Talk:Abortion/Archive 22

message: The thing I added is not a real disclaimer (I don't think that wikipedia needs something like that) but a warning. As it is subject to frequent edits by not-so-informed editors, the information contained in Wikipedia can be misleading. (for other reasons please see the template's talk page). I would appreciate if someone suggested some better wording, because this doesn't actually fit "abortion". ackoz  10:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Disclaimer" 

message: I have never seen the disclaimers you mentioned in Template_talk:HealthDisclaimer before. And I have been using Wikipedia for quite some time now (not editing tho). What is your reason for removing the templates? I suppose not everybody knows what wikipedia is (and that it can be edited by anyone), and you should suppose not everybody is that smart to check - most people just read something and if it sounds scientific (or if they LIKE it), they will believe it. Visible warnings/disclaimers should be placed on every page about health or healthcare, like every other serious webpages concerning health and healthcare. ackoz  20:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We also have a guideline of No disclaimer templates so this template should be deleted anyways. JoshuaZ 21:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health Warning 

message: I discovered Ethical aspects of abortion today and saw a ton of gramatical errors. I think there are also bigger issues, but was hoping editors on this page could give it some of their attention (seeing how things have slowed down here). --Andrew c 02:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather disorganized, isn't it? It reads more like an essay than an encyclopaedia article. I'll see what I can do. -Severa  (!!!) 07:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you much. Excellent work as always. --Andrew c 02:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article in need of help 

message: Just to let you guys know, the United States article is on featured article candidates list, so you can cast your vote there- or not.--Ryz05 19:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhhh, what does this have to do with abortion? Homestarmy 21:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It apparantly has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. Fomz 00:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US article on featured candidate

message: Hm, I though I added some time ago that the first modern case of abortion legalisation was in the Soviet Union. What happened to that? All that remains is an article emphasising that abortion has always been around (and conveniently ommitting that abortion has also always been controversial, and usually illegal.) I suppose I have to dig though the logs for an explanation... —Preceding unsigned comment added by  Vintermann (talk • contribs)  11:35, 12 May 2006
:In the future, please avoid inserting your comments at a random location on the Talk page, as this interrupts the logical flow of discussion, if not the comments of other editors, and results in confusion. Also, please remember to sign your comments at the end using three tildes, like so: ~~~~.
:As for your concerns, obviously, a lot has happened since you made four edits to this article two years ago. -Severa  (!!!) 15:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article concerns 

message: Not redundant. Google links haevily to wikipedia now, and directly to the articles. Average uneducated internet user only sees the article and doesn't really know how things work here PLUS the disclaimer at the bottom is insufficient with regard to the fact, that in some articles, latent nonsense / politically biased / extremist information (how many times do I have to repeat that until you get it, John Seigenthaler, John Seigenthaler, John Seigenthaler, John Seigenthaler, enough??) can be entered and go unnoticed for months. For instance in the case I mentioned above. If most of wikipedians think that "it's clear to everyone that they should check the edit history and then decide if they trust the article", most of wikipedians are extremely short-sighted. ackoz  22:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't our responsibility to inform every user at every article what Wikipedia is. It crowds the articles and is essentially spam to the growing numbers who do know what it is. While I know Wikipedia is not common knowledge, given its prominence in Google and on the internet, it soon will be. And John Seigenthaler isn't relevant here, so you can stop repeating it whenever you choose. - RoyBoy 800 23:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: Template:ControversialArticle has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. RoyBoy 800 23:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:ControversialArticle 

message: There are some changes in Abortion in Canada that might interest editors of this article. Al 23:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up. I reverted the last batch of edits by this user, and will try to keep an eye on things when I'm around... romarin[talk to her ] 01:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion in Canada. 

message: Please direct all future inquiries regarding the first paragraph of this article to Talk:Abortion/First paragraph. Any such posts made here, on the main talk page, will be moved. If you are looking for a thread which has "disappeared," check there. -Severa  (!!!) 20:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding 1st paragraph 

message: acording to miscarriage article:
Miscarriages occur more often than most people think. About 25% of women will experience one in their lives. Up to 78% of all conceptions may fail [1], in most cases before the woman even knows she is pregnant.
according to the abortion article it's 10%-50% not 78%(78 let you assume great acuracy in the number,the tow together asumes 10-78% fork,frankly i can do bater than that in my kichen) and it don't say "before the woman even knows she is pregnant".
which number is corect,i know that the real number is huge,and it'would be nice to add up the before women nolege prase(it gives the impression that some how abortion it's trivia,from natures perspective).78% of all conceptions that fail,if you concidering that you have a soul from the first second of conseption .... it's realy not negligable.i mean it's important for the debate on abortion.--Ruber chiken 22:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The margin tends to rather wide, as I understand it, because of the inherent difficulty in assessing miscarriage at stages when most women don't even know they're pregnant. -Severa  (!!!) 01:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  % of conceptions fail 

message: I'm not entirely sure why there isn't at least a small section about father's rights (concering abortion) under social issues. It is valid and it presents another angle about the issue. Might someone add it? (I'm not entirely sure that anyone would like my version even if I do attempt NPOV.) Chooserr 06:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it not more appropriate on the pro-choice/pro-life pages?  It seems politically more suited there, specifically the pro-life page.  Cheers, --Plumbago 07:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it may belong on Fathers' rights -- under a new section about abortion.  (Currently it's mostly about child custody issues.) -Quasipalm 14:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The article Paternal rights and abortion deals with this issue. However, the current content of the article is limited to arguments for and against paternal rights, and should be expanded to contain real examples such as the Tremblay v. Daigle case in Canada and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in the United States. I believe that this article should first be cleaned up, expanded, and sourced before beginning work on a summary section for "Social issues." Also, I would like to attend to one of the longer dwellers on the to-do list before launching into a more recent suggestion. -Severa  (!!!) 15:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind. I overhauled the entire article. Now there's something to work from. -Severa  (!!!) 01:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Father's rights 

message: Editors of this article may be interested in the events on pro-choice. Al 19:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you fuse the pro-choice article with basically a pro-life related article? Homestarmy 23:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I mean the merge template the person who seems to be edit warring with you, he wants to fuse the "Anti-abortion controversy" article with pro-choice? Wouldn't an article on the controversy bit sort of have alot of pro-life parts in it? Homestarmy 01:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe RoyBoy IIRC or someone else marked that merge a few months back. I think there is more info on the talk page of anti-abortion movement. The idea was to merge relevent info with both pro-life and pro-choice.--Andrew c 18:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its DonaNobisPacem suggestion. However, after a short glance; I'm entirely prepared to merge Pro-life activism to Anti-abortion movement soon. - RoyBoy 800 13:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-choice 

message: This article is on the precipice of an edit war. Additional user input might be helpful. -Severa  (!!!) 03:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Post-abortion syndrome]]