Talk:Abortion/Archive 14

message: Awp! Jesus joseph and mary, (I just saw God and I think he was driving a Cadilac) we need to archive badly. We've got duplicate sections (my fault). Could everyone run through discussions they were recently indovled in and sign them offas closed? As for those being duplicated, those most recently involved, could they please collapse them into a single new section? Thanks!--Tznkai 04:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What about archiving everything, putting in section headers for current discussions (Fetal pain, Should we move? Mental health, Herbal abortion - those are the ones I see as currently active, and if someone wants to continue or re-open a topic they can certainly do so) with a brief statement starting the section saying "Archived discussion about this can be found 'here' and 'here' with links to the relevent parts of the archive? Simple enough to do. Keep the "To-do" list at top. For the Should we move? section put in Anastrophe's summary, with the additions of the others who voted in the Standing vote section. If anyone wants to change their position, they can edit and add a comment at the bottom: "Changed vote from No to Yes because (reason) (sig w/timestamp.)" I have posted some sources which have not been used or commented on, but I can re-paste them in Sources or the relevent section. Sound reasonable? KillerChihuahua 11:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: good idea. i would also recommend - something i've noticed is endemic to WP and i think is a shortcoming of the design (aside from the fact that users must do their own 'threading' by adding colons ahead of their entries) - i wonder if it might not be a good idea, at the top of the discussion page, to simply suggest "when starting new discussion about a new topic, please begin that section at the BOTTOM of this page". i don't know the etiquette of it, so if i'm off base, no problem. it just seems to me that info should flow downward rather than upward or in the middle. WRT to 'should we move' etc discussion and votes, i would recommend that it simply start fresh, again, and keep it all in one place. i've noted above my concern about the discussion being broken up amongst three separate areas of the one discussion page. those who wish to vote again may do so, and we'll leave it at that - skip any reproduction of previous votes, as it is a _process_ rather than an up-or-down vote as tznkai pointed out. just my 3.1415926535897932384626 cents.Anastrophe 19:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is is a WP guideline, found at Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Layout. Always add new topic to the end of the page. No need to add a notice to the Talk page here, simply move new entries to the end and remind the editor to do that next time. (btw, that's um, 1.1415926535897932384626 more cents than I usually have, how did you get so rich???)  KillerChihuahua 23:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Hey everyone.  Just a reminder -- Remeber to tag a vandal's talk page when reverting vandalism.  Add the warning tags (such as , , , ) on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism.  Doing this assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. --Quasipalm 15:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is new to me, and I'm not sure I understand the instructions here.  Suppose vandal 123456 gets reverted.  I click on his number, and that takes me to a talk page, but it is not necessarily his unique talk page -- that number may be shared by other people who visited but did not log on.  Anyway, I want to put a tag.  Exactly what do I type if vandal 123456 has vandalized the article "Happy face" and I've reverted it.  (Sorry to be so dense.) Rick Norwood 15:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tag shared IPs same as user pages. Entry should be made on Talk, not User, page. Complete instructions are at WP:VAND. KillerChihuahua 15:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Here's a good source to find the most appropriate tag to use:  Template talk:Test.  And don't forget  for self-reverters. --Elliskev 20:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for informing me of the proper procedure. The recent spat of vandalism here  is troubling. It comes with the territory, though, I suppose.  -Kyd 00:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Found this handy table on a user page -- think I may add it to mine as well...  --Quasipalm 04:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't just revert, Tag too

message: Can someone take a look at this edit here and see if theres useful information to pull out of it? My medical knowledge is thin.--Tznkai 04:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "This is a rather violent procedure as depicted in medical photographs." This sentence, I believe, speaks for itself. As does this edit that the same IP, 141.161.114.74, made to Planned Parenthood. -Kyd 07:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surgical abortion 

message: There's been a recent boom in the number of additions to the external links list. Tznkai put his foot down on this, earlier, because it had really gotten out of hand. It's getting out of hand, again, and so I guess I'm going to have to put my foot down too. I've thinned out the list, favouring pre-existing links, while attempting to keep the count even.
Here's my rationale:
*Abortion Alternatives: Pro-life options counselling. Redundant with CareNet.
*WomenonWaves.org: The "abortion ship" that services women in international waters. There's a picture of the corpse of a woman who died in a back-alley abortion on one of the pages.
*The Abortion Clinic Directory: Listing of U.S. abortion clinics. Redundant with Abortion.com.
*American Women's Services: The web site of a chain of abortion service providers on the East coast. Too local and redundant with the above.
*BlackGenocide.org African-American pro-life group. There are pictures of fetal remains on the main page.
Please feel free to suggest links you believe would be more "representative" or help think of more appropriate sub-articles for these to be moved (example: Abortion in the United States).
-Kyd 09:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many links! 

message: The term "respectable and scientific" profession of medical doctors was modified to "evolving."  This was the same "scientific" community beginning to develop theories of eugenics, trying to "scientifically" prove inferiority of various races by said eugenics, etc., etc., etc.  The community was evolving in its views, and endeavoring to be respectable and scientific - but that is no different from any other medical community going back to Greek and even Sumerian times.  All sought to be scientific and respectable, based upon the definitions of their times.  This seems to me a POV addition intended to make it seem like the prohibition of abortion was not based upon good intentions or scientific knowledge of the time, which is contrary to the case.DonaNobisPacem 05:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the section to its original form. The addition was speculative and largely unsubstantiated. I've read theories like this before: medicalization in the 19th century was the result of male doctors fighting to supress the female herbalists and mid-wives, and, thus, was part of the greater pre-suffrage trend toward enforced patriarchy. It's an interesting approach, yes, but it also the sort of thing that demands a bona-fide source (WP:NOR). -Kyd 16:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Good call....DonaNobisPacem 20:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Abortion 

message: I am moving this to discussion for the time being. What follows is a rather lengthy rationale for my recent reversions.
Goodandevil believes we should divide the AGI statistics into "elective" and "therapeutic."  This was defended in the edit logs as "follow[ing] the NPOV definition in the article." Here are the actual definitions from the article:
: "Therapeutic abortion: An abortion performed because the pregnancy poses physical or mental health risk to the pregnant woman."
: "Elective abortion: An abortion performed for any other reason."
See the words that I've bolded? It's called a loophole. It means that all of the things that Goodandevil classified as "elective" could fall under this article's definition of "therapeutic" (the current definitions, for what it's worth, seem to be mutually contradictory, which is something we might want to address in the article overhaul).
It is unhelpful, unencyclopedic, and POV to "lump" statistics together in a conclusive manner.
Elective abortion, in the context of this article, should refer to any abortion that is not forced or coerced (such as under China's one-child policy or forced abortions on disabled women). Beyond this, it is not our place to define what is or what is not an "elective abortion." Some would classify abortions in the case of rape or incest as being "elective" (i.e., the abortion wasn't medically necessitated and thus having it was a matter of choice); others would classify abortions for social indications as being "therapeutic" (i.e., negative circumstances in the woman's life necessitate the relief of a therapeutic abortion). The simplest solution, then, is to just present the numbers without drawing conclusions for the reader.
The following text has also been removed for discussion:
: "In developed industrialized nations, abortion is overwhlemingly an elective procedure  (for example, 98% of the abortions in the U.S. are "elective", while 2% are considered "therapeutic")." 
The article cited is an aggregation of abortion statistics filtered through a biased lens (Read the article. "Extreme," "convenience," etc., etc.). Johnston concludes that abortions for social indications are "elective" and thus we have the the 98%/2% figures. As helpful as the Johnston archive might be, otherwise, a "statistic" is based upon his opinion, and not fact, isn't very helpful to the article.  The "statistic" could even be changed if we adjusted our definition. If no abortion other than one to preserve the life of the woman is to be considered therapeutic, then 99.8% would be elective; if any reason for having an abortion could, in some way, be considered therapeutic, the number becomes 100%. If we want to include data on reasons for abortion in the U.S., it would be better to consult the primary sources.
-Kyd 14:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elective abortion 

message: I'm bracketing off a new subsection to work on a revised statistics section. Scanning over the AGI study , I noticed that we've managed to spectacularly fail in mentioning that there are multiple reasons that women choose to get an abortion. Unfortunatly, as always the statistics focus on US, but those are still notable and are the most up to date statistics we seem to have found.--Tznkai 17:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Thanks Barwick for bringing that study up!  I think it is way too US-specific to be included as the only information (in other words, I'd like the statistics already in the article to stay), but the information is definitely good - it is recent and it is notable.  I agree that it should be included in the article in some form or another.  -Parallel or Together ? 00:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New statistics paragraph

message: 1. There does need to be a better presentation of this data. 
2. Because "Rape" or "Incest" are often red flags used to garner support for legal abortion, it is important to give accurate data and not lump the information in with other categories.  Rape or incest very rarely the reason for abortion, and this article ought to be clear about that.  Lumping it in with unddefined "other" is not beneficial to the reader's understanding of this issue. 
3. Similarly, a chart showing global data and data for selected countries would be helpful to show that reasons can vary by country. 
4. Barwick, welcome aboard.  The prevailing bias in the English speaking wiki-world is definitely to love abortion.  That bias is apparent amongst most who edit this article, and as such any neutral presentation of information is (very biasedly) categorized as having a pro-life bias. Having said that, pro-life people also need to ensure they are truly opting to present factual information or a neutral presentation of various views.  Because abortionists are always pro-abortion, any scientific data about abortion and most experts in the field hold a pro-abortion bias - that makes it hard to preserve neutrality in this article.  Same for any "journalism" sources - journalists and editors are committed to support legal abortion, and their bias is obvious in their news coverage - which again makes it hard to keep this article neutral. 
5. But some people, like Tzankai, do seem to truly seek a neutral article. 
6. Stick around, Barwick - your presence is most definitely needed here!!!! 
7. Public opinion polls in the US consistently reveal that a majority of the people think most abortions should be outlawed. Most Amreicans think abortion should be legal only in cases of rape, incest, or when the pregnancy poses a severe physical health threat to the mother (not a mental health threat).  That is not debatable - that is a reality. Pro-life views are MAINSTREAM, no matter how many times people tell you otherwse. 
8. Its high time most others who edit here realize that FACT.  To adopt the view that "abortion is always a valid choice" (that most editors here seem to adopt and argue when discussing bias within the article) as if it were the neutral view is to adopt a POV that is held by many and rejected by many. 
9. The paradigm needs to change.  NPOV in this article should reflect that pro-life and pro-abortion views have popular support and are both mainstream views.  NPOV should also acknowledge that virtually all people who work in the abortion industry are pro-abortion and hold a pro-abortion POV.  Same for most journalists and most newspapers - they admittdly have a pro-abortion bias.  
10. That bias should be acknowledged by all and taken into account when editing and determining bias.  
11. Thank you, Barwick, for your contributions.   
Goodandevil 13:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Goodandevil, this is not the Abortion debate article. Please take this there. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV means checking all misgivings about the so-called "liberal medial" at the door. This sort of initial mindset, here, is only going to be unhelpful and counterproductive down the road. -Kyd 15:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV means acknowledging that editors and journalists of most publications, unlike the general public they supposedly serve and represent as journalists, support abortion - and that their bias enters into their reporting and editing. Same with the abortion industry. Its not about liberal or conservative, its about bias that favors abortion, and recognizing its pervasiveness within news outlets and abortion practitioners or activists (who are most frequently quoted in abortion stories as if they held the prevailing or correct view). Goodandevil 17:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Discussing the bias within this article, among its editors, and within the sources used for this article is definitely appropriate for this discussion page. Such discussion will remain here where it belongs.  My concern is not that the article should contain the debate, but that the article should be written with a neutral POV that does not accept that abortion is good or bad and accepts that either or both views may be legitimate.  Goodandevil 17:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then please limit yourself to concise, specific suggestions, not essays filled with vague accusations. Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 14:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Barring something productive resulting, I'm going to archive this in 24.--Tznkai 05:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Good idea.  G&E's posts sound like he's trying out for a new talk show. Jim62sch 14:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stats and Biased Sources in General 

message: It appears someone wants some of the polls removed.  I oppose it on the following grounds:
# The first poll gives a better breakdown of opinion; it was taken by a dedicated polling agency (Gallup); it indicates a greater tendency towards pro life/abortion restrictions.
# The second poll is a news agency poll, with less breakdown; but indicates a greater tendency towards pro-choice/unrestricted access.
# The third is on Roe vs. Wade, a trial that needs to be considered independent of the legality of abortion, as it is possible the trial was flawed (as is testified by the then "Jane Roe," who claims it was bogus).
PLEASE take the discussion here instead of starting an edit war - which polls to be included are a matter of consensus, not personal opinion.DonaNobisPacem 23:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would prevent this type of edit war, but then we'd have the edit wars when people wanted to insert polls. OTOH we could cite WP:BIAS and take them out. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The polls have existed on the page for months without issue. Only one person (and, it would seem, this person's sockpuppet) has objected to their presentation. This person has decided that repeatedly starting edit wars, even against a 4/1 consensus, is the preferrable thing to do. -Kyd 03:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: However, I would support the complete removal of polls, if it comes right down to it. -Kyd 03:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that because abortion is controversial in only a few places (America, Latin America, and some places in Europe according to Quasipalm) that this is a perfect reason for including poll data from only these areas.  Might as well be as accurate as we can.  I think that the inclusion of all three American polls, presenting three different aspects of the debate, is good.  However, if the polls must go to reach NPOV concensus, then that should be the primary consideration.  I just don't feel taking away the polls is necessary. -Parallel or Together? 06:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: it seems we three have total consensus, then - polls from areas where abortion is controversial, and all 3 American polls, to present different aspects, but if it becomes a major issue better to take them out rather than spend all our time reverting and arguing with the one dissenter. Does that sum it up? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: One of Wikipedia's rules, indeed, is to be bold -- but there's a thin line been boldness and stubbornheadness. Okay, fine, you've said your piece, but most everyone thinks that your course of action is unreasonable. Edit wars prove nothing, solve nothing, and contribute nothing. They will only build frustration and acrimony. -Kyd 17:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your gesture is appreciated. My gesture was to default to the NPOV that the newest poll be in the article regardless of who likes or dislikes it.  Can't get more NPOV than that. Perhaps you will all eventually realize that. 84.146.252.100 19:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Perhaps you will all eventually realize that." is bordering on insulting. We realize you think you're right, any sane person thinks their position is correct, however implying that anyone who might disagree with you is wrong as opposed to having a differing opinion is inherently insulting. I'm sure you didn't mean to insult everyone on this page, I'm merely drawing your attention to this. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Kyd gloves seem to be a waste of time here. "My gesture was to default to the NPOV that the newest poll be in the article regardless of who likes or dislikes it." The Pew poll is recent. Why wage a holy war against it, then? Because you don't like it. -Kyd 19:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  American polls