Colonel William A. Phillips

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Economics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Freedom of choice is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freedom of choice until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Rubin removed tax choice from the "See also" section. Does anybody else fail to understand how freedom of choice is relevant to taxpayers having the freedom to choose where their taxes go? --Xerographica (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's as relevant as "I'm Maxi. I'll be your server today. Would you like to hear the chef's specials?" in my opinion. Freedom to eat what I choose. Consumer sovereignty, etc. In other words, Arthur's deletion is correct. SPECIFICO talk 20:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it's relevant to consumer sovereignty...but not to taxpayer sovereignty? Oh by the way, I'm looking forward to your reply... Talk:Government_waste#Removal_of_reliably_sourced_content --Xerographica (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No no no... Chef's Special is relevant to consumer sovereignty. Tax choice is not relevant to the special of the day. SPECIFICO talk 20:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is consumer sovereignty relevant to school choice? Also, why are you ignoring the question that I asked you on the government waste talk page? --Xerographica (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe public choice theory, but it doesn't make much sense to include all kinds of choices as related articles. Maybe including information about tax choice in the body of the article, if in context and appropriately sourced, would be nice. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this article be called "Freedom of choice (economics)" to clarify its focus and avoid having to incorporate a large amount of other material that fits the words but is not covered by other WP articles? I think that would be a valuable improvement. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent suggestion. I have left a message with SPECIFICO to comment on the AfD page. I think either the admin closing the AfD can make the name change, or once the article's fate is decided, we can change/move the name. -- – S. Rich (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The general concept of "freedom of choice" has enough potential for a stand-alone article even without its economic aspects. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the "general concept" nature of the topic. If we leave it bare, then it could pertain to philosophy, gender selection, male-female birth preferences, school choice, Mac v. Microsoft choices, Coke v. Pepsi, more-taste v. less-filling, etc. I think the policy of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA must be heeded. By adding "(economics)" to the article title, we gain needed precision. And then we leave non-economic freedom of choice article titles available. – S. Rich (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it pertains to all of that, but it doesn't mean that all of those topics should be included in the article. It must be presented as a general concept, the same way that religion cannot possibly address all religions that exist, and choice does not address all choice-related topics, but those articles discuss the topic in a broad, general way. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo, I agree with Srich on this. I think WP policy clearly states what Srich's has summarized. Most of what you've added in your recent edits is tangential. There could be separate articles on abortion rights, euthanasia, etc but they are entirely different topics than the economic implications and importance of freedom of choice, as articulated for example by Friedman. The article should not be like a dictionary entry that presents a variety of meanings for the words "Freedom of choice>" The article must be focused on the exposition of a single meaning or theory denoted by the term. We can write additional articles about the other meanings and theories. SPECIFICO talk 03:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not about abortion, euthanasia, etc., it's about the usage of the term. These topics are only used as an example to prove a point, the same way that the Apollo Lunar Module is used in the trade-off article. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest creating the article Choice (economics), moving to it most of the content on Choice#Choice_and_evaluability_in_economics, and making it a main article for that section and for Freedom_of_choice#In_Economics. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO removed consumer sovereignty from this article with this explanation..."delete tangential article". But according to WP:ALSO...

The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics.

--Xerographica (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're leaving out other parts of that guideline including the "should be limited to a reasonable number" part. Consumer sovereignty is just one of many things which can be viewed through the freedom of choice lens. Pichpich (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think "consumer sovereignty" is about something entirely different. It is about a theory of how consumers' choices, under certain specific conditions, affect economic variables. Freedom of choice is about human and civil liberty to act. There are hundreds of terms that are more closely related than "consumer sovereignty" and I think it's inappropriate here. SPECIFICO talk 03:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind including other related topics. I just can't think of any more interesting articles to link to. If you find some and "consumer sovereignty" becomes obfuscated, then it should be removed. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Spinelli, you're doing an outstanding job with this article. It's long overdue for such an important concept. Keep up the great work. Regarding "a reasonable number"...we'll cross that bridge once we come even vaguely close to hitting the constraint...Talk:Constraint_optimization. Hey Pichpich...looking forward to seeing how you'll optimize the value of the constraint optimization "See also" section. --Xerographica (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say that you're doing a lousy job with the article, even before I noticed that X said you were doing an outstanding job. I'm going to tag, now, rather than revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I'm doing a lousy job, you're welcome to try to make a better one. Or simply leave this discussion. As an admin, you should know better than to engage in personal attacks. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:SPECIFICO has made significant changes in the article, but has not discussed them beforehand. The definition was changed to that of free will, the examples of usage of the term were reinterpreted and now configures WP:BIAS. He confused "freedom of choice" with the Freedom of Choice Act. He removed what I think to be relevant information. And it is worth pointing out that he has added this article to DR, so I don't know what his intentions are in trying to improve an article that he thinks should be deleted. I'm finding it really hard to assume good faith. May I revert his edits until consensus is reached regarding these changes? --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, not knowing his intentions is not good grounds to doubt AFG. Recommend and hope we can drop that issue.

Second, I think we are in the D phase of WP:BRD. So I recommend discussing now, reaching consensus, and then going on to agreed upon edits. Besides, let's get the AfD completed. Perhaps the closer will convert the title to Freedom of Choice (economics) which will help focus the issues. At that stage I recommend listing the edits (bulleted), the concerns and rationale, and proposed solutions. Something like:

• Definition changed – best RS is XYZ and says blah-blah-blah – suggest rewording to "FoC is such and such".

– S. Rich (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello user Hugo Spinelli. Please review the history of the AfD which I initiated. As I explained there, the article was a stub without a defined topic. I invited many users to comment. Some of them improved the article and changed it to point clearly toward the topic of "Freedom of choice" as used in economics. At that point the article appeared to have the potential to grow into a valuable addition to WP and I stated on the AfD page that I had changed my opinion. Yesterday I was concerned that your edits took the article back to being undefined and referring to an English language phrase rather than specifying single significant body of thought or theory. Your personal remarks about me above are inappropriate and I am disappointed that you did not review the history of the article and the AfD prior to speculating as to my motives and adherence to WP policy. Please make the gracious gesture of striking through your personal remarks above. SPECIFICO talk 14:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are just buying time. You had an opportunity to defend your edits here and you didn't. It was your edits that made it resemble a dictionary entry. I will not fall into that strategy of changing the article so it confirms you remarks on the DR discussion. You have also not answered my comments about renaming the article. I will undo your changes. If you think it should be deleted, then do not edit it! --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD template explicitly states WP policy which contradicts your shouted "do not edit it"! Have a look at the article as of the time I listed the AfD. Please exercise care to avoid personal attacks. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am completely aware that the article is still poorly written, my objections are to POV issues. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to any rational observer, it's clear that S. Rich and SPECIFICO are trying to re-write the article to be one that shouldn't be deleted. You are pushing it back toward one which is so vague that it should be deleted. (And the abortion section is just wrong, even though from an apparently reliable source.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, discuss changes here. I am willing to accept changes to the article if they are to make it better, but User:Srich32977, User:SPECIFICO and User:Arthur Rubin are not discussing them. I will repeat: I am completely aware that the article is still poorly written, my objections are to POV issues. (Please do not edit this comment) --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, keep me out of this. My edits were limited to gender-neutral and redundant language fixes. Beyond that I'd simply like the article to be renamed so that it can survive. Also, there is no onus on me or any editor to edit anything or comment on anything. – S. Rich (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC) PS: I did remove a reference which was simply a textbook lacking a page number and adding a stub tag. 01:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Spinelli: You and I have each posted an equal number of talk comments here. Please discuss edits not editors. The problem is not that your edits are poorly written, it is that they dilute and confuse the text to the point where the article lacks encyclopedic content suitable for WP. Please undo your last edit. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 01:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat my suggestion that editors layout specific items that need improvement:

• "FoC is... – best RS is XYZ, which says blah-blah-blah – suggest rewording to 'FoC is such and such'."

– S. Rich (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that we don't refer to "abortion-rights movements" the same way we don't refer to "BBQ-rights movement" is just laughable. Saying that abortion is legal is just wrong and configures WP:BIAS. And please stop editing my comments. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TPO – "It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc." The headings I changed were done to allow for more open discussion of article improvement. If you'd like to discuss inappropriate edits by SPECIFICO in particular, you should do so on his talk page. This is not the place for such discussion because they detract from article improvement. – S. Rich (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec x5) As usual for X, the section header is a PA, and should be redacted. I had hoped that you (Hugo) would know better.

Actually, your version is better (although not good) for the abortion rights issue; the other version, although sourced, is wrong.

However, let's compare the two first paragraphs of the lead:

Hugo's version is:

Freedom of choice is the right of individuals to exercise their freedoms in any manner, including when and where, they may choose. Such freedoms might be restricted if they exceed statutory limits or conflict with others' freedoms.^[1] Freedom of choice differs from rights in cases when a right might be mandatory, such as the right to vote and the right to life. Freedom of choice relates to both autonomy and opportunity to choose.^[2]

S's version is:

Freedom of choice is the right of individuals to determine their own actions. Freedom of choice entails both autonomy and opportunity to choose.^[2]

Personally, I don't think examples should be in the lead; and "entails" is more accurate and precise than "relates to". Although I'm not sure the article should be kept, a sensible lead would be something like:

Freedom of choice is the right of individuals to determine their own actions, where such actions do not interfere with others' freedom or safety. ^[1] Freedom of choice differs from rights in cases when a right might be mandatory. Freedom of choice entails both autonomy and opportunity to choose.^[2]

And that's not a "report" by our definition, and other citation templates allow chapter-title= and chapter-url= to be used, which would be a good idea. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "that's not a 'report' by our definition". --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

Reference #1 is not WP:RS I don't believe. Frankly, "where such actions ... safety" opens up a can of worms, although in the fully developed future version of the article that may be satisfactorily resoved. "a right might be mandatory" makes no sense to me. Rights≠Obligations. SPECIFICO talk 01:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I gave the examples of the right to life and right to vote, that are mandatory in many countries. Freedom of choice is defined by the right to choose whether to exercise one right or another. You have the right to smoke and you have the right not to smoke, but freedom of choice allows you to choose whether to smoke or not, including when and where, as long as it doesn't conflict with others' rights. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, SPECIFICO. The dictionary is a tertiary source without indicia of reliability.

"Right to life" is too complex an example for the article, but the right to vote can be mandatory, so it's not "freedom of choice". In the Soviet Union, voting was mandatory, and there was no choice of candidates. Hence, technically, a "right to vote", but no "freedom of choice" in voting. I think it should be in the body, rather than in the lead, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Spinelli, our rights are, in general, not restricted only to such actions as do not affect other people. In fact, most rights of action over which individuals are legally and even morally permitted "freedom of choice" do indeed affect other people and even conflict with or limit their rights. For example, I have a right to sit in the best seat in the movies, seat A-101. Once I choose to occupy it, you no longer have any right to sit in seat A-101. My right directly conflicts with your right. In many jurisdictions I have the right to burn brush and leaves in my yard on Sunday afternoon. That may temporarily limit my neighbor's right to breathe fresh air. What is the origin of your rights and freedom? There are many other examples more significant and problematic than those. SPECIFICO talk 03:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I have a right to sit in the best seat in the movies" No you don't. "I have the right to burn brush and leaves in my yard on Sunday afternoon. That may temporarily limit my neighbor's right to breathe fresh air." In NAP, it is called negative externality. It is obvious that both can't have their alleged rights at the same time, so different philosophies deal differently with that problem. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accordingly, as I have said, I do not believe the phrase "where such actions do not interfere with others' freedom or safety" should appear in the lede. The limitations on ones freedom of choice are contingent on local law or custom, among other factors. Furthermore, as discussed above, the current citation is not a WP:RS. I propose we reinstate the following, using the Heritage Foundation reference you found:

Freedom of choice is the right of individuals to determine their own actions. Freedom of choice entails both autonomy and opportunity to choose.^[1]

If this is acceptable to you, please replace the current first paragraph with the above. If not, please explain. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 04:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not pull that phrase out of the hat ("where such actions do not interfere with others' freedom"). That phrase is used a lot in different contexts, the problems you think there are with this definition are well known in libertarian theory. "The limitations on ones freedom of choice are contingent on local law or custom, among other factors." True, that's why I previously wrote "such freedoms might be restricted if they exceed statutory limits", but I think it's too shallow. Your phrasing is much better, but I don't know how to "fit" that in the first paragraph. "I propose we reinstate the following (...)" I reinstated that, including some more references, because the original phrase was too vague. I also removed BusinessDictionary.com reference. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any further thoughts on this until I understand where the article is headed or where it is likely to end up. I'm inclined to wait and see what it looks like after you've finished following the ideas you have in mind for it. Meanwhile, if you are able to do so in a sentence or two, could you state why you think there needs to be an article on Freedom of Choice that goes beyond what is conveyed by its meaning in ordinary language and is not covered by other more specific articles such as Free Will, Legal Rights, etc? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Meanwhile, (...) could you state why you think there needs to be an article on Freedom of Choice" No, sorry. If you have something to contribute to WP or to the discussion, I'll be glad to help. New arguments, new answers, new criticism... otherwise, I will not go round in circles. I don't think you are serious and I don't think we are going anywhere with this discussion. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spinelli, you're really doing an outstanding job with this article. I know it hasn't been easy. One thought I had while reading over the article is that personally, I'd consider most of Schwartz's arguments to be far more appropriate for a "Criticisms section". If you haven't already seen it, here's his TED Talk on the paradox of choice. It's by far my favorite TED talk. Here's a key argument...

There's no question that some choice is better than none, but it doesn't follow from that that more choice is better than some choice. There's some magical amount, I don't know what it is, I'm pretty confident that we have long since passed the point where options improve our welfare.

Along the same lines, there's an excellent paper that I added to the entry on demonstrated preference. SPECIFICO deleted it from the entry but I moved it over to my userpage...User:Xerographica/Demonstrated_preference... The Dark Side of Choice. It has a lot of material relevant to both sides of the argument.

Changing the subject a bit, check out this discussion...Talk:Tax_choice#Freedom_of_choice. Rich deleted the "Freedom of choice" section from tax choice which indirectly resulted in SPECIFICO nominating this article for deletion which indirectly resulted in you building this article up. It's kind of an interesting sequence of events.

While on the subject, if you get a chance you should look through the references that I added to the tax choice article. Given that tax choice is based on freedom of choice, quite a few of the sources could be used in this article. --Xerographica (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might have read the section too fast. I did indeed cited that talk and even that quote ("some choice is better than none"). That section might seem to be biased towards negative effects of increasing the freedom of choice, but that is because some arguments for positive effects are intuitive and it is harder to find reliable sources for that (people usually publish counter-intuitive findings). But it is something I pretend to improve upon later. As to renaming it to "Criticism", I thought about that, but it seems weird to criticize FoC. What these researchers did was to criticize too much FoC. I don't know... maybe you're right. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, yeah, you're right, I did read it too fast. My bad. But I'm not quite sure I understand your point regarding positive effects. From a section entitled "The Benefits of Choice" in the "The Dark Side of Choice"...here are a few pro-choice arguments...

For centuries, social scientists have recognized the obvious benefits of choice. Microeconomic theory and research presumes that the provision of choice is necessarily advantageous because it allows for utility maximization. Moreover, the belief that the provision of choice yields beneficial outcomes for both individuals and society at large is inherent to basic social science theory and research. The encouragement of choice proliferation is largely based on the following three arguments: First, choice fosters preference matching; second, the provision of choices usually presupposes competition among the sellers; and third, under optimal search models, rational consumers would stop searching if the emotional and cognitive costs of choice outweighed its benefits.

Any anti-choice arguments...people making irrational or poor choices...or feeling anxiety regarding having too many choices...or distress over having to choose...or regrets/depression over choices that should have been made...or negative economic outcome/effects (bubbles, herd behavior, inefficient allocations)...or arguments in favor of paternalism/authoritarianism... are more appropriate for a criticism section. --Xerographica (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. "Criticism section" -- Choice is not an ideology or theory. SPECIFICO talk 05:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is tax choice an ideology or theory? --Xerographica (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably an ideology; for it to be a "theory", there would have to be some predictions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, ideology. In the lede of the "Tax choice" article we see "...should....arguments...advocates..." If future editors develop an exposition of how tax choice functions and what would result from tax choice, the article might describe a theory. SPECIFICO talk 17:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the difference between tax choice and freedom of choice? --Xerographica (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my recent comments in the AfD discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current lede is not clear and concise. How about something like this:

"An individual is said to have Freedom of choice when she has both the autonomy and opportunity to select an action from among two or more available options."

I think that's better than what we have now, but I'm sure it could be further improved. SPECIFICO talk 15:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following seems pretty good to me:

"Freedom of choice is an individual's simultaneous opportunity and autonomy to select an action from among two or more available options."

SPECIFICO talk 16:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds better, but confuses the important concept of there being no restrictions to actually choose and perform that action. Carter distinguishes the concepts of lack of restrictions on the process of making a choice and the lack of restrictions on the process of performing an action. His definition of freedom is the second, but his definition of FoC includes both. Choice for him is the lack of constraints on the reasoned selection. I think what Bavetta and Navarra meant by autonomy was actually choice defined by reasoned selection, as evidenced by this quote from the article cited by Bavetta and Navarra when they write about autonomy:

"(...) in order to count as autonomous an agent must be able to reflect critically upon her preferences, evaluate (by approving/disapproving) them and act on the basis of such evaluation. (...) The main idea that we would like to endorse in this paper, then, is that autonomous preferences are not given but result from a process of counscious evaluation." (pdf, abstract)

And I think that what they meant by opportunity was simply lacks of constraints, since this term seems to be used in the Freedom of Choice Literature without ambiguity. All those concepts are not clear in the lede.

Also, shouldn't it be "to select and perform an action"? And finally, Carter highlights that the choice doesn't need to be unique. The lede as it is suggests otherwise. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 18:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about: Freedom of choice is an individual's simultaneous opportunity and autonomy to select and perform an action from among two or more available options.[1][2] The opportunity aspect refers to the lack of constrains on selecting and performing the action and the autonomy aspect refers to the reasoned selection without coercion or direct influence from others. The choice might not be unique. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much worse. Not good usage of "lack" despite your citation's instance of the word. The rest of it convoluted and can be explained in the article body text in less terse language. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem you've read the literature about it. --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say that again: it is not clear what opportunity and autonomy mean here and it is not clear that the choice might not be unique. Do you have any better suggestion than mine to make this clear in the article? --Hugo Spinelli (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't speculate about what I have not read. The current short lede is very clear and concise and should be followed up with elaboration in less terse wording in the article body. The word lack is not good English usage in this context. It means nothing and will leave readers guessing as to what was intended by the meaningless usage. SPECIFICO talk 23:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

In draft namespace I created a new article relating to one of well known feminist Category:Catchphrases namely Draft:My body my choice (Feminism) to be included in category Category:Feminist terminology. It is far from complete and needs proactive copy edit support to include related remaining aspects.

Suggestions about suitable references are welcome on Draft talk:My body my choice (Feminism)

Thanks in advance. Warm regards

Bookku (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]