From: "Eileen" EileenE@gmx.net
Fred Bauder suggested I just jump in and edit liberally but this, I have absolutely no doubt, would simply lead to a pissing contest between those
who
want the propaganda retained and those interested in factual information.
I
have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in such an exchange.
I agree that partial birth abortion is a loaded term. Why are you just rejecting Wikipedia because you are not interested in discussing how to do this so that all points of view are presented? It seems to me that your off handed rejection of Wikipedia only shows that you are not serious in trying to get neutral information out to as many people as possible.
It seems that you want to present a point of view that is valid and part of the debate about PBA. OK. Using variations of terms is very common in encyclopedias. Sometimes someone looking up an entry only has one term, if they start reading one article the beauty of Wikipedia is that it will lead them to related articles or different terminologies.
It is for these reasons that I will retain the answers I have recived to this query as background and support of my position and will simply refuse
in
the future to accept any citition from Wikipedia as a reference to a
legitimate
authority but will put it in the same class as a letter to the editor in a small local newspaper.
No one is preventing you from putting such information on Wikipedia. If you do state that is what happened to you, you may in fact be libeling the good name of Wikipedia. Why would you want to do that I do not know. Perhaps your motives are not so neutral as you suggest and you have your own hidden agenda?
Alex756