Former good article nomineeResponsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 10, 2010Articles for deletionKept
December 21, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Do not remove data in context of correcting spelling of other items[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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 Talk! 07:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop NPOV violations[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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 Talk! 07:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
who determines that it is not a scientific study? Wikipedia only asks that it is in a journal. And that's that. Babhum (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not true. Wikipedia 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 Talk! 07:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Tatad on Sanger[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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)Reply[reply]
So is Carlos Celdran, but that doesn't make him a reproductive health subject matter expert. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia's criteria. Anything he says should be identified as an opinion. 122.3.45.29 (talk) 09:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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 Talk! 11:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Google Tatad and Reproductive Health Bill. He is notable for his views on this topic. Pinoyrk (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did. Found nothing that makes his opinion about the history of the bill notable according to Wikipedia'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 [1]. 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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 Wikipedia. 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia does not determine its own content by original research. Content is determined by research on sources. Babhum (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Roscelese, please read and re-read WP:NPOV. I see that you are confusing two concepts: contested and non-neutral. A contested opinion can be cited as long as it is attributed to sources, then it becomes neutral. Quote: "Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as "widespread views", etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil. Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." (Italics mine). Babhum (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's kind of you to quote guidelines at someone who's been editing Wikipedia for twenty times as long as you, but I'm quite familiar with NPOV. So familiar, in fact, that I'll have to direct you to WP:GEVAL, a subsection of WP:NPOV. Please read it so that you understand why the views of two individual non-historians on the bill's connection with the Holocaust do not belong in the "history" section, as if they were recognized historical explanations. You see, it's not merely the paragraph that's a problem: placing it under "history" is stating an opinion in Wikipedia's voice about its validity as a historical theory, a validity that is not substantiated by the sources. Roscelese (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The connection of holocaust (the nazi population control policy) and present population control policy of the US that is affecting the developing world (including the Philippines) was not made by two individual non-historians but by a Columnia University historian. Mind you Connelly's account covers the Philippines: 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=snippet&q=philippines&f=false Babhum (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm really having trouble grasping your point. If you were citing the book for a statement about the Philippines, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because that would be an appropriate use of the reference. But you're not. You're citing it to support the statement that the murder of eleven million people is the logical precursor of a bill allowing women to use birth control, a statement that Connelly does not make, that would need to be backed up by more sources even if he had made it, in a context where broad statements about the history of worldwide population control are already inappropriate.
I'm removing the paragraph until you, or someone else, either places it in an appropriate section or corrects the information and removes the POV. "This is what Connelly says about the history of population control in the Philippines" is an acceptable paragraph in the history section of a Philippines bill, if, you know, he actually said it. "Connelly said that the Holocaust was one of the roots of population control" is not. Not even if that claim is attributed to someone else. Connelly didn't say it. No historian did. It's not part of the history. It doesn't belong in the history section. Roscelese (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Similar to what I wrote above for the Catholic Social Science Journal, you have the burden of proof to show that Connelly did not say that Hitler and Nazi population policies are part of the beginnings of the history of the population control policies which affects the Philippines. I have given many links which show this, while you have not shown any. Mere assertion (hysterical or not so hysterical) by an editor is not a recommended argument in Wikipedia, showing sources is. I am going to show another, which is a summary of the book. Please read it calmly and you will find the Nazi plan is at the very beginning of pop control history together with Sanger: http://newworldorderuniversity.com/?p=3930 Babhum (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very funny. Now why don't you find a real source?
Seriously, dude, read WP:BURDEN. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." If Connelly claims that Nazi policies are the root of the population control issue in the Philippines, you should be able to provide a quote which says so. I'm not required to prove the absence of such a quote, though if you're really just incapable of reading the book for yourself, I could quote each reference to the Nazis or Hitler and prove that Connelly does not make that argument, because I have so much free time to go about proving negatives. Merely including the word "Nazi" or "Hitler" in a (over 500-page) book on population control is not equivalent to saying that it's the root of population control.
Oh, and by the way, you might want to review, ha ha, WP:RS. "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." Roscelese (talk) 05:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I may be allowed to intervene. I actually read the said book by Connelly. It was published by Belknap Press of the Harvard University, a notable and reliable source of history. Connelly said that his book is the "the first global history of population control"; he called Sanger "the foremost proponent of birth control as panacea to the world's problems" (p. 9). Connelly mentioned Hitler as an advocte of "planned control of population movements to restore the numbers and purity of the Aryan race." He also documented that "the UNDP Director Paul Hoffman appointed the first director, Rafael Salas of the Philippines, at Rockefeller's recommendation." I have then edited the paragraph by introducing these actual quotes. I hope this has been of help to this issue. Historyprofrd (talk) 08:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate your input - but your quotes still don't solve the problems I pointed out. Connelly and Kasun simply don't mention Sanger and Hitler as precedents of population control in the Philippines. They might mention them in their books, but since their books are about population control worldwide and not just in the Philippines, it's wrong to take statements they made about Sanger and Hitler and apply them to this article unless it is a connection the authors actually made themselves. (See WP:OR, etc.) The paragraph as it stands (stood, before removal) is false, because Connelly and Kasun did not say that those people or policies were precedents of population control in the Philippines.
And then, if the paragraph were to be edited so that it does not attribute statements to Connelly and Kasun that they did not make - it's still a questionable summary because it chooses to mention some things they discussed and not others. And then, what is its appropriateness in the first place? This article doesn't need a history of population control, that's why there's an article on population control - and if it's going to include a history of population control, it should cite more historians.
We could, of course, cite Connelly for your last quote, which is definitely relevant, since it's about the Philippines. But, as I said to Babhum, the connection with Sanger and Hitler is only drawn by opponents of the bill, which means that it's violating NPOV to give it the Wikipedia stamp of approval as part of the bill's "history." Roscelese (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps it will help to understand that Connelly's book is a "global" history of the population control movement. And the Philippines is part of the globe.
Perhaps the NPOV policy of allowing all points of view to including opposition may be taken into consideration. For example, Wikipedia's article Jesus covers differing points of view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Life_and_teachings_as_told_in_the_Gospels It may be a solution to use the title Historical views. Historyprofrd (talk) 08:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's really the argument you're making? That the Philippines is part of the globe, so anything referred to in a book on global population control must refer to the Philippines? It doesn't work that way. And, as I said above: if you're going to include a potted history of population control, you need both to accurately represent the existing sources (by not attributing statements to them that they did not make, and by providing an unbiased summary of their work) and to cite more sources.
I'm not really sure what your point is with Jesus. Presumably the references in that article are expert references. Tatad and Sison are not historians or social scientists, so their personal interpretations of history or social science books are not expert references. (Connelly and Kasun themselves are expert references, but they didn't say the things the paragraph is attributing to them. That is an interpretation provided by the non-experts Tatad and Sison.) I also think "historical views" has the connotation of "how the subject was viewed in history" rather than "how people view the history." Roscelese (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roscelese, it is obvious to one and all that this bill is a population control bill so its origins is connected with the history of population control. If you can't see that, I am supremely flummoxed. Sison, Valenzona and Tatad and WYA have written down the obvious. Sison (who has a regular TV program) writes for one of the biggest papers in my country. Valenzona (a former cabinet member) wrote in a global net publication. Tatad (a former senator) is a public intellectual. Historyprofrd and Babhum are right! Am I really seeing that you are contesting that Historyprofrd did not quote the actual sources, attributing statements Connelly did not make? What?! Have you read the book? I also did and they are verbatim quotes! Pinoyrk (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not to one and all. I agree with Rosecleese. Please do not speak for the population at large. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 15:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I've already stated a number of times, this article doesn't need a history of population control worldwide, and if it were decided that one should be included, more historians and social scientists would need to be cited in order to give a true overview. As has already been pointed out, Sison, Tatad and Valenzona are not expert opinions, because being on TV or being famous doesn't magically grant you expertise in history or social science. Paris Hilton is also famous and on TV, but we don't take her opinions on academic things as gospel. Those quotes are undoubtedly in the book, but as I told Historyprofrd, they do not support the bogus assertion that Hitler is secretly the proponent of the RH Bill omg. If Tatad et al. have simply "written down the obvious," you should be able to provide a direct quote that supports Hitler's connection to this bill in the Philippines. "Well, I think Hitler is bad, and I think birth control is bad, so Hitler must have caused birth control" won't cut it.
Seriously - a good way of thinking about this is to imagine what it would be like if you applied the strategy you're using to any other article. Do you really think (to use a random example) that it would be okay to say that fascist philosophy is a precursor of the modern Roman Catholic Church's policies towards gay people? No? But this book on the RCC mentions fascism! And since it's a history of the Catholic Church as a whole, why should the statement have to be specifically about gay people in order to be cited? Eh? Eh? No, that's obviously ridiculous. As it is when you do it. Roscelese (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Roscelese, now who is deciding? you alone? or various editors and actual reliable sources? The connection of connelly to the Philippine bill is political analysis, and political analysts who know the Philippines are the experts. Who else will be the expert on Philippine bills? A biologist from Maine? Or an Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Department of Social Welfare and Development of the Philippines? A legislator who is a publisher and writer of political books and doctor honoris causa? Tatad wrote about the bill' history "EARLIEST BEGINNINGS Population control began in antiquity. In ancient Egypt... then malthus, galton, sanger, then hitler: "During World War II, Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) took eugenics to a new level altogether." Read it here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/7689743/Procreative-Rights-and-Reproductive-Wrongs
Wikipedia says that any content that is verifiable, reliable should be published. That's the greatness of Wikipedia. If the book on RCC is verifiable and reliable, then include it. By all means!! These same rules (the only rules for any article) should be applied then to this article. Pinoyrk (talk) 04:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I've already said, Tatad is not an expert in history or social science and is not qualified to make pronouncements about the history of population control. You're welcome to talk about his personal opinion in the section discussing opposing sides' views, but unless you have a reliable source which seconds that opinion, it doesn't belong in a section which would imply that it is fact rather than opinion. (I've already explained this for you, of course, but since it's been a few days, maybe you need a refresher.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Christmas is a long holiday in our country.
Tatad is an expert on political analysis on Philippine affairs. And Connelly is published by Harvard University Press.
How many times have you been caught saying one thing then changing to another after you are proven wrong? You said "they've never written anything about population control in the Philippines" - proven wrong; "a statement that Connelly does not make" -- proven wrong. "If Tatad et al. have simply "written down the obvious," you should be able to provide a direct quote that supports Hitler's connection to this bill in the Philippines" --proven wrong.
Let me repeat what everyone has been telling you: NPOV means accepting all povs (even the most illogical for you) as long as they are made by reliable and verifiable sources. If you look at the entire article there is no statement that is listed as fact. They are all attributed. They are all opinions of american medical association, american journal this, nobel prize winner that. YOu have already accepted that tatad's opinion can be accepted. but his opinion is on the connection with connelly's history. So it cannot be place in any other place except history. Pinoyrk (talk) 05:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May I gently remind you that Tatad and Connelly are not the same person? If Connelly made a comment about the gritty details of Philippines politics, it would likewise be questioned, because he's not an expert. In the same way, Tatad is not an expert on population control.
My quote was "they've never written anything about population control in the Philippines that would justify their inclusion in this article," meaning not that they have never written anything about the Philippines, but that none of the things they wrote justify the paragraph you kept inserting. (It's okay, translation issues can happen to the best of us.) If you were citing Connelly's statement that "the UNDP Director Paul Hoffman appointed the first director, Rafael Salas of the Philippines, at Rockefeller's recommendation," we wouldn't be having this conversation. As for my other quotes - like I said. If Connelly really says that the Holocaust is a precursor of reproductive health in the Philippines, then, since you allegedly read the book, you should be able to give me a quote. Not a quote about Hitler that doesn't mention the Philippines. Not a quote about the Philippines that doesn't mention Hitler. A quote linking the Holocaust to reproductive health in the Philippines. This is how Wikipedia works.
Exactly - reliable and verifiable sources. Ie. actual quotes from the history and social science books, not the opinion of some random guy.
And, just in case you missed it the other few times - it would be perfectly consistent with WP:V and WP:RS to write that Tatad believes that the IUD is just like genocide. You just can't put it in the "History" section, because that implies that it's an expert view of the history. Your comment about the AMA is irrelevant, because the AMA is an expert opinion, while Tatad is some guy who you evidently think was magically granted twenty years' expertise in every subject under the sun the moment he was elected. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I may just say that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tertiary_source#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. Therefore it "mainly summarizes secondary sources". It is therefore correct to conclude that the said paragraph is an accurate of summary of a secondary source (Connelly). Historyprofrd (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The policy you linked is kind of irrelevant, because the summary of Connelly isn't accurate. If you fix the summary of Connelly, then maybe we can talk about whether a potted history of population control belongs in the article and, if so, whose books should be included, but that paragraph was simply false. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In case no one has noticed it, Connelly's work linking Sanger, Hitler et al with the population control is now lodged in the Culture War section. Neutr8 (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warning to Roscelese: COIS, Edit warring to Admin noticeboard

Roscelese, I am about to report you to the Admin noticeboard, as has happened here.

Your comments are not only unreasonable (outright assertions without basis and proofs) but your edits are based on COIS, because you are a self-announced feminist: you work for "reproductive rights of women to make individual decisions on pregnancy (including access to contraceptives and abortion)". You are protecting your personal ideology and philosophy. You do not want it to be tarnished by any association with Hitler, but the clear historical record shown by a Harvard University Press publication shows otherwise. Please stop edit warring here and reverting an accurate summary of published reliable third-party high-level research. This is a warning. Any more reverts will lead to reporting your behavior here at the COIS Noticeboard and here at the Admin noticeboard. Take note that the Reliable sources noticeboard supports the text. Pinoyrk (talk) 09:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Being a feminist isn't a conflict of interest any more than being a Catholic is, so good luck there. I'm reverting your edit again, because as I have stated multiple times, it is an inaccurate and biased summary of a book that has nothing to do with this article, and RS Noticeboard has already rejected Tatad as a reliable source for anything to do with history. Considering your own repeated attempts to insert this false and biased information, you might also want to consider WP:PETARD if you're thinking of reporting. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support this revert. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 15:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutrality of the article[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
Reviews are done here in this talk page as the tag stated. Babhum (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But there hasn't been an independent review yet. So wait for it. When the review gets done, the reviewer will remove the tag. 122.3.45.29 (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

That paragraph is a summary of the bill's stated purpose. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you want to see something that's a criticism of the stated purpose, please write one. 122.3.45.29 (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Solution for the Neutrality Issue[edit]

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 Talk! 03:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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 Talk! 07:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Keep in mind that the bill itself is pro-RH. So it discusses RH in a favorable manner. Also keep in mind that those criticising the bill are not anti-RH. They're anti RH Bill. 122.3.45.29 (talk) 10:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Disclosure[edit]

I accidentally edited while not logged in, making 2 edits under an IP address. Sorry! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 07:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page move[edit]

I have moved this page from Reproductive Health Bill (Philippines) to Reproductive Health bill. There is no other exsisting Reproductive Health bill on other countries, so, no need to disambugate. Sorry for the late information. Kiddie Techie Talk 04:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Environmental Impact[edit]

How come I've never seen any environmental argument in the whole debate? The Condom Giveaway in the bill poses some serious health hazard as the Philippines isn't really quite respected in the field of garbage collection. I'm afraid used condoms would float in the rivers, be thrown out in the sewers and end up being eaten by fishes and birds. Indigenous and the poor of the poor in the population also lacks access to sanitary public services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.96.73 (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has this been discussed as a significant part of the debate around the bill by reliable sources? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement[edit]

"In one pro-RH rally, organizers "set aside P1,750,000 to organize a rally of 'at least 5,000 people.' Each participant was supposed to receive P350." It might have a newspaper source (though newspapers can say anything without real verification!), but such statement needs additional suitable supporting source since such sentence has an implication for the pro-RH-faction to be seen as corrupt or anything negative in that direction and can be seen as libelous. 49.145.68.107 (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:Verifiability, not truth. That said, the news source passes WP:RS, –HTD 01:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A news article must be reliable though. Reading it, it remains vague. Unless, Howard the Duck, you include every hoax in your articles. 49.145.68.107 (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First you said that the statement is libelous. Now, it's a hoax. Which is which? –HTD 02:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dunno how can this be meant to be taken as vague: "In one pro-RH rally, organizers set aside P1,750,000 to organize a rally of 'at least 5,000 people.' Each participant was supposed to receive P350." The best thing you can hope for is to say "Sources of <news source> say 'In one pro-RH rally, organizers set aside P1,750,000 to organize a rally of at least 5,000 people. Each participant was supposed to receive P350'." It's up to the reader if s/he wants to believe that or not. –HTD 02:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then I will take your suggestion into account. 49.145.68.107 (talk) 06:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It appears that Inquirer's sources on the figures was the group per se. So it's neither sneaky or libelous or a hoax, unless they're either slandering themselves, or they are releasing incorrect information. –HTD 07:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Misuse of Nobel Laureate George Akerlof's research[edit]

Yesterday, the press reported on a statement released to the public by Nobel prize-winning economist George Akerlof, which pretty much invalidates his inclusion in the criticism section of this article unless we want to include criticism that has been debunked or invalidated. I've altered the article. Feel free to alter it further. Probably best just to drop mention of Akerlof altogether. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 07:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POV check[edit]

This article fails WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Manual of Style, here are my concerns:

I'm not a supporter of both sides, but it could really use an overhaul . Woofygoodbird (talk) 07:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you read the article, you will find the sources in the footnotes, e.g. abs cbn debate, aquino statements. CCC 2373 that you quoted is a source: Catechism of the Catholic Church. Babhum (talk) 09:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support and Criticism[edit]

Although there is a support and criticism section, both support and criticism appear throughout the entry. An encyclopedic entry should have an NPOV throughout. I think this Wikipedia entry is a good model to follow: National Industrial Recovery Act.

This article right now looks like a field the day after a battle is fought on it (an edit war, to be exact). Now that the law has been enacted, let's make it into something more useful. I'm not suggesting we dump anything, just that we put support and criticism in its own section so the rest of the article can be a factual tertiary reference for what exactly the Act is.

Does anyone object to me overhauling this entry to present information more neutrally? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 08:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The law is one of the most hotly contested and divisive in Philippine history. The article ought to show this. The model you intend to use does not get anywhere close to nature of the RH Law. Neutrality precisely shows both arguments proportionally. It would be better if a neutral writer proposes improvements. Sorry to say but you do not seem to be neutral to this topic. Fatalfff (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removals[edit]

I'm going through and trying to make this article more compliant with our policies. Among the changes I'm making or have already made:

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Health[edit]

Responsible parenthood and reproductive health act-republic act 10354 124.106.226.136 (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mapeh[edit]

it is a law which guarantees universal access to methods of contraception Respect for life the act recognizes that abortion is illegal and punishable by law however mothers will be identified 112.198.128.110 (talk) 09:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories