Talk:Abortion/Archive 25

message: Nightline did a feature on Wikipedia on the night of 12 Sept. 2006.  I have not been able to access the transcript from the second half of the report (curse LexisNexis's incompleteness!), but I have been told this page--the Talk:Abortion page, not the main article--was featured on the program.  I do not know the length, detail, or context.  If anyone has more information, that would be appreciated.  Also, is there a template that goes with that? --BCSWowbagger 05:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is  for linking from an Internet site, and , for an article being used as a cite in published media, but SFAIK there is not one for media mention. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nightline 

message: I have changed the intro to more accurately reflect god's reality. Freedom of SCREEECH 04:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, Wikipedia is not a religious advocate, so you idea of God's reality is not the only one that needs to be reflected in this article. That's not neutral at all, really. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 17:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  npov fix 

message: "There are many reasons for abortion. Most of these include one night stands or alien abductions. YES PEOPLE THERE ARE ALIENS!! one person that wishes that abortion was around roughly 14.8 years ago is Ashley Bolger-Heys mother," wtf? So whoever '61.8.115.209' is, I'll be taking that little bit off.
-- Kerowren 20:54, 10 October 2006 (EST) (wtf is UTC? lol)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kerowren (talk • contribs) 18:02, 10 October 2006  (UTC)
*I take offense to this, as I am a native of the planet Neptune and we have the lowest incidence of rape in the whole galaxy.
Resonanteye 10:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: um

message: i want this format of box e.g talk about box to be included in othere article boxes such as Radio Pakistan article.will anyody help me there.Yousaf465
:To which "talk about" box are you referring? Please describe the template or its location in this article. Thanks. -Severa  (!!!) 10:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  box 

message: The first sentence reads: "An abortion is the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death."
Given that there is no established consensus (scientific or otherwise) as to when life begins, to characterize removal of the fetus as "resulting in death" seems to be a value judgment--the fetus must have been indubitably alive in order for it to die, correct? On the other hand, I'm not certain what an appropriate replacement would be--something along the lines of "non-viable"? I'm sure this is a highly controversial and charged topic, so I don't plan to make any changes without prior discussion! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  Traumerei (talk • contribs)  16:08, 17 November 2006.
Oops, I completely missed the earlier discussion on the talk page--never mind! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  Traumerei (talk • contribs)  16:09, 17 November 2006.
:I'm glad you noticed the talk page discussion. I agree that this exact wording isn't perfect, and you bring up valid points. But this is simply the best compromise sentence that all parties have been able to agree to. Feel free to bring up any suggested changes you may have, but please do so on the talk subpage, Talk:Abortion/First paragraph. --Andrew c 02:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the first sentence entirely correct/appropriate? 

message: I did some grammatical shifting to simplify some parts of the article. The only edit that made me nervous was removing the words "tiny" and "large" in referral to two studies. I felt that the adjectives were probably unecessary so I cut them. Someone may disagree; each was giving its sentence a skewed feeling, I thought.
If anyone disagrees I'm on the fence, so fix it.
Other than that I think just doing a few more grammatically simplifying things here and there can make this article more concise and readable, though it's really good already.
Resonanteye 13:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your copyedits are a step in the right direction. They have trimmed down some of the excess wording without altering the context of what is being said. Thanks! -Severa  (!!!) 04:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  word count and grammar 

message: The Abortion page is (to my experience) the most commonly-referenced Wikipedia article when giving an example of high-tension, debate-prone, reversion-war-susceptible Wikipedia pages. With that, you could imagine my surprise to find the article open for public editing, without so much as a warning box indicating flammability. To me this says that there are a lot of people cooperating to work on it, and that the number of trolls trying to spoil the peace enjoyed thereby is very close to zero. Y'all get a pat on the back. 64.90.198.6 23:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, thank you so much - Severa and the gang work very hard here to keep things civil. The trolls, I am sorry to report, number considerably more than zero. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From my experience, I concur with KC. We get more than our share of dubious edits on day-to-day basis. But I appreciate the encouragement all the same. -Severa  (!!!) 14:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't find deleting a post which points out that the very definition of abortion is wrong very civil. This is analogous to totalitatrian regimes putting opponents in prison. Such regimes are also often applauded for keeping the streets safe and clean. Sorry if this sounds a bit over the top, but even if exaggerated, the analogy seems fitting. DirkvdM 08:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about. Your post was moved to Talk:Abortion/First paragraph, because several months ago, the editors at this page agreed that discussion relating to the first paragraph would be carried out there. The edit summary of the move and the following post from the editor who moved it made it clear where you could continue the discussion. Why is that a problem? There may be some editors who don't like having discussion broken into different pages, but it was agreed before you arrived at this article, and in any case, I don't see what it has to do with civilty. AnnH ♫ 09:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm talking about moving dissenting views out of public view. This way it becomes invisible how many people disagree or that there are such people in the first place. DirkvdM 10:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved your thread to the appropriate location and politely notified where it could be found. I fail to see how this could be deemed "uncivil," or what you hope to achieve in making sarcastic posts to random topics, as demonstrated above, and in "Featured article?" below. If you want to get something done, cooperation is a more effective tool, compared to hostility. -Severa  (!!!) 11:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applause For Wikipedian Civility 

message: I have moved another topic dealing with "death" in the article introduction to Talk:Abortion/First paragraph. Please pick up the discussion there. Thanks. -Severa  (!!!) 02:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Death" relocation