Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:37, 20 December 2010

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 September 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 is currently a Law good article nominee. Nominated by Neutr8 (talk) at 08:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

Do not remove data in context of correcting spelling of other items

I've seen a deletion of a whole paragraph in the context of correcting spelling etc. Please be careful, especially if the data is very important in the argumentation.

Also I have seen lately some corrections that put words in the mouth of the opposition. Preembryo was never used by the opposition. So please do not add this. Babhum (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph beginning "Opponents also say that being pregnant with a child" because it was originally cited to the Department of Health website, which lists the causes of death but did not comment on the bill. Now that it's been properly cited, it can stay.

I removed the reference to the Simon-Ehrlich wager because, in the context of the paragraph, it is misrepresented (it was a wager on resource scarcity, not population control). That whole paragraph is kind of problematic, and I think it's necessary either to improve it or to make it more clear that this is Tatad's personal opinion.

I am going to edit the reference to Buhay, because its presence at the top of the list indicates nothing - it had fewer than 6% of the votes! This is terribly misleading to a reader who doesn't know about the composition of the Filipino parliament. I'll indicate that this is a claim Tatad makes and perhaps give some numbers. Roscelese (talk) 23:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Also am specifying the 2007 election, both because that's the one Tatad cites and because Buhay wasn't the biggest vote-getter in any other election. Roscelese (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

please take note of what I wrote in section below: opposition statements mixed with proponent statements in the summary paragraph. That is NPOV violation.

So your addition is also NPOV violation. We should not mix arguments. NPOV means we respect totally what people have said and not said, whatever their POV is. Keep in mind that the guttmacher research on the proponent side is also highly questionable but it is kept that way in the summary. Babhum (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That's actually the claim that Tatad makes, though - that the 2007 election shows that Filipinos are "pro-life." To say that Tatad claimed that Buhay was "always" the top vote-getter is both to lie and to accuse him of lying. He did not say that Buhay was "always" the top vote-getter - so to say he said it would be lying. And the source is from 2008, ie. before the 2010 election in which Buhay was not the top vote-getter - so to omit that Tatad was referring only to the 2007 election is to accuse him of lying.

As for my citation of numbers in order not to mislead the reader - I can imagine that it wouldn't be necessary if the paragraph, and the article as a whole, were better structured, but when you have that kind of huge block of text, the "Opponents claim this" gets lost a few sentences in and it looks like you're saying "Filipinos vote en masse for Buhay," which is not true. If it were arranged as bullet points or something, then the numbers might not be necessary, though it might still be good to put them in a footnote. Roscelese (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Pre-embryo was used in the source that was cited. I added it after reviewing that source. I find that large sections of this article are inappropriately referenced. When I get more time, likely next week, I'll go through the sources one by one and make corrections. ɳorɑfʈ 07:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop NPOV violations

Undoing NPOV violation. NPOV is about citing all POVs whether or not they are right. De Vera is from UA&P, a prominent university. National Perfidy was published in a journal. Babhum (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

National Perfidy is a position paper that is being cited as if it is a scientific study. Since National Perfidy itself cites other sources (actual studies), those sources should be cited directly. It doesn't matter where De Vera is from, he's stating an opinion, and any place that this source is used, that needs to be identified. ɳorɑfʈ 07:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Your point for removing his statement on later studies confirming kuznets was notability, thus the clarification on notability. But notability is in fact a basis for an article on something not on article references per se. Babhum (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You didn't actually speak to the point made, which is that it is not a scientific study but being cited as a scientific authority...can you answer that please? Shouldn't opinions be identified as such? 122.3.45.29 (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

who determines that it is not a scientific study? Misplaced Pages only asks that it is in a journal. And that's that. Babhum (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Not true. Misplaced Pages requires that sources meet the criteria set forth under WP:RELIABLE. This source is being presented as scientific/scholarly when it is not. This is confusing to the reader. It is an opinion piece and needs to be identified as such. ɳorɑfʈ 07:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

You have the burden of proof that this journal is not scholarly: http://www.cssronline.org/CSSR/ and http://www.cssronline.org/CSSR/Guidelines/guidelines.html  : Babhum (talk) 08:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I also removed opposition statements mixed with proponent statements in the summary paragraph. That is NPOV violation too.Babhum (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Tatad on Sanger

I removed the phrase "of the unfit" because Sanger promoted birth control use in general, not just for the "unfit." The paragraph must either be more clear about attributing the description to Tatad, or provide an unbiased summary of her position. Roscelese (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

What if we say: tatad traced to the following: then say "sanger who promoted birth control in general and of the unfit. Babhum (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That feels a little awkward and redundant. Maybe "Margaret Sanger, a birth control activist who Tatad says promoted birth control of the unfit"? That also makes it more clear which parts are Tatad's argument (he focuses on the eugenics aspect in his essay, not on the birth control for everybody) and which parts are background information that we as editors are contributing. Roscelese (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

We can change the beginning statement thus: Former Senator Francisco Tatad, who opposes the bill, said that the roots of population control can be traced to what he believed are the ideas and works of the following. Babhum (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Roscelese (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Since Tatad is not a subject matter expert, why is his opinion about the roots of population control germane to this article? ɳorɑfʈ 07:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Because this article is about a national debate. One side said something about history of the bill, that's the Senate Paper that is pushing the bill and the other side represented by Tatad is saying something else, or something additional. Tatad is considered a top expert on this subject in the Philippines. He is interviewed on TV almost everyday. Babhum (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

So is Carlos Celdran, but that doesn't make him a reproductive health subject matter expert. Misplaced Pages has standards for subject matter experts: a professor doing research in an area, a Ph.D. in the field, etc. Tatad is not a historian. He is not a subject matter expert according to Misplaced Pages's criteria. Anything he says should be identified as an opinion. 122.3.45.29 (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Celdran does not compare with Tatad who received a doctor honoris causa in several universities, written several books, including a novel, been an editor and publisher of a newspaper, a columnist in a leading newspaper, acknowledged and recognized as a public intellectual of the nation. Neutr8 (talk) 08:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

But that still doesn't make him a subject matter expert on reproductive health, unless the several books he has written were about reproductive health. My point in mentioning Celdran was that getting interviewed every day does not make one a subject matter expert. 122.3.45.29 (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this is about the philippine reproductive health bill not about reproductive health only. Since RH bill is a piece of legislation in a country, a country's former senator (legislator) who is the leader of the opposition should be included here. Pinoyrk (talk) 09:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a straw man argument. He didn't say "Tatad should not be included." He said "Someone who is not a history expert or a reproductive health expert should not be quoted as an authority on the history of reproductive health in the Philippines." ɳorɑfʈ 11:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV. Tatad is a public intellectual who can write about anything and his voice is significant, very significant POV. Based on NPOV his voice should be quoted in a history of reproductive health in the Philippines. It is not NPOV to include only the voice of pro-RH Senate brief in relating history of rh in phil. And that's only a brief done by staff. Not a senator. Not a public intellectual. Babhum (talk) 03:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I came to this page because 122.3... made a request on the reliable sources noticeboard. As I told him/her, Tatad is a reliable source on himself and his own opinions, and in this case, he is being cited to provide evidence of his own beliefs not the subject in general. However, looking at the text in question within the context of the full article, it does not seem to belong there at all. There is nothing in the article nor its references to convey that Tatad's opinions are notable. If he is one of the key figures in this bill and has received significant third-party journalistic coverage to that effect, then those sources and not Tatad himself should be cited. Anything regarding statements he made in 2008 should not be in the beginning of a discussion about events that occurred in 1967.

A user above stated that Tatad was being interviewed "almost every day" about the subject. Certainly, then, ample sources must exist to demonstrate his importance regarding this bill. Personally I don't live in the Philippines and know nothing about its politics, and for a layperson like me, the article should make it clear who Tatad is and why I should care about his/her opinions regarding the subject. If this cannot be done with reliable third-party sources then any reference to him should be removed. Show, don't tell. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

For your info, his article on Procreative Rights and Reproductive Wrongs, appears in a book published in the Philippines: Truths and Half-Truths about Reproductive Health. This is a reliable source. This book contains scholarly papers of De Vera and Aguirre etc. Don't tell me its unreliable because it is published in the Philippines, because that is systemic bias. Pinoyrk (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Google Tatad and Reproductive Health Bill. He is notable for his views on this topic. Pinoyrk (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I did. Found nothing that makes his opinion about the history of the bill notable according to Misplaced Pages's criteria for notability (e.g. significant coverage). Truths and Half-truths about Reproductive Health is not a book. It is a self-published blog post . If it is a book, please provide ISBN and publisher. The paragraph has been deleted until such time as it can be verified. 122.3.45.29 (talk) 08:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Again Pinoyrk, Show, don't tell. Telling someone to "go google it" is one of the worst things you can do. If you want to make the argument that he is notable for his views, the burden is on you to provide reliable, neutral, and independently notable sources demonstrating this. Remember, anyone can pay to have a book published, that alone does not make the author a reliable source. Please assume good faith and don't imply that I'm biased against the Philippines or their people. The fact that he published his opinions in a scholarly publication might make them notable, but you need to demonstrate third-party coverage of said publication. I searched in JSTOR and other academic databases and was unable to find mention of it. I'm not saying whether the author is reliable or not, but if you wish to demonstrate that he is, you must provide something other than his name. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you want to be identified? Ok good faith you might have, but please show your face! Anyways, if you don't want Tatad, then I substituted his name with these instead:

http://www.c-fam.org/docLib/20080909_Fatal_Misconception_bk_rev..pdf

http://www.economist.com/node/11402576

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0898707129/qid=1022505444/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/103-5207227-2161464

These two books are the sources of Tatad. In fact it was good that you brought it up. If you are so worried about Tatad, why don't you also researchon the others like the UP paper and the Ateneo paper. They were not puoblished in any book, Tatad's was. Pinoyrk (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The addition of Columbia University Professor Matthew Connelly and of Economist Jacques Kasun is a fine addition. The long history of a concept is a welcome information that will enlighten readers in Misplaced Pages. As I said in my edit summary, the early life of Obama is included in his article, so should the the early life of population control policies for Asia or any other part of the world, such as the Philippines. Historyprofrd (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

But this article isn't about population control policies. It is about six bills before the Philippine Congress. I think that information goes too far afield. I have removed it again. 112.204.131.134 (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The premise of the bill is that the Philippines is 12th most populous in the world, there is a hearing in the population committee, it aims to control population through contraception (see lede). Even the Noticeboard supports the text: The article is not stating that population control has its roots in actions of these historical figures, only that Tatad believes it does. Looks fine to me, as long as it can be verified that he actually said it; A third-party source would be better, of course, so make a good-faith effort to find coverage of his statement. Fatalfff (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point, Fatalfff!! Here you have more: This is clear from the very first page of the bill, which states: “This policy is anchored on the rationale that sustainable human development is better assured with a manageable population of healthy, educated and productive citizens.” The guiding principles of the bill then tell us: “The limited resources of the country cannot be suffered to be spread so thinly to service a burgeoning multitude that makes the allocations grossly inadequate and effectively meaningless”. In case this were not clear enough, the author of the bill, in his explanatory notes, provides the following elaboration: “We cannot address adequately the problem of poverty… if we do not squarely address the problem of a bloated population and high and unwanted fertility”. I really like the title of this article: Philippines population bill speaks with forked tongue. It reminds me of some writers and Wikipedians I know. ;) Pinoyrk (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

But this article is not about population control. That's like saying that because the office of the US president is based on democracy, that the article about the Presidency should include the history of democracy. I think a sentence with a wikilink to a population control article would be fine, but including the history of population control theory is not. That paragraph is not about legislation, and not about the Philippines. It does not belong. 122.3.45.29 (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone, especially to the comments of Historyprofrd. It is clear that the said paragraph belongs to this article. (Babhum (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Another connection between with Connelly (and through him Sanger and Hitler etc) and RH is Sison's article: http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleid=399988

• Historyprofrd (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

User 122.3.45.29, the senate brief covers the history of this bill by citing population control history and Sison's article connects RH Bill with Connelly and his sources, Tatad's paper covers the history of the bill. Roscelese has actually brought back the Tatad ref, because it is clear that there there are actual sources that presents the history of policy with the RH Bill. It is tantamount to a violation of WP:NOR to disregard these sources. Babhum (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not determine its own content by original research. Content is determined by research on sources. Babhum (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I put back the Tatad link because opposition statements are literally the only connection those two writers have to this article. They've never commented on the bill, they don't, in fact, claim that those are "the roots" of population control, and they've never written anything about population control in the Philippines that would justify their inclusion in this article. I oppose the inclusion of the paragraph, but if consensus is to include it, I recommend moving it out of "history," since its only connection to the article is through statements made by opponents of the bill. Roscelese (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The two books actually cover history. Sison and Tatad connect them to the Philippine bill. Your comment covers the same problem as the definition section. If a history paragraph is not in the history section, where can it be placed without violating NPOV? Babhum (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

My point is that since only Sison and Tatad connect them to the bill, it's POV to assert that their work forms part of the "history" of the bill. You really think it's neutral to say that Hitler (who, just by the way, Connelly mentions only in passing and Kasun doesn't mention at all) is a precursor of this bill? Roscelese (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Google book on connelly: http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=CwImmRvyyiEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=matthew+connelly+fatal+misconception+the+struggle+to+control+world+population&source=bl&ots=FM_asRXLkl&sig=cO4dn105es_aIeq63vBDmEQzyNo&hl=en&ei=ZBYPTeKSHo6lcbLUvbgK&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&sqi=2&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=hitler&f=false

Another person who makes the connection: http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_shameful_history_of_population_control/ And another: http://fightrhbill.blogspot.com/2010/12/world-youth-alliance-speaks-out-against.html -- Babhum (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

So, a few mentions in passing that do nothing to support the article's claim that the Holocaust is one of the "roots" of population control, and references only from opponents of the bill. Exactly as I said.

I'm not sure if you missed the question the first time, or maybe you thought it was rhetorical: You really think it's neutral to say that Hitler is a precursor of this bill? Roscelese (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article

Are there other neutrality issues behind the NPOV tag? As far as I can see, the comments have been answered. Babhum (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think there are WP:WEIGHT issues. A review has been requested, just wait for it. 122.3.45.29 (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviews are done here in this talk page as the tag stated. Babhum (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Equal space for statement of purpose

There should be equal space for statement of purpose. Right now there is one paragraph that is pro-RH. There are no anti-RH views of its purpose. Not fair. Klughilton4 (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Solution for the Neutrality Issue

I think part of the problem with this article is that pro and opposition arguments and rebuttals are mixed in with facts about the bill. I think separating these arguments into their own section would give make this article much more objective. For example, the definitions section should be an objective summary of key definitions, and that's it (that's the encyclopedic way to handle that section). The pro and opposition opinion of the definitions don't belong there. Not to say they don't belong anywhere, but they definitely shouldn't be mixed with the facts. If there was a concise pro section and a concise opposition section, then someone seeking information about the bill could easily navigate to the section they want to read. ɳorɑfʈ 03:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a solution. Understand that the definitions have been accused as a "marketing terms" and not scientific terms. To show them as facts forthwith is to give in to one side. Balance is key to neutrality. Babhum (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The text of the bill(s) defines the terms as they are used in the bill. All legislation includes definitions of terms. Such definitions should be summarized in the article. 122.3.45.29 (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added the actual definitions from all six bills. Let's move the pro/con arguments, then the section will be objective. 122.3.45.29 (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that in order to maintain a neutral point-of-view, the article should be presented in such a way that there is zero confusion with what constitutes a fact about the bill, and a pro or con opinion about the bill. Moving all the pro and con arguments to their own section is a great way to do this. ɳorɑfʈ 07:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder where the pro/con arguments on definitions be placed? IMHO, unless another rightful place is found, present place for con arguments for definitions may be the best. Historyprofrd (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Equal space for criticism of definitions

There should be equal space for criticism of definitions. Right now there are more than three paragraphs that are pro-RH and only one that is anti-RH. Not fair. Klughilton4 (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I put a tag on the article to indicate that the lead is too long. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should not be longer than four paragraphs, and these are very long paragraphs that get into a lot of detail rather than being a general overview of the topic. Some of this information should be put in the body. Roscelese (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees on review