Talk:Abortion/Archive 21

message: This is a photo that already is on the Religion and abortion page.  It is a photo of a religious ceremony and is only loosely related to the section.  It is described in a way that is anti-abortion and links to a a religious article.  Both the text and the article promote an anti-abortion view that their should be funerals for these fetuses.  Of the photos on the page, anti-abortion photos already have +2 advantage.  For these reasons, I think it violates WP:NPOV to add this photo.--Pro-Lick 23:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Until such time as a religion and abortion sub-section exists (and, granted, that might be a while, because no one is interested in paying the to-do agenda any mind, and I'm sick of taking it on single-handedly), do you have a better suggestion for where to put it? As for "anti-abortion photos," I honestly don't understand your rationale. This isn't a contest; it isn't we pro-choicers versus them pro-lifers. We're not keeping score. -Severa ?? | !!! 23:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I already answered your question about a better idea.  Keep it on the religion and abortion page.  Why reproduce it here if you don't even have consensus on a section you wish to add (but don't wish to put in the work for) where it might fit?  That adds no consensus for adding the photo to the list of reasons why it should be removed.--Pro-Lick 00:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Another thing to consider, this article has been tagged for not having a worldwide view point. While this is only a small step, including information from other cultures (while possibly overlapping with religion) also helps broaden the international depth of the article. I believe this photo is significant in that it helps towards eventually removing the worldview tag. I also don't see how this cultural practice is anti-abortion, seeing as how it clearly does not prohibit abortion. Do a google search on it sometime. --Andrew c 15:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The religious magazine article it links to describes it as something imposed upon the women, associates it with infanticide, and uses typical anti-abortion propaganda language like "souls of their babies" and "children".  It cites an article called Ill effects of abortion: Terrible harms are caused by the souls of aborted embryos to their own families.  The religion and abortion article section it links to: Mizuko kuyo ... lit. "water-child memorial service".   Child is neutral?  Later, soul of the fetus, believed to protect children, and associating it with infanticide.  It's only NPOV in terms of describing how the religion views it (and I'm not even sure of that, it may be just a small sect of Buddhists that are receiving undue weight relative to the majority).  I think what this shows is that the world view tag is being employed as a distraction to insert POV, which means the NPOV tag will return shortly regardless of whether the world view is satisfied or not.  Maybe it's just a lack of work ethic in seeking out international photos that actually provide incidence-related information.--Pro-Lick 17:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incidence Photo - Buddhists 

message: "NY Times can not be biased"? that article is specifically from the POV of a person who is apparently attempting to associate a nation where anti-abortion laws are not very well regulated with the pro-life movement in order to draw a conclusion that a nation led by a pro-life agenda will apparently "do bad" so to speak, am I missing something in that link? I don't understand how it isn't biased. Homestarmy 17:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it as an example of a government that enforces pro-life policies as most pro-life people would like it enforced.  No abortions, and report and criminalize people that have any possible involvement with abortions.  Am I missing something?  Is that not what pro-life is driving for?--Pro-Lick 00:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im not very politically involved in the pro-life thing so I can't tell you exactly what the "official" U.S. pro-life movement would have as an outline for a "pro-life state", I would imagine some sort of social welfare system might be implemented but I dunno, I think there's something about conservatives not liking that kind of thing, im not sure. But look at the kind of links down there in that section, you've got statistics, abortion laws, a medical analysis thing, and then....an opinion essay, reflecting on the apparent flaws of a particular countries abortion laws and how it is impacting their society. It doesn't look consistant, even if the "bias" argument I propose doesn't hold. Homestarmy 01:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The part about it belonging in the bias section is probably true.  I'm not arguing it's a peer reviewed historical study.  But at least it's not an Washtington Times or LA times article.  I'll move to pro-choice section if not already.--Pro-Lick 03:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ehh?

message: I don't get one thing. A medical textbook is copyrighted right? So if I list it as a source, do I violate any copyright? If I use it as a source of information for the article, do I violate the copyright? Even if I do not use the exact same formulation? Because there are more medical textbooks on the market .. I dont believe they sue each other for writing about the same things and all the writers once used a textbook to learn the facts they write about. ackoz 18:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it falls under fair use or something to cite textbooks, just as long as you don't quote a bunch of it or something I think, where "a bunch" would be like more than a couple paragraphs I suppose. Homestarmy 02:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty sure you can quote small portions, verbatim, or else paraphrase what is written in your own words. -Severa | !!! 02:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See fair use. I think Wikipedians should stay well within its limits though, since editors license all their contributions under the GFDL (e.g meaning material should be suitable for use in a for-profit context). AvB ÷ talk 09:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: When you mention "viability" of the abortion methods in the chart, what exactly are you referring to? ____G_o_o_d____ 20:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would imagine "practicability" in the sense of which methods can be or are used at specific durations in the pregnancy. Perhaps, this should be changed, due to the common understanding of "viability" as being synonymous with fetal survivability in the abortion lexicon. Great job on the chart, BTW, Kaldari! :-) -Severa | !!! 01:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, viable, as in "practicable". I'll change it if you think it's confusing. Would it be better if it just said "Induced Abortion Methods"? Any other suggestions? Kaldari 01:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't confused by it, but you could still change it, if you want. I'd recommend the chart title, "Practice of Induced Abortion Methods," and the image caption, "Gestational age may determine which abortion methods are practiced." I would also recommend introducing some kind of ruler along the bottom of the image, so to show the precise number of weeks, but if that's not feasible, it's great as it is! -Severa | !!! 01:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't think the precise number of weeks is necessary since there seems to be little agreement on exactly when certain methods are appropriate anyway. I've tried to come up with something of a concensus average for each one. For example, I'd rather people get the impression that Dilation and curettage is practiced from the middle of the 1st trimester to the beginning of the 2nd trimester, rather than from the 6th week to the 15th week (as there's a lot of variation in practice). Kaldari 05:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've edited the title per Severa's suggestion. If anyone has any other suggestions for improving the chart, let me know. Kaldari 05:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kaldari's chart question

message: Recent revert-warring from sockpuppet accounts using false edit summaries:
*Revision as of 07:32, 15 April 2006 by BrushLimpcow. Edit summary: "correct some grammar errors."
*Revision as of 15:24, 16 April 2006 by Ingralamb. Edit summary: "shorter, clearer, reduce slant."
*Revision as of 16:04, 16 April 2006 by Ingralamb. Edit summary: "shorter, clearer, unslanted."
*Revision as of 17:31, 17 April 2006 by O.P.Nuhss (a name no doubt called into Moe's Tavern by a crank-calling Bart Simpson). Edit summary: "help the writing."
*Revision as of 20:26, 17 April 2006 by NColemam. Edit summary: "just refining to make accurate."
*Revision as of 20:49, 17 April 2006 by NColemam. Edit summary: "slight adjustment."
*Revision as of 01:09, 18 April 2006 by O.P.Nuhss. Edit summary: "provide citation."
-Severa | !!! 03:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:O.P.Nuhss reached 4 reverts, so I made a report.  Any admin who wants to field it, cool.  I'm sitting this round out. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we apparently suspect Pro-Lick? :/ Homestarmy 02:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Characteristic edits to the opening paragraph, particularly the removal of "death," repeated 3RR violations, uncivil comments, juvenile usernames ("Oh, penis" and "Am Erect"), Pro-Lick's established history of using sockpuppets when his main account is under block. -Severa  (!!!) 03:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a certain similarity; I suppose a checkuser would reveal all.  I've just blocked User:M.E.Rhekt indefinitely, by the way. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: When M.E.Rehkt said "20th cent" in that last edit summary, he was counting 10 edits removing the word death: five as NColemam, three as O.P.Nuhss, and two as M.E.Rehkt.  I suspect DPG and Donpediac are someone different; DPG actually backed off the first sentence of Partial-birth abortion after being warned about 3RR. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  DPG made edits to mental health, adding the word, "doubtful," which Pro-Lick has inserted (along with synonyms, i.e., "dubious," "questionable") many times into some of the "Suggested effects" sub-sections. Let me hunt diffs. BTW, how, exactly, would I go about reporting repeated disruption by multiple, but probably associated, accounts?  -Severa  (!!!) 03:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, AN/I is a good place to get attention.  I'm posting there now.  If you want to request a checkuser, there's WP:RCU, and page protection is requested at WP:RFPP.  Eventually, Pro-Lick could earn a listing at WP:LTA.  Then there's always WP:WOTTA when you can't find the page you're looking for... -GTBacchus(talk) 04:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent sockpuppetry

message: due to the probable sockpuppetry and editwarring from new users as outlined above, this page has been temporarily semi-protected.  --Heah? 04:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sprotect