Talk:Abortion/Archive 29

message: A notice has recently been inserted at the top of this article, without discussion.  The notice says:
This new notice is unnecessary, and is also inaccurate.  The second sentence of the lead paragraph already very prominently links to miscarriage.  Moreover, the notice incorrectly says that “abortion” is medically defined as “spontaneous abortion.”  That is incorrect, according to the lead paragraph and the sources cited therein: “it is sometimes medically defined as either miscarriage or induced termination before the point of viability” (emphasis added).  Additionally, the notice at the top may give some people the impression that the article does not contain any medical information.  Anyway, there was no discussion of this new notice, so I'll restore the previous version, with an invitation to discuss at talk page.Ferrylodge 01:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the removal, and I agree that the use of "medical" in the text is just inaccurate. By its very nature, the abortion procedure is a medical procedure.-Andrew c [talk] 01:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was worried about that notice too. It seems rather like a subtle attempt to redefine the article's subject matter. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 13:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New notice at top of article

message: When I attempted to add a dispute template to the section over which we disagree, User:KillerChihuahua immediately reverted this addition.  In the edit summary, KillerChihuahua stated: "A minor content dispute does not call for a tag, especially the "totally-disputed" tag. Photo, you are being disruptive again."  I feel that this statement fails to WP:AGF.  Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute makes it very clear that this use of a dispute template is supported:
:If you come across an article whose content seems or is inaccurate, please do the following:
::* if there are more than five dubious statements, or if a dispute arises: [emphasis mine]
:::* insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem. This will help focus contributions from others.
::The multiple page lengths discussing this issue indicate that a dispute has arisen.
:::* paste  in the beginning of the article to add a general warning. 
::This I did, actually I added  as to be minimally disruptive on the readability, only to be labeled "disruptive" by KillerChihuahua.  
Does anyone else find the template to be problematic?  We haven't resolved this, and the template may draw new voices to the discussion.  At least, it will alert readers to the presence of a dispute.  Photouploaded 15:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You used , which you have now replaced with . Either one indicates a dispute about the accuracy of the content. We have no such dispute. We have a minor content dispute about the best phrasing to meet NPOV. This is not an accuracy dispute which calls the content of the section into question. The section itself is well written and sourced. I strongly support the efforts to reach consensus on the minor phrasing issue in question. A template, however, is overkill. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I demonstrated, the use of a template is indicated in the presence of a dispute.  Also, whether or not to include the word "most" does affect the accuracy of the content, as I stated in my initial edit summary.  The length of the disputed sentence is short, but it has given rise to such lengthy debate, here, that placing the template is a good choice.  Photouploaded 15:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with KillerChihuahua. And I would add the dispute is not only minor but also "tedious".LCP 15:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is now the eighth time you have used the word "tedious", adding to your seven uses of the word in one of your previous comments, which seemed intended to call me out for using the word twice in a two-paragraph comment.  Your repeated use of the word strikes me as antagonistic.  Please stop.  Photouploaded 15:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found your use of "tedious" inspiring. You hit the nail on the head. “Imitation is the greatest for of flattery.” Regardless, did you mean “stop using he word tedious" or “stop responding”?LCP 16:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Your "demonstration" consists entirely of pasting content from a page which explains a template - it isn't even a guideline page, let alone a policy page. My I suggest that at 178 edits, you may have a less clear grasp of the appropriate use of tags than other editors who have considerably more experience with Wikipedia, and that you are arguing rather than availing yourself of an opportunity to learn. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For an editor who recently chided me for the necessity of commenting on content, rather than the contributor, you seem to give yourself a wide rein when doing the same. As an administrator, are you aware that Wikipedia:Disputed statement, an editing guideline which is "generally accepted among editors and... considered a standard that all users should follow" details the exact same course of action as that which I detailed from the template page?  Photouploaded 16:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "Community input" is not the same as "a bulk of chastisement from one person".  Now you are waving your administrator status over my head.  I have been clear and provided refs for what I am doing and why.  Please back off.  Photouploaded 16:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have received warnings from Andrew_c, Gscshoyru - twice, me about deleting Ferrylodge's post, which he commented on here, along with mentioning WP:CON; you were blocked by Walton One, I pointed you to WP:CIVIL here. This in addition to multiple comments and suggestions from multiple editors, the pasting of which would take another entire section. I will now "back off" and stop trying to help you, as you clearly would rather do without the assistance of an experienced administrator to help you learn. The warning, however, stands. You have now moved my post again, and you are well aware of TPG as both Ferrylodge and I have explained it to you. You have chosen to replace the template on the article, thus edit warring despite having only seen opposing positions on the talk page, and none supporting inclusion of the template, thus going against consensus (such as it can be at this early juncture.) Make another personal attack, edit another post by someone else, in short break a single policy and I will very likely block you in order to give the regular editors of these articles a much needed break from your hostility and disruption. You have shown no desire to learn the rules, or to learn how to work within the rules on Wikipedia, and have POV-pushed using incivility, ABF, personal attacks and hostility to one and all. It is a pity you reject the help you have been offered. If you have a change of heart, let me or someone on the mentorship program know and I or they will be happy to help you. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've made me feel really unwelcome over something as little as attempting to restore the order of a threaded discussion.  I'm absolutely serious, I think you should review WP:NAM and WP:BITE. Photouploaded 20:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to intrude on the conversation, but it seems to me (and my weird mind) there are quite a few sections on many controversial articles that could have , , and the like added to them-- probably perpetually-- for whatever reason.  However, if we did that, the tag would lose its meaning and its weight relatively quickly (as they'll become commonplace).  That's why I try to use those templates very sparingly on controversial topics, and only when necessary to evoke discussion and consensus-building.  That's why I propose, as a happy median, that while we can argue over what policy says this or what policy says that, we instead try to focus on the question:  is the tag essential for now, or can we just solve the problem by discussing it in a new section on this talk page-- without even bringing up the stuff related to the tag/untag?  Obviously there is no right answer, but I, personally, feel that we should try to use self-restraint when it comes to adding dispute tags on high-traffic, highly-controversial article (if at all possible) until we've at least tried to raise our concerns on the talk pages (like this one). --slakr\ talk / 21:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Slakr, your input is welcome, you are not intruding. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute template

message: Maybe due to the heated stuff above, now isn't a good time to bring this up, but I've been working on a little project: a freely licensed image of an abortion to illustrate this and related article. So here it is.
I used :Image:SpirellaCorsetry02.gif as tracing reference for the hands and :Image:Illu repdt female.jpg as tracing reference for the internal organs and body outline. The references I used for the procedure itself come from two sources: Jones, R. E. and Lopez, K. H. Human Reproductive Biology. p. 425; and Decherney, A. H. and Pernoll, M. L. Current Obstetric & Gynecologic Diagnosis & Treatment. p. 684. 
So what do people think? Questions, comments? If you have access to a good library, you can check the references. If not, you can preview the pages using google books or amazon search inside (both have diagrams as well). I chose the first trimester vacuum aspiration method as it is the most common method. Note, this image is not complete. Depending on the feedback, I will try to address concerns, add labels, make some finishing adjustments, and upload the final file in SVG format.-Andrew c [talk] 18:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a great idea. If you don’t want to get flack, you’ll need to depict the fetus accurately and to scale (or have a call-out with an accurate image of a fetus or an embryo) and state the age of gestation of the embryo or fetus depicted in the procedure.LCP 18:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't see it in the gif thumbnail, but in the actual image I've been working on, there is an embryo in the amnionic sac (same embryo from :Image:Month 2.svg). But again, you should look at the diagrams in my cited sources (that is, if you don't want to see an illustration of an embryo). -Andrew c [talk] 18:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First draft looks good, what were you thinking of for captions? KillerChihuahua?!? 00:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The illustration looks fine to me. Thanks for taking the initiative to make it, Andrew c! I have just one question: What section of the article do you think it would be most appropriate to include under? -Severa 16:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I haven't worked on this any further. I was a bit discouraged by the reaction and all the other ongoing debates raging at the time. The most logical place for the image would be under the "Surgical abortion" section (and perhaps we could move the exiting chart up to the "Induced abortion" heading and place this image on the left midway between "Surgical abortion" and "Medical abortion"). As for caption, I haven't came up with anything yet, but probably something along the lines of "A diagram of a vacuum aspiration abortion procedure at 8 weeks gestation." And if we need more for the article, we could include another two sentences like "The vagina is held opened by a speculum in order for a tube (called a vacurette) which is attached to a suction pump to be inserted through the patient's cervix. The products of conception (embryo, uterine lining, amionic sac, etc) are then evacuated through the vacurette." Any other ideas or feedback would be helpful. I'll go ahead and finish up the diagram then over the next few days, and we can work together on any remaining issues. -Andrew c [talk] 17:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I hope you weren’t discouraged by my comments. But since mine is the only “reaction,” I assume that you found my comments discouraging. I did not intend to discourage you. As I said, “I think it is a great idea.” I do also think you need to be careful as pro-lifers are highly sensitized against the idea that all that is being aborted is a “blob of tissue.” Your image seems to depict a “blob of tissue”. You will restart the debate on images I had with slakr as the conclusion we reached cuts in both directions. I don’t know how you can get around that. Nevertheless, as I mentioned, I do like your work and the idea of including an illustration.LCP 21:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you did not discourage me. Your comment was helpful, and it is noted and hopefully the next version will be clearer in that regard. The discouraging stuff was the stuff going on outside of this thread.-Andrew c [talk] 22:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not another image discussion 

message: I added a cite in the methods section (paragraph starting with "Reported methods of unsafe"), but I also added a sentence that is also described in the article about the prevalence of use of self-induced abortion in comparison to developed countries (abortion legal).  I'm not sure if that's going to be a problem (i.e., if it should be in another section), since the article applies to both enumerating self-induced methods and their prevalence, but I figured I'd add it anyway since the to-do list wanted more cites :P.  Anyway, cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 20:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added cite in methods section 

message: I will be putting a POV tag on this article.  The article includes several images, but no image of what is aborted in a typical abortion.  Previously, I have suggested images of aborted fetuses, but that suggestion was rejected.  Then I suggested wikilinking to articles about organizations that present such images, and that was rejected too.  Yesterday, I suggested simply presenting an image of a 10-week fetus that is intact, and I was accused of presenting "inappropriate inaccurate non-neutral images specially created for pro-life or happy-family websites."  That charge was false.  It is very clear that this article deliberately presents virtually no information about what is aborted in a typical abortion, and deliberately presents images of women while omitting any image of a fetus.  There is nothing inaccurate about this image, and the time has come to label this article to warn readers that its neutrality is disputed.Ferrylodge 04:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This image has not been clearly identified as an artist's rendition, and it is not illustrative of the section in which it was placed. Tvoz |talk 06:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article about Abortion-- not Pregnancy.  If someone viewing the page would like to know about the stages in pregnancy, we have a decent article on it.  Moreover, the caption and your description is misleading, as it's 10 weeks gestational age, which means it is 8 weeks after fertilization.  --slakr\ talk / 07:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also moved the  tag to , since your concern arises over fetus-oriented issues.  There is also a discussion above over inclusion of images and the reason that consensus is against it for the time being. --slakr\ talk / 07:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I support the tag based on arguments above in "Images of Abortion".LCP 15:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I see your point, and I don't care about the placement of the tag or the image (which isn’t to say that I don’t think placement is unimportant; I just haven’t given it any thought). However, I do like the tag in the context of the issue of the omission of images. At the same time, I don’t think I want to see it as a general indictment of the entire article. People have worked hard to be balanced about the information in the article. Too bad there isn’t a tag that states, “This article is arguably missing important information”.LCP 17:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As one of the most edited and vandalized articles on wp, this article could arguably support every tag known, according to at least someone. As it is a well written and thoroughly referenced article with an active talk page and very few actual edit wars, however, tagging is needless clutter and misleading - if we manage NPOV then both sides of the abortion debate are going to be unhappy with the article, and if we are only making one side unhappy then we're probably biased in one direction or another. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there is no NPOV regarding this issue. It’s kind of like the Church of England under Elizabeth I. It was displeasing to all. Here is a truly stupid idea that I was originally going to post just for fun. Maybe there is a kernel of value in it that someone with a better mind than mine can extract. Why not have two articles on the abortion page: Abortion from a pro-life point of view and abortion from a pro-choice point of view? Then the only argument will have to do with which one is on top.LCP 18:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Won't work. We have the Pro-choice and Pro-life and Abortion debate articles. This article is a top-tier article, and as such must be a medically accurate article about abortion, with brief mentions of, and pointers to, the debate issues. What you're suggesting is like merging Abortion with Abortion debate, yes? Or merging Pro-choice, Pro-life, and Abortion. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, if you're bold enough to post that image here, I will post a link to sandbox (using permanent link since it won't last). Inspired by LCP's ideas on having "versions". Feel free to edit. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL.  I, for one, support KillerChihuahua's version. ;)  I take it it would be outside the scope of fair use to use :Image:2010-poster01.jpg, though, wouldn't it? :D --slakr\ talk / 00:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Joking aside, though, I totally support Andrew c's graphic (not the joke one-- the procedural one) if you guys want to include it, as it's educational in nature and, from what I can see so far, it is relatively neutral and pertinent to the article.  This is about a medical procedure, and you could easily have fooled me into thinking that that was from a textbook.  Good job =) --slakr\ talk / 00:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: I think it is misleading to say that in the context of 2 isolated years in a single country, abortion may be safer than childbirth. So I decided to go and get some more sources. I don't believe in source piling, but hopefully these will demonstrate that the additional language is not necessary. Here is from a pamphlet from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists "For most women, an abortion is safer than carrying a pregnancy and having a baby".; and if the last link was too dumbed down for patients, there is RCOG's Evidence-based clinical guideline which states "abortion is safer than continuing a pregnancy to term and that complications are uncommon". Then there is "Induced Abortion: A World Review, 1990", by Stanley K. Henshaw
International Family Planning Perspectives, which states. "The provision of abortion under modern medical conditions has reduced abortion mortality to an extremely low level in developed countries that have legalized the procedure. The aggregate mortality rate of 13 countries for which accurate numbers of deaths and abortions are known is 0.6 deaths per 100,000 legal abortions. The procedure in these countries is now safer than pregnancy and childbirth." I also found a 1982 source for the claim in the US "Researchers Confirm Induced Abortion to be Safer for Women Than Childbirth; Refute Claims of Critics" Family Planning Perspectives.
Therefore, I propose removing "As reported in 1978 and 1994 studies limited to the US population." We can consider adding or replacing citations if necessary. If anything the part about "competent doctors or, in some states, nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, and physician assistants" could probably go. We could replace it with either "in developed countries" or "legal abortion" or perhaps both. What do you think?-Andrew c [talk] 22:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (e/c)Nice work. To avoid the "piling on" problem, use one footnote that contains all the references and the quotations above. I think that "under modern medical conditions" is a better qualifier than "in developed countries" or "legal abortion". It seems more neutral (there's no risk of it being seen as flag-waving for legal access to abortion, for example) and it seems to more directly describe the factors contibuting to safety. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 23:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rephrase as you suggested, and add all the sources. I'm tired of people complaining something isn't well sourced enough to satisfy them. As with Intelligent design, another contentious article, the more sourcing the better, and those are excellent. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only part I care (and have cared) about is, "For most women" (at least under the current structure and title nomenclature). And I do kinda like the idea of speaking of studies in terms of what they "found" (past tense, as suggested by Ajschorschiii). But as Photo pointed out, that would require quite a bit of rewriting.LCP 23:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I’ll be the first to admit that I can be dense sometimes. And I hope that you believe when I say I am not being deliberately obtuse. But, I don’t see how your proposed amendment solves the problem with the name “Health effects.” I do see how it selves the problem having to do with miscarriage. Thanks.LCP 19:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's funny, I wasn't trying to address either issue here (miscarriage or the title "Health effects") :) This is getting so confusing with all these discussions. It seems like you are trying to close up the issues that have been discussed under the topic Proposal to change "Health effects" to "Health effects of abortion on women." I was trying to address my concerns with the recent additions that I mentioned at the first post in this thread, and build on the discussion from Safer than childbirth or safer for women than childbirth. This is confusing how the discussions are all over the place. Anyway, regarding "Health effects" I believe we were moving towards renaming "Health effects" to something like "Risks and side effects". The exact wording has not been settled, and maybe we should discuss that topic in a different thread. I am trying to address how to deal with the sources related to "safer", and how we phrase it, especially in light of the changes that were made yesterday by Ajschorschiii.-Andrew c [talk] 20:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so maybe I should have stopped after..."I’ll be the first to admit that I can be dense sometimes." How about we pretend I didn't say anything here?LCP 21:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just the US, or is abortion "safer" in other countries as well.. 

message: As this has enveloped multiple articles, I propose we choose one location for the debate, post accodingly on the talk pages of all involved articles, and hash it out in one place. There has been a good bit of repetition, as well as edit warring on articles where there is little or no discussion on the talk pages. IMO we can work it out ourselves, but if not, we can move to mediation if desired. I suggest Talk:Pregnancy/Womb-Uterus debate. I am cross posting this on all involved articles. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Womb-Uterus debate: central location proposed

message: "Sharp Curettage" isn't a proper noun (as far as I could find from google hits), so I lowercased it and stuck it in italics.  Though, it should be noted that the term isn't specifically mentioned in the WHO cite at the end of the sentence, so it might be an idea to move it out of that sentence and into the one introducing the term it's A.K.A.-ing. --slakr\ talk / 09:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sharp Curettage 

message: The current wording is slightly ambiguous, as the latter clause could be relatively easily misread as "79% of males favored [it] and 67% of females favored [it]," when in reality the poll says that of the 72% favoring, the demographic of the favorers was 79% male, 67% female.  Thus:
Current state: "In a 2003 Gallup poll in the United States, 72% of respondents were in favor of spousal notification, with 26% opposed; of those polled, 79% of males and 67% of females responded in favor."
Proposed rewording:  "In a 2003 Gallup poll in the United States, 72% of respondents were in favor of spousal notification, with 26% opposed; of those who responded in favor, 79% were males and 67% were females."
I figure it's a non-controversial change, but I figured I'd run it by here first (just in case) :P --slakr\ talk / 09:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you are wrong here. If 79% in favor were male, and 67% in favor were female, then we have a case of 146% (unless, perhaps there were a significant number of respondents who identify as both male and female?) If you average 79% and 67% you get ~73% (which is basically 72%, I guess there was rounding somewhere).-Andrew c [talk] 15:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the poll said that 79% of those who were male were in favour, not that 79% of those who were in favour were male. Perhaps this form would be less ambiguous: "In a 2003 Gallup poll in the United States, 79% of male and 67% of female respondents were in favor of spousal notification; overall support was 72% with 26% opposed." Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 15:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OMG! :D I knew I wasn't good at math. :P  See, it's a good thing I ran it by here first =).  Anyway, your wording is much, much better.  For now, I'll go sit in the corner and work on my addition so as to avoid this problem in the future. ;)  --slakr\ talk / 00:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallup poll rewording