Talk:Abortion/Archive 24

message: An August 1, 2006 article by Marshall Poe, "A Closer Look at the Neutral Point of View (NPOV)," explores the concept of NPOV by examining the proceedings of this article between May-October 2005. -Severa  (!!!) 09:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that's interesting to read, almost sureal. Thanks for the link. --Andrew c 13:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would placing an  tag on this page be appropriate or not in this instance? I am not entirely certain as to whether this qualifies as having used the article as a "source." -Severa  (!!!) 14:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the very least we should at least put a suggestion up at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost, if not make a write up ourselves.--Andrew c 16:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: We're mentioned on The Atlantic Online

message: Why is there no mention of the fact that Blacks & Hispanics are much more likely to have an abortion than white women. Since 1973 14 million Black fetuses & 10 million Hispanic fetuses have been aborted. This has altered the percent of black population of the US by -4%. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  4.224.123.74 (talk • contribs)  00:37, 24 August 2006.
:Hmm I'm not sure of the relevancy here even if this statement that's being made is true. You seem to be implying that 'Blacks and Hispanics' are more likely to have an abortion because of their ethnicity (or any number of situational factors attributed to their ethnicity) of which I don't see conclusive proof of. Even if such proof could be rendered different demographics in different parts of the world will inevitably have different abortion rates but including merely one ethnic group (or any specific group) does not bring a greater understanding of the subject and seems to lean towards racism to me.--Artificialard 05:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he's referring more towareds the increase in abortions among minorities as a result of unfavorable economic hardships left over from more racist times, rather than an increase somehow based compleatly on the color of one's skin. Homestarmy 02:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minority Abortions

message: ...how come there's nothing on menstrual extraction/the women's self-help movement performing them for each other, etc? (i didn't read the whole archives--maybe this is covered somewhere?)
http://www.fwhc.org/selfhelp.htm
Cindery 01:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds increadibly dangerous, and not just because the goal is to kill an unborn baby either.... Homestarmy 22:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Just because something is legal doesn't make it safe, and i'd say sticking implements into...ah...very private places in other people's bodies with basically the training of reading a few web pages ranks fairly low on the safety scale. Homestarmy 00:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because something's unsafe doesn't make it non-existent.  Cindery's original question was not "Is menstrual extraction a good idea?", but "Why isn't it mentioned in the article?", if I'm reading correctly. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, my mistake, sorry. Homestarmy 00:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It sounds like you have a good idea what needs to be there and how to provide good citations for it - why not go ahead and edit the article, and see what happens? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: menstrual extraction?

message: There is a specific sub-page reserved for the discussion of this article's first paragraph: Talk:Abortion/First paragraph. If you are looking for either of the two recent "Death" threads, I have moved them, so please check there. Thanks. -Severa  (!!!) 05:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving of two "Death" topics

message: WP:RS is clear on the issue of source bias. Obviously, we cannot audit the personal opinions of an author, but we can verify that he or she does not have any connections which might present a conflict of interest. For instance, a study questioning the negative health effects of cigarettes authored by a smoker wouldn't be an issue, but such a study from a someone with proven ties to the tobacco lobby would raise questions.
i think you are mistakenly conflating bias with conflict of interest. conflict of interest (as in examples of drug companies or tobacco lobby funding research) refers to finacially motivated bias.  opinion bias is generally agreed to potentially exist in every study--hence the gold standard is the double-blind controlled placebo study. "consensus" is even more problemmatic viz bias, as it can be taken to mean that something has been decided once and for all, but is in fact subject to change based on new information (as in the case of idiopathic disease and psychological distress subject to great individual and contextual variation). i see no precedent in WP:RS establishing that potential opinion bias in and of itself renders a study irrelevant. (the professional ethical standards of medical journals--i.e., the outside world which wikipedia is supposed to reflect) do not exclude studies from publication for potential opinion bias (but they hold double-blind controlled studies, reproduced/reproducible evidence, and peer review in higher esteem than a single study.)
the problem with the APA position paper is that it is exactly that--a position paper, clarifying the political position of the APA (it is not an authoritative objective synthesis of the studies to date; although it pretends to be one). i would say that it will never be possible to absolutely determine by empirical evidence that there is a causal relationship between an event and a reaction, for the same reason that psychology is not a hard science:individual variation is too great and too paradoxical. assertions regarding associations between depression and abortion will no doubt continue indefinitely and inconclusively. hence studies--biased or not--from both sides should be included to reflect that there is no agreement, including russo and reardon.  APA presents false objective consensus, which is different than a potentially biased study.
re the rearrangement of first sentence in section: a problem throughout the "mental health" section is that post-abortion syndrome, depression, and other adverse psychological effects are not distinguished in the point-counterpoint. (meaning: all studies which examine and find depression are not therefore asserting post abortion syndrome exists). Mkaksone is correct that depression/suicide are different findings. the Russo studies didn't really address depression, but "self-esteem."  there are pro-life assertions that "post-abortion syndrome" exists, but those have not been mentioned or included (which is necessary for a point-counterpoint about whether it exists and who thinks so). "data is inconclusive" is NPOV; i'm not so sure about "negative feelings about reproductive choices"--vague and weasel-worded, this article is about abortion--and immediate mention of "PAS" as though it were the inclusive summary of the issues at hand, when it is not.
Cindery 21:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you read through the archives to understand why this is the current wording. The original text read as: "Some women will experience negative feelings as a result of elective abortion." This was carefully worded to acknowledge the fact that, regardless of whether studies refute or support the assertation that abortion is generally a detriment to mental well-being, some women will report negative feelings as a result of having terminated their pregnancy.  However, another user complained that this phrasing was "weaseling," in light of the fact that women can also regret childbirth. The sentence you believe to be weasel-worded was in fact the product of an attempt to avoid weasel-wording.  :-Severa  (!!!) 22:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: conflict of interest v. bias

message: automatic reverting without addressing the discussion (see above) is edit warring, and you are up to 2 reverts in as many hours...this is clearly not "stable" content as it is currently the subject of discussion/re-edit/reverting. "PAS" again, does not encompass all of the studies referred to in the section, and should not be referred to in the first sentence as if it did.
Cindery 21:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, Cindery, you are the one whose editing behavior is questionable, as you are removing content which has been in the present article in a relatively unaltered form for nine months without explanation or agreement. -Severa  (!!!) 22:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "unilateral blanking"

message: "Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus."
So what, exactly, is the rationale behind this? 
-Severa  (!!!) 00:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:Vandalism]]

message: i was trying to post terms, but there was an edit conflict while you personally attacked me with a vandalism accusation. you may not remove dispute tags while a dispute is unresolved.
the studies referred to in the mental health section do not make arguments for the existence of "post abortion syndrome."
"post abortion syndrome" is a term used for example, here: 
the debate about whether or not "post abortion syndrome" exists is separate from inconclusive data about whether or not negative psychological sequelae can ensue from abortion, and should not define the discussion in the section in the lead sentence, as it is not at issue in the studies.
equating all studies which find that depression, suicide etc. can ensue from abortion with "the existence or not" of a defined nosological category advocated by none of the scientists who have performed the included studies is an example of a straw man argument. if, for example, all of the studies advocated that PAS should be a defined term, based on their findings, then an appropriate summary in the lead sentence would be "some say it should be in the DSMV, but it is not."  since none advocate this, framing the discussion in terms of PAS in the lead sentence is inaccurate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cindery (talk • contribs) 20:21, 8 September 2006.
:Note how I neither refered to you as a vandal nor removed your tag. I merely refered to a WikiPolicy page. Generally, tagging an article is regarded as last resort in an editorial dispute, not a first resort. Specifically, a tag is is usually placed when debate between several editors fails to yield a solution and has reached an impasse. Tags are obstrusive and distracting to readers and thus placing them in an article is not something which is to be done lightly or preemptively. 
:"Post-abortion syndrome" is a term used by Wikipedia as the title for an article. If you have an issue with the term, it should be addressed on Talk:Post-abortion syndrome, not here. Nowhere does the section attempt to equate findings on depression, suicide, etc. with this proposed syndrome. It merely states that there is debate over whether post-abortion mental health effects warrant an individual nosological classification, and, then, goes on to note that PAS is not a mental disorder listed in two prominent diagnostical manuals. You might infer that therein PAS is being equated with other conditions (depression, substance abuse, suicidal tendencies, etc.), but this, in and of it itself, does not constitute a factual dispute. The underlying facts, discussed above, are not in dispute. -Severa  (!!!) 01:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't had the time to read all the talk page discussion yet, but I think citing the actual studies, instead of the general overview from the APA, seems like an improvement to me. However, I think we may need to watch out for being a bit meticulous by citing each individual study in such detail. (or not, I'm torn. at the very least, I'd say we shouldn't add any more specific details) Regardless, it seems like both paragraphs need topic sentences to give a brief overview/connect the studies, and to perhaps explain the contrast between the two 'sets' of studies. something like "On one hand, a number of studies have shown abortion to have neutral or postive effects on mental health in some patients..." "On the other hand, a number of other studies have shown a correlation between abotion and depression/suicide/etc in other patients". Something along those lines leading in each paragraph? Maybe we don't need the "on one hand/other hand" part, but you get my drift. I'll review the discussion and comment more later.--Andrew c 02:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The tag placed states the following: "The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed." It has not been conclusively established precisely what facts are in dispute. What is being questioned is the manner in which the facts are being presented, not the accuracy of the facts themselves, and thus the use of this tag is inappropriate.  -Severa  (!!!) 02:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think its like one of those issues that comes up on Big Bang and Evolution. Because the article is about a scientific POV, views that are nearly non-existent within the scientific community are given proper weight, which is to barely mention them at all. If we are to follow this precedent, we probably shouldn't mention PAS in the opening, and simply keep it as an aside somewhere. ON the otherhand, part of this article covers the social/political debate where PAS may be a more common view. Perhaps it belongs in another section? Anyway, just some thoughts.--Andrew c 21:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't quite understand why the section that discusses the theory of post-abortion syndrome can't be linked to the main article. Because of the reason that article got started, or its creator? You gladly have my blessing to adapt that article as you see fit. In the meantime, that section of this article deals with the "extreme-minority viewpoint", and I see that as the only reason it's immediately addressed. I'll refrain from adding back the link for the moment, but I don't understand why you object to it. As for moving it to a different section...maybe. I personally think it's fine where it is (though, yes, it should be noted as a minority viewpoint), but if we can reach a faster consensus by moving it, all the better. -Umdunno 05:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: " Most medical professionals agree with the recent prospective studies that conclude no abortion-breast cancer association, and the ABC issue is seen by some as merely a part of the current pro-life "women-centered" strategy against abortion. Nevertheless, the subject continues to be one of mostly political but some scientific contention." 
Post-abortion syndrome is a good foundation upon which to base our summary. We should concentrate of summarizing this article, as was done with Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel as we are doing now. After all, why is there is no drive to divorce discussion of the potential of a correlation between abortion and breast cancer from that of the "ABC hypothesis?" -Severa  (!!!) 05:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no suggestion that PAS is linked to or dependent upon other disorders. This is your own assessment of the section; we will need clear evidence and a definitive reason to justify the exclusion of PAS — a suggested psychological condition related to abortion — from the "Mental health" sub-section. Otherwise, it would be little more than POV-forking. If it is still your opinion that distiction between "Post-abortion syndrome," which is itself ill-defined, and other disorders is insufficient, then perhaps the solution would be to propose the creation of a Abortion and mental health article. Circular arguments are not going to produce a solution and are just going to distract us from addressing other parts of the article. We have generously let your tag remain for two days, but it is an obtrusive and unsightly presence, and is not justified given the fact that your concerns are ones of context, not of factual accuracy. Tags are not to be misused as leverage in editorial disputes and thus it should be removed. -Severa  (!!!) 07:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, please note the to-do list, which contains many tasks which as-of-yet remain incompleted. Endlessly rehashing already-completed sections is counterproductive and hampers progress on this article. -Severa  (!!!) 05:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: accuracy dispute

message: the "PAS" article does not equal the scientific or medical studies on mental health and abortion, which is what is summarized in the section. "PAS" gets exactly seven hits on pubmed, only one of them current (the one i included--in which a whole two doctors advocate for the term). that's an "extreme minority."
below, i have posted your previous summary of why the section should be framed in terms of "PAS." the problem with the discussion below is that neither of you is arguing WP:RS--you are arguing your own opinions against the perceived threat of a pro-life website + pro-lick and his PAS article. the decision that "the real bone of contention" is whether PAS exists is just your opinion of what the heart of the matter is based on one editor and a website--it is not based on a reliable source, or any of the studies summarized in the section.  the "debate" you refer to appears to have been a debate between you and two or three other people vs. pro-lick and his PAS article.
from the talk archives:
"Mental health changes
The original:
Some women will experience negative feelings as a result of elective abortion. However, whether this phenomenon is significant enough to warrant a general diagnosis, or even classification as an independent syndrome (see post-abortion syndrome), is a subject that is debated among members of the medical community.
"Pro-lick's version:
"Negative mental impact as a result of elective abortion is considered unproven. This phenomenon has been generally referred to as post-abortion syndrome."
The original version "covers all bases," and, thus, I believe it should be kept. Some women will regret abortion, or be pained by it, as many come to regret decisions such as dropping out of high school or having an extramarital affair. It's callous and dismissive to label such emotions as "unproven," even unintentionally, and even if such campaigns as Silent No More are little more than alarmist efforts intended to ban abortion through the self-interested manipulation of human suffering. The real bone of contention herein is whether abortion is in general deleterious to mental health and whether this effect warrants classification as an independent syndrome. I'm reverting the opening paragraph in this interest. -Severa ?? | !!! 04:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "prior consensus"

message: I think Andrew c's suggestion to add "On one hand"/"On the other hand" topic sentences to the two paragraphs is a good idea. As it seems no one else has anything against it either, I'll add these sentences to the beginning of both paragraphs.
As for the PAS issue, I think Cindery's addition "Women who suffer from conditions listed in the DSM-IV following an abortion--such as depression, anxiety, stress, substance abuse and suicidal behavior--do not need a diagnosis of "post abortion syndrome" to be treated for those conditions." and the mention that there are two doctors who think that PAS should have its own classification clarified the section considerably and should be re-added. Right now, this paragraph appears to be confusing - Severa's comment "After all, why is there is no drive to divorce discussion of the potential of a correlation between abortion and breast cancer from that of the "ABC hypothesis?"" makes this clear. "The potential of a correlation between abortion and breast cancer" and "the ABC hypothesis" are synonyms. Post-abortion syndrome and depression/suicide/etc occurring post-abortion are not. The discussion whether there's a relationship between mental health problems and abortion, and the discussion whether there's an independent set of mental symptoms specific to abortion that should be classified as post-abortion syndrome, are different issues. For instance, miscarriage is known to increase the risk of depression and suicide, but that doesn't mean there should be a separate nosological category called "post-miscarriage syndrome". Neither are there, as far as I know, any syndromes called "post-rape syndrome" or "unemployment-syndrome" or "post-death-of-family-member-syndrome", but that doesn't mean these events couldn't be related to subsequent mental health problems.
I think the issue primarily discussed in the Mental health -section is whether or not abortion in itself is related to subsequent mental health problems. The discussion whether the symptoms exhibited by some women after abortion constitute an independent syndrome is another discussion. The discussions are related and I agree the suggestion to classify certain mental symptoms occurring after an abortion as "post-abortion syndrome" could be mentioned in this section, but not as if this discussion was synonymous to the general discussion on mental health problems related to abortion. Therefore, I support the re-addition of the clarification originally added by Cindery.
Mkaksone 07:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've modified the section to include a description of PAS from its own article. I have also broken the paragraphs and prefaced the second one in a manner which I hope resolves any unintentional conflation. -Severa  (!!!) 08:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mental health and PAS

message: I'm fairly new here but I have been following this discussion closely.  I offered one minor edit and was immediately personally attacked. Mumblio 08:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Not sure what section of this page to add my notes to, since three sections seem to revolve around the same topic. I have been recently involved in a somewhat exhausting revision of Planned Parenthood#Controversy and criticism, which is why I haven't been around. I won't question the majority of the new revisions until I've had a chance to thoroughly go over them. But, looking at the current revision (by Mumblio), I note the total lack of linkage to post-abortion syndrome. I understand de-linking it as the mainarticle (although I haven't closely scrutinized the citations--yet), but removing it entirely is more than a little extreme. PAS is currently a well-written, appparently well-cited article, and it deserves to have the chance to speak for itself. It should be mentioned and wikilinked in the Mental Health section. Apologies if I am retreading old arguments; I have not had time to read the entire discussion and accompianing edit log--since it is about three pages long. Doesn't 3RR apply? Especially on such a heavily disputed page? --BCSWowbagger 05:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Addendum: Hm.  While I was writing this, I caught an edit conflict where Cindery dealt with some of those very issues I mentioned.  I preserve my post as originally written for historical purposes. --BCSWowbagger 05:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PAS not main article 

message: continually and immediately reverting, severa, especially without discussion and against a consensus compromise, might be considered disruptive edit warring even though you stop at 2 every day.
Cindery 05:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:3RR

message: I've protected the page in light of recent edit-warring. I am not going to block anyone for 3RR at this time, call it a amnesty if you may. Please discuss the changes instead of edit-warring with each other. If there is any signs of edit-warring after this page is unprotected I'll not hesitate to block the involved party/parties for any violations. --WinHunter (talk) 09:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected