Talk:November 2023 Ohio Issue 1

Neutral point of view

Wikipedians, I've just made a few moderately significant edits to keep a neutral point of view and remove uncited sources, inter alia.

Intro section

I removed claims that "trade unions, editorial boards, human rights and many religious organizations" support Yes on Issue 1, either because the citation given provided zero evidence whatsoever, or because those organizations (as per citation) actually supported Yes on Issue 1 in August, which was a different referendum. They were closely linked, but an endorsement on one does not equal an endorsement of the other. I also removed an uncited claim that organizations supporting No had a significant contingent in favor of banning in vitro fertilization, and removed the paragraph about the issues with Lizzie Marbach (it's important, and I left an explanation later in the article, but it's not relevant enough to the page to be in the first section).

Campaign section

In addition to similar changes as made in the intro section, I removed an uncited claim that No is primarily supported by "fundamentalist Protestants" and replaced it with cited claims of actual organizations opposed to the Issue. There may very well be fundamentalist Protestants who believe that way, but such claims were not made in any citations and constitute original research.

With regards to Lizzie Marbach, I kept the paragraph about her comments and subsequent firing from Ohio Right to Life, however, I removed parts calling her a fundamentalist. I am a Catholic, I personally think her views are rather fundamentalist, but that's a matter of personal opinion. I also didn't find evidence in citations that she's opposed to separation of church and state. I tried to look for some elsewhere, and couldn't find anything. Nor was there anything about Catholic integralists commenting on her statements in news outlets. Twitter feuds between multiple very online groups of Christians aren't noteworthy enough to be included.

Endorsements

Donald Trump making vague points about Ohio's current abortion law being banned does not constitute an endorsement of this ballot initiative, and as such was removed. I happen to think Trump would want to change this law, but again, that just conjecture, and nowhere is there a statement from Trump saying he supports Yes.

XP6287 (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Neutral Changes

Here are a few more changes that have been made:

Removed "Limited Government" and "religious freedom" from the statement that a "yes" vote would further these. Both sides view their vote as furthering Limited government, so it's not actually saying anything. The opposition see's the government ruling that an unborn child isn't a life as government over-reach, thus casting a "no" vote would further limited government. For the religious freedom portion, this legislation has no effect on someones ability to freely practice their religion within the confines of every other law.

To match the structure of the "yes" vote speaking to the effects if it passes, the following has been added to the "no" section. "The Catholic Conference of Ohio argues that this legislation would put women at risk, threaten parental rights, and allow for abortions of fully developed unborn children."

Removed the section of the 10 year old rape victim from the introduction, but kept the history of the Ohio abortion ban in place. Since this legislation is not solely an exception for rape or incest, the section was moved to where it is relevant. Modified the reference of the "aforementioned" abortion case to generically call out cases of rape and incest. Speaktruthplz (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Issue 1 explicitly does not allow late-trimester abortions. However, abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability. But in no case may such an abortion be prohibited if in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient’s treating physician it is necessary to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health. That's an instance of WP: Fringe and thus doesn't merit inclusion in the article. There's a widespread consensus among lawyers that the referendum will not allow any of this. It's also biased language to use "unborn child" in the lead. The rape case of a minor received widespread public attention and has played a key role in the campaign. (Since, if the amendment fails, anyone staying in Ohio would be obligated to have offspring conceived from rape.)

A majority of fundamentalist Protestants and traditionalist Catholics view personhood as beginning at conception. That's why they want to prohibit certain forms of birth control (including IUD's), embryonic stem cell research, and what not. KlayCax (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, I truly hope you can see your inherent bias. "unborn child" was allowed by the Ohio supreme court to stay on the ballot. I hope that official, legal ballot terminology is evidence enough that it is allowed language. Speaktruthplz (talk) 15:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Not really. Quoting it is one thing, given it's the language used by the resolution, but using it as an independent descriptor is another, separate issue. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

If the Ohio supreme court considers the wording non-biased enough to be in a piece of government text, then what would be enough for you? It's clear you have person objections to it, but if the Ohio Judicial System says its objective enough, I think they have the authority to say to. Speaktruthplz (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The Ohio supreme court does not dictate what is or isn't appropriate language on Wikipedia. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Then who does? I mean this seriously, who decides what is proper wording? Speaktruthplz (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

We decide these things on consensus. AntiDionysius (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s job is to present the consensus view as evidenced in mainstream sources. As the article you link states, the term "unborn child" is not a neutral, consensus-driven term. Criticism of the Ohio Supreme Court is evidenced in the article you link and others, so using their preferred language as if it is neutral, universally accepted term is WP:UNDUE to the opinion of the Court and anti-abortion activists… Griffindaly (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I used that article to show that the Ohio supreme court is allowing the language "unborn child", not to use the authors or pro abortion advocates opinions on the matter. I can use the official statement form the Ohio Supreme Court instead. This is arguably a stronger source without opinions from a third party author. Speaktruthplz (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The Ohio Supreme Court's opinion would be considered a primary source in this case, and using their preferred language in the articles lead, unquoted and without context, is WP:UNDUE. the article should use the mainstream, medically accepted "fetus" as used in the journalistic sources provided, and further explanation of the ballot language can remain in the current "Campaign" section Griffindaly (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Who decided that medical acceptance trumps judicial acceptance? I could make the same argument that "fetus" should be used in quotes and using it unquoted is WP:UNDUE. It seems that if this article is on the topic of legislation, the the judicial opinions makes more sense. Similarly if this was a medical article, then that language makes more sense.

I say this because the pro-abortion movement prefers to use fetus since it sounds like medical terminology, while the anti-abortion movement prefers unborn child because they believe it is child that is unborn. The issue seems more like an issue with the text humanizing....well.... a human with unique DNA. So, why does "fetus" win just because the other authors prefer the dehumanizing term when clearly the judicial and medical opinions aught to held at least equally important? Speaktruthplz (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Secondly, there are always people who vote against whats pushed in an organization they are a part of. Sure some Catholics will vote for the amendment, but it is fundamentally flawed to say that because some people may vote against the church that a majority would.The neutral take on this is clearly that the majority of people who identify as a part of an organization would vote in accordance to it's views. Speaktruthplz (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Third, you are correct that the rape case was instrumental in the formation of this amendment, and that is why I kept it in the background section, because it's important background information and history on why we are voting on it. However, this legislation is not about an exception for cases of rape or incest, so using a fringe case in the introduction to promote broad legislation is misleading and therefore not neutral. Speaktruthplz (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Finally, The legislation does explicitly allow late term abortion. It uses loopholes such as " However, abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability". This language implies that it would be fully allowed with potential to be limited, not prohibited with explicit exceptions. Other Ohio law may require fetal viability to be the line that is drawn, but this legislation doesn't.

Then, the legislation gives clear guidelines, "But in no case may such an abortion be prohibited if in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient’s treating physician it is necessary to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health", giving abortion doctors the ability to use a vast array of reasons such as age, emotional health, and common broad disorders such as anxiety or depression to perform late-trimester abortions. Speaktruthplz (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

it is fundamentally flawed to say that because some people may vote against the church that a majority would A majority of Catholics have consistently voted for legalized abortion in the United States. The institutional hierarchy certainly is predominately against that — I don't think anyone's disputing that — but among the laity the story is entirely different. White evangelical/fundamentalist Protestants are the overwhelming actors in restricting the legality of abortion.

Finally, The legislation does explicitly allow late term abortion. See here for what mainstream lawyers say. Beyond this, there's almost no chance that the overwhelmingly Republican-aligned Ohio Supreme Court is going to allow late-trimester abortion, strike down parental consent laws, et al... especially since similar wording has not caused these things to occur in other states. (The vast majority of abortions occur early in pregnancy.)

However, this legislation is not about an exception for cases of rape or incest If the referendum fails, minors who are impregnated through incest and/or rape will be prohibited from terminating/aborting the fertilized egg/fetus. This is in line with (official) Catholic social teaching and many fundamentalist Protestant interpretations. Issue 1 is indisputably about this. They view personhood as beginning at conception. Therefore, they want to restrict certain forms of birth control, IVF's, et al.

Nothing bias about this. KlayCax (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Concur with all of this. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Paragraph 1

Firstly, I would like to see a source that a majority of Catholics oppose the church on this view. I have not seen any evidence of this claim, but have seen Catholics agreeing with the institution they identity with.

Secondly, if a self-proclaimed Catholic votes against this, they are voting against the tenants of the belief system, and therefore not Catholic. If they truly are Catholic, meaning they believe in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, they would vote no. Therefore the view amongst Catholics is to vote "no". I understand that it is convenient for you to say that minority is the majority but it doesn't track.

Paragraph 2

Speculation about what the Supreme Court may or may not dictate and what some lawyers think may or may not happen is not objective. Also, while other laws may limit what this legislation can do, this piece of legislation alone is not self-regulating the points you make. Again, you are using your opinions and hearsay to push what you want when this legislation does what I stated above.

Paragraph 3

That is incorrect, if this legislation was exclusively about cases of rape or incest then it would be written to be an exception. This is clearly using an edge case (0.5% of cases) to push much broader legislation (At a minimum, any-reason abortions until fetal viability). If this legislation was written to be a specific exception then I wouldn't be opposed to this.

Paragraph 1 you have no sources or evidence that this is true, which will be inherently biased. Paragraph 2 includes mostly speculation to push what is clearly your opinion. Paragraph 3 uses an edge case and gives undue weight to a minuscule number of cases (0.5%). You claim there is nothing biased about this but lacking sources, using speculation, and using edge cases inherenlty leads to bias. I hope you can see that. Speaktruthplz (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Secondly, if a self-proclaimed Catholic votes against this, they are voting against the tenants of the belief system, and therefore not Catholic.

That is, frankly, not something you get to determine. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not a matter of opinion, its basic logic. If you point to orange and say it's yellow, that doesn't make it yellow, it makes you mistaken. Similarly you don't believe in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but say you are Catholic you are mistaken. This goes for any belief for any group, not just Catholics. Individuals can self-identify as they please, but if they don't hold the beliefs of their organizations, then they aren't representing that organization.

According to the Science Counsel, a scientist is "A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding and knowledge."[1] An individual self proclaiming to be a scientist believing that research, evidence, and experiments are bad ideas is not a scientist by definition.

Please elaborate of the confusion behind this, I don't want us to be talking past one another Speaktruthplz (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh I'm not confused at all, I just think you're incorrect. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

So there is no such thing as logic or objectivity? Math is whatever we want it to be and everything is only opinion?

I would like you to discuss why you think that logic is unsound and why you think I'm wrong. Are you suggesting that definitions are suggestions? Speaktruthplz (talk) 17:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure. AntiDionysius (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, I would like to see a source that a majority of Catholics oppose the church on this view.

AP-NORC and other polling organizations have consistently found this. (See this chart.) Fundamentalist (in the non-prejudice sense) Protestants are overwhelmingly the leading opponents of legalized abortion access. Reliable, local news agencies have also stated that the main supporters of the "no" campaign have fundamentalist/anti-abortion evangelical Christians. Even more dissent from the institutional hierarchy's teaching on birth control.

Speculation about what the Supreme Court may or may not dictate and what some lawyers think may or may not happen is not objective

If reliable sources state that it won't happen. Then we can't state it will happen in Wikivoice.

Paragraph 2 includes mostly speculation to push what is clearly your opinion

I've never stated my personal views on abortion.

Paragraph 3 uses an edge case and gives undue weight to a minuscule number of cases (0.5%).

I never claimed that it represents the "average abortion". It's notable for the lead because it:

• 1.) Started the push for a referendum on overturning Ohio's present statutory law on abortion.
• 2.) Received overwhelming, sustained national attention
• 3.) Has been frequently and prominently mentioned during the referendum's campaign.

Of course most abortions don't arise out of rape or incest. However, for a lot of voters generally opposed to the ethics of abortion, they see this as a "necessary" abortion, or at least one that shouldn't be illegal.

Many parents are horrified that their daughter could be legally forced to have their rapist's offspring against their will. That's why the "yes" campaign has highlighted the story so much. Because even many voters generally opposed to legal abortion access believe in exceptions for rape, incest, or minors, or the life or health of the mother. In contrast, late-term trimester abortions are far less popular. KlayCax (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Your AP-NORC article does not even mention this piece of legislation, it doesn't show how they would favor this piece of legislation specifically, so it is not relevant here. You can speculate on what category you think this legislation would fall into, but speculation isn't objective so I won't. Also, the "this chart" link says it doesn't exist. Again, another claim about Fundamentalist Protestants without a source or evidence. I would agree that the anti-abortion movement in general is largely christian, this comes from believing in the sanctity of human life and drawing the line as close to the point of life as possible (meaning conception). Nothing in this explanation addresses the evidence needed to show that the majority of Catholics will vote no on this exact piece of legislation without speculation.

I didn't write that it would happen, I wrote that a source cited that the legislation would allow it. There is a difference between stating something will happen, vs stating that legislation will allow it.

It is true you haven't explicitly stated your views, but you cannot see how your bias is impacting your writing, I'm not claiming to be immune to that, but I am humble enough to acknowledge it when I see it. Using edge cases, speculation, and lacking sources to push certain perspectives on a topic is bias because they are not objective.

It's important to remember bias isn't directly expressing a view, its allowing the authors beliefs to impact the objective message of a work. You never said it was the average case, but using it in the introduction to clearly emotionally sway the audience isn't objective. And I agree it's important history to the legisalation, which is why it should be kept in the background. Because that's exactly what it is, background information about the legislation.

I can understand where you are coming from and I fully understand why it is a loaded topic of discussion. But this is why it is more important to keep this objective and not let the topic show bias or sway one way or the other. I truly believe that if this legislation was excluesively an exception in cases of rape or invest that this would be a different story. But it is dangerous to use such a small minority to push large scale legislation and it should never be taken lightly.

One important note is that while rape is one of, if not the most heinous crime that can be committed, that doesn't mean the experience is washed away by killing another life. An abortion doesn't un-rape a person, it makes them the mother of a dead child. I understand that you and many others choose not to see it as a life and that's a topic of another forum. Speaktruthplz (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Your AP-NORC article does not even mention this piece of legislation

I assumed you were talking about Catholics in general. Other local news stations state that the referendum is predominately supported by fundamentalist Protestants. Typical with other states.

Nothing in this explanation addresses the evidence needed to show that the majority of Catholics will vote no on this exact piece of legislation without speculation.

It's not legislation. It's a referendum. "Yes" means the Ohio statutory law would be unenforceable.

Using edge cases, speculation, and lacking sources to push certain perspectives on a topic is bias because they are not objective.

It's speculation to claim in Wikivoice that third-trimester abortions will be de facto legal in most instances if Issue 1 passes.

Using edge cases

I'm not using "edge cases". I'm saying that the campaigners have prominently cited the rape case repeatedly throughout the campaign, it received substantive and widespread national attention, and it started the push for Issue 1 on the ballot. That is why it's notable for the introduction. Nothing about the lead implies that a majority (or substantive) percentage of abortions are due to rape/incest. Abortion restrictions on minors, those who are raped, or conceived out of incest are broadly and deeply unpopular, even among those who identify as "pro-choice". They're citing situations ("difficult decisions") in which a large majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal in order to gain the support of the median voter. That's how campaigning works. A majority of abortions are done for socioeconomic or personal reasons.

One important note is that while rape is one of, if not the most heinous crime that can be committed, that doesn't mean the experience is washed away by killing another life. An abortion doesn't un-rape a person, it makes them the mother of a dead child.

Then what's objectionable about including the situation in lead?

Many in the Ohio government believe that the girl should have been obligated to not terminate the pregnancy. KlayCax (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I am going to make my short points in bold on what I think should be kept or removed. Then I will further explain beneath each heading. Please speak to why you disagree specifically to the changes that I think should be made. I am not here to change people's minds, that would be the epitome of biased writing. I am here to make sure that this is kept objective and people can use the information to make an informed decision.

Statements that the majority of Catholics will vote against cannot be made, no sources specific to this issue.

I feel like I have said this so many times. To make the claim that most Catholics are going to vote against the Issue, then we need sources that verify that exact scenario, otherwise it is hearsay and you are speculating what they might do. Which is why it should be removed.

Legislation, Amendment

Technically, this would be an amendment, "Proposed Constitutional Amendment" as it says on page 1 under Ballot Language, to the Ohio Constitution to get technical. I will use Amendment going forward if that is preferred.

This specific amendment does not explicitly prohibit abortions up to 9 months, "may" is not the same as "will be". It is relevant and should be kept.

Truthfully this shouldn't need a source, the legislation literally states "abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability". Merriam-Webster defines "may" as "used to indicate possibility or probability". By definition, this amendment does not prevent abortion up to 9 months. This source is just pointing out this fact. Please stop giving the argument about other laws that speculatively may or may not enforce that because that's irrelevant to this specific amendment. Show me where this amendment explicitly prohibits this from happening. Otherwise it is relevant and should be included.

Edge case definition, this amendment allows abortions in the other 99.5% of cases as well. Using an emotional edge case to promote legislation is inherently biased and should be removed from introduction. Keep under background because it is still relevant to the history of the amendment.

Using a case of a 10 year old being raped is inherently emotional to any human with emotions when they read and there is no way you don't see that bias. This is a common tactic to pluck the heartstrings of people to vote for an amendment or other legislation without questioning the other implications. When you use an example that occurs only 0.5% to justify an amendment that also allows the other 99.5% that is an edge case.

According to Cambridge Dictionary, and edge case is "a problem or situation, especially in computer programming, that only happens in extreme situations or at the highest or lowest end of a range of possible values" if this amendment only allowed abortion in cases of rape and incest then I would not be able to make this argument, because then it would be all cases covered by this amendment. But, since it allows for any-reason abortion, then incest and rape is by definition an edge case.

My opinion doesn't change the fact that this article should be objective and not filled with bias.

I hope you see how your comment "Then what's objectionable about including the situation in lead?" shows your opinion and is not an objective argument for the proposed changes, even though you don't outright say your opinion. This is meant to be an objective article for the viewer to read and get information, not be swayed either way by the authors. My person views on anything should not be relevant to the content that is published on this page.

*Opinion/Clear Bias Warning* This is my opinion and this section won't have sources as it doesn't seek to change the wiki, its to engage in public discourse of sorts. If this is not allowed please let me know and I will happily edit this section out to follow community guidelines. If you want my personal opinion on the matter, since you seem to be curious judging by your comments. I am a strict believer in no any-reason abortions and cases of rape and incest. Actions have consequences, and sex isn't a fundamental human right, that would imply a person who couldn't find a voluntary partner has the right to have sex with someone without their consent known as rape. Being that sex it isn't necessary for the individuals survival, if you don't want to chance getting pregnant, don't engage in intercourse. That said if you play the odds and get pregnant you need to deal with the consequences. I don't buy the financial argument because in the USA there are so many social programs that help families that the argument doesn't hold water to me. As far as when someones ready, no one is ever ready for the life changing situation of becoming a parent and being responsible for an entire person. That covers 99.5% of abortions. In the cases of rape or incest I couldn't imagine my daughter getting pregnant through rape, it saddens me to think we live in a world with that possibility. I am a strong proponent of the death penalty or castration of convicted rapists, because ultimately it's the rapists fault for what happened, not the victim or the baby's. That child did nothing wrong and the psychological and emotional damage done through abortions is not something to take lightly. From the way that I see it children are one of the greatest gifts we can have, it's disappointing that so many individuals devalue human life and treat children as a hindrance. While it would be an infinitely difficult situation to traverse I don't believe that an abortion will absolve the individual of what happened as if it never happened. There's plenty of material about the arguments of when life begins, the only hard line being conception, and how subjective lines often fall short. But at the end of the day There is no way logical way to convince someone who firmly believes it is a life until their subjective line. Put another way, if you were an abolitionist in the 1860's, how would you convince someone who strongly believed that African Americans aren't real people and can therefore be owned as property because of the subjective line they draw in their mind? Speaktruthplz (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Quick note, User:KlayCax: you said, "No, this is not how the edit revision process works. You have to suggest changes in talk *before* changing the article. Several editors (including me) have objected to your suggested changes. I'm responding on talk." This is not (entirely) correct. Edits do not, as a matter of course, have to be discussed on the talk page; if it were, we'd never get anywhere, so please don't make those categorical statements. In this case, of course, we have an active editing dispute, it seems, so yes, talk page discussion is a must here. On the other hand, User:Speaktruthplz, the history shows you have no consensus whatsoever for this change, and this edit summary makes no sense to me. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Truthfully, I have just join wiki this week because I felt this issue was extremely one sided and off balance. I am learning proper usage as I go, this includes mirroring the actions of others to get an idea of how this works. KlayCax has unilaterally undone many changes without any discussion so I thought that was how it worked. I see know that this talk page is the proper mode of communication about this and I am embracing it. I am sorry for not doing this sooner. Speaktruthplz (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! see WP:BRD for guidelines on the so-called Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. It is okay to "be bold" and make edits as you see fit without first discussing them on the talk page, but once your preferred edits are reverted by other editors for various reasons, it then becomes your responsibility to seek consensus in the talk page on whether to include your proposed edits or leave the current form of the article. Griffindaly (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I am curious who then determines what is allowed? It is rather difficult not to sound like a sarcastic butt through text when I ask this, but I mean it seriously. Hypothetically, If 5 editors decide to write that on the traditional decimal base system 2+2=5, citing third party sources, and then 1 individual decided to use mathematical proofs to show that 2+2=4, but the other 5 editors disagree. What ultimately gets published on the page? Speaktruthplz (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

That hypothetical situation is pretty unlikely to happen. You should probably resist the temptation to ask hypothetical questions and instead focus on the issue at hand. If you need help understanding basic Wikipedia concepts, a better place for a longer discussion would be the WP:TEAHOUSE. The short answer is consensus decides what content we have. And that consensus should be based on policies and guidelines accepted by the community. The most significant content policies are verifiability, neutrality and no original research. But there are many other supporting policies (such as WP:BLP, WP:IUP) and guidelines (such as WP:MOS) you should become familiar with if you intend to stay here long-term. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

see WP:CON for more information on how consensus is achieved. while the policy does not require a majority vote as the only way to establish consensus, that is typically the most commonly used tool for contentious articles. you could post a succinct, specific summary of your preferred edits with a "Request for Comment" (WP:RfC), which calls for other editors who might not otherwise be monitoring this page, and editors would vote to either accept or refute your proposed language. Griffindaly (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Edits do not, as a matter of course, have to be discussed on the talk page.

Sorry, @Drmies:. That was a typo.

I meant if other editors object to your changes (since I wasn't the only one who objected to the changes) - and the original wording is longstanding consensus - then it needs to be discussed on talk. KlayCax (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Yep, that is certainly true. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Many small edits reverted

@Speaktruthplz: made a number of edits citing policy or guideline and then explaining their rationale. I spot checked one of those edits where they stated WP:NOR, No sources cited backing up claims removed. The source is The New York Times, a comprehensive piece written by Emily Bazelon which is available online this page. I found the claimed statements in that source quite easily. Given that it was quite easy, I believe the rest of their edits are likewise questionable or dubious, and believe they should propose edits on the talk page until they're more capable of reviewing sources and understanding their meaning. If any other editors wants to help review the other individual edits and confirm they're correct so they can be restored it would be appreciated, but I just don't trust their judgement when the very first one I checked was so obviously wrong. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I reverted the single issue you had didn't like. You have reverting the rest of the edits without any reason. I made a mistake on that edit and was happy to revert it. This is clearly a case of mob rule. Using a tweet from an individual claiming she speaks for an entire religion, and trying to diminish her character, which has absolutely nothing NG to do with this article is whats broken with Wikipedia and why it's becoming more and more untrustworthy. This is clearly something that should be removed but since there are more others that disagree with me politically, they won't allow any changes. This topic is so biased but since all other authors want an echo chamber I can even achieve anything close to neutral. You've even stated that an organization directly expressing their viewpoint isnt good enough, I can't think of a way these authors could have made it any more clear that this document is owned by the pro-abortion movement and will continue to camping for it. Thank God there's checks and balances in our government, because the lack of it on Wikipedia is what making this site less trustworthy and relevant.

2 seperate authors have made changes this week and since we are outnumbered our changes just get lost to majority author rule. That's why my hypothetical questions are important, there is clearly no such thing as consensus, just the majority mass silencing all revisions. Unfortunately you have all allowed your opinions to impact objective writing, furthering the divide and polarization because there is no room for tolerance. I made exact points on the changes but none of you care, because it's easier for you to be lazy and just silence any opposition. That's why your changes cannot be reverted by me and then discussed. Only my changes are removed and require discussion. Speaktruthplz (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I explained why I reverted your changes. I'm sorry you don't understand or can't comprehend what I'm saying. I am not here to educate you on every little thing you don't understand however, so I'll state it again: visit WP:TEAHOUSE if you need assistance as you're new to this project. Resorting to personal attacks will not have the effect you're hoping it might. And I will not be replying to you further until you can contribute without becoming hostile and making unfounded accusations. Good luck. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Consensus Requests

I would like to keep neutral changes open and live as a means of further debate, but I wanted a section that offer a place to put each individual change without it getting too messy. The primary thread should have each change-in-question separate so their can be concise responses, it should include the reasoning, and then reply's can share whether there is opposition or support and include their reasons. If the primary thread is modified the old conversation will be deleted and only passing consensus will be kept. What does Wiki think about this? Speaktruthplz (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• I don't know about "Wiki", but I find the above conversation already hard to follow, in part because some of the participants use a lot of words and don't always stay on topic. We have a process, and it's WP:RFC, but that's not for discussion every single detail. From what I see on the talk page and in the history, there is at least a tacit consensus, and I'm afraid it's not going your way. But you are welcome to start an RfC on a specific question. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  I wanted to add my view that the article did before and does still come across as opinionated. The vast majority of the text gives off the impression that the article has a point, and the point is that you should vote "yes." The supporters of the issue get more voluminous and positive verbiage, and the detractors of the issue are downplayed and stigmatized.

  Pitting Catholics against Protestants and the Catholic hierarchy against its laity are particularly objectionable. This looks to me like cherry-picking to build a narrative. The article could have instead phrased it thus: The "No" campaign draws its support largely from Christians who are traditional and active in their faith. [2][3]

  It's clear that the "consensus" is left-leaning. Do you see that as a problem? I do. 65.185.23.201 (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  I will make the changes. You made this comment nearly a month ago and nobody has objected. Re Di Sicilia (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Final text?

There seems to be some disagreement about the text of the ballot measure, for example “fetus” vs. “unborn child”. I believe the text quoted by Ballotpedia is accurate: https://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_Issue_1,_Right_to_Make_Reproductive_Decisions_Including_Abortion_Initiative_(2023) 98.192.193.83 (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

there is a difference between the text of the amendment itself and the summary language presented on the ballot. the “summary” language written by the Republican-controlled Ballot Board uses the term “unborn child”, while the actual amendment, as written in the ballot initiative, does not. Griffindaly (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The funding portion

The numbers here do not add up in any way. This causes confusion and is disinformation and should be edited. 47.198.122.240 (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? AntiDionysius (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Should "Fundamentalist" be part of this article? NPOV?

I checked one of the uses of "fundamentalist," a somewhat pejorative term, and found no such expression in the source cited. Should all these instances of "fundamentalist" be removed from the article, and especially any not supported by reliable secondary source:? (AltheaCase (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC))

Christian fundamentalism has a clear definition and is used by the groups that fall into it to describe themselves, so it's not necessarily a pejorative depending on the usage. However, its use in this article was clearly WP:SYNTH and not supported by the cited sources (they did not use the term, nor did they describe any specific denominational or non-denominational association that would indicate appropriate use). ButlerBlog (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"Majority of Republicans"

The opening section of this article seemingly claims that a "majority of Republicans" voted in favour of Ohio Issue 1, but the source used, [4] does not indicate this. It states that 82% of Republicans voted No. Am I missing something here, or is this an error? --Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 10:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@Editor510, I agree w/re: the source -- from that source I'm not sure I'm even finding how you could filter it that way. It looks like @StardustToStardust added it here without providing a source. STS, where did you find that information? Valereee (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee, thank you. I have made a page edit to call attention to the need for a citation for this claim. I also removed what appeared to be original research and replaced it with a claim from the source. Hopefully someone can verify the claim about young Republican voters? Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 19:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I've removed that claim altogether. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

County map

The map of the results by county used on this page is out of date. I tried to update it myself, but I don't have permission, then I wanted to ask the original uploader to update it but that user is currently blocked. So if anyone knows how to update the map, please do. As far as I can tell, the only county that needs to be changed is Clinton. Abssch (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)