Talk:Becky Bell

message: I see that Ca2james reverted my changes to the lead.  I'd like editors to discuss these below.
My version (citations omitted.  First and last sentence omitted)
*Bell went to Planned Parenthood with a friend and was told that Indiana state law required her to obtain parental consent but that parental consent was not needed if she went to their clinic in Kentucky, 100 miles away. According to her friend, Bell wavered about what to do. Bell was subsequently hospitalized with a case of severe pneumonia and died. The autopsy showed evidence of genital infection and fetal matter but no signs of trauma or infection of the cervix. The coroner and pathologist stated the most likely cause of the infection was an induced abortion, most likely illegal or perhaps self-induced, but they could not rule out spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) triggered by pneumonia.
Ca2james' version w/ Binksternet's minor edit (citations omitted.  First and last sentence omitted)
*She intended to get a legal abortion but was hindered by Indiana state parental consent laws, which required either her parents' consent or a waiver from a judge, which she was afraid or unwilling to obtain.[1][3] The autopsy could not determine whether she died as a result of an infection following an induced abortion or whether pneumonia caused a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage).[3] Most experts agree that Bell appears to have obtained an illegal abortion or induced one herself and died due to complications from the procedure.[4] 
My argument: First, I believe my lead is entirely accurate and reflects the facts.  If you object to it, please identify anything in it that is inaccurate. Ca2James justified his or her revert with the claim that "including details about her confusion doesn't need to be in the lead as the lead is a summary only."  But I think her confusion very relevant because it underscores what both the pathologist and Clark said and why there is no certainty about what actually happened.  My lead also contains a clear statement to the effect that the coronor and pathologist both stated their opinions that there was an illegal abortion . . . which is the strongest evidence for that view point, since they were actually involved in the examination.  I think that is precisely how the WEIGHT issue should be balanced in the lead.
Regarding Ca2james version:  Statements like "she intended" and "she was afraid" are mind reading.  At the very least they should be clarified with the attribution, "according to her parents, she intended..."  My version attributes her wavering intent to the statements of her friend who asserts that she knows more about what was going on in her mind than her parents did at that time.  Also, I think my version is more accurate in describing the results of the autopsy.   And the the claim that "most experts agree" that she had an illegal abortion is not supported by all of the citations listed.  Nearly all of those citations are referring to the same small group of experts: the coroner and pathologist.  Unless one had the results reviewed by at least a statistically representative sample of several hundred autopsy experts, we don't know what "most experts" think about the matter.  What Ca2james can assert is that "most mainstream media articles on the issue state that Bell died of an illegal abortion."  But the phrase "most experts agree" is totally out of place. I think I've seen something in policy regarding the requirement for a very high standard of proof before claiming that there is a scientific consensus opinion on any matter, much less a very specific question regarding one young woman's cause of death.
So I invite other editors to chime in on editing the lead.
I would add that I have previously suggested that the lead could be as simple as: "Rebecca "Becky" Suzanne Bell (August 24, 1971 – September 16, 1988) was an American teenage girl who died of complications from a septic abortion. Following Bell's death, her parents became advocates for the repeal of parental-consent laws."  But someone, perhaps Ca2james, argued that the lead should include a more complete summary of the body of the article, which is why I tried to summarize the body of the article as I did.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Ca2james' version is good. The previous version included far too much detail (for the lead) about specific pathologic findings at autopsy, and also lacked coherent flow. As far as "most experts", I think Ca2james' version actually understates the sources. All of the experts interviewed in the reliable sources express the opinion that Bell died of complications of an illegal abortion. (Nathanson and Willke are not experts in post-mortem diagnosis, and as far as I know neither has any experience in forensic pathology or in interpreting autopsy results). It might be more in line with the sources to say: "The coroner determined that Bell died of of a septic abortion, likely as a consequence of an illegal abortion, although the autopsy findings were subsequently disputed by anti-abortion activists." Or maybe that's too much detail for the lead, but I think we should be clear - it's not like there are a bunch (or any) forensic pathologists lining up to dispute the coroner's findings. MastCell Talk 20:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest I'm not in love with "most experts" either but I couldn't think of a better way of phrasing that at the time. The sentence proposed by MastCell works for me. I felt that the GodBlessYou2's version included too much detail and repeated too much content from the one section. Ca2james (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should stress the coroner in lead.  Better to stick with the opinions of autopsy doctor (Dr. Pless), who is an undisputed expert with first hand knowledge.  Coroner's are not MD's.  They often have little to no medical training. Per the Coroner wiki page: "Qualifications for coroners are set by individual states and counties in the U.S. and vary widely. In many jurisdictions, little or no training is required." --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important to focus on this particular case, BoboMeowCat. Nobody at all has questioned the coroner's competence. You can close off that line of thought as unproductive. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

text: How can my version have "far too much detail" when it is only one line longer than the other version?  If we don't want "too much detail in the lead," why not cut it down to the first and last sentence, like I suggested earlier?  But if we are going to have further description sandwiched between, why not give accurate details? And the details I added are accurate. No one has disputed that.–GodBlessYou2 (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't just about how many lines the lead contains; it's about the level of detail. No one is disputing that the details you added are accurate but we are disputing that all those details belong in the lead. Those details were essentially copied from the body of the article which isn't a summary. Also, including those specific details gives them WP:UNDUE weight in the article which is not WP:NPOV. Ca2james (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead Revisions