Talk:Abortion/Archive 23

message: I found this:
A Times/Populus survey carried out among 1,504 people in November 2004 found 38% of Britons believed abortion should always be legal, while a further 36% said it should be "mostly legal".
Almost a fifth of those asked believed abortion should be mostly illegal, with just 4% believing it should be illegal in all circumstances.
There was little disparity between the views of men and women, but Labour and Liberal Democrat voters were marginally more likely to support abortion than Conservative voters. 
in this article 
I could add it but I thought I should get the view of people first as it might be contended etc... --Wolfmankurd 15:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've just read up on it and they conducted it in a larger group also, results arent too dissimilar. --Wolfmankurd 15:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey Public opinion

message: Let's all work on reaching a consensus for a new infobox to be placed on each individual birth control method's article.  I've created one to start with on the Wikipedia Proposed Infoboxes page, so go check it out and get involved in the process. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Infobox for individual birth control method articles 

message: ProChoice:
:
			150px
ProLife:
:
150px		150px	
-Quasipalm 21:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Activist pictures displayed

message: The Wrongful abortion article has been dead in the water for several months, having been tagged for clean-up since September, 2005. This article is largely dependent upon a single journal article and I would thus consider it OR. I tried overhauling  the article last year, but objections were raised, so I reverted the entire thing. Nothing has been done in the eight months since, and the complainer has had more than enough to to amend the article as they see fit, or to at least make suggestions as to how others might to do so. They have done neither. So, I suggest that the article be reverted to my version, and expanded upon, and that the "wrongful life" section be merged into the recently-created Wrongful life article. Thoughts? -Severa  (!!!) 03:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like it. With only one source, it smacks of neologism-ism. I'm inclined to suggest AfD unless there's proof that it's got wider useage. --InShaneee 03:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did find a few more sources in my version. The article has actually been subjected to an AfD before. It was also my initial reaction to nominate it for AfD again, especially after it's been neglected for so many months, but I figured it would only be fair to give the article an opportunity to be improved first. -Severa  (!!!) 04:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrongful abortion

message: The breast cancer and mental health sections seem relatively pointless. It says, "The hypothesis has not been verified and abortion is not considered an actual breast cancer risk by any major cancer organization." So if this is true, why in the world is it important enough to be mentioned here? Concerning mental health, it seems that that is also pointless. Many things that can happen to a person cause negative feeling. For example, getting HIV/AIDS must severely injure your mental health, but that article doesn't talk about it. So this article shouldn't, either.--Hadoren 22:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that a lot of these concerns are pseudo-science, they are still very popular arguments among some people. In order to satisfy NPOV, we must present all relevent POVs. The ABC-hypothesis and post-abortion syndrome are relevent enough to be mentioned, even if you and I both feel they are B.S. Our job, as wikipedia editors, is to report on our sources, not to determine The Truth (TM). --Andrew c 03:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There are large sections which I would prefer to dispense entirely in order to streamline this article. However, given the nature of the subject, I believe it is impossible to not to be comprehensive in our coverage. If you remove a section, a future browser will likely notice the absence, and replace it with something twice as long as the original. It would be wiser to just tolerate the 60K-and-growing article size than to open a Pandora's Box and unleash an edit war. The sections are stable and succinct; we can worry about pruning them when and if WPAbortion ever gets around to nominating this for FA. -Severa  (!!!) 14:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to resurrect a dead topic, but 60K is pretty huge.  Perhaps (and I'm just thinking aloud here) an article split?  We are roughly twice over the usual size limit, so an even split would put both child articles just under the wire for optimal FA size.  --BCSWowbagger 06:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that approximately 15K of that are the refs. :-) A year ago, Tznkai (who is sorely missed) suggested moving the article from "Abortion" to "Induced abortion", so that the discussion of miscarriage could be cut out entirely. Perhaps reviving this proposition could would help? -Severa  (!!!) 20:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cutting Down the Size 

message: Maybe the translation is from NLM, but it doesn't correspond to the Russian text on the poster. Any objections to my redoing the translation and removing the note about the translation coming from NLM? Jbhood 19:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it.  I certainly don't object to an improvement.  It'd be even better if you can explain here what you're correcting and why. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Not at all! I always felt there was more text on the poster than fit NLM's brief translation, so, a more accurate, detailed translation would certainly be both insightful and beneficial. My advice: if the translation is long-ish, place the full version on the image page, and relevant snippets in the in-article thumbnail caption. -Severa  (!!!) 21:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks a lot! Your translational effort is truly appreciated. -Severa  (!!!) 13:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of text in Soviet poster 

message: Created this peer review for the ABC article. Please add comments and suggestions there. Thanks! - RoyBoy 800 04:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis/archive1]]