Template talk:Abortion in the Republic of Ireland

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Abortion This template is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Ireland This template is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

"Case law" & "Individuals" - should there be a "Scandals"/"Incidents" section instead?

There are 2 sections in this template: Case law and Individuals. Some of theses are case law, like the X Case. But many are things that wound up in court. Yes there was a court case for (say) D v Ireland, or PP v. HSE, or C Case, however these things are not "notable" for being case law. They are more "Scandals". The same can be said for Ms Y, or death of Savita Halappanavar. I am thinking of creating a new section which includes these "scandals", and moving those things in there. I wouldn't call it "Scandals", maybe "Incidents", "Events"? What do people think? ____Ebelular (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, case law or "cases" or "individual cases" is best. Remember Wikipedia's tone. Let other people use terms like that. wikipedia should be as neutral as possibleKtlynch (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti-abortion" name

NuclearWizard has changed the term "anti-abortion" to "unborn children's rights" [1] [2], and I invite them to talk about it here. IMO "Anti-Abortion" and "Abortion rights" are more neutral terms to use, and have widespread use on Wikipedia. NW's argument that 'pro-abortion' isn't used for the other side isn't really very convincing, and not in the spirit of WP's neutral point of view. ____Ebelular (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even want to put it in the light of saying the other side is "pro-choice" -- you want to explicitly declare that abortion is a right in the template. If both are called "rights" then at least you can tell there's a neutral point of view, as the "pro-abortion" side believes that abortion is a right and the "anti-abortion" side believes that unborn children have the right to life as legally declared by the Eighth Amendment. Nuke (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "pro-choice" is a very neutral term, and shouldn't be used here either. "pro-abortion" is quite a biased term. I remember reading a Wikipedia community consensus that "Abortion rights"/"Anti-abortion" was the best neutral compromise and should be used on Wikipedia. I'll have to dig that up ____Ebelular (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you can't say one side is "Pro-choice" and the other is anti-abortion. It's either pro-choice/pro-life or pro-abortion/anti-abortion.Ktlynch (talk) 09:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see this problem and been raised before. Yes, "pro-choice" is a term used by those who favour the abortion lobby, just as "pro-life" is a term used by those who are part of the anti-abortion lobby. Its best to avoid either of these terms and just have "Advocacy" and "Opposition". Otherwise it has a POV pushing activist spin on it. JustAChurchMouse (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit but changed pro-choice into pro-abortion. So now we have sections pro and anti. The Banner talk 14:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]