Talk:Instillation abortion

message: As for "hijacking" your work, you are fairly new to Wikipedia, and are obviously unaware that one doesn't own a Wikipedia article. You are free to add content, which others are free to edit, or remove entirely if is inappropriate. If one plans on editing Wikipedia, one must learn Wikipedia's standards, and not to take it personally. And, given that Wikipedia is a communal project, it is best to keep WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA in mind so that you can work cordially and efficiently with other editors. Your entry on my Talk page is accusatory in tone, claiming, without due evidence, that I committed "censorship," etc.
On the contrary, I happen to have most of the abortion-related articles on my Watchlist, and monitor for the creation of new ones as part of my routine categorization at WikiProject Abortion. I thus have a vested interest in all such articles. Abortion is a hot-button, sensitive topic, and, as such, requires a higher calibar of neutrality and sourcing than some articles. I understand you are new to Wikipedia, but the presumption of bad faith, right off the bat, will just make a difficult situation moreso. I'd recommend keeping it cool — and maintaining a strong level of personal detachment — if you plan on editing in divisive topics.
Granted, at first, it appeared that the Saline abortion had been plagerized, and thus would be a violation of Wikipedia:Copyright. This warranted immediate removal. However, if you are posting your own work, you must also be mindful of WP:OR.  Also, counter to your claim, the article does not
provide neutral, reliable sources, as required by WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CITE. Many of the claims do not have numbered citations and those which do are deadlinks. I am sorry to say that the burden of proof is upon you to provide sources before you post anything to Wikipedia. Otherwise, it's original research.
The article has a negative, editorialistic tone, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It is clearly counter to WP:NPOV; after all, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. As for  recreating the "Saline abortion" page, this seems unjustified, given the fact that saline instillation is now covered at "Instillation abortion." This is the technical term I have encountered in all the academic sources which I consulted; "saline abortion," in a Google search, returns only advocacy sites. I will, of course, be redirecting the page again, because the current fork is redundant and serves only to host your own OR/op-ed piece. -Severa  (!!!) 23:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The NAF mission statement was slipped into the article by an anonymous editor August 7, 2006. Although most would hesitate to call it WP:Vandalism, for reasons explored on the linked page, it was definitely the typical hit-and-run addition one might expect of an anon IP with no mind toward article quality, context, or NPOV. So, really, it's not like the mission statement was stable content agreed upon by multiple editors. It certainly didn't have my seal of approval. Last I read the article, there was no issue, and, unfortunately, it's not uncommon for these things to "slip under the radar" for a few days on smaller, more obscure pages — even despite the best efforts of the Recent Changes Patrol and the article's regulars. Once you have between 100-200 items on your Watchlist, it'll be impossible to be on top of everything, for obvious reasons. But, thanks for catching the oversight. -Severa  (!!!) 20:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re:Instillation abortion

message: It seems it would be good to provide inromation regarding fetuses who have been born alive after a intillation abortion.
Joey 19:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This fact is material to the aricle as anyone who has survived an abortion attempt by this method or who has given live birth after this having undergone this method will attest. I have included a sentence to this effect and cited the BBC.L. Porrello 16:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC mentions one person. Your other link had no information regarding this, and was a POV and non-reliable source. I have changed the phrasing to reflect this.-Andrew c 16:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see why you made the edit, but I think the current text is also inadequate. First of all, it is in the past tense. It should state, "there is one documented case...." The second issue is more problematic. Unless you have done an exhaustive search of the literature, I do not think you can say definitively that there is _only_ one documented case. There are other documented cases on POV sites. That alone makes your claim false. I concede that if a site has a clearly stated POV it probably should not be included in Wikipedia. However, just because a site has a POV does not mean that its information is unreliable. To remedy this situation, I think the statement needs to be reworded to indicate that live birth is possible after this type of procedure as evidenced in a case documented on the BBC. L. Porrello 17:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe your changes obscured the fact that the occurrences of a live birth result are very rare. The AbortionFacts site lists two people, where I have so far been able to verify that the second person "Amy" is a documented case. However, I have changed the phrasing to live this interpretation open. We don't need to bend over backwards in the lead to address 1 documented and 1 alleged case of live births from 30 years ago. We have to keep in mind undue weight concerns, and accuracy. Leaving the wording too vague gives a false impression about the frequency of such occurrences. -Andrew c 18:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your critique, and it was something I was struggling with too. Perhaps it is needless to say, but I think it would be wrong to mislead in either direction. I like your revision. Thanks! L. Porrello 18:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Try this link for the full text: , http://www.prolife.org.uk/pdfs/Abortion_Survivor.pdf. I wasn't sure how to include the ref to two texts, one to prove that the article exists and the other to show its content.LCP 18:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I understand why you would suggest after mortality, since like mortality, live birth is unexpected. I was thinking at the end, however, because everything else in the article has to do with the effects of the procedure only on the woman, and live birth effects mother and neonate.LCP 18:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Born Fetuses

message: The article says that injecting the saline solution induces uterine contractions.  The source given says nothing of the sort, not even mentioning what saline abortions do.  Besides that, the information is incorrect.  The saline solution kills the baby by burning it to death, and then the body miscarries the dead baby.  Sorry to be so graphic but that's pretty much it.  This article needs to actually say what happens during this kind of abortion and it needs to use adequate sourcing. Kristamaranatha (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The link has changed since 2006. They split the article up into 4 sections. The redirect went to section 1 (but if you had used the navigation at the top or bottom, you could have found the content in section 3: treatment). If you have better sources, please feel free to suggest them, and feel free to read up the newly updated citation to see if we are at the very least accurately representing that source. -Andrew c [talk] 04:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I find that claim hard to believe. If the fetus is being burned to death by chemicals, wouldn't that cause catastrophic injury to the woman? If there's a reliable source stating otherwise, go for it, but I remain skeptical. Asarelah (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Information and Sourcing