed to the Earth Kingdom to help fight against the Fire Nation, leaving me and my brother to look after our tribe. Some people believe that the Avatar was never reborn into the Air Nomads, and that the cycle is broken. But I haven't lost hope. I still believe that somehow... the Avatar will return to save the world.

 * [Opening narration for subsequent episodes]
 * Katara: Water. Earth. Fire. Air. Long ago, the four nations lived together in harmony. Then everything changed when the Fire Nation attacked. Only the Avatar, master of all four elements, could stop them. But when the world needed him most, he vanished. A hundred years passed and my brother and I discovered the new Avatar, an airbender named Aang. And although his airbending skills are great, he has a lot to learn before he's ready to save anyone. But I believe Aang can save the world.

Seasons

 * Season 1
 * Season 2
 * Season 3

Cast

 * Jessie Flower -
 * -, Momo
 * Mark Hamill - Ozai
 * Jessie Flower -
 * -, Momo
 * Mark Hamill - Ozai
 * Mark Hamill - Ozai
 * Mark Hamill - Ozai
 * Mark Hamill - Ozai

title: Avatar: The Last Airbender