Wikipedia

Talk:Abortion/Archive 26

< Talk:Abortion
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Homestarmy in topic Consequences
Archive 20 ← Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 → Archive 30

Featured article?

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

This article has been fairly stable for some time, and there have been no major content disputes in a while. With the recent effort to reduce the wordiness, I was wondering if anyone else thought it may be time to try for FA status.--Andrew c 04:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I would love to see this article toward FA status (or, at least, some other other article in WikiProject Abortion). Most WikiProjects have at least one Featured Article under their belt, but we don't even have a Good Article. However, this article still needs a lot of work, as the lengthy to-do list and B-class rating which the Release Version assessment team recently gave this article prove. I've set up the WikiProject Abortion Assessment Department, which has yet to begin assessing articles, because I'm not going to rank 200+ articles on my own, as that would be horribly biased. As it is, I'd probably rate this article A class, but, the standards of the Featured Article review team will be a lot different. They're going to be judging the article by a different criteria. Call me a pessimist, but, I don't think the article would pass the FA test as it is currently. I think we should go with Peer review first. It'll give other editors the opportunity to comment on how the article can be improved, in an informal manner, instead of jumping headlong into an FA nomination and ending up disappointed. -Severa (!!!) 04:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I concur. A peer review is safer, and there's no cost to doing it.--BCSWowbagger 06:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Whoops. I was wrong about WikiProject Abortion not having a single feature article. We have Roe v. Wade. :-) -Severa (!!!) 15:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Note that the very definition in the intro is still heavily disputed. See also the next thread. DirkvdM 10:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
That thread has been moved to Talk:Abortion/First paragraph. Please see there to continue discussion. -Severa (!!!) 23:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
So there is a discussion over the very intro that is so severe it was moved to a separate page. Not a very good indication for featured article status. DirkvdM 10:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I have a more optimistic view. I think the controversy makes issues seem larger than they are, this article is good, so I've surreptitiously nominated it for FA:GA. Vicarious 07:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
It appears the Farsi Wikipedia does not yet have a Good Article system if i'm interpreting that page right... Homestarmy 01:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Causes of death?

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Abortion was just added to the "causes of death" category. I don't think it belongs there. Abortion in the US (which is the only place I know statistics for) is safer than many other types of surgery, and only causes about one to ten in a million deaths deaths of the mother per procedure. Probably more relevant, it always causes the death of the fetus/embryo/baby/child/whatever. That said, the controversial nature of the topic (whether a fetus is a human person or not) makes this category a no-go for this article. The cat is explicitly about the death of human people. To include abortion in the category is an explicitly anti-abortion POV. To not include it looks, at worst, like an oversight, even if you're pro-life. I prefer the oversight to the blatant POV of inluding this article in the category. Your thoughts?--Kchase T 10:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like pretty hard POV-pushing, to me. Rossnixon said in a recent edit summary "re-add cat:Causes of death. This is a npov scientific fact. Abortion is a cause of death in humans. It's not debatable, is it?" -- under what medical authority? If there isn't conensus among the medical community that this is so, it hardly seems our place to assume that it is. Doing so would naturally be original research. One way or another, I see no reliable source for this, and it doesn't seem NPOV. Lacking a more complete explanation, I can't support this, either. Luna Santin 22:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Kchase02 said The cat is explicitly about the death of human people. No, it doesn't say what it covers. So does it cover humans, or does it cover people? If it covers humans; there is no medical/scientific authority that states that the embryo/fetus is not human. rossnixon 04:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Line 2: "However, it should not include all the many specific methods by which people can deliberately kill one another" (emphasis mine). There is a dispute about whether fetuses are people. That's the crux of the abortion debate. Also see Luna Santin's lucid point, below.--Kchase T 04:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Either my brain has turned off thanks to having to take exams this week, or we both interpret that same line in the opposite manners :/. Homestarmy 04:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Homestarmy, I'm requesting that you refrain from restoring this edit. In an editorial dispute, the onus is on the person making a contribution to provide sources supporting to their claims. Original research, NPOV violations, and unverified claims diminish the quality of an article. Ross Nixon must provide such sources supporting the inclusion of this category before it is included (and, even then, WP:CAT is clear that controversial categorizations are better not being made at all). Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 06:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I normally dislike reverting past one revert unless its something I care extremely strongly about, and adding Category:Causes of death isn't one of those things. (Jesus, on the other hand, is.... :D) Homestarmy 06:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand you probably were unaware of the ongoing discussion on Talk at the time of the revert and did not intend to be difficult. My note is not so much directed at you, but at all readers who come upon this discussion, not to restore the edit until we've reached a consensus. It would be a lot better if we could avert an edit war before it even starts. I'm sorry that it seemed that I was singling you out. :-) -Severa (!!!) 06:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Can we continue in the next discussion only? (Both discussions are essentially the same).rossnixon 09:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Miscategorization

Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

Rossnixon has twice added this article to Category:Death under the claim that abortion is a "cause of human death" and thus fits the category. However, electrocution, hanging, gunshot, beheading, malaria, and AIDS are all "causes of human death," and none of them is categorized under Category:Death.

Whether abortion is a cause of death is debateable, but, perinatal mortality makes no mention of abortion, nor do statisticians include induced abortion statistics in their data for mortality rates. WP:Category features this caveat about controversial categorizations:

"Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option."

Rossnixon claims that the inclusion of Abortion in this category is under the basis of "npov scientific fact." However, given Revision as of 00:50, 5 December 2006 made to Abortion debate, I question his interpretation of NPOV. I think it is best that we adhere to the spirit of WP:Category. A category, by its very nature, cannot cover the complex nature of the abortion debate. We should refrain from placing this article in any category in which its inclusion might be controversial or disputed. In-depth, accurate, subtle coverage of a subject is best handled through articles, not categories. -Severa (!!!) 10:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that Rossnixon is also making similar additions to List of causes of death by rate. Being that the topic in dispute is abortion, it might be beneficial for editors here to check out the article, so as to lend more perspectives to the debate. -Severa (!!!) 10:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed the claim of "npov scientific fact" -- I'm afraid I didn't notice any reliable source backing up a claim of medical consensus on the matter. If no such consensus exists, assuming one on our part is either violating no original research, neutral point of view, or both. So, Rossnixon -- ball's in your court, what's your source? Luna Santin 22:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed this debate and couldn't resist getting myself mixed into it. To further develop my edit summary, electrocution is a disambig page, disambiguations are not causes of death of course. However, the articles listed are indeed listed as either causes of death or execution methods, which more or less are the same point. In gunshot, the introduction defines it as the actual shot or the wound inflicted thereof, it by article definition does not mention the result, which is a cause of death. Decapitation is also in Execution methods. Malaria starts with "causes between one and three million deaths annually" and is listed in the "Medical emergencies" category. AIDS is similiar, its intro says "the World Health Organization (WHO) estimate that AIDS has killed more than 25 million people since it was first recognized on June 5, 1981" and is listed in the "Medical Disasters" category. It would be rather redundent to list those in the causes of death category, since the other categories pretty much imply that anyway while being more specific. Homestarmy 04:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Homestarmy, how does your argument answer Luna Santin's objection above about NPOV, original research, and reliable sources? I don't think it does.--Kchase T 04:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I was mostly responding to Severa :/. But if I read the Category instructions right, it should not be used to categorize articles involving methods by which humans kill each other, in favor of other more specific categories. Its primary use seems to be "....to include both proximal and root causes of death.". Humanity isn't actually mentioned at all in that purpose, so I don't think it matters whether medical consensus agrees on whether a human being dies. What matters is that death occurs, and one way or another, something dies in an abortion, whether medical professionals define it as human or otherwise. Homestarmy 04:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. WP:CAT: this policy is clear on the issue, and, because it it seems to have been overlooked, I will repost the relevant quotation: ""Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category."
  2. WP:NOR: Luna Santin's concerns that this modification constitutes original research are firmly grounded. Perinatal mortality makes no mention of abortion and no statistical agency I know of counts abortion among its mortality data. The onus is on the person making an edit to provide a source supporting their claims — not vice versa.
  3. WP:RS: same argument as above.
  4. WP:V: same argument as above.
  5. WP:NPOV: Luna's concerns about NPOV are also reasonable. I read some of the archived comments at Talk:Death, where Ross Nixon was also advocating to have abortion included on a list of mortality figures, and most of the support seemed to stem not from actual approval of the edits, but from the fear that not accommodating minority POVs would somehow constitute a POV violation in itself. While this sort of concession might work for an article, we are not discussing an article, but a category, and WP:CAT is very clear on the subject of controversial categorizations.
-Severa (!!!) 05:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. Alas, I have no counter argument at the moment concerning the obviously controversial nature of adding this article to Category:Causes of death.
  2. The category in question does not have a complicated description, if it causes death, it can be in the category, as long as there isn't a more relevant one concerning death humans inflict on one another. While I personally would think Category:Infanticide would therefore be more appropriate for this article, since there is apparently no agreement as to whether an unborn child is human or not, Category:Causes of death is the next option. I don't think a source needs to be provided, since there was after all that rather long discussion about how to write the introduction, which now reads "An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death.", death being the important word there. It seems rather contradictory for there to be a grand comprimise concerning the wording of the introduction which is not reflected in other relevant parts of building the article.
  3. same as above
  4. I like numbers too! :D
  5. Who ever said concerns aren't reasonable? However, just because a concern is reasonable doesn't make it an overriding one. I have not been involved with Ross over the Death article however, I don't think I could comment on it much therefore. However, it would seem to me we are talking about the article as well as the category, since a change in the article by adding [[Category:Causes of death]] causes a change in the content of the category. Therefore, concessions concering the article could, concievably, apply to the category as well, though this of course would depend on a change of opinions. Homestarmy 06:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It is self-evident and uncontroversial that abortion is a cause of death of the embryo/fetus. Thus, one would think that the category applies. Also I agree that the description of Category:Causes of death is confusing and needs rewording to avoid future argument. At the moment the category description does not preclude causes of animal death, for example. Should we work on fixing that first? rossnixon 09:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that something (baby/child/fetus/tissue) dies in abortion, but frankly, I think you're grasping at straws on the category description. The second line references people and then rattles off the murder, war, weapons and capital punishment subcategories. War, murder, and capital punishment are not usually used to refer to the death of animals, and weapons we usually turn on each other, as well. Besides that, no one has been able to answer Severa's persuasive point that WP:CAT indicates categorization should be uncontroversial. No consensus, as we seem to have here, means it is not included.--Kchase T 10:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
What license do we have to rework the definition of Category:Causes of death just so that we can shoehorn Abortion into it? I think we should leave defining the standards of that category to the people who maintain all sub-categories in Category:Death. We we really aren't in a position to hijack their categorization system for our own purposes — especially not such partisan ones. I think WP:POINT applies here.
And why should animal death be precluded? How do roadkill, slaughter, and poaching not result in death? Or, more appropriately, what privileges a human death above the death of any other living creature? Why is abortion befitting of the category "causes of death," but Equine herpesvirus 1 not?
Per the inconsistency of the inclusion of "death" in this article's opening and the inappropriateness of its categorization under Category:Causes of death, let me begin by stating that "death" has been the subject of six pages of debate, spanning Talk:Abortion/First paragraph and its archives. It's not like the acceptance of that definition is universal or that its inclusion in the article is uncontroversial. However, an article, by its nature, can accommodate being inclusive of many points of view, whilst a category cannot. Also, the intro leaves open the question of whether "death" in the instance of abortion refers strictly to the textbook definition of death (i.e., biological mechanisms, such as stopping of the heart, brain function, or cellular division), or something more (i.e. the death of a person, human being, or living creature). If we accept the former definition, but not the latter, then Abortion would not fit under the people-only Category:Causes of death which Ross is suggesting. In any case, WP:CAT is clear that, because categories don't come with annotations, controversial categorizations are better not being made at all. Because a category, by its very nature, cannot cover all the nuances of the debate over personhood, the right to choice, and the right to life, we should leave such coverage to Abortion debate. -Severa (!!!) 14:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I for one am very happy that this is actually being discussed, instead of revert-warred over. :o Barring any new points, I don't think I have more to add just yet. Just wanted to get that on the table -- we're doing it right! Luna Santin 20:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Mental Health Section

Latest comment: 17 years ago18 comments3 people in discussion

I would like to propose changing the Mental Health -section back to its earlier form. Last September, Severa and Cindery had an edit war about whether PAS should be removed from the opening section (see Archive 24). Eventually the page was protected to stop the edit war, the issue was discussed on the Talk page, and there was a general consensus (Cindery, BCSWowbagger, Andrew c, Talv, KillerChihuahua and me) that the rewrite was acceptable. Now Severa has suddenly placed PAS to the opening section again without discussing it on the Talk page at all. When I changed the section back to the version that everyone had agreed on when this was discussed in September and asked her to discuss changes on Talk, she simply reverted the edit, writing in her edit summary that "we want to trim down the size of this article and that section is grossly overinflated". However, her version isn't significantly shorter than the original one, and mentioning PAS in the opening section has already been rejected once on Talk. As Cindery pointed out earlier:

the studies referred to in the mental health section do not make arguments for the existence of "post abortion syndrome." "post abortion syndrome" is a term used for example, here: [11]

the debate about whether or not "post abortion syndrome" exists is separate from inconclusive data about whether or not negative psychological sequelae can ensue from abortion, and should not define the discussion in the section in the lead sentence, as it is not at issue in the studies. equating all studies which find that depression, suicide etc. can ensue from abortion with "the existence or not" of a defined nosological category advocated by none of the scientists who have performed the included studies is an example of a straw man argument. if, for example, all of the studies advocated that PAS should be a defined term, based on their findings, then an appropriate summary in the lead sentence would be "some say it should be in the DSMV, but it is not." since none advocate this, framing the discussion in terms of PAS in the lead sentence is inaccurate.''

This was also the general consensus. I don't think changing the order of the paragraphs back to the order Severa supported (and making a few other changes like adding an additional sentence to one of the paragraphs) is an appropriate way of trimming down the section. Mkaksone 12:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus over whether that version was preferrable - only that it was acceptable (there was also objection from some editors, including Umdunno, who stated, "I don't quite understand why the section that discusses the theory of post-abortion syndrome can't be linked to the main article"). However, since that time, regular editors of this article have decided that it needs to be trimmed down to meet WP:SIZE (see Talk:Abortion/Archive 25) by copyediting and removing redundant text. That means that sections of excessive length with redundant text, like the former version of "Mental health," are now counter to our goals and are thus unacceptable.
I also object to these modifications being described as "sudden." I changed the section 11 days ago and stated plainly in my edit summary the reason behind the changes ("Copyedit per 'article-pruning' on to-do list"). Anyone could have read this edit summary during this period, but, so far, no one other than you has objected to the goal. I honestly don't know how much more I could trim down the section without cutting out the studies which would be counter to the goal of creating balanced coverage of the topic. The only sentence I actually removed is basically just a restatement, in other words, of information provided elsewhere in the section (i.e., it is redundant):
Data on the incidence of disorders such as clinical depression, substance abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and suicide in association with abortion remain inconclusive.
If you would like to help us toward our ultimate goal of making this a Featured article, please see the to-list above. But, please know that constantly having to rehash already-completed sections hampers progress on this article, and that article length and quality of writing will be factors in whether this ever becomes a Featured Article. -Severa (!!!) 13:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As I already wrote there's no significant difference between the length of your version and the consensus version:

Your version:

Main article: Post-abortion syndrome

Post-abortion syndrome (PAS) is a term used to describe a set of mental health characteristics which some researchers claim to have observed in women following an abortion.[1] The psychopathological symptoms attributed to PAS are similar to those of post-traumatic stress disorder, but have also included, "repeated and persistent dreams and nightmares related with the abortion, intense feelings of guilt and the 'need to repair'".[1] Whether this would warrant classification as an independent syndrome is disputed by other researchers.[2] PAS is listed in neither the DSM-IV-TR nor the ICD-10.

Some studies have shown abortion to have neutral or positive effects on the mental well-being of some patients. A 1989 study of teenagers who sought pregnancy tests found that, counting from the beginning of pregnancy until two years later, the level of stress and anxiety of those who had an abortion did not differ from that of those who had not been pregnant or who had carried their pregnancy to term.[3] Another study in 1992 suggested a link between elective abortion and later reports of positive self-esteem; it also noted that adverse emotional reactions to the procedure are most strongly influenced by pre-existing psychological conditions and other negative factors.[4] Abortion, as compared to completion, of an undesired first pregnancy was not found to directly pose the risk of significant depression in a 2005 study.[5]

Other studies have shown a correlation between abortion and negative psychological impact. A 1996 study found that suicide is more common after miscarriage and especially after induced abortion, than in the general population.[6] Additional research in 2002 reported that the risk of clinical depression was higher for women who chose to have an abortion compared to those who opted to carry to term — even if the pregnancy was unwanted.[7] Another study in 2006, which used data gathered over a 25-year period, found an increased occurrence of clinical depression, anxiety, suicidal behavior, and substance abuse among women who had previously had an abortion.[8]

Miscarriage, or spontaneous abortion, is known to present an increased risk of depression.[9] Childbirth can also sometimes result in maternity blues or postpartum depression.

The consensus version:

Data on the incidence of disorders such as clinical depression, substance abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and suicide in association with abortion remain inconclusive.

Some studies have shown abortion to have neutral or positive effects on the mental well-being of some patients. A 1989 study of teenagers who sought pregnancy tests found that, counting from the beginning of pregnancy until two years later, the level of stress and anxiety of those who had an abortion did not differ from that of those who had not been pregnant or who had carried their pregnancy to term.[10] Another study in 1992 suggested a link between elective abortion and later reports of positive self-esteem; it also noted that adverse emotional reactions to the procedure are most strongly influenced by pre-existing psychological conditions and other negative factors.[4] Abortion, as compared to completion, of an undesired first pregnancy was not found to directly pose the risk of significant depression in a 2005 study.[11]

Other studies have shown a correlation between abortion and negative psychological impact. A 1996 study found that suicide is more common after miscarriage and especially after induced abortion, than in the general population.[12] Additional research in 2002 reported that the risk of clinical depression was higher for women who chose to have an abortion compared to those who opted to carry to term — even if the pregnancy was unwanted.[13] Another study in 2006, which used data gathered over a 25-year period, found an increased occurrence of depression, anxiety, suicidal behavior, and substance abuse among women who had previously had an abortion.[14]

The existence of post-abortion syndrome (PAS), an independent set of mental symptoms associated with abortion that would warrant a general diagnosis or classification as an independent syndrome, is currently considered a possibility by a minority of the medical establishment.[1] The psychopathological symptoms attributed to post-abortion syndrome are similar to those of post-traumatic stress disorder, but have also included, "repeated and persistent dreams and nightmares related with the abortion, intense feelings of guilt and the 'need to repair'.[1] PAS is listed in neither the DSM-IV-TR nor the ICD-10.

Miscarriage, or spontaneous abortion, is known to present an increased risk of depression.[15] Childbirth can also sometimes result in maternity blues or postpartum depression.


The paragraph concerning PAS is actually a little shorter in the consensus version compared to your version (87 words compared to 88 words). As for deleting the intro that summarizes the results of the studies on the grounds that it is "redundant", this is like deleting the statement that the ABC hypothesis isn't scientifically verified from the intro of this section on the grounds that it's also redundant, as you can conclude it from the studies mentioned directly below. The only significant difference is that your version creates the false impression that the debate whether there is an independent syndrome that should be classified as post-abortion syndrome is synonymous to the general debate regarding the incidence of mental health problems occurring after an abortion. Since this isn't the case, I would rather keep the section one sentence longer and accurate than one sentence shorter and misleading.

As for the rest, I know you changed the section 11 days ago, and explained it with the edit summary "Copyedit per "article-pruning" on to-do list. Reformatt and reorg intro for consistency with Post-abortion syndrome (per ABC section). Add source." However, since you keep telling others to discuss changes on Talk before making them, I was assuming the changes you'd made would have been merely superficial. I didn't realize your "reorg" would mean going directly against prior consensus. And there was a consensus that the other version was not only acceptable but preferable. BCSWowbagger, for instance, wrote in response to Cindery's post: "With the majority--in fact, pretty much all--of your analysis, I am inclined to agree. I would note that it is important, I think, that PAS, even if relegated away from the top paragraph (which would seem to be a justified measure), should be referred to as the main topic of a short paragraph towards the bottom of the section, which would basically say that some in the pro-life/medical community interpret the various inclinations to DSM-IV disorders in post-abortive women as indicating an entirely separate syndrome, referred to as post-abortion syndrome." Andrew c wrote: "Because the article is about a scientific POV, views that are nearly non-existent within the scientific community are given proper weight, which is to barely mention them at all. If we are to follow this precedent, we probably shouldn't mention PAS in the opening, and simply keep it as an aside somewhere." KillerChihuahua also wrote that overall, she supported the rewrite. Cindery supported it, and I supported it. Aside from you, Umblio was the only one who wrote that he/she didn't think the rewrite was necessary, and he/she didn't have a strong opinion on that either. During the discussion that arose after the article got protected due to your edit-warring, several alternative versions of the section were proposed, and when we finally reached a consensus no one objected to it. If you had an objection, you could have written this at the time instead of changing the order of the paragraphs again without discussion after waiting a few months. Mkaksone 15:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I just noticed Cindery wrote on her user page that she was taking a short wikibreak on the seventh of December. And exactly one day after that Severa felt that it was necessary to rewrite the section the two of them had been disagreeing about without discussing it with the other editors - merely to shorten the article (by one sentence), of course. In order to assume good faith, let's call this a very funny coincidence.

Does anyone else but Severa think shortening the section with one sentence is important enough to override the former consensus and put PAS in the first paragraph, despite the fact that it creates the false impression that PAS and mental health problems due to abortion would be synonymes? Mkaksone 15:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that you need to remember WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Are you honestly suggesting that there needs to be extensive discussions and approvals before making simple copyedits? Because, if so, progress on this article will slow from glacial to nil; we're already getting next to nothing done as it is now.
As for a "false impression," frankly, I don't see it. The section is very balanced and presents both sides of the issue. It references reliable sources. What could possibly be "misleading" about this?
If want to help make this a better article, please, see the to-do list above. We would really appreciate your help toward making this a Featured Article (or even a Good Article). But that isn't going to be accomplished by rehashing the same section over and over. Thank you. -Severa (!!!) 16:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Severa asked me to review this issue because my ham-handed previous attempt to reduce the article length was the proximate cause for a series of changes, including this one. I wasn't active on this page the last time this particular issue was discussed, so I guess I can present something of an "outsider's view". I've read through both versions several times, and looked at them in the context of their placement in the main article. While the word count represents a relatively minimal difference between the two, there is a more significant difference in the overall presentation. As a layman, I found "Severa's version" to be more clear and understandable. In the previous version the lead sentence was actually somewhat abrupt and confusing; the newer version flows much more smoothly through a logical progression of the various studies. Given that other differences are minor, I would tend to support the more readable version that Severa has supplied. Also, as noted above, there is quite a lot to do in order to bring this article up to FA status, and this really should be an FA quality article. Anything that brings us closer to that goal is a worthwhile change. Doc Tropics 17:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with Severa's version, whether it's readable or not, is the fact that it gives the reader the impression that PAS is synonymous to mental health problems occurring after an abortion. The section is not about PAS, it's about the impact of abortion on mental health. Most of the studies cited in the section are about the incidence of other disorders than PAS, such as depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviour etc. Placing the text "Main article: Post-abortion syndrome" under the headline and beginning the section by talking about PAS gives the impression that the section is about PAS. This has been extensively discussed before, please see Archive 24. And Severa, I think I made it pretty clear that the problem isn't the sources, the problem is that your version makes the section seem like a text on PAS, which it is not. I don't know how you can fail to notice this. Or do you believe PAS is the same thing as post-abortion mental health problems? It isn't. Depression, for instance, may sometimes be related to post-traumatic stress disorder and could thus also be related to PAS, if it existed, but they are different disorders. Would you mind telling me which part you disagree on - do you think that your version does make it clear that the section isn't only about PAS, or do you think that the section is about PAS? Mkaksone 20:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And Severa, I agree we shouldn't be rehashing the same section over and over again. So why did you start rehashing it? Mkaksone 20:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your conclusion that providing a link to the PAS article indicates that this section is primarily about PAS. It's just a link to further information about one of the topics covered in this section; other relevant topics can and should be included as {main article} links as well. Claiming that "...it gives the reader the impression that PAS is synonymous to mental health problems..." is simply not an accurate representation; there is no such implication. Suggesting that we should should use a less well-written and less clear version in order to exclude a useful link makes no sense at all. I do, however, agree that there are better things to do than discussing this ad infinitum. Severa made a useful improvement, but there's a lot more to be done; moving forward would be more productive than further quibbling on this point. Doc Tropics 20:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Breast cancer section is about the abortion-breast cancer hypothesis and breast cancer. Beneath its headline is the link "Main articles: Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis and Breast cancer". The Fetal pain section is about fetal pain. Beneath its headline is the link "Main article: Fetal pain". Considering this, I think including the "Main article: Post-abortion syndrome" link at this point does make it seem the Mental health section is about post-abortion syndrome. I agree the link is useful, but it's included later in the article anyway. And I don't agree with your assessment that Severa's version would be better-written. The reason it may seem clearer to a "layman" is that it over-simplifies the issue, making it seem as if the main question is simply whether PAS exists or not. Mkaksone 20:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, we could provide a list of links, for instance "Main articles: Depression, Suicide, Anxiety, Substance abuse and Post-abortion syndrome". That would be fine with me. Still, I don't think we should begin the presentation of the different disorders with a paragraph about PAS, which definitely isn't among the most common or the most extensively studied and of which there isn't even a consensus whether it is a real syndrome or not. Mkaksone 21:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion: If the goal really is to shorten the section, I think the most sensible thing to do would be to cut down the PAS paragraph and possibly merge it into the end of the section regarding other negative reactions to abortion. The existence of the syndrome is dubious, and it doesn't seem to be discussed much outside the US. For instance, the guideline of Duodecim and the Finnish Gynaecological Association mentions the incidence of post-abortion depression and psychosis and states that the risk of suicide triples after an abortion, but there isn't a single word on PAS.[1] So how about this version:

Main articles: Depression, Anxiety, Substance abuse, Suicide, and Post-abortion syndrome

Data on the incidence of disorders such as clinical depression, substance abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and suicide in association with abortion remain inconclusive.

Some studies have shown abortion to have neutral or positive effects on the mental well-being of some patients. A 1989 study of teenagers who sought pregnancy tests found that, counting from the beginning of pregnancy until two years later, the level of stress and anxiety of those who had an abortion did not differ from that of those who had not been pregnant or who had carried their pregnancy to term.[16] Another study in 1992 suggested a link between elective abortion and later reports of positive self-esteem; it also noted that adverse emotional reactions to the procedure are most strongly influenced by pre-existing psychological conditions and other negative factors.[4] Abortion, as compared to completion, of an undesired first pregnancy was not found to directly pose the risk of significant depression in a 2005 study.[17]

Other studies have shown a correlation between abortion and negative psychological impact. A 1996 study found that suicide is more common after miscarriage and especially after induced abortion, than in the general population.[18] Additional research in 2002 reported that the risk of clinical depression was higher for women who chose to have an abortion compared to those who opted to carry to term — even if the pregnancy was unwanted.[19] Another study in 2006, which used data gathered over a 25-year period, found an increased occurrence of depression, anxiety, suicidal behavior, and substance abuse among women who had previously had an abortion.[20] Some researchers even claim to have observed an independent set of post-traumatic mental symptoms associated with abortion that would warrant classification as an independent syndrome, generally referred to as post-abortion syndrome (PAS).[1] These claims remain controversial, and PAS is listed in neither the DSM-IV-TR nor the ICD-10.

Miscarriage, or spontaneous abortion, is known to present an increased risk of depression.[21] Childbirth can also sometimes result in maternity blues or postpartum depression.

You could probably formulate this better, but you get the idea. All suggestions regarding how to make the intro clearer are welcome. Mkaksone 21:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If we are to include a list of the various mental health disorders that have been suggested to be related to abortion, it doesn't make any sense to list them again in the first sentence. Thus, I change my suggestion accordingly:

Main articles: Depression, Anxiety, Substance abuse, Suicide, and Post-abortion syndrome

Data on the incidence of mental health disorders in association with abortion remain inconclusive.

Some studies have shown abortion to have neutral or positive effects on the mental well-being of some patients. A 1989 study of teenagers who sought pregnancy tests found that, counting from the beginning of pregnancy until two years later, the level of stress and anxiety of those who had an abortion did not differ from that of those who had not been pregnant or who had carried their pregnancy to term.[22] Another study in 1992 suggested a link between elective abortion and later reports of positive self-esteem; it also noted that adverse emotional reactions to the procedure are most strongly influenced by pre-existing psychological conditions and other negative factors.[4] Abortion, as compared to completion, of an undesired first pregnancy was not found to directly pose the risk of significant depression in a 2005 study.[23]

Other studies have shown a correlation between abortion and negative psychological impact. A 1996 study found that suicide is more common after miscarriage and especially after induced abortion, than in the general population.[24] Additional research in 2002 reported that the risk of clinical depression was higher for women who chose to have an abortion compared to those who opted to carry to term — even if the pregnancy was unwanted.[25] Another study in 2006, which used data gathered over a 25-year period, found an increased occurrence of depression, anxiety, suicidal behavior, and substance abuse among women who had previously had an abortion.[26]

Some researchers even claim to have observed a set of post-traumatic mental symptoms associated with abortion that would warrant classification as an independent syndrome, generally referred to as post-abortion syndrome (PAS).[1] These claims remain controversial, and PAS is listed in neither the DSM-IV-TR nor the ICD-10.

Miscarriage, or spontaneous abortion, is known to present an increased risk of depression.[27] Childbirth can also sometimes result in maternity blues or postpartum depression.

At least these revisions would make the section much shorter, and I also hope the intro is clearer now. What do you think? Mkaksone 22:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Severa, would you mind explaining why you object to removing PAS from the first paragraph and shortening the paragraph about it? I thought the reason you began rehashing the section in the first place was supposed to be shortening the article, and the changes I made do shorten it.

Doc Tropics' objection to the consensus version was that the intro was confusing and that it didn't have main article links. The version I'm proposing now does, and I also changed the intro to make it less confusing. Doc Tropics also believed the Main articles should include links to articles concerning the other disorders, not only PAS, and I agreed, so I don't know why you removed the links I provided without explaining why you disagreed about this. There's a prior consensus that PAS shouldn't be given too much room in this section and shouldn't be mentioned in the first paragraph. Either explain why you believe PAS is significant enough to mention in the first paragraph or stop reverting my edits. Mkaksone 13:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think there was more to Doc Tropics' concerns, as quoted below:
"While the word count represents a relatively minimal difference between the two, there is a more significant difference in the overall presentation. As a layman, I found 'Severa's version' to be more clear and understandable. In the previous version the lead sentence was actually somewhat abrupt and confusing; the newer version flows much more smoothly through a logical progression of the various studies."
The intro in the version Doc Tropic was referring to above read:
Data on the incidence of disorders such as clinical depression, substance abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and suicide in association with abortion remain inconclusive.
The intro to the version you proposed above read as follows:
Data on the incidence of mental health disorders in association with abortion remain inconclusive.
This version is not substantially different from the version of above. In fact, it is even more abrupt than the version DC reviewed, and, thus, would probably be a step back rather than an improvement. I don't know how it could be considered a step foward when DC thought that "the newer version flows much more smoothly through a logical progression of the various studies." I do not understand why you are advocating a regression in terms of readability.
There is no logical reason why coverage of PAS doesn't belong in a section titled "Mental health." After all, what is PAS, but a proposed mental health disorder? Where else would coverage of such information belong? You have not sufficiently explained why coverage of PAS in this section is inappropriate. Nor have you given any evidence, beyond your own subjective personal assessment, that this coverage is inappropriate (see WP:NOR).
Revert-warring, as you are doing, is counterproductive. It fosters an uncooperative environment and it's not a way to get things done. We've still got a lot to do on this article. Your sourcing some of the information under "Health effects" is a step toward that goal. I truly appreciate that you've taken the time to do this research (if you need help formatting your referrences, though, just let me know).
Also, Doc, thanks for lending your insight. Input from other editors would be appreciated, although, in my opinion, attention would be better directed elsewhere. -Severa (!!!) 15:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course PAS should be included in this section. I've never said it shouldn't. What I'm disagreeing about is that I don't think it should be given a paragraph in the beginning of the section that's almost as long as the entire paragraph regarding all the studies indicating other negative psychological impact. It's like placing a long section on the incidence of suicide after abortion in the beginning of the section - worse, actually, since suicide is at least generally recognized as a mental health disorder. The lead paragraph shouldn't be about one specific disorder, but should summarize the fact that the association between abortion and subsequent mental health disorders is debated. It definitely shouldn't be about a specific disorder that some believe isn't even a real syndrome and that's primarily discussed only in the US and possibly a few other countries (including Canada?). For instance, as I mentioned earlier, the guideline of Duodecim and the Finnish Gynaecological Association mentions the incidence of post-abortion depression and psychosis and states that the risk of suicide triples after an abortion, but there isn't a single word on PAS.[2] The guideline of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists says the following on psychological sequelae of abortion[3]:

"Psychological sequelae: some studies suggest that rates of psychiatric illness or self-harm are higher among women who have had an abortion compared with women who give birth and non-pregnant women of similar age. It must be borne in mind that these findings do not imply a causal association and may reflect continuation of pre-existing conditions."

Nothing about PAS. Later in the guideline there is an evidence table that presents six different studies on abortion and psychological impact: one study surveying the incidence of depression and indicating a higher incidence of depression in abortion patients compared to controls, three studies indicating a higher incidence of suicide or attempted suicide in abortion patients compared to controls, one study surveying the incidence of any psychiatric illness and deliberate self-harm which didn't find a significant difference in psychological outcome between abortion patients and patients for which abortions were denied (although those who didn't request abortions although the pregnancy was unplanned or requested abortions but changed their minds did have a lower incidence of deliberate self-harm), and one study surveying the incidence of psychiatric admissions in general and finding a higher incidence of psychiatric admissions in abortion patients compared to controls. Again, not a single word about PAS. How much more evidence do you need?

I don't know why it's so important for you to place PAS in the first section. This is the second time you're edit-warring over this. As for me, I would rather discuss matters, but I waited for two days for you to comment on the draft version I proposed, and you didn't. When I finally made the revisions, you just reverted them without explaining yourself on Talk. I don't think edit-warring is going to help our efforts to make this a featured article. In the future, I wish you would take up things here before making changes that you already know a number of the other editors disagree about.

PAS isn't a significant enough disorder compared to for instance depression to be entitled to an own paragraph in the beginning of the section. It should be mentioned, but only briefly and later in the section. If you can find a single official medical guideline stating that abortion is associated with PAS, we might consider mentioning it before depression, suicidal behaviour etc., but until then, I think we should concentrate more on actual, recognized disorders that are listed in the DSM-IV-TR or the ICD-10.

I also object to your deleting of the links to the other mental health disorders, aside from PAS. Doc Tropics agreed with me that other relevant topics should be covered as well, and for instance depression and suicide are just as relevant to this issue as PAS.

We could of course formulate the first sentence in some other way. Here are a few suggestions:

There's no scientific consensus regarding the relationship between abortion and subsequent mental health disorders.

There is conflicting evidence regarding the impact of abortion on mental health.

Several mental health disorders such as depression, anxiety and suicidal behaviour have been suggested to be related to abortion. However, data on their incidence remain inconclusive.

Scientific opinion is divided regarding the incidence of mental health disorders related to abortion.

Scientific opinion is divided regarding the incidence of abortion-related mental health disorders.

Would any of these suggestions do? I also think we could merge this sentence with the first paragraph, beginning it e.g.

There is conflicting evidence regarding the impact of abortion on mental health. Some studies have shown abortion to have neutral or positive... and so on. This would, in my opinion, make the beginning less abrupt. Mkaksone 20:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No where does the article suggest that findings related to suicide, depression, anxiety, etc., are somehow equivalent to findings for or against "post-abortion syndrome." In fact, PAS is not discussed beyond the first paragraph, and all other studies give clear indication of which disorders are being discussed. If it is your impression that the distinction isn't clear enough, unfortunately, I don't think you are giving readers enough credit. One of my favourite editors, Tznkai, who hasn't been around in quite a while, used to drive home the point that readers are smart enough not to constantly need to be lead around by the nose. I think readers are capable of discerning that when a study mentions "clinical depression, anxiety, suicidal behavior, and substance abuse" in relation to abortion, it isn't necessarily refering to "post-abortion syndrome."
I don't understand why it is so imperative that PAS isn't mentioned in the first paragraph, although it is entirely logical for it to be, being that PAS is a disorder proposed to be caused solely by abortion. Thus, it is more directly related to abortion than any other disorder, because other disorders can have other causes (i.e. anxiety or suicidal tendencies can be caused by financial stress, relationship strain, pre-existing psychological disorders, etc).
You will also note that I restored a Main article link to Mental health. Linking to more than one topic was slightly excessive, when a general topic serves just as well, and didn't follow the precedent set by the "Breast Cancer" subsection (i.e., "Main articles: Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis and Breast cancer"). -Severa (!!!) 22:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I was going to ask if Doc Tropics thought any of the alternative beginnings I proposed was any better than the original one, but I just noticed he/she is currently on holiday. As I noted earlier, Cindery is also taking a break, and so is BCSWowbagger. Maybe we'd better both take one as well and return to this after a few weeks when the Christmas holidays are over and there are a little more editors around to discuss it. An edit war will hurt our chances to get a featured article or good article nomination much more than a badly written or misleading intro in one of the sections will, and our discussion doesn't appear to be leading anywhere, so I don't think it's any use continuing to harp on this between the two of us. Mkaksone 20:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Section break for mental health

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is a horrendously long dialogue, and Mkaksone, you're edging into personal attacks here. I'm busy, Cindery and Doc are on vacation, I imagine most of the other regular editors of this article are also either not available or only able to devote a small percentage of their time here. I suggest, rather than long, long posts you identify what changes you feel are indicated, numbered if possible, with rationale. Or put in a table with Current version | Version 2 | Version 3 so we can discuss with some sort of reliability that we'll all be talking about the same thing. You are referring to your version, consensus version, and my version and frankly I cannot scroll and keep track of which is which and what changes you feel are indicated. Meanwhile, you don't have consensus, because consensus is not here right now. I think consensus is lighting candles and building snowmen for the most part. Severa has been the primary guardian of this article for well over a year, possibly over two years (no I'm not digging thru history right now) and has maintained an admirable and even enviable balance, mediating between multiple parties including trolls, edit warriors, people on a Mission (both sides) and so on. If it comes to consensus right now without any clarity of what changes are desired, I will tell you bluntly I will simply support Severa, who has a proven track record with this article. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting, KC. I hate to come across as obstinate and uncooperative, Mkaksone, but, given the subject, I've come to believe that it's impossible to please everyone. I think we've already spent a great deal of time trying to accommodate differing concerns toward "Mental health," but, no matter what we do, no one is going to be 100% satisfied. I hate to sound dismissive, but, if we don't put our foot down at some point, I don't think we're ever going to have a cohesive section, much less a completed article. As much as I would like to be accomodating, Mkaksone, we've tried addressing the concerns of many people before on "Mental health." It's kind of a "been there, done that," in my opinion.
However, we'll be sailing into uncharted territories with a lot of new sections soon, I hope, and we'll need a lot of input to help navigate NPOV and create balance.
I might suggest that you consider starting an Abortion and mental health article, Mkaksone. This would follow the titling conventions of other articles in the WikiProject Abortion series (including Religion and abortion, Minors and abortion, Legalized abortion and crime effect, etc.) and it could be linked as a Main article from the "Mental health" sub-section. Then, you could cover other mental health disorders and their relation to abortion independent of coverage of "Post-abortion syndrome," or else merge Post-abortion syndrome into a sub-section of Abortion and mental health. You would then have the freedom to cover non-PAS mental health disorders in as much detail as you wanted.
Also, if you go to Post-abortion syndrome, a lot of the sources in the well-researched "Reactions to abortion which may be part of PAS" section address mental health, but make no mention of "Post-abortion syndrome." As yet, no one has raised an issue over this. -Severa (!!!) 23:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Passed

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Congrats, great article and I see this as a potential FA candidate. Great job! —ExplorerCDT 07:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! This news is extremely welcome (and, if I might say, somewhat unexpected). Congratulations and thanks to all of the editors here, past and present, because you have helped to make the article what it is today. Let's keep up the great work! -Severa (!!!) 21:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Not to diminish any of the other GA guidelines or the comprehensive aspects of the article that I had considered in approving the GA status, but what impressed me immensely was that the article portrays a very-POV-passionate issue with a cool NPOV attitude in the best traditions of the Wikipedia policy, between that and having a low-incidence of edit wars, etc. Those two factors stand out, and are definitely a mark in the "pro" category when it comes time for FA nomination. If you do recommend it for FA, do let me know, you'll have my support. —ExplorerCDT 21:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Alright, sure. Andrew c recommended above that we nominate this article for FA. I was pessimistic, given the divisive nature of the topic, but, now that this article has passed the GA test, I'm more hopeful that it could pass FA. However, there is still a lot that remains to be done (see the To-Do List), and, as far as I know, it isn't preferrable for large changes to be made to an article after it becomes an FA. Is this the case? Also, I probably shouldn't nominate this for FA myself, given my long history here, but, should anyone else want to, feel free! We could always discuss any major future additions to ensure they meet the FA standards. -Severa (!!!) 22:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I would first put the article through Peer Review, if you haven't already done so. That way, a lot of the issues that will come up in FA are already dealt with. If there are large swaths of material to do, I'd do them first...just to have a better, more comprehensive article to present for FA. There's nothing stopping you from proposing this as an FA. No rules against nominating an article you've worked a lot on. (I thought about that with my first FA candidate Paulins Kill, but realized...no one else would do it, so I had to.). —ExplorerCDT 22:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing that up. However, I am still concerned, because aren't article size considerations also a factor in FA nominations? I fear that, if we expand the article too much more, it won't meet the criteria (although mark-up, external links, and refs don't count toward article size — and this article has a lot of those). -Severa (!!!) 23:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks and great work everyone! --Andrew c 21:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Public Opinion

Latest comment: 17 years ago33 comments4 people in discussion

The "public opinion" section currently has several flaws that can be easily fixed. First, the section focusses on only several particular countries, to the exclusion of all others. This imbalance does not seem to be a big problem, as long as readers are encouraged to visit Abortion by country.

Also, the intro to this section omits any mention of the disparate poll results on account of gender. This is a significant phenomenon, and at least one such poll result should be mentioned. Also, the intro makes it seem like the public is split into absolutes, but this is incorrect as to some aspects of the controversy. For example, consensus exists regarding legality of second trimester abortion, and at least one such poll result should be included here.

I propose to add 59 words to remedy these flaws in the U.S. "public opinion" section. I will also delete some existing material (21 words) that is redundant or that does not provide significant information. If Severa objects to any of this, then I look forward to further discussion here on this discussion page.Ferrylodge 20:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a top-tier article. As such, it must summarize the content of many sub-articles, while attempting to balance the seemingly contradictory goals of comprehensiveness and concision. Wikipedia is intended to represent a global perspective and your edits have shifted this article toward a more Amerocentric representation. We simply do not have the space here to accommodate detailed coverage of American attitudes toward abortion. This is why I suggested that you consider adding your information to Abortion in the United States, where WP:SIZE limitiations, or systematic bias concerns, would not be such an issue. Engaging in edit-warring, or blanking a section of the article, will not help further the goal of bettering this article.
This section is intended to be a breakdown of public opinion by region — not gender, age, religion, marital status, sexuality, or any other indicator — and has never been intended to represent anything else. We simply do not have the space to cover every possible breakdown, and, thus, regionality is the most neutral and comprehensive one. If you want to cover the details of an American poll in-depth, try Abortion in the United States.
Also, one poll regarding the legality of abortion in one trimester in one country (the United States) can hardly be used to infer that there is any sort of widespread consensus over abortion throughout the world.
This section has been stable for a very long time. The onus is on you to demonstrate that your edits are preferrable; it is not on us to defend the stable version from modification. I would like to see this article become a Featured Article. Given WP:SIZE, and WP:BIAS, I do no not see how your edits will help us toward this goal. -Severa (!!!) 21:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Whether this is a top-tier article that has been stable for years, or a bottom-tier article that is brand new, it should be accurate and balanced. Currently, the public opinion section is not. The very brief edits I suggested should be non-controversial, and I hope that this controversy will dissipate. One of several problems is that the current introduction to the section is misleading:
In fact, there are important aspects of the abortion controversy about which there is substantial consensus. I suggested changing the intro to the following:
As people can see from the edits I suggested, I cited three different Gallup polls plus a Los Angeles Times poll for this proposition that there is consensus. Severa says:
I cited four polls, not one, regarding second trimester abortions. And Severa has cited nothing to contradict any of that information. The US section currently contains a Harris poll regarding the legality of abortion in the first trimester and yet I don’t hear Severa objecting about that, or about the fact that the US section is the only section dealing with poll results on "rape" and "incest."
I suggested expanding the US section by a mere 38 words in order to address the flaws in this “public opinion” section of the Wikipedia article (with additional supporting material in the footnotes). Here is the bulk of what I suggested to insert into the US public opinion section:
These poll numbers reflect a high degree of consensus, contrary to what is currently stated in the public opinion section (which says that political sides have largely been divided into absolutes). Right now, Wikipedia's summary of US public opinion gives poll results supporting the legality of first trimester abortion, and there is no rational or objective reason to exclude poll results that oppose legality in the second trimester. This discrepancy has the appearance of blatant bias.
Regarding the allegation of “Americocentrism”, there is nothing “Americocentric” about the edits I suggested. Right now, the “public opinion” section only mentions five countries, without even providing a link to opinion information for other countries. This focus on only Australia, Canada, Ireland, UK, and US could be construed as anti-Asian bias, anti-African bias, and/or anti-hispanic bias. There is no justification for opposing insertion of a link (as I suggested) that will lead people to info about those other countries; to characterize this proposed edit as “Americocentric” is obviously incorrect, and counter-factual.
The idea that expanding the US section by a mere 38 words is “Americocentric” is also incorrect for other reasons. Ireland, for example, has 4 million people, and an area of 70,000 square kilometers. The United States has a population of 300,000,000 people and an area of 9,631,420 square kilometers. Yet, this public opinion section currently devotes 146 words to the US and 60 words to Ireland. These numbers are not “subjective”. They are objective. And adding a mere 38 words to the US section will not throw anything off kilter.
If there is some concern that adding a few more words to the “public opinion” section will make it too long, then I would suggest deleting some of the redundant material. Or, you may want to consider moving some of the older poll results to footnotes (e.g. the 1998 poll in Australia and/or the 1997 poll in Ireland), or deleting them.
I agree that engaging in edit-warring, or blanking a section of an article, will not help further the goal of bettering this article, or any other article. It takes two to engage in an edit-war, and such behavior is particularly unhelpful if one of the two parties has begun a discussion on the discussion page while the other party does not indicate any inclination to participate in that discussion (despite repeated requests). Nevertheless, I now realize that dispute resolution procedures are available, and therefore I would do things differently if I had to do it over again.
Regarding “blanking”, I had assumed that Severa would approve of my proposed shortening of the poll results section, and when she indicated otherwise I no longer advocated those edits. After all, Severa had said, “There is no neutral basis to claim US warrants more coverage than Canada, Australia, etc.” Therefore, I assumed she would agree with my statement that “There is no neutral basis to claim Canada, Australia, UK, Ireland, and US warrants more coverage than other countries”. When she expressed disagreement (without any explanation), I dropped the matter. Severa still has not explained that one.
Regarding the gender-gap, it is an obvious error to omit any mention of that gap, in this article. That gap is significant, and that fact has been well-documented. I see no reason not to include seven words that say so. As people can see from the edits I suggested, this is all I said:
I included the following footnote to this very brief statement:
This footnote not only supports the very brief statement that I proposed to insert regarding the gender gap, but also supports the three Gallup polls about second trimester abortions.
We are talking here about adding a mere 38 words to the US public opinion section. If the concern is space, then all the older poll results from the 1900s (for all countries) could be deleted or at least moved to footnotes; the end result would be a shorter, and much more balanced article.Ferrylodge 23:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The purpose of this article is, basically, to summarize many other articles. As such, the space is limited, and a line must be drawn in terms of the kind of information that is covered. We simply cannot cover everything, which is why I suggested you try adding your information to a more appropriate article, Abortion in the United States. I'm not saying that the poll information is inappropriate — just that you're suggesting its inclusion in the wrong place. Doc Tropics got the ball rolling on trimming this article down to WP:SIZE, and, although I can't even begin to take on the task of downsizing the current sections on my own, I can at least help it from expanding more. Lots of people contributed to the "Public opinion" section before you. There was a lot of debate, but, I'm sorry to say, I see the section as completed, apart from adding more up-to-date data or new countries. We'll never be able to move on to new sections of the article if we keep rehashing this one. However, Abortion in the United States doesn't even appear to have its own "Public opinion" section, unlike Abortion in Canada (actually, most Abortion by country articles don't have "Public opinion" sections yet, so it's not logical to suggest simply directing people there), so your information would be a good start.
The "absolutes" in the "Public opinion" section are intended to refer to the pro-life and pro-choice movements. You allege that, somehow, this is contrary to evidence of a "consensus," but I still do not see how public opinion data from one country can be taken as representative of the entire world. The attitudes of Americans — particularly in response to one question, regarding second trimester abortion — are not indicative of the world at large. As for a "gender gap," it doesn't matter whether it is significant, or well-documented. That isn't at issue. I can see no reason why there should not be coverage of any potential racial gap, ethnic gap, religious gap, age gap, education-level gap, or income-level gap. Gender is no more significant than any of these. The simple fact is that we do not have the space to cover every single detail of every single poll in a top-tier article. As logical as it might be to include a information on U.S. attitudes toward abortion by gender, or second trimester abortion, there is no reason why we should exclude other information (opinions by race, age, urban/suburban/rural, etc.). So, if we don't draw a line, there's no limit to how long this article will get. We went for the broadest polls. I see no evidence of "bias," because I'm not suggesting that these things not be included anywhere, only that it doesn't belong here. Sub-articles exist to cover everything else that doesn't fit in a main article.
As for why no non-Western countries are represented in the "Public opinion" section, that is because most of the people who edit this article are English-speakers, using English sources, and we haven't been able to find international stats from non-English-speaking countries. "Add public opinion data from more diverse countries" has been an item on the to-do list for a very long time. We would greatly appreciate it if you would help us to find such data. It would improve the article and help to reduce systematic bias. As for the older polls, those were the newest, most-up-to-date polling data for those countries that we could find. There was a more recent poll from the U.K., if I remember, but it was conducted by BPAS, so it was ruled out due to conflict of interest. If you find newer polls, let us know, but deleting them because they are "outdated" will just worsen the WP:BIAS concern.
-Severa (!!!) 04:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I am certainly not suggesting that this article cover everything. That is a red herring.
Regarding the size of this article, I have suggested to shrink the size, by deleting poll results from the 1900s, as I said. So the notion that I am insisting on a size increase is a red herring too.
You say, "I still do not see how public opinion data from one country can be taken as representative of the entire world." I never said it is representative of the rest of the world, so that is a further red herring. The intro correctly states that poll results vary from country to country, and therefore none of the poll results from these five particular listed English-speaking countries can be taken as representative of the whole world.
Severa, you say, "The attitudes of Americans — particularly in response to one question, regarding second trimester abortion — are not indicative of the world at large." And yet, you include pro-choice US poll results for first-trimester abortion, and omit pro-life US poll results for second trimester abortion. As I said before, this has the blatant appearance of bias, and you should be able to acknowledge that. And surely you must realize that the attitudes of English-speaking people are not indicative of the world at large, while I don’t hear you urging that poll results from other people be included in the poll results section. If you're going to include US poll results, then be fair about it.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that we do not have the space to cover every single detail of every single poll in a top-tier article. However, we do have the ability to reduce the size of the poll results section, while simultaneously removing the blatant bias toward pro-choice poll results about the first trimester.
You say, "we went for the broadest polls." How is the first trimester "broader" than the second trimester? It defies common sense.
Moreover, you impliedly admit that the four poll results I've presented do indicate a consensus at least in the United States. It is therefore misleading to say (as the intro currently does), that the world is split into absolutes. The United States is, after all, part of "the world."
As far as a gender gap is concerned, that is much more relevant than other types of gaps, because this well-documented fact is contrary to expectations (i.e. counterintuitive). In any event, the LA Times poll that I cited also supports the consensus on second-trimester abortion, so I would think that the LA Times poll results are just as relevant as the three Gallup poll results that I mentioned.
Your opinion is this: "I'm sorry to say, I see the section as completed." Well, I’m sorry to say that you are being inflexible. There is always room for improvement, and in this case, a LOT of improvement. For you to flatly refuse even to put a link in the intro referring people to info about other countries than the five listed is quite simply inflexible, as is your refusal to understand that the intro is misleading and that the US results are biased toward a pro-choice position.
Even if the intro to this section had no misleading statement about the world being split into absolutes, and even if the US poll results had no results skewed to first-trimester abortions, I would still strongly urge that US poll results be mentioned that show people as a whole are much more supportive of abortion rights in the first trimester as opposed to the second. To write a whole article on abortion without mentioning such a thing would be to dumb down the discussion, and would be to disregard a critical feature of the debate, and would be to further divide this political issue into absolutes.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ferrylodge (talk • contribs) 05:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
The poll you're referring to was done by Harris Interactive and published in the Wall Street Journal. It wasn't conducted by NARAL and published in its newsletter. If that were the case, then, yes, I could understand the accusation that it is "pro-choice poll" — but we've taken care to avoid biased polls. We rejected a poll commissioned by British Pregnancy Advisory Service. So, the accusation that the Harris poll is somehow "pro-choice" doesn't stand, especially considering that 49% supporting and 47% opposing isn't anywhere near overwhelming support for the pro-choice position (and even though the 3% margin of error might very well knock the pro-life position into the lead). I fail to see how cherrypicking polls for "pro-life" results can correct a POV imbalance that isn't there. This isn't a contest. We don't need to level the playing field with another poll if one position has a 2% lead. Numbers are numbers. You don't get NPOV by stacking the deck — quite the opposite, I'd think.
"As far as a gender gap is concerned, that is much more relevant than other types of gaps, because this well-documented fact is contrary to expectations. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to tell people what they already know; it’s not useful to tell people that Catholics are more pro-life than Jews. Everyone knows that. But I dare say that people would be interested to know that men are more pro-choice than women, because very many people think just the opposite."
Wikipedia is, foremost, an encyclopaedia. We are in the business of facts, not "what people would be interested to know," because that savours strongly of trying to prove something. A gender gap in U.S. attitudes toward abortion would be no more significant than a statistical gap between races, ethnicities, ages, religions, levels of education, place of residence (urban/suburban/rural), etc. To single it out as "more relevant," because it is "contrary to expectations," is counter to WP:NOT#SOAP. As Tznkai used to say, "Readers aren't stupid. They don't need to be lead around by their noses." We don't handpick out information with the intent of causing the reader to come to a conclusion which we have predetermined. We present all the facts that are relevant and let the reader come to his own conclusions. And, as for the statement, "...it’s not useful to tell people that Catholics are more pro-life than Jews. Everyone knows that.'", what people who claim to be Catholic think themselves might very well be quite independent of the Church's official position, and Jews hardly constitute one homogenous demographic. I highly doubt that opinions on abortion among Orthodox Jewish communities are any more permissive than opinions among an average Catholic community (see Religion and abortion).
"For you to flatly refuse even to put a link in the intro referring people to info about other countries than the five listed is quite simply inflexible."
Let's have a breakdown of why, exactly, such a link really wouldn't be functional:
3/18 articles have information on public opinion polls. What's the purpose in directing readers to something that isn't there? As for the L.A. Times polls, although these are sound, we simply don't have the space to cover them (WP:SIZE), and your rationale for inclusion isn't sufficient. My advice is that you begin a "Public opinion" section at Abortion in the United States instead. -Severa (!!!) 05:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I am well aware of what polling company conducted the poll on first trimester abortion that is currently mentioned in the Wikipedia article’s public opinion section. After all, I previously said in this thread, "The US section currently contains a Harris poll regarding the legality of abortion in the first trimester ...." Contrary to what you seem to be implying, Severa, I have never asserted that the Harris poll was inaccurate, nor have I ever asserted that the Harris poll results should be removed from the other poll results in this Wikipedia public opinion section.
I deplore your accusation that I am "cherrypicking polls for ‘pro-life’ results." That is insulting and inaccurate. I direct your attention to the top of this discussion page, which says, "Be polite, Assume good faith, No personal attacks, Don't bite the newcomers!" I have tried to conform to those requests (at great difficulty) and I wish you would as well.
The fact that Wikipedia's description of poll results (e.g. the Harris poll results) is accurate does not make that description fair. If the Home Builders Association (which has a vested interest in low interest rates) published a newsletter article about inflation, and cited only an accurate Harris poll result showing that people enjoy the inflationary effect of higher salaries, while omitting Gallup poll results showing that people dislike the inflationary effect of higher prices, then that would be a blatantly biased newsletter. And so it is with the Wikipedia “public opinion” section. The result of the Harris poll tends to favor the pro-choice side, and more importantly it cements the misguided statement in the intro that there is no consensus about this issue.
If I wanted the Wikipedia’s “public opinion” section to be biased on the pro-life side, then I would urge that the Harris poll results be deleted, and that the Gallup and LA Times poll results that I’ve mentioned be inserted instead. However, I am not advocating that, and never have advocated that. What I have advocated is a neutral point of view.
I entirely agree with you that “You don't get NPOV by stacking the deck”, which is exactly how the deck is currently arranged, whether intentionally or not.
Regarding a gender gap, you are quoting (at 05:38 on 2 January) some material that I rephrased (at 08:45 on 1 January). If anyone else is reading this thread, I hope they will judge for themselves whether it is objectively “counterintuitive” that men are more pro-choice than women. You have not addressed counterintutiveness as an important factor that makes information encyclopedia-worthy. In any event, the LA Times poll results I mentioned are independently very relevant to the existence of a consensus on abortion.
Regarding my suggestion that the intro to the public opinion section include a link to further info specific to particular countries, you say, “3/18 [of the] articles have information on public opinion polls. What's the purpose in directing readers to something that isn't there?” It would be easy enough to say in the intro that “readers MAY find further public opinion information about abortion specific to particular countries.” Currently, there is no suggestion in the abortion public opinion section that readers can find --- elsewhere at Wikipedia --- abortion public opinion info about the Czech Republic, the UK, the US, or Australia. That would not only enable readers to find relevant public opinion info, but would facilitate and encourage editors to insert relevant info. Furthermore, the intro to the public opinion section on the global abortion page currently links to Wikipedia's Public_opinion page, which says not a word about abortion public opinion, even as you resist any attempt to direct readers to precisely such information.
I am not sure that much else needs to be said here. The issues are pretty simple. I continue to urge shortening the Wikipedia abortion page’s public opinion section by eliminating old polls from the 1900s, and by providing additional information (primarily the Gallup and LA Times poll results I mentioned) that will eliminate the NPOV problems, while making the article more informative.Ferrylodge 10:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) You have not made it clear how a 2% lead in a poll with a 3% error margin represents a POV concern by "favor[ing] the pro-choice side." I think that most people reading the U.S. polls paragraph would intepret a 49%/47% split as a practical tie, and, thus, not favouring either side. But, even if a poll showed, unequivocally, that 80% of people professed an opinion which could be described as, say, pro-life, would that represent an NPOV concern? No. The poll's results are simply numbers, and numbers are neutral. If 80% of people in a survey said that they were pro-choice, it would simply reflect the opinion of those polled, not that their opinion was better or correct.

Again, my suggestion is to check out Abortion in the United States. I'm sure that article would benefit very highly from the addition of a "Public opinion" section. -Severa (!!!) 11:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Severa, I have made it perfectly clear that the current page suppresses poll results regarding the second trimester, in favor of poll results for the first trimester, in order to buttress the false statement in the intro that public opinion is divided into absolutes. You say that poll results "are simply numbers, and numbers are neutral." Therefore, you have not made it clear why you are waging such a battle to prevent inclusion of the neutral numbers that I have presented. Ferrylodge 12:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for just butting in. It's hard to follow the conversation when your posts are so long. I just wanted to add that (at least in the US) around 90% of all abortions occur during the first trimester. If more weight is given towards public opinion regarding the vast majority of all aboriton procedures, then we are doing nothing wrong. We must avoid giving undue weight to minority positions (as may be the case with late term abortions). I'll hold off giving my opinion on the specifics until I have time to weed through this past conversation.--Andrew c 21:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Andrew C, you're correct that a vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester. However, that doesn't mean that Wikipedia is justified in paying less attantion to the ones in the second trimester. The ones in the second trimester are far more controversial, because the fetus is far more developed. If you want to compare the two sets of abortions by numbers, then you could also compare total aborted fetal weight, and then you'd find that the numbers for the first trimester are much much less than 90%. Or, you could compare the total number of aborted livers and kidneys and fingerprints (those features have not been formed yet in a vast number of first trimester abortions).
There is no objective justification for focusing on first trimester but not second. The reason why many pro-choice groups choose to focus on the first is because the public opinion polls are much more favorable for them regarding the first trimester. If pro-choice groups were to acknowledge or publicize the poll results for the second trimester, then that could put decisions like Roe v. Wade in jeopardy, because Roe legalized all abortion up until viability (at seven months in 1973). And the simple fact remains that there is consensus regarding the most controversial types of abortions, contrary to what is stated in the intro to this "public opinion" section.Ferrylodge 22:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
When did 65% become a consensus?--Andrew c 23:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
According to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition, the primary definition of consensus is "majority of opinion." It seems to me that 65% is a consensus, as I and Random House use the term.Ferrylodge 14:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you not acknowledge that there are more meanings to the word than just "majority of opinion", and that by trying to slip in the phrase that there is a consensus opinion regarding 2nd-tri abortions, it could be interpreted by some as something else? I believe strongly that the wording you inserted in the article in the past is misleading because it is not "An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole" (primary definition from answers.com). I apologize for being skeptical, but it seems like you are using cherry picked data and word games to say something is more significant than it really is. I understand your underlying point, and perhaps it is valid and should be included, but from what I gather of the recent edit history, your approach has concerned a number of editors. I think there is nothing wrong with saying generally that public opinion on abortion in general is divided. And perhaps, the more detailed information can go in one of the more topical spinout articles. However, with size constraints and such, I feel that a number of your recent edits to the article have been to detailed and wordy for a top teir article, and at best should be briefly summarized and included in a spinout article. Just my two cents, and I apologize sincerely if I am missing something. Thanks for listening.--Andrew c 16:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Andrew C, I wasn't trying to slip anything anywhere. If someone thinks the word "consensus" is inappropiate then I'd be happy to change the wording to "more agreement". I gave the poll numbers, so people could judge for themselves.
There is nothing wordy or misleading about the following material that I am requesting be inserted into the U.S. public opinion section: "Gallup has asked the following question: 'Do you think abortion should generally be legal or generally illegal during the second three months of pregnancy?' 69% said illegal in March of 2000, and 68% said illegal in January of 2003." That is NOT wordy.
Andrew C, you are missing something else pretty significant: I've suggested shortening the "public opinion" section, not lengthening it, by deleting poll results from the 1900s. So, your concern about size constraints is misplaced.
You say, "it seems like you are using cherry picked data and word games". Look, this is not rocket science. The "public opinion section" currently gives poll results for first trimester abortions. I've requested that it also contain poll results for second trimester abortions. If Wikipedia views that as cherry-picking and word games, then Wikipedia is very obviously wrong.
You say, "your approach has concerned a number of editors." As far as I know, my requested edits to this abortion page have only concerned one other editor. I hope you won't join that list.Ferrylodge 17:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) You are suggesting removing poll results from foreign countries and expanding the U.S. section. As I said before, polls from the 90s were the most recent, up-to-date ones we could find in our search for public opinion data. Unless you are willing to replace these data, I fail to see how your suggestion will help the artice, especially given the fact that it will only double the WP:BIAS concern (by increasing the U.S. section and entirely eliminating the Irish section). Also, as for your preemptive deletion of the Ireland polls, I had objected to this before.

"As for the older polls, those were the newest, most-up-to-date polling data for those countries that we could find. There was a more recent poll from the U.K., if I remember, but it was conducted by BPAS, so it was ruled out due to conflict of interest. If you find newer polls, let us know, but deleting them because they are "outdated" will just worsen the WP:BIAS concern."

-Severa (!!!) 17:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Severa, prior to seeing your most recent comment in this thread, I deleted an old Australia poll from the 1990s, without deleting any discussion of Ireland. I hope this will be acceptable to you.Ferrylodge 18:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Evidently, you do disagree, since you have yet again reverted my edits without engaging any discussion. Severa, there is only one poll for Ireland, and only one poll for the UK. Is this tragically unfair to the UK and Ireland? I suppose if I went and found poll results for a whole host of countries that are now not even listed, you would find some objection to that. Can you please spare me the effort, and try to concoct some objection right now? Thank you.Ferrylodge 18:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is evidently going nowhere. The "public opinion section" currently gives poll results for first trimester abortions. I've requested that the public opinion section also contain poll results for second trimester abortions: "Gallup has asked the following question: 'Do you think abortion should generally be legal or generally illegal during the second three months of pregnancy?' 69% said illegal in March of 2000, and 68% said illegal in January of 2003." Tomorrow, I intend to pursue a dispute resolution procedure to make this edit and thus cure a blatantly obvious NPOV problem.Ferrylodge 18:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
You have made significant edits to a long-stable version of the article without approval for such edits — in fact, you have made such edits in spite of disapproval from at least one editor, myself, but I'm going to AGF and assume that you merely forgot my earlier objection.
See the discussion "Article length" in Archive 25. Basically, the gist of it as that Doc Tropic well-meaningly tried to cut the article down to SIZE, but by the wholesale removal of large portions of the article. We decided to opt for trimming the article through careful copyediting instead. Your edits resemble the former and so I don't think they are in the spirit of the current SIZE improvement drive.
As for the comment, "I suppose if I went and found poll results for a whole host of countries that are now not even listed, you would find some objection to that," I have already noted that "Add public opinion data from more diverse countries" has been an item on the To-do list for a very long time. Finding such poll data would be constructive and would greatly help to improve the article. -Severa (!!!) 18:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Severa says we can expand this article to include poll results of dozens more tiny countries, by including results of multiple polls for each of those tiny countries, as long as we don't add a poll to the US section on second trimester abortions that would supplement the existing poll results on first trimester abortions. This is as absurd and as biased a policy as I have ever encountered, and I fully intend to pursue dispute resolution. It is a blatant NPOV problem to include first but not second trimester poll results.
And I find it completely ridiculous that there could be the slightest "bias" problem if a very old Australia poll result is deleted, leaving Australia with the same amount of poll results as Ireland and the UK.Ferrylodge 18:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Resolving disputes basically recommends discussion. As for the U.S. poll section, it is the product of discussion going back over a year, see Talk:Abortion/Archive_14. The Harris poll was not selected because it dealt with first trimester abortion; it was selected because it asked Americans broadly about their opinions on Roe v. Wade. It replaced another poll which asked people whether they considered themselves "pro-choice" or "pro-life," which another editor had found problematic, because the terms were "undefined" and "vague." A poll which asked whether Americans wanted Roe v. Wade to be overturned or not was also deemed to be too vague. Find a poll which addresses Roe while describing what it is (i.e. what would be overturned or upheld) — problem solved. I suppose, if the "first trimester" bit of the Harris poll represents such an issue, we could revert to another poll which simply asks whether Americans want Roe overturned or upheld. But, I don't see why we need to add a poll on second trimester abortion, because the intent of the Harris poll was not to inform about U.S. opinion on first trimester abortion, but on Roe. There are many other angles which could be covered, but aren't, such as opinions on third trimester abortion, abortion methods, whether parental notification laws are a good idea, whether people consider themselves pro-choice or pro-life, or whether abortion is considered immoral or not. We want to cast the broadest net for our summary section, but, there's nothing preventing more detailed, specific polls from being covered in a sub-article. -Severa (!!!) 19:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Severa, again, I have never suggested getting rid of the Harris poll result in the "public opinion" section --- only that it be supplemented to complete the picture and eliminate the NPOV problem. You greatly mischaracterize that Harris poll result in the "public opinion" section. You say that it, "asked Americans broadly about their opinions on 'Roe v. Wade.'" That is false. The Harris poll question quoted in this Wikipedia article asked: "Do you favor or oppose the part of Roe v. Wade that made abortions up to three months of pregnancy legal?" This particular question does not address the other part of Roe v. Wade, that made abortions between three and six months of pregnancy legal. Roe v. Wade made abortion legal for any reason up until viability, which in 1973 was at seven months.
You say that "the intent of the Harris poll was not to inform about U.S. opinion on first trimester abortion, but on Roe." And the particular poll result quoted by Wikipedia does an incomplete job informing about Roe.
And thanks for mentioning the futility of a dispute procedure. Is that how Wikipedia works? Can people write an article that intentionally or unintentionally has an NPOV problem, and then those people can forevermore require unanimity to fix it?Ferrylodge 20:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict and reset indent] Wait, what is the reason for deleting polls? Simply because it comes from 1998? What is wrong with 1998? Is there any wikipedia policy that citing a poll from '98 violates? I see no reason what so ever to remove this poll based soley on the year it was conducted. Perhaps I am missing something. Is there another reason why you want to delete this content?--Andrew c 20:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comment, Andrew. The Australia section has two polls, one recent and one old. The UK section has only one recent poll. Therefore, if we delete the Australia poll, the UK and Australia paragraphs will be balanced in that regard. Moreover, it seems to me that this is a "public opinion" section, and there is a separate "history" section. Wouldn't you agree that at some point a poll result becomes sufficiently old that it should either be removed or should be placed in the history section? This seems rather self-evident.Ferrylodge 20:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Pardon the mistake. I should have clarified that the intent of including the Harris poll in the Wikipedia article Abortion was to provide information on U.S. opinions of Roe v. Wade. There was never any intent to cover opinions of abortion in any trimester. Because this is the case, we could easily substitute the Harris poll for another which asks a broader, more straightforward question, e.g. "Do you think Roe v. Wade should be overturned or upheld?" and leave more specific polls for Abortion in the United States.
The "History of abortion" section is also intended to cover the history of the topic prior to the 20th century. It was never intended as a place for information pre-dating 2000, as, otherwise, it would be quite long and off-topic, because if you check the "References" section, many of the sources are from the 90s and earlier -Severa (!!!) 21:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Severa, I would prefer to keep the Harris poll question and supplement it with the brief Gallup results I mentioned. This is because the generic poll question you suggest ("Do you think Roe v. Wade should be overturned or upheld?") rules out partially upholding Roe, and that last option is the option that far more Americans prefer. I doubt that you will be able to find a poll specifically asking "Do you think Roe v. Wade should be overturned, upheld, or partially upheld?" That is why it would be easier to just include the Gallup poll results I mentioned.
Severa, you've said that you would like this "public opinion" section to include poll results for as many countries as possible. I would be willing to invest a substantial amount of my time gathering such info for you (including info that would make at least two of the currently listed countries have poll data as lengthy as that for the U.S., if you like) provided that I am allowed to include the second trimester Gallup info that I've mentioned. This is the best way to solve the NPOV problem, IMHO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ferrylodge (talk • contribs) 21:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
Good job starting the section at Abortion in the United States. However, some of the text was nearly identical to a blog comment at the Washington Post site, so I went ahead and modified it, just in case (WP:COPY and all). I also tweaked the format a bit so that it should be easier to add more polls. -Severa (!!!) 04:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I have corrected the false poll numbers that you inadvertently inserted at Abortion in the United States. I also clarified that Roe made abortion legal not just in the first but also in the second trimester, contrary to what is implied by the cited Harris poll result. You did not respond to my previous entry in this thread, and I look forward to a response. Ferrylodge 14:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The version of "Public opinion" including the Harris poll goes back over a year. Adding the Harris poll was the result of discussion between multiple users; in particular, the poll was added to address specific concerns. This former consensus cannot be overlooked. New input from more than just two people would be needed to form any new consensus against the former consensus (WP:CON).

If you find international poll results, feel free to post them here. Future efforts to improve the "Public opinion" section should probably be more collaborative, like the writing of the introduction was in the past (see Talk:Abortion/First paragraph), in order to avoid issues right out of the gate. -Severa (!!!) 18:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Severa, the inclusion of the Harris poll data is a blatant NPOV violation, absent poll numbers regarding the legality of abortion in the second trimester. Roe legalized abortion in both the first trimester and the second trimester. You apparently disagree with one or all of these statements. Therefore, I plan on commencing a dispute resolution procedure later today. It may be futile, but it is certainly the right thing to do. How you can believe that the "public opinion" section currently has a neutral point of view is completely beyond my comprehension. I am not overlooking any former consensus. That former consensus was apparently based on the mistaken belief that you expressed earlier in this thread: that Roe only legalized abortion in the first trimester. You have admitted that error.Ferrylodge 19:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Severa asked me to go look at the Talk archives. It will take me awhile to find the pertinent discussion.Ferrylodge 21:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The Harris poll inclusion is not a POV violation, blatant or otherwise. It is not misrepresented in the article, nor, being a poll, can it "support" one side or the other. So long as we are careful to clearly represent what the poll asked, and the demographics selected (if given) it is simply information. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Harris Poll

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

The Harris poll results in the "public opinion" section were added on May 5, 2006. There was no discussion as far as I can tell, nor even any comment to accompany the edit and let people know what the edit was about.

In any event, as I've said, the Harris poll discussion in the "public opinion" section is a blatant NPOV violation, because the poll question conveys the impression that Roe v. Wade only legalized abortion in the first trimester, which is false. It also legalized abortion for any reason a woman chooses, at least in the first and second trimesters.

I have attempted to correct this NPOV violation in two ways. First, I tried to include poll results for the second trimester, in order to accompany the poll results already presented for the first trimester. This idea was rejected by Severa, although I'm not aware that anyone else registered an opinion about it.

Then, I attempted to delete the Harris poll Roe v. Wade results for the first trimester. That too was rejected by Severa, although I'm not aware that anyone else registered an opinion about it.

There is a third way to deal with the problem, that I would like to suggest. That is, to rewrite the entry as follows, in order to let the reader know about the flaws in the poll:

An April 2006 Harris poll on Roe v. Wade, asked, "In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that states laws which made it illegal for a woman to have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy were unconstitutional, and that the decision on whether a woman should have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy should be left to the woman and her doctor to decide. In general, do you favor or oppose this part of the U.S. Supreme Court decision making abortions up to three months of pregnancy legal?", to which 49% of respondents indicated favor while 47% indicated opposition.(ref) Harris Interactive, (2006-05-04). "Support for Roe vs. Wade Declines to Lowest Level Ever." Retrieved 2007-01-04.(/ref) It should be noted, however, that Roe v. Wade also made abortions between three and six months of pregnancy legal for any reason a woman chooses, even if her doctor does not approve of the reason.

If no one objects, then I will edit the "public opinion" section in this way. I have included a new and better link to the poll results, in order to provide the full text of the question asked, as well as other related poll results. The poll question has two drastic flaws: it suggests that Roe only legalized abortion in the first trimester, and it also suggests that a doctor has some power to control the outcome of an abortion decision.

Goodandevil was, shall we say, a very persistent single-issue editor. I suppose the one thing I've learned about Wikipedia is that you can never please everyone. One user will edit war to have something added, and, just when you think you've succeeded in reaching some semblance of agreement and stability, another user will campaign to have it removed.
We can remove the poll for the time being, although, honestly, I still don't see the issue. There is no suggestion in the Harris poll that "Roe only legalized abortion in the first trimester." It's actually very clear from the question it asks that the poll is only addressing one aspect of Roe [emphasis mine]: "Do you favor or oppose the part of Roe v. Wade that made abortions up to three months legal?" The logical conclusion is that there's more, i.e. abortion is still legal in the second trimester, if not as widely practiced (in 2002, 86.7% of abortion in the United States were performed before 12 weeks [4]). You're not giving readers enough credit. They don't need to be lead around by the nose.
The issue has been rectified. I've requested that others comment here, but, honestly, I think the volume of material needing to be reviewed beforehand is daunting. Maybe more heads will help the situation. -Severa (!!!) 08:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Severa. There was no reason for the Harris poll to exclude second trimester abortions from its question and from its poll. They are less frequent, but more controversial. If you compare the two sets of abortions by numbers, you could also compare total aborted fetal weight, or you could compare the total number of aborted eyeballs and ears and noses and fingerprints (those features have not been formed yet in a vast number of first trimester abortions). Harris excluded the second trimester abortions in order to boost the apparent support for Roe, IMHO.Ferrylodge 13:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not seeing what your point is on how Harris chose to conduct its poll. We don't know why Harris chose to poll only on first trimester, and your speculation that the reason was to boost support for Roe is just that, speculation. You are wasting talk page space and editors' time with your personal opinions about highly speculative matters. If you had found a statement from Harris, or rather a Harris executive in a position to set policy, who had clearly stated that was a reason, then you would be completely supported by me (and likely other editors as well) for bringing it here. Please try to focus on the article, and verifiable information, rather than using this talk page as a blog or soapbox. Thanks much - KillerChihuahua?!? 22:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua, you are unhappy about my wasting talk page space with the sentence I wrote above: "Harris excluded the second trimester abortions in order to boost the apparent support for Roe, IMHO." It was my mistake for speculating and wasting talk page space. I retract that sentence, but everything else I said stands. Everything else I said did focus on the Wikipedia article, and on verifiable information. I hope that you will not further waste talk page space by focusing on a single brief sentence that I have now retracted. Thanks in advance for pardoning my oversight.
As to your other assertion that the Harris poll inclusion is not a POV violation, I almost agree with you. I've said that there is no problem including that poll if the full poll question is given along with an explanation (not in footnotes) that Roe v. Wade also made abortions between three and six months of pregnancy legal for any reason a woman chooses, even if her doctor does not approve of the reason. Alternatively, I see no problem including that Harris poll result if poll results are also given for the second trimester.
The way the article read prior to removal of the Harris poll, it was misleading. It is not enough to clearly state what the poll asked. If the poll asked a question that could easily be misleading, then the meaning of the question should be clarified.
Louis Boccardi, former executive editor of the Associated Press said in 1981 that, "The [Roe v. Wade] decision is often misreported....it's wrong to say only that the court approved abortion in the first three months. It did that, but more." William Humbach, Assistant to the Executive Editor of the New York Times said in 1982 that "the phrase 'in the first three months of pregnancy' might be incorrectly interpreted to mean that abortions in the last six months of pregnancy remain illegal." As you can see earlier on this talk page, Severa herself erred on this point. By the way, the quotes from Boccardi and Humbach can be found at the following link (which is from a pro-life group): http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/Roedistort112904.html
Suppose Wikipedia puts poll results into an article about Iraq, and the only poll questions are these: "Do you agree that it's a good thing Saddam is no longer in power?" and "Do you agree that the United States is right to help Iraqis achieve democracy and a better way of life?" This would be a blatantly slanted Wikipedia article, because it would ignore poll questions and poll results unfavorable to the war in Iraq. To paraphrase Mark Twain, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Ferrylodge 23:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Is the verbiage describing the poll currently accurate, in your opinion? If so, there is nothing more to say. If not, please state so, and suggest improved phrasing. Please be concise, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The verbiage describing the poll at Abortion_in_the_United_States#Public_Opinion is currently accurate, in my opinion, and the context is balanced. In contrast, the poll has been removed from Abortion#Public_opinion, so there is no problem in my view with Abortion#Public_opinion as it now stands.Ferrylodge 23:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand your urgent need to demonstrate that abortion in the U.S. is legal in the second trimester, throughout no less than three articles, Abortion, Abortion in the United States, and Roe v. Wade. "It should be noted, however, that Roe v. Wade also made abortions between three and six months of pregnancy legal for any reason a woman chooses, even if her doctor does not approve of the reason" is in no way "balanced." It reminds me of the kind of unnecessary personal commentary qualifications G&E once added. This information is already available in the "Legal aspects" section Abortion in the United States, so, the out-of-place repetition seems like it's trying to spoon-feed or frame the issue. The solution to perception of POV is not to add more POV. As KC said, Wikipedia is not a blog. Do any other editors share Ferrylodge's objections to the Harris poll? If not, I see no issue with including it in this article. -Severa (!!!) 00:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Do any other editors share Severa's objections to the current verbiage describing the poll at Abortion_in_the_United_States#Public_Opinion, or to the current verbiage at Abortion#Public_opinion? If not, I see no issue with leaving things as they are. Severa, you say that the Harris poll (which discusses Roe in a very incomplete and misleading way) should be inserted into Abortion#Public_opinion without explanation, because information about Roe is buried on a separate Wikipedia page in a section that is not even linked from the Abortion page. I disagree. Would you at least acknowledge that there is some validity to the concerns expressed by Louis Boccardi of the Associated Press, and William Humbach of the New York Times (quoted above)?Ferrylodge 01:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Considering that the poll question/result Severa desires to be included specifically mentions that Roe made abortion legal in the first three months of pregnancy, it seems disingenuous of her to clam that is simply improper opinining to make it clear that Roe has been consistently interpreted by the SCOTUS as legalizing abortion throughout all 9 months of pregnancy. To include poll results from such a biased question (that so blatantly misleads the respondent into thinking Roe did NOT legalize abortion beyond the 1st trimester) - and to then allege that seeking to provide context to remove any chance of the wikipedia reader being similarly mislead - is to advocate for a low quality article. Hats off to Ferrylodge for bringing up this concern.84.146.233.113

By the way, Gallup has poll results for the second trimester:

Question: "Do you think abortion should generally be legal or generally illegal during the second three months of pregnancy?"
1996 Results: 65% said "generally illegal"
2000 Results: 69% said "generally illegal"
2003 Results: 68% said "generally illegal".

84.146.215.12

I'm Glad

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I'm glad this article is not stacked with bias on one side or the other. This is how Wikipedia should be. Facts are usually well agreed upon and easy to cite. Opinions should be stated as opinions. This page is a good example, I think. Maybe. (ShitakiMan 11:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC))

Credit goes to Severa who has worked tirelessly to maintain balance on this article, which given the emotional nature of the subject, has been a very difficult task. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It's only natural that maintaining balance on this article would be difficult. However, I can't take sole credit for this article, because we've had a lot of great editors who've helped to make it what it is. :-) -Severa (!!!) 21:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

public opinion

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

just a comment from a viewer: I think you guys did a wonderful job on the article. I understand that there is missing data in the public opinion section. But the poll numbers, coming all from anglo-saxon countries, are not representative at all of opinion around the world. At this stage, since this sample is not representative, and represents the anglo-saxon culture only, I question its relevance. Or at the very least, you should put a mention of this.--Left of the right 12:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I found a few international polls last night and integrated them into the article. I suppose if the section gets too long, though, we can always move some of it to Abortion and public opinion. -Severa (!!!) 20:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Biased much?

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm sorry, but is this some sort of joke? Has no one noticed the incredibly biased manner in which this article has been written? "Abortion should be illegal in all 50 states" is NOT A FACT. It's an opinion, which can certainly be left out of informative articles.

Honestly, I was appauled to read that. Whether it's what you believe or not, this isn't the place to be writing something like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.165.220.154 (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

That was vandalism, which has been reverted. You will also sometimes see every instance of the word "abortion" replaced with "MURDER" which is also vandalism. Next time you see vandalism, revert it: view article history, and "edit" then "save" without making any changes, the version PREVIOUS to the version edited by the vandal. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Spontaneous Abortion

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article currently says: "The risk of spontaneous abortion decreases significantly after the 8th week.[11]"

I am now changing it to read: "The risk of spontaneous abortion decreases sharply after the 8th week, i.e. when the fetal stage begins.[11]"

As Severa requested, I will not link to any other Wikipedia article in this sentence, nor will I include additional footnotes. The already-footnoted BBC article says that the risk diminishes "dramatically" at this point. No thesaurus equates the words "dramatically" with "significantly." Severa says that she doesn't like the word "dramatically" because it's doesn't have "encycopedic tone." I suggest that we use the word "sharply" which does have encyclopedic tone, and is synonymous with "dramatically" (also see Lennart Nilsson's non-political book "A Child is Born", page 91 (1990): at eight weeks, "the danger of a miscarriage . . . diminishes sharply"). I also think it's informative to briefly point out that this point is when the fetal stage begins.Ferrylodge 00:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hierarchy

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

The hierarchy of geographic articles related to abortion is currently very awkward. Currently, there is a link at the right-hand-side of this article to "abortion by country" under the heading of "law". However, there is no reason why it should be under such a heading, since the articles within "abortion by country" are not limited to legal articles.

Additionally, I think that all the countries with a general page about abortion should be listed in "abortion by country", instead of only listing regions. A Wikipedia user will become frustrated having to click so many links from this general abortion page just in order to get to a general abortion page for a particular country.

I was in the process of listing all the general abortion pages for each country, in the category "abortion by country." However, I see that those edits have been reverted, and even the few general country-pages that were listed in "abortion by country" have now been deleted. This is the wrong way to go, in my opinion.Ferrylodge 23:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an established system to categorization overseen by WikiProject Abortion. "...By country" is the titling convention set down in WP:NCCAT. See the post I made here. -Severa (!!!) 23:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Today I created the Oceania & Australasia category for abortion, and this hopefully conforms to how Wikipedia wants it done. Moreover, at Abortion by Country, I have simply linked the abortion pages for various countries, without altering the categorization. I still think that the link to "Abortion by country" at the main abortion page should not be tucked away under the "law" heading.Ferrylodge 23:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Categories aren't intended as lists. See Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) for information on how to create list articles. -Severa (!!!) 23:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I have linked in this article to the list of country articles about abortion.Ferrylodge 00:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Category:Abortion by country was already linked in the article under "See also." -Severa (!!!) 00:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the changed link for "Abortion by country" in the template. I have also modified the headings.Ferrylodge 00:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Article concerns

Latest comment: 17 years ago25 comments6 people in discussion

It looks to me like the majority of commentators want medical images of abortion procedures. What are the dissenters afraid of?

Abortion is the greatest evil in the world, this article is way too pro-choice. Quaker24 01:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Quaker24, I've found that the best way to proceed is to suggest specific changes. It would be helpful if you would do that too. I'd support any reasonable changes you suggest.Ferrylodge 02:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is written from neutral point of view, and, as such, this article is not intended (and cannot be used) to promote any particular perspective on abortion, be it pro-life, pro-choice, or anything in between. Ferrylodge is correct in that it would be a lot more helpful to point out specific issues you find with the article. We can attempt to address specific issues, but, if you're suggesting that the article be written to reflect a specific point of view, I'm sorry, but that's not what Wikipedia is about. -Severa (!!!) 02:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, the absolute and irrefutable proof that this article is way too pro-choice is that there is STILL no medical image of an abortion procedure or even abortion instruments. 84.146.248.233 18:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should at least be a prominent link to photos. Note that at the page for fetus there is a huge photo.
As far as this abortion page is concerned, I think there should also be some description of abortion as an industry. Like other industries, there is a certain amount of money involved, there are a certain number of people who rely upon it for their livelihood, there is a certain amount of government funding, et cetera. That stuff should be in here.
Conversely, I think a lot of the technical medical jargon and detail can usefully be moved to a page specific to that subject.Ferrylodge 19:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
This has been discussed before, G&E, as you are aware. As for Ferrylodge, who is most likely unfamiliar with the history of this debate, I would suggest reading the "Graphic images" threads under "Notable precedents in discussion" in the archive box above.
As for the "abortion industry" suggestion, such information might be relevant at National Coalition of Abortion Providers or Planned Parenthood, but, after a brief perusal through other medical topics (Dentistry, Anesthesiology and Organ transplantation), it's definitely clear that it would not be relevant here. -Severa (!!!) 21:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
That's right, I'm unfamiliar with the previous discussion about graphic images, and I'll check out the archives when I get a chance. Regarding the suggestion that Wikipedia should treat abortion like dentistry, there are substantial differences. For example, no one is suggesting that the dentristy business ought to be shut down. So, there is no issue about how many people would be put out of work, how much the economy would suffer, and how much financial influence dentists are able to bring to bear in Washington D.C. in order to prevent their extinction. And again, I think a lot of the technical medical jargon and detail on this abortion page can usefully be moved to a page specific to that subject.Ferrylodge 21:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that dental professionals don't have financial interests to protect? That no one has ever questioned whether many dentists might be motivated by their bottom lines? All I'm saying is that such information would belong at American Dental Association, not on the Dentistry article itself, and that there is no neutral reason whatsoever to single abortion out from any other medical topic. I also disagree that watering down the medical coverage in this article would somehow constitute an improvement. This article's function is to summarize many aspects of a multi-faceted topic, and, because abortion is at its core a medical topic, this article coverage of the medical aspect is especially important. -Severa (!!!) 22:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
If dentistry is so much like abortion, then why are there graphic images of teeth at the dentistry page, but no graphic images of abortion at the abortion page? I wasn't suggesting "watering down" the abortion page by moving technical details and jargon to a sub-page. Quite the opposite. I think too much medical jargon and technical detail in the main page waters the main page down, glazes over the eyes, and is not what people are looking for in the main page. The idea that "abortion is at its core a medical topic" is a very subjective point of view. Many people view abortion as the exact opposite of medicine.Ferrylodge 22:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly under "abortion debate" it can be noted that part of the debate is government funding and lobbying efforts - noting who the major players are and how big their budgets and revenues are. Dentistry is generally apolitical - abortion is the opposite. And the lack of even the most benign abotion image is most certainly a testament to the bias of this article. Hiding the objective reality found in images is NOT a neutral stance. 84.146.250.57

This is the sort of clinical medical imagery that would be appropriate; such demonstrative evidence that is designed to represent a medical procedure in a neutral way for a court proceeding would be most appropriate for this article. 84.146.228.223
That image is illegal for use on Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
That is why the very first words of my post are "This is the sort of clinical imagery..." (rather than "This clinical image..."). Interested parties I am sure could produce a similar image that would be perfectly lawful for use on Wikipedia. Do you know of anyone who might be interested in helping? 84.146.228.223
I've never edited this article, and I haven't read all of the archived discussion, so forgive me for entering a debate I may not understand. But I think that there is good reason for not inserting images of aborted fetuses, beyond whatever graphic image policies Wikipedia might have. Unfortunately or not, images of aborted fetuses have become a large part of of the propaganda and advertising related to abortion, particularly in the United States. Images of aborted fetuses are thus not really the same thing as pictures of a tooth extraction. The former have political significance and argue for a position (whether or not this is intended), while the latter have none. Including the requested images, assuming we could find them, would thus risk opening neutrality debates. I do not see how the absence of graphic images biases the article, which clearly and accurately explains the relevant medical procedures and summarizes current debate. Perhaps including images used by opponents of abortion to supplement the "abortion debate" section would be appropriate and neutral, but I think they should be avoided elsewhere. ECKnibbs 16:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Pro-life groups do a lot of things besides wave around accurate pictures of aborted fetuses. For example, they also cite certain accurate statistics and certain accurate biological facts. Shall we also ban those statistics and those biological facts from Wikipedia, even though we would have included them had the pro-life people kept their mouths shut?Ferrylodge 17:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I suggested including images in the debate section; nowhere did I say they should be banned. As far as the accurate biological facts and statistics used by the pro-life movement: Pro-life groups frequently cite statistics regarding depression in women who have had abortions. It would be wrong to include this data in the article without a discussion of how it has been received and interpreted by abortion advocates. Advocates of abortion of course have their own pet statistics and facts, and it would be wrong to present these outside of the context of the controversy as well. Now it happens that images of aborted fetuses have become a charged component of the debate, and they too cannot be included neutrally for illustrative purposes outside the context of that debate. Readers deserve to know why some people are so interested in having them look at these pictures, just as they deserve to know why some political group so badly wants them to internalize some fact or statistic or soundbite. ECKnibbs 17:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the inclusion of any material in this main article should be frowned upon merely because that material has been touted or emphasized or mentioned by one side or the other.Ferrylodge 17:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Not "frowned upon." Handled in a way that recognizes that material's implications for the neutrality of the article. ECKnibbs 20:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Neutrality should not mean recoiling from information that supports one side or the other. Neutrality means presenting relevant information in a neutral way, and in a way that does not color the information.Ferrylodge 21:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

An accurate visual depiction such as http://thumbsnap.com/v/Ojg4Wk3a.jpg this one is hardly something that can be considered biased. Does such an image pack a punch simply due to the truth it revelas? Sure. So does an ultrasound or an image of Saddam dangling on a rope. But its the truth, and in this case its the medical and scientific truth - and the only reason to hide that truth is to shield abortion proponents or the timid from the truth of abortion. Why woudld wikipedia do that? 84.146.231.51

Obviously, that particular image is copyrighted, but otherwise it seems entirely appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Does anyone object to it? 84.146.231.51, can you get permission to use that particular picture? I think we should get that picture or another acceptable picture uploaded to Wikimedia Commons so that it's all ready to go once we get an adequate consensus.Ferrylodge 23:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The image above was created by FindLaw Medical Demonstrative Evidence. "Getting permission" would require paying a fee of hundreds of dollars which would likely be completely incompatible with anything under WP:ICT. Please see the extensive discussions in the archives on this matter. Basically, medical diagrams are one thing, but graphic photos of aborted fetuses, as seen in the fourth panel of G&E's image, or of women who died from illegal, unsafe abortions don't add any encyclopedic content, and thus are more argumentative in function. There is no image of a surgically-removed breast at Mastectomy or of a limb at Amputation, but, no one is suggesting that their absence is evidence of "amputation proponents" trying to "hide the truth" or "shield the timid" from facts about amputation. Photographs of excrement are conspicuously absent from Feces and photos of decapitated heads from Decapitation. The information that could be communicated by such images is already covered in written text. Thus, images would be redundant, and even more problematic given the fact that they'd inhibit the readability of those articles for many readers. And, for what? There's a thin line between censorship and the sort of sensational "anything goes" coverage which would alienate anyone without an iron stomach or not in the habit of visiting Rotten.com. -Severa (!!!) 01:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Severa, I believe you are mistaken. Wikipedia has plenty of photos of breast reconstruction, breast cancer, prosthetics, feces, decapitated heads, to name but a few of the gruesome images available. I am sure you might be able to find a few gruesome subjects that currently do not have any corresponding Wikipedia images. But, more than likely, the reason for that is no one has yet been inclined to suggest inclusion, or such images are all copyrighted. A picture is worth a thousand words, Severa.Ferrylodge 02:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's take a look at decapitation, to which Ferrylodge linked. There are several paintings, none graphic; there is one photographic image, of a person prior to decapitation. Wikipedia is not censored, but neither is it our goal to make people seeking information suffer shock or revulsion. Our question on images which might prove to be distresing should always be, does it add to the reader's understanding of the article? If some comprehension is gained, is the comprehension gained sufficient in value to outweigh any negative effects? This consistant harping on wanting to include graphic images (not anyone in particular, mind you, just overall) puts me in mind of children on the playground sayng Naughty Words to "prove" how grown up, or bad, they are; or attempting to shock their s with distasteful vocabulary. Where is the value in that? Surely we realize here we are writing an encyclopedia article, not attempting to shock or impress? KillerChihuahua?!? 23:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
KillerChihuahua, do you believe that an image like http://thumbsnap.com/v/Ojg4Wk3a.jpg has any informative value? And why do you think it is helpful to compare people who believe so to children on the playground? Ferrylodge 23:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

(reduce) It is pointless to waste time and space discussing an image which is completely unavailable to Wikipedia due to cp. My comments were general, as I stated, not specific. Your question is a logical fallacy, Begging the question, as you affirm thoughts which are not mine, then ask me to explain them. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It obviously is not pointless to discuss what sorts of images you would find acceptable. Since you refuse to say whether you think this image adds to the reader's understanding, how should anyone else know whether it is futile to expend the time and energy making such an image available to Wikipedia? KillerChihuahua you said: "This consistant harping on wanting to include graphic images (not anyone in particular, mind you, just overall) puts me in mind of children on the playground saying Naughty Words to 'prove' how grown up, or bad, they are." If you're saying that you were not referring to me with this insult, then thank you.Ferrylodge 02:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I did not intend to insult anyone. Your edit summary of "killing the chihuahua" certainly seems at the least uncivil, and possibly threatening. Are you threatening me? KillerChihuahua?!? 09:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Of course not. It's no more threatening than your user name. It was a play on words.Ferrylodge 17:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternate terms

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article lacks mention of the terms "interruption", "interruption abortion", "interruption of pregnancy" or "artifical interruption of pregnancy", which are often used as synonyms for "induced abortion" in popular articles about the topic (and in some states like Slovakia the terms "interruption" and "artifical interruption of pregnancy" are almost always used instead of the much more precise term "induced abortion", even in scientifical papers). I suggest to mention them in a bracket (suggested sentence: "other popular names: interruption, interruption abortion, interruption of pregnancy, artifical interruption of pregnancy") immediately after the "induced abortion" term in the second item of the list in the "Forms of abortion" section, probably with a warning that these popular terms are confusing and imprecise and thus should be avoided. Jozue 23:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest adding this sort of information to "Definitions" rather than "Forms of abortion." We could have a brief note on differing terminology and its use throughout the world. -Severa (!!!) 04:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Pictures and Video

Latest comment: 17 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

A couple questions. First, regarding photos. There were a couple of photos at the Wikipedia article for fetus that some people found offensive. Therefore, I tried a solution that might also work in the abortion article: I simply shrunk the pictures and indicated that they can be clicked to enlarge. Check out the fetus page and see what you think. Could this work in the abortion article for an informative picture like this one?

Regarding video, I notice that Severa has recently deleted an external link at the abortion page to Abortion on film. I'm curious what the problem is here. Is there any indication that the linked material violates a copyright?Ferrylodge 04:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see the archives for past discussions about links to "shock" sites. The site the video is hosted on is TinyPic.com, a YouTube clone, and per WP:EL, "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." No information is given on the video's origin, so err on the side of caution. But these concerns are secondary to the precedent against such content. KC is right above that there are far more productive things to be done on this article than constantly pushing for this kind of stuff. -Severa (!!!) 13:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and I certainly hope we won't allow any shocking pictures at Wikipedia of German concentration camps or the like. BTW, I see Severa that you today deleted the photos at the fetus article (unilaterally of course, without discussion). Quite ironic, I'd say, considering you are the one who put at least one of those two photos there in the first place.Ferrylodge 16:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I was responding to the concerns of two editors, Doron and 89.241.250.250. I also opened discussion and proposed a number of alternate pictures for review. See Talk:Fetus#Photos. -Severa (!!!) 17:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Why not have a gallery article linked from fetus, and a gallery article linked from this article?Ferrylodge 18:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Ignoring Godwin's Law for a bit, I just want to say that it seems very telling that the reason you are pushing for image inclusion is because of some comparison you have between abortion and the holocaust. I think that is the epitome of POV reasoning (instead of some encyclopedic reason for image inclusion). Perhaps I read you wrong. I'm hearing "Abortion is like the holocaust, so we must show the shocking, graphic truth because words are not enough". -Andrew c 00:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Andrew c, in this thread, Severa compared abortion photos to photos of feces, decapitated heads, breast removal, and limb removal. In response, I compared photos of abortion to photos of concentration camps. I also pointed out that Wikipedia already includes many horrible and shocking photos of feces, breast removal, decapitated heads, and the like. My point is this: the mere fact that a photo is shocking does not mean it is inappropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia.
I have not taken a position at Wikipedia for or against decapitation, the holocaust, or breast removal. However, if I do take such a position in the future, I hope you will not consider it a POV problem. Wikipedia editors who put together the article about breast cancer are entirely entitled to have a point of view opposing breast cancer. Wikipedia editors who write about political issues likewise are entitled to their opinions, as long as the article is neutral and verifiable. Excluding photos of abortion at Wikipedia is decidedly non-neutral.Ferrylodge 00:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Ferrylodge, having a graphic image is not reason enough alone to include or not include images. The policy states "Do not upload shocking or explicit pictures, unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors for the relevant article." So... we do not have a consensus to include images for one. Second of all, this topic is only hypothetical because no one has yet to find a public domain or self-created, freely licensed image. I have been relatively quiet in this recent discussion because I was respecting the past consensus, didn't feel like a new consensus was mounting, and find these hypothetical ponderings not that productive. But when you made the holocaust comparison, it just illustrated to me in my mind one reason why wanting images is pushing a POV (nothing wrong with having a POV, but trying to change an article to reflect favorably on your position is another thing). I'm not trying to quell discussion, but I'd simply urge those who want images to come up with a concrete proposal of a freely licensable, neutral (if at all possible) image so we can move out of the hypothetical. Until then, what use is there in pointing out that there is a picture of poo on wikipedia?-Andrew c 02:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
What point is there in making a concrete proposal, if a bunch of people have already categorically rejected the idea? We gave an example here, and all we've gotten are thumbs down, or (in your case andrew c) no thumbs at all. Incidentally, andrew c, why do you think it's fine for Severa to compare abortion to defecation, but when someone like me mentions the word holocaust I have some horrible POV problem?Ferrylodge 02:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
What part of your example is a "a freely licensable" image? As for Severa, she was responding to the claim that it was POV to NOT include images. She was illustrating a number of articles (where images of the subject could be considered graphic) that did not include images, and saying that wasn't POV. The fact is that some articles have graphic images, and others do not. I personally think comparing to other articles' image use is not that usefully because the guidelines encourage the talk page community to decide on a case by case basis. Since I have not been given an image to consider that would be appropriate (in terms of licensing), I have not offered my thumb. Hope this addresses your concerns.-Andrew c 02:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Obviously it does not address my concerns, and instead shows yet again that you are very generous with other people's time. Obviously, the question was whether this image would be acceptable if it had appropriate licensing, and if not, why not?Ferrylodge 03:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This photo at tonsillectomy is gross, but it certainly helps the reader understand the topic more throughly. I think the point of having a neutral image of the abortion procedure (one similar to the one already cited above) is to inform the reader. Do you, Severa and KillerChihuaha, really want to keep people in the dark? It appears so; insisting that no image of the operation can ever appear in the article (as clearly you two do suggest) is what, if not censorship to tiptoe around over-sensitive readers? 84.146.220.121 00:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, here are wikipedia articles with graphic images of disturbing medical topics:

appendectomy
tracheotomy
ectopic pregnancy
circumcision
female genital mutilation
hanging
hemmorhoids.

Of course abortion is objectively different from all these medical articles because _____________ ("...we said so?"). 84.146.220.121 00:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the un-usable diagramtic pictures (not the bottom right photographic) as shown would improve the article: it certainly gives a better idea of the procedure itself than the rest of the article put together. So why not try and find a usable version and post it for consideration. Jgda 02:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Medicine

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article has been chosen to appear as a Selected Article on the main page of Portal:Medicine for the week of January 29, 2007 - February 5. Congratulations! -Severa (!!!) 13:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Pictures (i.e. photos)?

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There are graphic photos of penises in Penis (with and without erection...), graphic photos of vulvas in Vulva, a lot of photos of breasts in Breast, but... NO photo of abortion in Abortion... Go figure... 193.219.28.146 18:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Er... I do not believe there are any copyleft-licenced photos of a procedure which occurs inside a woman's womb. We can't include things that don't exist, and there are obvious difficulties in our usual method of obtaining photos, i.e. a Wikipedia user taking one specifically for the article. Cynical 19:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I first suggest that you review the talk archives. Not only has this topic been discussed extensively in the past, but there are already two threads open on this page covering this topic. I next would ask you to familarize yourself with wikipedia policy concerning graphic images. The policy says that graphic images cannot simply be inserted, but must have talk page consensus to be included. That has yet to occur for this page. Pointing to other graphic images on other pages is not enough to go on. We could point to pages that do not have graphic images (not that that is a good argument either. We should discuss graphic images on a case by case basis). On top of that, I ask that you read about wikipedia's image use policy. Images have to be fair use, or have some sort of free copyright. There is a real shortage of such images when it comes to medical procedures (especially of abortion).-Andrew c 19:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

People shouldnt choose abortion as a way out!!!

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As a part of the human race. I dissagree with people who choose the easy way out of life. There are many other options on how to deal with this type of situation68.108.75.148 03:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a place to discuss individual views on abortion but to discuss the creation and editing of the article on the subject, and to make sure that the result is as neutral, factual, and informative as possible. — Emiellaiendiay 03:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Consequences

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is a great many consequences with abortion. People argue that the constitution says you have the right to kill your baby. Well, in no part of the constitution, or at least the US Constitution, does it say anything about it. Why? Two reasons. #1 They never thought we would sink as low as to kill our own offspring. #2 They didn't have any medical procedures to do so. No Where in the Constitution does it say we can murder our children! In the famous case, the teen that wanted to abort her baby turned around and is pro-life. Is it any different when a teen has a baby and throws it in the trash? Yes. One difference. It's legal to murder the baby as long as it's in the stomach, so they can't see the human life they are ending.

Remember the picture on the article? "It's our choice, not theirs." So the sign says.

 
"It's our choice, not theirs."

Now, we are violating another piece of the Constitution. Not only are we murdering, which I last checked is against the law, but we are now taking the right away from the baby. How do they live with themselves knowing they support a murderous behaviour?

Another consequence is financially. You know how Social Security is a big issue? How the young people are paying too much for our elderly? Well, when abortion was legal thing, without big debates, women had abortions left and right, never thinking they are killing us. They're are more of that generation, and less of us because they aborted alot of our generation. Now, one of us has to pay for several of them. Think about it. -66.218.18.17 04:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Err, actually, the baby is in the uterus, if it was in the stomach I think a woman would have far worse problems than needing an abortion. Homestarmy 22:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c d e f Gomez, Lavin C., & Zapata, Garcia R. (2005). - "Diagnostic categorization of post-abortion syndrome". Actas Esp Psiquiatr, 33 (4), 267-72. Retrieved Setepmber 8, 2006. Cite error: The named reference "gomez" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  2. ^ Stotland, N.L. (1992). The myth of the abortion trauma syndrome. Journal of the American Medical Association, 268 (15), 2078-9. Retrieved Decemeber 7, 2006.
  3. ^ Zabin, L.S., Hirsch, M.B., Emerson, M.R. (1989). When urban adolescents choose abortion: effects on education, psychological status and subsequent pregnancy. Family Planning Perspectives, 21 (6), 248-55. Retrieved September 8, 2006.
  4. ^ a b c d Russo, N. F., & Zierk, K.L. (1992). Abortion, childbearing, and women. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23(4), 269-280. Retrieved September 8, 2006.
  5. ^ Schmiege, S. & Russo, N.F. (2005). Depression and unwanted first pregnancy: longitudinal cohort study Electronic version . British Medical Journal, 331 (7528), 1303. Retrieved 2006-01-11.
  6. ^ Gissler, M., Hemminki, E., & Lonnqvist, J. (1996). Suicides after pregnancy in Finland, 1987-94: register linkage study Electronic version. British Medical Journal, 313, 1431-4. Retrieved 2006-01-11.
  7. ^ Reardon, D.C. & Cougle, J.R. (2002): Depression and unintended pregnancy in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: a cohort study. BMJ (British Medical Journal) 19.1.2002 324:151-2. Electronic version.
  8. ^ Fergusson D.M., Horwood L.J., & Ridder E.M. (2006). "Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health". Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry. 47 (1): 16-24. PMID 16405636.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  9. ^ Depression Risk Increased After Miscarriage. (2002-04-01). Retrieved 2006-01-11.
  10. ^ Zabin, L.S., Hirsch, M.B., Emerson, M.R. (1989). When urban adolescents choose abortion: effects on education, psychological status and subsequent pregnancy. Family Planning Perspectives, 21 (6), 248-55. Retrieved September 8, 2006.
  11. ^ Schmiege, S. & Russo, N.F. (2005). Depression and unwanted first pregnancy: longitudinal cohort study Electronic version . British Medical Journal, 331 (7528), 1303. Retrieved 2006-01-11.
  12. ^ Gissler, M., Hemminki, E., & Lonnqvist, J. (1996). Suicides after pregnancy in Finland, 1987-94: register linkage study Electronic version. British Medical Journal, 313, 1431-4. Retrieved 2006-01-11.
  13. ^ Reardon, D.C. & Cougle, J.R. (2002): Depression and unintended pregnancy in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: a cohort study. BMJ (British Medical Journal) 19.1.2002 324:151-2. Electronic version.
  14. ^ Fergusson D.M., Horwood L.J., & Ridder E.M. (2006). "Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health". Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry. 47 (1): 16-24. PMID 16405636.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  15. ^ Depression Risk Increased After Miscarriage. (2002-04-01). Retrieved 2006-01-11.
  16. ^ Zabin, L.S., Hirsch, M.B., Emerson, M.R. (1989). When urban adolescents choose abortion: effects on education, psychological status and subsequent pregnancy. Family Planning Perspectives, 21 (6), 248-55. Retrieved September 8, 2006.
  17. ^ Schmiege, S. & Russo, N.F. (2005). Depression and unwanted first pregnancy: longitudinal cohort study Electronic version . British Medical Journal, 331 (7528), 1303. Retrieved 2006-01-11.
  18. ^ Gissler, M., Hemminki, E., & Lonnqvist, J. (1996). Suicides after pregnancy in Finland, 1987-94: register linkage study Electronic version. British Medical Journal, 313, 1431-4. Retrieved 2006-01-11.
  19. ^ Reardon, D.C. & Cougle, J.R. (2002): Depression and unintended pregnancy in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: a cohort study. BMJ (British Medical Journal) 19.1.2002 324:151-2. Electronic version.
  20. ^ Fergusson D.M., Horwood L.J., & Ridder E.M. (2006). "Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health". Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry. 47 (1): 16-24. PMID 16405636.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  21. ^ Depression Risk Increased After Miscarriage. (2002-04-01). Retrieved 2006-01-11.
  22. ^ Zabin, L.S., Hirsch, M.B., Emerson, M.R. (1989). When urban adolescents choose abortion: effects on education, psychological status and subsequent pregnancy. Family Planning Perspectives, 21 (6), 248-55. Retrieved September 8, 2006.
  23. ^ Schmiege, S. & Russo, N.F. (2005). Depression and unwanted first pregnancy: longitudinal cohort study Electronic version . British Medical Journal, 331 (7528), 1303. Retrieved 2006-01-11.
  24. ^ Gissler, M., Hemminki, E., & Lonnqvist, J. (1996). Suicides after pregnancy in Finland, 1987-94: register linkage study Electronic version. British Medical Journal, 313, 1431-4. Retrieved 2006-01-11.
  25. ^ Reardon, D.C. & Cougle, J.R. (2002): Depression and unintended pregnancy in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: a cohort study. BMJ (British Medical Journal) 19.1.2002 324:151-2. Electronic version.
  26. ^ Fergusson D.M., Horwood L.J., & Ridder E.M. (2006). "Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health". Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry. 47 (1): 16-24. PMID 16405636.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  27. ^ Depression Risk Increased After Miscarriage. (2002-04-01). Retrieved 2006-01-11.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion/Archive_26&oldid=1136491057"