This is an archive of past discussions about Abortion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I'm not interested in participating in a slow-motion edit war about the lead sentence. The sentence now has a disputed tag at the end of it, which is sufficient to indicate that the sentence is not stable, no one is acquiescing to it, and there is no consensus for it. The 2006-2011 lead sentence needs to be restored, unless or until there is consensus about how to change it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Restore the 2006-2011 consensus, while we develop a new consensus. Just inserting a disputed lead and then editing warring over it is not editing in good faith, it's POV pushing. -- cheers, Michael C. Pricetalk09:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Not closing the RFC, not agreeing to mediation...you're just hoping to put in your favorite version and then continue stalling out discussion. It's a tactic, not a proposal. And once again, to say that using the medical defn. of a medical term is POV-pushing is simply nonsense. JJL (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
The consensus was solidly against the 'death' version. Putting it in is using a lede that we know isn't wanted. Leaving in the medical defn. means we have a clearly accurate version that is well-supported here while we continue discussion. JJL (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
If you would go read WP:Consensus, you will find that unanimous loathing of a sentence in an article is not enough to change it; there needs to be consensus what to change it to. There has never been consensus to have an exclusively viability-based definition in the lead so as to deny there's such a thing as abortion of a viable fetus. I've repeatedly asked you when such a consensus existed, and you've declined to answer. But you haven't declined to insert a non-consensus POV into the lead again and again.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
The lede states that this is the medical defn. That's true. Nothing is being denied. What's asserted is accurate. Your concern is that what you want to see asserted is not being asserted. Why not put a death-or-no-death section in the body of the article? That's where contentious material is best placed--where it can be discussed at length. JJL (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to keep searching the Archives for you while you insist that a re-hash of the past two months must performed before any progress is made on the article; it's just yet another stalling tactic that has been used repeatedly by the pro-'death' editors here and I'm very bored with it. Start reading at Talk:Abortion/Archive_43#Lead_edit_-_viable_-_Current_form_of_first_sentence and then ask others who were here for more information if that isn't sufficient for you. JJL (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
As I said above: "Instead of inventing some 'pro-death' lobby, you might acknowledge that many editors who oppose your unilateralism have supported changing 'death' to termination, ending, demise, and so forth. I've supported all of those and more. I'd even support 'termination of development'" (emphasis added). As for you declining to say when exactly consensus existed for your edit-warred lead sentence, I strongly advise you to not search the archives, because no such consensus will be found there. I've looked.
Regarding the June 15 talk page section you refer to, many editors were unsupportive of your version: Str1977, Roy, IP, GTBacchus....That talk page section also discussed instability of the lead section. And Roy said: "The presumed consensus is insulting, and the way this was done could lead NW and JJL to be topic banned. However, it is obviously a bold good-faith attempt, so we won't go down that road this week. (I am suggesting to revert it yourselves, I won't be so balanced if an admin is required to intervene.) I can do it myself, not from some sense of ownership of the lead, but from y'all ignoring the FAQ and archives."Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
You may have to read more in the archives...if you do so you'll find that it was not I who edited in the change. But I do agree that RoyBoy threatening a ban as soon as I showed up and opposed his precious 'death' version was quite childish. I don't think what you've quoted is the first instance of it but I haven't checked. JJL (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
In short, disruptive editing can lead to a topic ban. Changing a well established consensus without the courtesy of establishing a new one, or a rudimentary read through archives on the topic qualifies as disruptive. Good faith or not. Reflecting a medical definition for abortion may work; if inclusive enough for a generalist encyclopedia (yes, the consensus can change). Looking at the post preceding my warning: "seemed to enjoy broad support". Ah yes... having several new editors turn over consensus on a documented issue; so long as they discuss on talk for a bit, then selectively reading and misinterpreting Wikipedia policies and conventions to suit themselves. Nothing amiss there! Building a "clear new consensus on what is obviously a contentious matter" is well said JJL, hint: don't start by pretending you have the gold standard. Sometimes they aren't universal. - RoyBoy03:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I read the consensus page a while ago and I don't remember it saying anything about "unanimous loathing of a sentence" then. So I checked and this was put in recently: [1]. Changing the rule page so you can justify what you want done to an article doesn't seem ok. Friend of the Facts (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
How petty--editing the rules so you can bolster your own argument. It's the WP:OWN problem that remains unaddressed here. JJL (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, it would not be okay. But that diff shows a policy clarifaction twenty (20) days ago that has not been disputed in any way (except for the heading). Unlike the present lead sentence of this article. Moreover, it was a common sense policy clarification rather than a policy change. Anyway, a Wikipedia Arbitrator once informed me: "This is Wikipedia, and we don't create or modify policies based on hypotheticals."Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
The edit summary says the addition was "pertinent to an article I edited today" which is admitting the motivation behind it. A major rule page was changed by someone so they could point to it to justify having an article say what they want it to say. That shouldn't be acceptable. Also it's ironic to go and change the consensus page itself without consensus while at the same time saying we can't do anything to this article because there's no consensus. Friend of the Facts (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course you can edit this article without consensus, once. After that, it's WP:BRRR. Or do you think BRRR is just fine?
Regarding the policy edit twenty days ago, yes, it was based on experience at this article. I don't make policy edits based on hypotheticals anymore. There was no way for me to know 20 days ago that this issue would still be pertinent here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Frankly I don't think someone could just accidentally happen to cite a rule they wrote very recently to justify what they want done in an article. Friend of the Facts (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not perpetually barred from quoting a part of WP:Consensus that was added twenty days ago. In any event, I haven't quoted it. Everything I've said here follows from other parts of WP:Consensus, such as this part: "editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." The fact that everyone may hate the sentence you're changing does not justify repeated insertion of disputed material.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
If my purpose in editing the policy page was to sneakily influence this dispute, I wouldn't have made clear in my edit summary what prompted the edit, and I wouldn't have let 20 days pass without making the slightest allusion to the policy change here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Since you quoted it to buttress your point in the same month you made the change, I'm finding this a bit difficult to believe. JJL (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Glad to hear that you think a month would have been a sufficient lapse of time. Twenty days seemed plenty to me, but in any event I did not quote it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I never said it was "quoted." I said "pointed to" and "cited."
Comment made in response to JJL saying the consensus was against "death:" "If you would go read WP:Consensus, you will find that unanimous loathing of a sentence in an article is not enough to change it; there needs to be consensus what to change it to."
Corresponding text from consensus page: "Even if every editor at an article unanimously hates an aspect of the article (for good-faith policy-based reasons), nevertheless changing that aspect of the article may be disruptive if there is no consensus about how to change it."
Paraphrasing or not it's still somebody citing a rule they created in support of what they want to see done to an article. The conflict of interest there should be clear. Friend of the Facts (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
You may be right that I should have parenthetically mentioned here that I edited the policy 20 days ago, or maybe such a parenthetical becomes unnecessary after some amount of time has elapsed. Anyway, if you'd like to pursue this further at my user talk page then feel free. The bottom line (for me) is that WP:BRRR and repeatedly introducing disputed material have always violated WP:Consensus. That's what's apparently been happening at this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Given that you didn't agree to mediation, I'm surprised you feel you have grounds to complain like this. I thought it was the wrong time to do it but I agreed to it regardless so that we might reach a mediated solution. You didn't agree to it...and now you're complaining that there isn't unanimity on the issue. Would it help if I edited WP:Consensus to say that the word 'death' can never enjoy consensus for the lede of any article? If not, what would you suggest as a fruitful way for us to move forward? JJL (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll agree to mediation as soon as RoyBoy is willing to do so. A fruitful way to move forward would be for you to revert the lead sentence to the most recent consensus version. You could also acknowledge that far from all reliable sources concur that there's no such thing as abortion of a viable fetus. You seem to be treating sources like the Oxford English Dictionary as a fringe POV.[2]Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad to discuss why you think it's okay to treat sources like the Oxford English Dictionary as if they were fringe sources,[3] and whether you consider your lead sentence reverts to be a "major change" within the meaning of WP:Consensus: "More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes."Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Consensus is against the 'death' version. The "medically defined as" version seems a reasonable temporary compromise as we continue to discuss the matter. Recall, there are those of us think "medically defined as" is already watering-down the definition. It's not what I'd want, but it's correct, and that's an improvement on the previous version. JJL (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Seriously all the edit warring is bullshit. We go with the best definition supported by the best sources. That is the agreed on consensus. Looks like we need a none involved admin to get involved with this matter. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
JzG already did and chose incorrectly, at least from the perspective of maintaining consensus. As to "best sources", I consider that presumptuous given the preponderance of them are in a medical context, while Wikipedia is not. - RoyBoy01:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Of course, if the word "death" were really the main issue, there would have been no reason to go beyond simply replacing that word with another word for the time being (e.g. termination, demise, destruction, ending, et cetera). Merely replacing that single word without consensus would still have violated Wikipedia policy, but at least it would have been more plausible than using "death" as an excuse to unilaterally replace the whole 2006-2011 sentence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Arguing that an errant version "needs to stay" is counter to the goals of WP. That's a non-rule created by someone involved in the current discussion in an attempt to bolster his side by citing his own personal policy. The 'viable' version is sourced and, with the 'medically' qualifier, undeniably accurate. Since consensus is against the 5 year old version, we shouldn't use it. There can't be consensus for a version that consensus is against, and arguing that there should be a rule to keep unwanted material in the encyclopedia is simply nonsense. JJL (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The constant attempts to demonstrate WP:OWNership of the page by arguing about arguing rather than about the facts of the matter are driving away less tenacious editors. I fear this delaying tactic may work. Getting attention here would help, but the pro-'death' lobby won't close their RFC and wouldn't all agree to mediation. They're trying to stall until they get their way. JJL (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree JJL. It's sad to see a small group of editors ignore Wikipedia guidelines and bring political/religious bias to the encyclopedia. Gandydancer (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
There was a huge unnecessary (to even my amazement) ongoing slipshod assertions on "life". Contorting the lead to avoid negatives, that's your bias; and doctors... but theirs is a context that defines abortion as it should be medically speaking. It doesn't include exceptional / illegal abortions as that's not in their intended scope. Wikipedia guidelines seem to require us to include exceptions, and not narrowly define it for politics disguised as medical accuracy. I am uncertain how guidelines prefer predominant medical sources -- to the exclusion of -- others and moreover verified messy reality. Several reasonable and experienced people here think it does, I currently don't get it. - RoyBoy07:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I see that NW's attempted compromise has already been edited to make it seem like the 'technical' defn. is wrong. Since attempts to get conversation going here are failing, are editors willing to reconsider closing the RFC and, more valuably, mediation? JJL (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm OK with how it is now. Are there any objections? If so, please be specific with what they are. NW(Talk)02:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's certainly not how I would write it. Per WP:Lead, "In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided...." So, the non-specialized terminology shouldn't be given here merely as an afterthought. But at least this now gives readers a pretty full picture of the primary definitions. I'm not sure why "uterus" isn't wikilinked (or at least we could put "womb" in parenthetically). It's sad what a mess this discussion became. If other editors have strong objections to the present lead sentence, then I'll probably support reverting to the 2006-2011 version, which was the last consensus version. But I myself don't have very strong objections to it. Instead of "before birth" I'd prefer "other than birth" (so we're not suggesting that a birth occurs subsequently). Also, maybe change "birth" to "live birth" (thus distinguishing stillbirth).Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Currently I see: "Abortion is technically defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before fetal viability; however, the term is sometimes defined more broadly to include any termination of pregnancy before birth.". I too would prefer medically to technically and would prefer used more broadly to defined more broadly. JJL (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The presently-used word "technically" is much better than "medically" because many medical sources include the broader definition. For example, among the sources now in this article's "Note", see TeLinde's Operative Gynecology, Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, and Dictionary of Medical Terms. There are many other medical sources that include the broad definition, e.g. American Heritage Medical Dictionary, Gale Encyclopedia of Public Health, and WebMD/MedicineNet. As for changing "defined more broadly" to "used more broadly", I cannot see any reason to do that other than to deligitimize the broader definition and hide from readers that there is more than one definition; I strongly oppose hiding things from readers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Especially w.r.t. the medical defn., the weight of sources is strongly in favor of the viability-based defn. It's also the only uniform defn., which is one reason why "used more broadly" is preferable to "defined more broadly"--what's given here as the broader defn. isn't a single defn. that is in wide use. JJL (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "uniform". The broad definition in the Oxford English Dictionary[4] is just as uniform among reliable sources as the narrow technical definition, perhaps more so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I followed that link. Are you referring to "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks" (which is at odds with the defn. given here, which extends to all mammals) or "the expulsion of a fetus from the womb by natural causes before it is able to survive independently" (which is precisely the viability defn.)? The latter is the medical defn. that has the broadest support here; the former differs from what we're saying here, because non-viability defns. vary widely--they lack the uniformity found overwhelmingly often in the medical defns. JJL (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
No, the latter says "natural causes" and is thus referring exclusively to spontaneous abortion. Anyway, howsabout we rest up for a bit before returning to the image controversy?.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
That's the way I read it too. I saw the deliberate termination definition as referring to the induced abortion and the natural causes one as referring to spontaneous abortion. I'm good with how it is now, including using technically instead of medically, which I think is appropriate because even medical sources refer to post-viability terminations of pregnancy as abortions. Also, Anythingyouwant, you asked why uterus was delinked: I'm not sure, but ask RoyBoy; he delinked it. NW(Talk)11:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
You claimed that the OED defn. was an example of the uniform defn. of abortion given in the second part of the lede sentence; but that isn't so. The OED defines induced abortion solely w.r.t. humans (at odds with what's here); it defines spontaneous abortion as "the expulsion of a fetus from the womb by natural causes before it is able to survive independently" which means "the expulsion of a fetus from the womb by natural causes before it is viable" which is at odds with the second part of the lede which states any time before birth. This doesn't support your claim at all--it supports the medical defn. given in the first part of the lede. There isn't a uniform "broader" defn., but there is a uniform medical defn. You're unable to support your claim of a common, often-used broader defn. It may be used more broadly, but not in a consistently-defined way. JJL (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
(Undent)JJL, I really don't like going in endless circles here. What is this edit summary supposed to mean?. I said above at this talk page: "Instead of 'before birth' I'd prefer 'other than birth' (so we're not suggesting that a birth occurs subsequently). Also, maybe change 'birth' to 'live birth' (thus distinguishing stillbirth)." Where did anyone object? What objection could there possibly be? Why do you revert without prior or subsequent explanation? This is a contentious article, and edit-warring does not help, especially when it's done with no explanation whatsoever. As for your assertion that the phraseology of the narrow definition is more uniform than the phraseology of the broader definition, you may be right, but I don't see how phraseology really matters (what's important is meaning, and no definition anywhere seems to suggest that spontaneous abortion of a viable fetus is physically possible).Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm with NW right now about your recent edits, and think they have been(for the most part) helpful improvements. My only complaint is the delayed edit war that seems to be taking place, with some users undoing changes that are improvements because of some sort of tension. I've went back and forth about the old consensus and the new one, because I do respect hard fought compromise consensus on controversial articles, even if I disagree with that consensus. Still, the current wording seems to best reflect the majority of our best sourcing, but would be willing to support a compromise by well intention editors. I will be mostly away from the internet for the next week or so, but can occasionally respond. Cheers. Dave Dial (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
So you figure that about 20 hours is time enough to declare it to be w/o objection? We're discussing many aspects of this sentence here and editors have listed their major ones to start things off. You might have suggested your proposed change here--indicating you intended to change it--and given it more time than a fraction of a day before implementing it if your hope is to avoid "endless circles". I gave the explanation in the edit summary--I disagreed with your claim that silence on one item for 20 hours (while the rest of the discussion of it goes on) equals consensus. (Indeed, talk about edit-warring! The demand that all editors check here every day or be left out.) We're discussing the sentence as a whole and you're editing parts of it as we try to do that. My main objection remains this: Where are the sources for the second part of the lede sentence? As you appear to grant above, it's synthesized from various conflicting defns. JJL (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're up to here. Are you now seeking to delete the entire second part of the sentence, after previously repeatedly supporting proposed sentences that include it? As for my edit changing "before" to "other than" (and inserting "live"), you have yet to give the slightest explanation why you oppose it. I didn't have to give any prior explanation at this talk page (see WP:BRD), and yet I did twenty hours in advance. No one objected, despite lots of intervening talk page edits. So I edited the article, and you reverted while still not giving any explanation. See WP:Don't revert solely due to "no consensus". BTW, as you know, sources for the broad definition are in a big box above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I gave you my reasons above--your position is inadequately sourced. The "big box" has many conflicting defn. from which you seem to want to syntehsize your own. You don't have to give prior notice here, but by the same token, you then forfeit the right to whine that life is unfair when you're reverted. JJL (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm surprised that one would say their edit is justified because they earlier suggested a change and no one objected. This might be reasonable in some other article but in this one, where every word has been extensively argued, I would expect that an editor clearly state that they will edit the article to reflect their preference if no one objects. Gandydancer (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I hereby announce that I intend to edit the article as described. I also look forward to the beginning of such announcements from you, Gandydancer.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Don't you think it would be more fruitful to discuss things here and try to reach consensus? That is what the idea was, wasn't it? Is this your admission that you're unable to support your preferred version? JJL (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
JJL, I still have not the slightest idea whether you are now seeking to delete the entire second part of the sentence, after previously repeatedly supporting proposed sentences that include it. Are you? If not, then you still have not given the slightest reason why we should not change "before birth" to "other than live birth". I have given my reasons for this slight change, and you have given no reasons whatsoever. It's not our job to repeat verbatim what reliable sources say, and paraphrasing is a far cry from synthesis. Are you now intending to object to every single edit that I propose or make in this article? I still intend to make the edit I suggested, because no one has given the slightest policy-based reason why I shouldn't. There is not a reliable source on earth that suggests abortion generally occurs before a subsequent birth, so I want to clarify that in this article. All I hear from you is that you do not like anything I do, regardless of what it is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
My mistake, thanks for pointing it out. I started doing an edit that wasn't a revert, and it turned into a revert. Will make the edit later.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
In addition to that you keep asking me to repeat myself. My objection remains: Where are the sources for the version of the second half of the lede sentence that you prefer? The actual wording appears to be synthesized to me--indeed, your own source for it does not support it. JJL (talk) 03:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I didn't write the lead sentence, and I don't prefer it that way. Ask NW for sources, not me. Or ask GandyDancer, since she expressed support for the lead sentence. All I'm trying to do here is damage control, by replacing "before" with "other than". Got it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see discussion above, plus my edit summary: "Changing 'before' to 'other than' for clarity. No sources imply that abortion occurs before subsequent birth. See last reference cited in note at end of lead sentence."Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
You're now using lack of sources as a source. That isn't acceptable. The WP:BURDEN remains on you as you introduced the change. You're claiming that this is a definition: "the term is sometimes defined more broadly to include any termination of pregnancy other than birth". Where's the source for that? JJL (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
No, I am merely claiming right now that "other than birth" is a clearer paraphrase of reliable sources than "before birth". Please stop arguing about this.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Stop discussing an unsourced claim about how something is defined? That doesn't seem like a good idea. JJL (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
For reasons I do not understand, you apparently are happy for readers to mistakenly infer from this article that abortion can occur before subsequent birth, you have not cited any source that implies abortion occurs before subsequent birth, and you also neglect to address the "other than" language in the Note's last reference. You are simply filibustering, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
The note's last reference, from the Encyclopedia of Human Rights Issues since 1945? The note also has a reference from the Dictionary of World Philosophy that uses "before birth". Do you mean that they were mistaken also? What makes the former preferable--certainly not that it's better sourced? JJL (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Neither source was mistaken regarding birth, it's just a matter of which one says it more clearly. "Before birth" means in this context "Before birth is allowed to occur", and the meaning would be the same if the phrase "other than birth" were used instead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Before/Other than
This article page (including mirrors of it) is the only Google hit for "termination of pregnancy other than birth"--a total of 5 hits. On the other hand, there are over 40K results for "termination of pregnancy before birth" (e.g. [5], [6], [7] (Sec. 23.6); you have to weed out a number of mirrors of this site, including older versions of this article page, or pages that clearly adopted its language, to get truly independent instances, as there are a great many low-quality pages out there that seem to have just used the 2006 version of this article as a basis for their definition). Since one wording is attested only here and in one source in the note section, and the other is broadly attested, we should use the "before birth" version. JJL (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
JJL, if we search google for "JJL is correct about how to phrase the lead" then we get zero hits. Does that mean you are wrong about the lead? Of course not. Doing google searches is completely irrelevant here, because both versions ("before birth" and "other than birth") mean the same thing. It is simply clearer for some unsophisticated readers if we use "other than"....if such a reader sees "abortion happens before birth" then that reader's first (incorrect) impression might be that abortion happens and then birth happens. I'm sure you're not so unreasonable and paranoid that you would simply object and revert until hell freezes over so that this Wikipedia article will say exactly the opposite of whatever others want it to say.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
To suggest that readers may think as you suggest is completely unreasonable. As you know, I discussed the use of the word "viable" with a group of 12 to 15 year olds and the only thing they didn't understand was why adults were having so much trouble with it and why they were wikipedia editors. Do you really want me to ask them if they believe that abortion before birth might mean that "abortion happens and then birth happens" (what ever that means...). It is also unreasonable and unacceptable to insult JJL and suggests he just wants his way and wants the article to say exactly the opposite of whatever others want it to say. Please read source 7th from the last which uses the term before birth. Let's go with our sources. Gandydancer (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I already referred to the last source, which uses the "other than" language. If you want to assume that everyone already knows what abortion is, then there's no need for the lead sentence. Can we please argue about something more interesting? You haven't suggested that saying "other than" is less clear, or gives the lead any different meaning, so why not be agreeable? Because it's some sinister "back door" plot (as JJL has already alleged)?[8]Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
It's more correct--it's certainly much better sourced. The use of the word 'terminate' should allay your concerns about post-abortion births. JJL (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Why is it more correct, in your view? Is there any reason? Some might reasonably think that inducing labor (before birth) terminates pregnancy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe that people will think that that is what is meant here. In my view "before" is preferable because it is very well sourced in a variety of references, including technical medical sources and also ones meant for the lay public, while the "other than" phrasing is sourced only to the Encyclopedia of Human Rights Issues since 1945. It's a clear, simple, well-sourced statement. We've had a discussion of this sort of issue already, and some editors made various objections. Going from memory here, one comment was that labor in which a medical error or other problem causes death in the birth canal could be construed as termination of the pregnancy resulting in something other than birth. I don't think we'll be able to defend against all possible misconceptions in a single sentence. It may be that those who want to understand the matter may have to read more of the article than the first sentence. JJL (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Your notion that we have to follow a particular source or set of sources verbatim, without putting anything in our own words, is incorrect. You have yet to give the slightest hint as to why "other than" is inaccurate or means something contrary to what any source says. Feel free to link to whatever discussion you're referring to, if such a discussion exists. You've already stated your real motivation here: "To me 'other than' sounds like yet another attempt to sneak 'therefore, dead' in through the back door."[9] Which is absurd. There is no consensus for the current lead sentence, and there has been no consensus for the lead sentence since you edit-warred the stable 2006-2011 version out of existence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't feel we have to follow the sources verbatim. However, when the majority say it a certain way we should strongly consider doing so. Since your change has repeatedly been described as inconsequential, let's leave it the way the professionals do. There's no reason to veer from the way that the professionals put it except your exaggerated fear that some reader will think 'abortion' means 'birth'. On another matter, once again I've addressed your concern in detail and once again you've said that I haven't even given you the slightest hint as to my thinking. You're not reading my comments thoroughly enough. JJL (talk) 05:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
No link to the "discussion of this sort of issue already" that you want me to think about? If we were to leave this lead to the professionals, then we would define the word "abortion" by starting with a definition consistent with the Oxford English Dictionary instead of your ultra-technical definition that assumes readers know what "viable" means but are ignorant of what "abortion" means.
I support reverting to the 2006-2011 version, which is the most recent consensus version. Then we could work from there. I'd be glad to support an alternative to the word "death" that some editors like yourself find so displeasing.[10] My intention is to re-insert the "disputed" tag at the end of the lead sentence, because this slow-motion edit-warring is tiresome, and the tag will be sufficient to indicate that there is still no consensus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
You inserting a "disputed" tag to indicate that you feel we haven't achieved consensus. I have no objection to that. JJL (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Which was basically the finding of the previous ArbCom case - that he "has a long history of disruptive editing on topics related to pregnancy and abortion". While Anythingyouwant has moderated his approach somewhat since then, I'd like to caution Anythingyouwant about becoming too contentious in this matter, especially as regards sarcasm and hostility towards other editors ("your ultra-technical definition" - "some editors like yourself".) As Gandydancer kindly reminds you, "It is also unreasonable and unacceptable to insult JJL and suggests he just wants his way." I realize that now that there is another ArbCom case in which you are involved, concerning Abortion - the topic which led to you being placed under editing restrictions and nearly led to you being community banned - you might be feeling some stress. Try not to take that stress out on your fellow editors, ok? And JJL, I'm not seeing where calling another editor "obsessed" here on the article talk page, without some kind of hint on how to improve that editors' approach to disputes, can be helpful. You may have only meant to draw Anythingyouwant's attention to how his recent edits may appear to others, to try to get him to moderate his tone, but the overall effect is also, sadly, unfriendly and even sarcastic. Let's all try to do better, ok? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice00:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
As you know, KC, and as I've said to you before, this page is not for personal and/or user conduct issues. If you would like to move this comment to your user page, and leave a link to it here, please feel free.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't recall you offering your opinion regarding this, but even if I did, obviously I think this is an appropriate venue for this particular reminder. I hardly think your combative response to my reminder is moving in the right direction; you are shifting the focus from the civility on the talk page to your personal animosity towards me. I refuse to get drawn into an argument regarding this with you. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice11:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Ban evasion
Let me reiterate something: Proper routes for appealing a ban include the issuing administrator's user talk page or WP:AN. Ban evasion is unacceptable.
I have semi-protected this page for 12 hours. Any administrator is free to overturn this action on their own judgment, but I request that they do so only if they figure out a way to otherwise deal with a user who is violating their topic ban. NW(Talk)14:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd welcome an editor who's so dedicated to violating this site's policies, even with a named account. It seems sort of like the last thing this topic needs at present is another agenda-focused account with a disregard for this site's expectations. MastCellTalk05:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
(Undent)I have previously removed this ban-evading IP's comments from this talk page, and urged the IP to follow the rules.[11] However, I must say that the initial block of this IP was highly suspect in my view. I am trying to learn more about blocking policy, to understand better if this IP was treated fairly, or not.[12]Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Why has a fetus picture been put back into this article? I don't see this being talked over and agreed on in any of the newer discussions above. When it was discussed a couple of months ago it was agreed images like this one don't belong in this article because it isn't neutral and the medical ethics of using them are debatable.This picture is even worse in that regard because the fetus appears to be on carpet or some kind of textile object. Do medical textbooks typically include pictures of objects on the floor? Putting something on the floor is a very amateur way to take a picture of it. It's what you do when you're trying to sell something on ebay and don't have any other flat surface around. That seriously calls into question the professionalism behind this picture. Do we really want such a sensitive article like this to include such low quality images? Friend of the Facts (talk) 21:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The ethics of this one are a bit different than the other image, I think. The uploader has uploaded many medical images to Wikimedia Commons and presumably is a physician. I would think we should contact him and see if he can provide additional information about when and where he took the image and what consent he obtained from the mother. NW(Talk)23:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I understand and respect that images like this one produce some overwhleming emotions from viewers: mothers, fathers, relatives of miscarriage patients, etc. Photos like these are not intended to hide the validation of life and loss behind the "medicalization" of the experience.[1] Nevertheless science is uncensored. The fetus in question has 11 weeks estimated gestational age and laying on a pathologist's lab over a surgical mesh provided by the institution that attended the mother. I am sorry that medicine isn't apologetic about what "appears to be". Everyone involved in taking the picture and following the postmortem protocols are professionals and trained for that purpose. The photo was taken with the camera of a cytology tech. There are no identifiable features of this fetus that distinguish it as an individual nor are there any legal identity documents for this or any fetus delivered under 20 weeks of gestation. But there are very characteristic features of fetal development to be contrasted with this image for example, making the image (and others like it) of esteemed educational value, especially under CreativeCommons. The image is not placed here as prouncement of pro- or anti-abortion discourses, since the delivery was produced as a spontaneous end of a pregnancy. Rather it was taken and uploaded with a documentary approach, that's why I placed it within the context of a miscarriage. So, in this case, education legitimates the decision to add the image. Sorry I missed talking about it here, as I did minutes before with another image. --Bobjgalindo (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure if you saw a few weeks ago Commons:Deletion requests/File:Human fetus 10 weeks - therapeutic abortion.jpg, but I would appreciate it if you could take a look. I definitely agree with you that there is a great deal of useful educational value with this image, and also that it is unlikely that this image would be deleted. However, I do think that there are ethical issues that bar us from using the image in a mainspace article without prior consent (see, for example, the position of the American College of Medical Genetics, which is the only one in that essay to mention fetuses). NW(Talk)02:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I stand corrected on the picture's origin. The background does look like some type of textile to me and that called into question whether it was taken under informal conditions (say by a woman who had a miscarriage at home) and whether whoever took it had the the expertise to accurately judge gestational age etc.
That said the issue of fetus pictures in this article has been discussed a lot and we don't really need to open that can of worms again. Roscelese brings up a very good point in his edit summary. This article isn't just about miscarriage but also induced abortion. Things that may be appropriate in the miscarriage article may not be ok here. And fetus pictures definitely don't belong in an article about abortion for reasons that have already been discussed. They're fine in the fetus article or the pregnancy article but the abortion article is a whole different ball game. Context is everything. If you look at encyclopedias comparable to Wikipedia very few of them are going to include a fetus picture in their entry on abortion. It'd be doing a disservice to the quality of Wikipedia to stray outside the standard set by other encyclopedias in this case. Friend of the Facts (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
This is a good summation of my argument as well. I don't have an opinion on including this picture in the miscarriage article (and since I don't think I've ever edited it, my opinion may not be worth much anyway), but the context is quite different here, both because of the previous lack of consensus to include images of abortion in the article, and more generally because of the history of images of fetuses being used in propaganda. I believe Bobjgalindo added it in good faith; I just don't think it's the right thing to do in this article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
(Undent) The issue of showing readers what is aborted in an abortion is one of several issues now pending before Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee.[13] People may well be waiting to see what ArbCom has to say about it before contributing more ideas and arguments here at the article talk page.
There was an image of this sort in this article for over a year until it was edit-warred out of this article this summer. That edit-warring is summarized here. It seems pretty clear to me that this is an issue primarily of censorship; one of the leading edit-warriors explained that, "It's just a bunch of fucking cells you sanctimonious obsessive little fuck."[14]. Any image that might suggest otherwise has been removed from this article. There may also be sincere arguments that such an image requires the parents to identify themselves and sign a legal document authorizing publication, but those arguments were not accepted during the deletion debate at Wikimedia Commons, and it makes no sense to me that an image would not violate privacy at Wikimedia Commons but would at Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Adding some images here isn't something I feel strongly about one way or another. This one seems more related to Fetus while the others present seem to relate better to Abortion. The other images already present in this article seem more directly related to this specific topic. JJL (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm kind of conflicted about this image for this article. I think Bobjgalindo's points are well made, and there is clear educational value in the image. At the same time, his post indicates (correct me if I'm wrong) that the image was taken, and uploaded, without the consent of the mother. That is a deal-breaker for me. It has nothing to do with whether the fetus is identifiable, but with more general ethical concerns similar to those outlined in the ACMG position statement linked by NW above. I acknowledge that this concern is not universally shared, but it's pretty fundamental to me. The Lancet piece (which was remarkable, by the way - thanks for linking it) underscores the centrality of this ethical concern, to my reading: "With parents' generous permission I am able to share some of my images in presentations, publications, and exhibitions." MastCellTalk04:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Roscelese that Bobjgalindo probably added the image without being aware of the prior history of discussion on here and I'm sorry if my earlier comments suggested otherwise. The problem with having a fetus picture in this article is that an abortion involves many things -- fetus, placenta, pregnant woman, doctor (usually), surgical tools or drugs (usually). Why single out only the fetus to show? But this is the only thing involved in an abortion people seem to ever seem to bring up wanting to see in the article. There's editors who've been working to get a fetus picture in this article for years. In light of that fact I think it can be safely said that the main motivation behind calls for a fetus picture in the article is not strictly to provide educational/scientific information.
I think when it comes to image rights/permissions even if the patient gives consent to have the fetus photographed and used on Wikipedia doesn't mean they gave the green light to having the picture appear in the context of an article on abortion. For example imagine the parents of an 8 year old girl gave permission for a picture of her playing on swings at the park to be used on Wikipedia. They would presumably do so assuming that picture would be used in articles like "childhood" or "play" or "exercise" -- not in the pedophile article with the caption "child predators often look for children at public parks." I think we should be careful about the context we use pictures in. Pictures are basically given to Wikipedia as gifts and if we use them in ways that seem to take the contribution for granted it may discourage others from donating their pictures in the future. Friend of the Facts (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I do not see any ethical concerns with having this image on Wikipedia. The fetus is not identifiable thus permission is not required in most jurisdictions. This is similar enough to taking a picture of any other pathological specimen. Whether this image should be included here in the body of the text or not I have no feeling one way of the other.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if you were maybe asking for an admin to take a look, but I thought I'd comment anyway, for what it's worth. Your edit was clearly not vandalism, in my opinion. You gave a detailed and reasonable explanation in the edit summary, and even if another editor disagreed with your edit, I don't think the accusation vandalism was fair. I also happen to agree with your edit and rationale - abortion is not a USA-specific topic, and I don't see the need to have American stats in the lede. (Full disclosure: I'm not American. Not USian, anyway.) I almost reverted the reversion of your edit, but I thought it best not to get into potential edit-warring on a 1RR page. I would love to hear other editors' opinions. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The editor's concern about showing recent US numbers has merit, but I don't think it should go in the lead section. Furthermore, the numbers miss large US populations, so they are not as useful as hoped. Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The accusation was unfounded, but that doesn't excuse editwarring by either party. Bold-Revert-Stoptakeadeepbreath-Discussadnauseumwithoutclearresult is the apparent methodology for this article, editors should adapt to that. Perhaps it is time to get busy with forking the US-specific content to a geolocalized article? Certainly US politics have had an undue degree of influence over the present article that needs to be tamed to meet wp:WORLDWIDE. LeadSongDogcome howl!20:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Human Embryo (7th week of pregnancy, 5th week p.o.)
Wondering what people think about this image? It is from a reputable pathologist in the USA. Is of the appropriate gestational age. Is an excellent quality image. Would have had appropriate consent obtained. Is not in a gloved hand or on a strange background.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Again, I wonder how this illustrates abortion as opposed to embryo or tubal pregnancy. The current images are more specific to the topic at hand and not related matters. JJL (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
JJL pretty much said what I was thinking. The images in the article right now might not be very exciting, but they do actually depict the article subject. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
A termination of a pregnancy before delivery is an abortion. Thus this is an abortion and one done to save a women's life. IMO it is appropriate. But no strong feelings either way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
If we can only have one image of what is aborted, then it should be from an induced abortion rather than spontaneous, because most people associate the word "abortion" with the induced variety. Although this image may well show an induced abortion, such an image should be at a typical gestation, whereas this image is much earlier than typical. There was an appropriate image in this article for over a year, removed without consensus, edit-warred ad nauseum, and now subject of an ongoing ArbCom proceeding. Let's wait and see what ArbCom says. Apparently, not only is consensus meaningless here, but we also cannot have an NPOV tag in the article inviting people to comment about this dispute.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
James, are you sure that ectopic pregnancies are generally considered to be abortions as opposed their own separate category? Williams Obstetrics talks about them in separate (but sequential) chapters. NW(Talk)18:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes if we use the definition of "intra uterine pregnancy" they would not be classified as abortions. However the WHO does classify them as abortions [15] And this article describes an ectopic not being treated due to a complete abortion ban [16] The Catholic church considers a number of treatments for ectopics to be "abortions" [17] The abortion rate is constant between 5-12 weeks.[18] Thus an image at 7 weeks would be fair. This is also a featured image BTW. I consider it to address the concerns raised and would thus support its inclusion in this article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Above are drawings at typical gestations when abortion is induced in England. At left is an embryo 4 weeks after fertilization (i.e. 6 weeks LMP). At right is a fetus 4 weeks later. The selected abortion method depends chiefly on the size.The image suggested by Doc James is at "5 weeks p.o." which is way before average for induced abortion in developed countries, and the average is even later in developing countries. See the bar graph in the article. As such, the image is misleading, and raises concerns about POV-pushing, propaganda, and censorship. Every image that shows the abortus as something other than a non-human-looking clump of cells has been objected to by someone or other at this article, including the innocuous and information-packed image to the right.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
The fetus in the (upper) image is 7 weeks' gestation using standard obstetrical dating from last menstrual period, as the image information makes clear. That's well within the range of gestational age where most abortions are performed in the Western world; I can't speak to the developing world, but would be interested to see reliable statistics (in place of accusations). I'm on the fence about the upper image, mostly because I don't think it's representative of a typical "abortion" (no more than a hydatidiform mole would be typical of "abortion"). MastCellTalk23:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
MastCell, the upper image does not show a fetus. It shows an embryo, perhaps not even halfway past the midpoint of the embryonic stage. This Wikipedia article says that in the U.S. only 18% of induced abortions occur by 7 weeks LMP (i.e. 5 weeks after fertilization). And if the upper image was "in" the seventh week LMP rather than "at" 7 weeks LMP, then it could be as early as 4.1 weeks after fertilization. The fetal stage does not begin until 8 weeks after fertilization, and that transition point is about average for abortion in the western world (the average in England is 7.5 weeks per this Wikipedia article).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I stand corrected; embryo is the correct term. If the average abortion is performed at 7.5 weeks gestational age (in England, to take your example), and this embryo is at 7 weeks' gestational age, then perhaps you could explain your objection again? Why do you feel that the embryo in this image isn't developed enough to be representative? MastCellTalk23:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Just as you mixed up embryo and fetus, you're mixing up gestational age (LMP) and age from fertilization. The average abortion in England is 9.5 weeks gestational age (LMP) which equals 7.5 weeks from fertilization. The upper image you say is in the 7th week LMP which is the 5th week from fertilization, i.e. between 4 and 5 weeks from fertilization. (The info page for the upper image says it's in "5th week p.o" which may mean it's even less developed than 4 weeks after fertilization.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
When you said 7.5 weeks above, I assumed you were referring to standard obstetrical dating. It would probably help to stick to one set of terminology, preferably that commonly used in obstetrics (last menstrual period). As Doc James notes below, about 36% of induced abortions are performed at or before 7 weeks in the U.S. That seems to me to make the image reasonably "developed" to represent abortion, at least as practiced in the developed Western world. That said, I don't really favor the image because it's from an ectopic pregnancy, which is well outside the "typical" concept of abortion. MastCellTalk00:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes 18% before 7 weeks 18% at 7 weeks. That equals 36%.[19] Never saw this as an issue of propaganda, or censorship. These are harsh accusations when all I was looking for was an image from a reliable source which would have been ethically acquired to address previous concerns raised. Anyway will leave it with you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
If the correct figure is 36% by 7 weeks LMP in the US, then still a substantial majority occurs later than that. Plus the info for the upper image says "5th week p.o." which suggests it may be even more unrepresentative. Keep in mind too that later abortions are more common in China, India, and other developing countries than in developed countries. See Cheng L. “Surgical versus medical methods for second-trimester induced abortion : RHL commentary” (last revised: 1 November 2008). The WHO Reproductive Health Library; Geneva: World Health Organization.[20]
I'm sorry if my concerns about censorship and propaganda seem harsh, but I don't think it's a coincidence that every non-clump-of-cells image suggested for this article has invariably run into accusations of pro-life propaganda, and no coincidence that this article still has no representative image of what's aborted in a typical abortion. AGF has limits, and I can't but believe that the continued absence of such an image is by design. The issues about ethical acquisition were covered during the deletion debate at Wikimedia Commons.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
That's nice to know, but this Wikipedia article is not about Sweden. If you'll look at the lower image (that you and MastCell have thus far declined to support or even acknowledge), both an abortus at 6 weeks LMP and at 10 weeks LMP are shown. Why is it asking so much to show an abortus that has developed beyond looking like a clump of cells? They're very typical, though earlier abortions are also common in places like Sweden. This Wikipedia article once had an embryo image and also a fetus image. You personally deleted the first, and froze out the second, and now we have to go over this issue yet again. There are obvious reasonable solutions here, but one of them is not to include only a clump-of-cells image that pleases pro-choice activists at this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
9-Week Human Embryo from Ectopic Pregnancy (7th week p.o.)
The Appendectomy article doesn't show an appendix, but the Vermiform appendix does. The page on the operation shows an operation being performed plus two post-op images. This is the difference: Images at Abortion should focus on the abortion procedure, as they currently do, and images at Embryo or Fetus on the embryo and fetus. Brain surgery (which redirects to Neurosurgery) shows a picture of a person being operated on, but not a brain; Brain, however, does show a brain. In the Appendectomy and Brain surgery articles you can't even see an appendix of brain. In Heart surgery (redirects to Cardiac surgery) you can make out part of the Heart under the surgeon's hand but can't see the whole heart; compare Heart, which has several images of the heart. In articles on a procedure it's common to have images of the procedure. The embryo picture is a poor fit here. It's not a conspiracy--it's the custom. JJL (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
JJL, there are many counterexamples to your examples, such as tonsillectomy. In the case of this abortion article, there is a much stronger rationale for showing what's removed: the removed item is very different depending on when it is removed, the removal technique depends heavily on that difference, and the separate articles do not explain which stages of development correspond to most abortions. If this were a normal article that didn't attract agenda-driven editors, there would be no hesitation about including a simple image like the drawing above, or a pair of abortus images that bracket thr typical gestations for abortion. Since no one has objected to the drawing above, I plan to insert it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
The drawing is not an "embryo picture". It shows a fetus. I think it's pretty clear that all but the most determined editors have been driven away from this article for the time being, and I'm joining them for awhile. It's just too frustrating. So have at it guys.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
In fact Tonsillectomy is much the same--there are 4 images at the bottom that illustrate the procedure, from pre-op, the removed tonsils, immediately post-op, and later post-op. The image of the removed tonsils is in the context of the surgical procedure. The line drawing is somewhat on target but, as with your remarks above on Sweden, this seems to be focused on England which is insufficiently global. JJL (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
The two photos are very good but they belong in the fetus and embyro articles not here. Like I've said before there are many things involved in an abortion -- the fetus, the placenta, the pregnant woman, her uterus, the doctor, the tools or drugs used. Showing any of these things in the Article wouldn't really let someone understand abortion better. They would just take up space. And the fact that people are only calling for this article to show fetuses -- not placentas or pregnant women or doctors -- says a lot about the main reason such pictures are wanted in the article. As for the cartoon ask yourself how many encyclopedias have pictures like that. Really this looks like throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks to me. Well that's not a very productive use of everyone's time. People really need to let this thing rest. The more this keeps getting brought up the clearer it becomes what it's all about. Friend of the Facts (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
"The more this keeps getting brought up the clearer it becomes what it's all about." Well, you can say that again. And the arguments for these various photos in the article do not seem to need to make one iota of sense - none at all - just keep making them over and over till (it sometimes feels like) the end of time. When I pointed out that a medical journal-type photo of a fetus would hardly show one that was hand-held, I was told it needed to be hand-held because it was so delicate, and furthermore, lots and lots of medical photos showed a hand in the picture. When asked for some examples of all these photos, one was produced along with several of procedures being done with an instrument in-hand. Then it was claimed that the hand was important to show the size of the fetus, as though the science community had not yet discovered the ruler. And on and on. But then to complain of frustration and accuse the editors that do not share their somewhat odd (to say the least) point of view as being agenda-driven and to suggest that they are driving away editors... Gandydancer (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Reference 31
Can anyone else locate the following reference? It's currently in the article as reference 31:
Potts, Malcolm (2002). "History of Contraception". Gynecology and Obstetrics6 (8).
Gynecology and Obstetrics appears to be a legitimate journal, but it does not match up to the reference at all. In 2002, they were on volumes 266 and 267, not 6. Potts has apparently written an article titled "History of Contraception" (co-written with his wife, I believe, per our article on him), but that was published in 2008, not 2002. Can anyone reconcile all of this? NW(Talk)04:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
It's most likely this. Not sure where the confusion over its provenance originates, but it seems to be from the Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Can someone who has been following this bring me up to date on what exactly it's hoped that ArbCom will accomplish and especially what the scope of the case is? I've just been added to it and it seems to be all over the place. JJL (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, heard about it yesterday for the first. This might help: [[22]]. It's been going since 12th August as far as I can gather.
I read through the entire article, and I feel that it's unclear whether the article intends to cover aspects of both accidental and induced abortion, or whether the article intends to include all contextual motivations and results of the various legalities of abortion. I feel it would do service to the topic of accidental abortion to remove it from the article and make separate articles. Miscarriage is enough to identify accidental, and the term abortion is tied culturally too much to induced. I believe there's a wiki guideline about naming an article according to popular use of the term that will give merit to separating the two as I described. (Feel free to reference it).
If everyone feels it's best to keep the topics together, then I have an entirely different set of concerns. As the topics are together, I would rather argue that the article reads too much as an article trying to discuss the varying political positions on abortion legality. As such, the article can never entirely appear NPOV to anyone. I think it would be helpful to reduce topics such as safety of induced procedure and such. The unsafeness of self-induced abortion appears more like an argument for abortion legality, not in actual wording, but in implicit nudging. With comments like "14 times safer than childbirth" while neglecting to note that this result is skewed by actual performed abortions as it continues to state that "The risk ... remains lower than that of childbirth through at least 21 weeks' gestation." These two in contrast are deceptive because they imply that it is safer to abort than give birth because it doesn't point out the missing conclusion that post 21 weeks, it is less safe to induce abortion. Which means given a performed average over all weeks (let's say 100 per every week gestation), the result *could be* safer to bear than to abort at all. This is clearly NPOV disguised, whether intended or not. The article continues to make biased comparisons. Noting that it's safer to have legal abortions at all terms to account for the risk created by illegalizing abortions, then comments that risk would decrease if planned parenthood and other medical help were available giving the current laws. This is biased because it neglects the fact that the safest countries already offer abortion, making the risky self-induced abortions a matter of lack of education about options. "Groups such as the World Health Organization have advocated a public-health approach to addressing unsafe abortion, emphasizing the legalization of abortion, the training of medical personnel, and ensuring access to reproductive-health services."
To make my point concise and clear. This article reads more like a white paper for legalizing abortion than it does as a paper simply discussing the concept of abortion covering both induced and accidental equally. -- Cflare (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I grasp your concern about the safety issue. Our wording follows very closely on that of the best available medical sources, which I think are appropriate for a discussion of the medical aspects of abortion. The comparisons to childbirth are not some editorial attempt to promote abortion, but a reflection of the way reliable scholarly sources handle the question. Could you elaborate on your concern? MastCellTalk03:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Cflare your points are well made but if you can elaborate further that would be of value. If I am understanding you then I agree the emphasis on safety may in fact give the impression the article is promoting its subject, just as any similiar emphasis on for instance the safety of a product (however well verified) could be seen as promotional if overstated. While the difference of course is that abortion is a procedure it is nonetheless one that could be promoted, so this article should be subject to the same scrutiny as any article on a product where there might be conflict of interest in regard to promotion of safety. I have thought this before you made your post, but had not articulated my concerns. I have considered proposing a split of the article to separate spontaneous (accidental) abortion out from it, and agree with you that abortion is in the public mind linked predominantly with induced abortion, and that miscarriage is the term best suited to disambiguating accidental or spontaneous abortion. It may be appropriate to follow that course if there is agreement, and limit this article to Induced abortion. In any case the issue of over-stating the safety of abortion does tend to make the article come across as a white paper or apologetic with a particular political goal, that of defending legalised abortion, which of course is outside of the scope of any encyclopedia not just wikipedia. I am wondering how an encyclopedia can best cover the subject. DMSBel (talk) 11:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
It certainly goes out of its way to state it quite emphatically, and near the start, and to defend quite vigorously the research which states it on my reading of it.DMSBel (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The mortality rates of legal (and illegal) abortion are not partisan political claims, but rather verifiable medical facts sourced appropriately to high-quality scholarly references. We communicate these facts to the reader, sticking very closely to the context and comparisons used by reliable, scholarly sources. People who read this article looking for information deserve to get accurate information on the subject. If reliable sources describe the safety of (legal) abortion, should we as editors downplay that because we think it sounds too "positive"? Or should we just focus on accurately conveying the content of the best available sources? What specific changes to the current language would you suggest? MastCellTalk04:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I think we need to balance the sources better and not leave the article open to be criticised, I am not sure what specific changes to suggest at this moment and would like to give the matter more thought. We could reference the BJPsych published meta-analysis (by Coleman) though, together with a response to it, rather than just a response. The BJPsych article is in itself a response to earlier studies which are cited. DMSBel (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Abortion and mental health
I just undid this edit. The reason I did so was because the text fails to meet Wikipedia:Summary style, which states that if a section is meant to be a summary of a subarticle (as this one is), the paragraph should be an adequate representation of the subarticle. It isn't. NW(Talk)14:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The edit was also problematic in other regards. The quote was far larger than the content text, and much of it was irrelevant dental discussion. It was taken from an editor's frontspiece to the journal issue rather than the review article itself, which was:
It remains to be seen what response that article's analysis will get when it is published, but it will doubtless recieve careful scrutiny by the readers of that journal. In the meantime, wp:NODEADLINE, we can wait for them to comment in coming issues. LeadSongDogcome howl!16:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
The Coleman work appears to build on Rachel MacNair's 2005 Perpetration-Induced Traumatic Stress: The Psychological Consequences of Killing. MacNair discusses many forms of killing including abortion (she was the president of Feminists for Life and the founder of the Susan B. Anthony List.) She talks about the emotional toll of performing abortions, a stressor for mental health problems. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Coleman has also been criticized by the APA for the low quality of her studies, and subsequent analyses of the same data used in one particular study have been unable to reproduce her results. We shouldn't be citing her as a source in a summary article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Coleman's approach to "quantitative synthesis and analysis" of the literature is quite curious. Of the 22 studies that met her inclusion criteria for analysis, 12 of them (at my quick count) were authored by Priscilla Coleman and/or her close collaborator David C. Reardon. So more than half of the papers fed into Coleman's "meta-analysis" are actually her own work, or that of her close collaborators. This is basically a meta-analysis of her own work, and suggests that the inclusion criteria for this analysis are questionable, to say the least. The analysis grossly overweights Coleman's publications, especially since they tend to be accorded very little weight by independent expert bodies. MastCellTalk04:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Um, no please? If Coleman's work is inappropriate to be added as plain text, it is also inappropriate to add it as a footnote. Please revert until you gain consensus for such an addition. NW(Talk)07:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The citation was published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, which is a peer-reviewed reliable source. Stating that "No scientific research has demonstrated that abortion is a cause of poor mental health in the general population" is not only uncited, but is a false in light of the above study. I've readded mention of the statement to satisfy WP:NPOV. Apparently, others here feel the same way. Thanks, AnupamTalk18:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I did not realize that this article was under a 1RR restriction. I've reverted my edit, although I still feel that it should be considered by the community here. Thanks, AnupamTalk18:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:REDFLAG implies that we should treat such claims that go against the current scientific consensus as requiring exceptional evidence. A study that primarily uses the author or her close collaborator's studies is probably not one of them (take a look at the relative risks of the various Coleman and Reardon papers and everyone else). Now, maybe the scientific community will disagree with me and say that this new paper is a game-changer. But that sounds unlikely. For the time being, we should not include the information, but should wait to see whether Coleman's paper is accepted by the scientific community at large. NW(Talk)18:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I do not know who "anonymous" is purporting to speak in behalf sf the RCOG, but on what does s/he base the claim that "this research does not fully examine is if these women had pre-existing mental health complications"? Coleman certainly does take into account pre-existing conditions. Thanks Geremia (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
If one removed Coleman's own studies from her analysis, do you think there would still be a significant relationship between abortion and mental health outcomes? In my personal opinion, a responsible researcher should have addressed that question in the paper, and a responsible peer reviewer should have demanded that it be addressed. But that's just me. A critical reader could just as easily interpret this paper to show that researchers have consistently found no impact of abortion on mental health, but that Coleman and Reardon alone, for some reason, consistently manage to find a correlation.
It's interesting to view Coleman's paper in light of PMID19014789, a 2008 systematic review from the Johns Hopkins group addressing the same question. The Hopkins meta-analysis actually took the step of assessing the methodologic strength of each included study, rather than simply pooling them all without regard for their quality. The results are instructive; when studies were assessed according to widely accepted measures of quality, Coleman's and Reardon's scored fairly low (in fact, the poorer the quality of the study, the more likely it was to report a correlation between abortion and mental health; make of that what you will). Of course, if you just pool all the papers without regard for their quality, as Coleman did, your mileage may vary. MastCellTalk21:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
MastCell - Though the matter of comparing methodologies in research is interesting and important, any answer given here by editors to your question (including your own thoughts above) could only fall foul of WP:OR. The [bjp.bp.110.077230] review acknowledges it doesn't draw definitive causal conclusions and previous studies preclude that also, but that indirect evidence for a causal connection is beginning to emerge. The review is more wide-ranging, circumspect and cautious than a quick glance at first reveals. But it might be better to wait until there are a few more detailed assessments published of Priscilla Coleman's meta-analysis.DMSBel (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand as it is the largest meta-study to date, it merits mentioning independent of reception, with the proviso that its conclusions are not expressed more definitively than the study itself presents them. Since it is published in a peer-reviewed journal the risk of pushing the wikipedia article toward irrelevance would be increased by not including appropriate reference to it. DMSBel (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
NPOV mandates that we present views in the context of, and in proportion to, their prevalence in scholarly reliable sources. Your version presents Coleman's paper as the baseline, and then mentions ("however") that every expert body to have reviewed the question disagrees with her implication. You have it backwards. We should present the views of reputable expert bodies (which, by the way, are essentially unanimous in concluding that abortion does not cause mental-health problems). We can mention that some researchers have reported different findings, but your text gives Coleman's paper a weight which it clearly does not possess. In doing so, your edit violates WP:NPOV. MastCellTalk21:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll not make the change myself, However [Anupam's] reference, could be trimmed somewhat and rather than stating "...suggests that there is a significant increase in mental health problems after abortion..." perhaps change it to "...suggests that there is a moderate or greater risk of developing mental health problems after abortion, while not concluding a definitive causal link between abortion and mental health." Earlier studies and this one may not be directly comparable, as Coleman's is a quantitive synthesis and analysis, whereas earlier studies were qualitative reviews. DMSBel (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Peer reviewed is not a magic phrase that renders all other considerations moot. Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of viewjointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. "Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three." The study has redflag and weight issues that can only be alleviated with sources that show the study is supported by anyone other than the author. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Very much agree with interpreting policies and guidelines in harmony with each other. Indeed "peer-reviewed" is not a magic phrase. WP:NOR is applicable for wikipedia editors mainly, and would include attempts to interpret the analysis ourselves, or speculate on responses to it. Verifiability is met. NPOV again is in regard to our presentation of reliable source material. I see no problem in briefly mentioning Coleman's meta-analysis in such a manner as to be in harmony with wikipedia WP:NPOV, which means we do what wikipedia editors always must do, avoid (ie. not engage in) judgement on it. But I agree with artifex re WP:RS sources. A brief mention of the existence of Coleman's meta-analysis would still be in harmony with policy though, would it not? Our own[ie. wikipedia's] presentation has to avoid WP:OR, and remain NPOV here too. User:DMSBel62.254.133.139 (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
User:MastCell, you bring about a good point with your comment. I do not object to placing Coleman's paper after the position of the APA. I think that this will be a good compromise between the parties here. User:DMSBel, the reason I used the wording I did is because that is the wording used by Sukhwinder S. Shergill, who summarizes that issue of British Journal of Psychiatry; I will place that portion in quotes. User:ArtifexMayhem, the source that I am using is not the original paper; rather, it is written by Sukhwinder S. Shergill, who presented the "Highlights of this issue" of the British Journal of Psychiatry, which is a WP:RS. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk22:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
The idea that Shergill via "Highlights of this issue" (aka the table of contents with a summary) is a seperate source that supports inclusion of the study makes no sense. What am I missing? - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC) Poor question. Not important. - ArtifexMayhem
That seems like too much weight is being given to the contrary studies. I have trimmed it to this, though I wouldn't mind giving less weight to that specific study and including some of the ones from New Zealand, for example. Or redoing those sentences entirely. NW(Talk)12:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
You trimmed it???? Was Anupam's edit not shorter than this? Here is my suggestion: leave the quote from Highlights of this Issue out for now and reference Coleman's meta-analysis in a NPOV manner.62.254.133.139 (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)DMSBel (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The glaringly obvious thing is that all individual studies positing direct linkage of mental health and abortion are regardless of findings subject to the same critique. If there is no direct evidence for causal linkage, that carries through to studies that claim to find benefits. If factors not directly connected to abortion are deemed to be significant in cases where deterioration in mental health is found the same is true of absense of those factors in cases where mental health doesn't significantly change. Indicating a degree of uncertainty still exists, and that the significance of abortion to mental health is not as yet understood conclusively. Coleman's meta-analysis understands that, and recommends caution, and further study. Any critique has to understand the purpose of the study, and any comparison needs to take into account if definitive conclusions are being put forward. Gross media simplification in summarising studies is often the worst error, and the greatest source of misinformation. DMSBel (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Whats more, just reading through the summary section in this article on mental health and it needs fixed badly. Just shows this article needs constant scrutiny. It states :"The American Psychological Association (APA) concluded that first trimester abortion does not lead to increased mental health problems,[60]..." The APA Task force did not conclude this. It stated in much more nuanced language the following: this Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion concludes that the most methodologically sound research indicates that among women who have a single, legal, first-trimester abortion of an unplanned pregnancy for nontherapeutic reasons, the relative risks of mental health problems are no greater than the risks among women who deliver an unplanned pregnancy. the later report concludes: Policies based on the notion that later abortions (because of fetal anomaly) harm women's mental health are unwarranted. Because research suggests that most women who have later abortions do so for reasons other than fetal anomaly, future investigations should examine women’s psychological experiences around later abortions. The sort of summarising and SYNTH in this section is misrepresenting these reports conclusions as being more definitive than in the reports themselves. Simply presenting a contrary view on the APA report does not address the mispresentation of it, though for sake of maintaining balance a contrary view needs to be kept in. DMSBel (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The APA found that a single abortion was not a threat to women's mental health. Or, in the actual words of the APA, "Single Abortion (is) Not a Threat to Women's Mental Health". Can we try to present that clearly and comphensibly to the reader? We don't need to say that "NASA geospatial and telemetric data provide evidence that Earth's shape most closely approximates that of an oblate spheroid"; we can just say that the Earth is round. Right? MastCellTalk20:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Headlines are not summaries of a study. No one was suggesting that the language be technicized in the absurd manner you suggest. Only that we give reader a little more information than a headline. And that press release title just emphasises my point because it doesn't summarise, it reduces the report to a soundbite for the media to give to the man-in-the-street. Soundbites are prone to manipulation, thats why we don't use them.DMSBel (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
You fail to understand that research published in the press goes through a process that essentially renders it digestable to the ordinary averagely educated member of the public. Such an approach is somewhat elitist, and a lot can be lost in the process. I am not prepared to enable that approach to dissemination of knowledge through Wikipedia especially in regard to research that can be politically manipulated.22:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)DMSBel (talk)
What that means (before Gandydancers brain explodes again) is that we elucidate research summaries, not reduce them to the equivalent of a power-point presentation. DMSBel (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
There is little more to say, other than whats been said. I'll work on the section to try and sort it out as best I can.DMSBel (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're getting at. The APA states that single abortions do not cause mental-health problems, in so many words. That's their position. If we don't communicate that position straightforwardly to the reader, then we're not doing our jobs. Do we really think we're better at summarizing the APA's position than the APA itself? Surely the APA is capable of summarizing their own position, and we don't need to "improve" on their summary. We can,of course, give the reader more information, but not at the cost of basic coherency and readability. I don't think we're dumbing things down - quite the contrary, we're making them intelligible, which the increasingly convoluted word salad version fails to do. MastCellTalk23:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
What was worse, the section infered that later term abortion had no mental health risks either, when the report it cited said no such thing. The cited report concluded that because later abortions due to fetal anomalies are not common, policy should not be based on them.DMSBel (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Our article currently states:
Some studies have disagreed with above conclusions, stating that there is a significant increase in mental health problems after abortion. However, such studies have been criticized by other researchers and professional organizations for failing to fully account for pre-existing mental health complications, the severity or lack thereof of any such complications, or improper selection of control groups to account for confounding variables.[62][63][64]
I have some problems with this. More than likely it is my lack of understanding, but I'd like to clear it up. First, there is no ref for the first sentence. Is it referring to studies, meta-analysis reviews, or systematic reviews? According to the RCOG statement three systematic reviews have found no connection to mental problems and as far as I know, the Coleman review is the first review of any sort to find a connection, is that correct? So, what other reviews of studies show a connection? It seems to me that as the article now reads it is putting individual studies on the same level of importance as systematic and meta-analysis reviews. Gandydancer (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I don't quite see how it puts these on the same level, can you articulate further, though I do find the sentence could be better referenced. DMSBel (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The refs for the first sentence are 62-64. We can duplicate them if you want, but there's no need, I think. The reason I worded it the way that I did is that I wanted to point out some common themes in individual studies (plus Coleman's meta-analysis) that claim increased mental health problems. NW(Talk)14:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Since others are not having a problem either, I trust your judgement. However, it seems strange that Coleman's meta-analysis is not referenced. What is your thinking there? I would prefer that it be met head-on.Gandydancer (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
As an exercise in good faith Gandydancer maybe you would care to add something about Coleman's meta-analysis. I suspect if I add it others might be inclined to revert it. Of course others may make minor changes to what you add, as is normal on wikipedia. DMSBel (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I am trusting group judgement and so far it seems to be only you and I that have a problem with leaving out a reference to it. But it does make me wonder how long one must attempt to contribute to this article before they are considered to be worthy of a response to a question. Gandydancer (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
BTW, to be clear I am not necessarily suggesting that the analysis be presented (though I would prefer that), my question was as to why it is not even included in the references so that readers my take a look at it for themselves. Gandydancer (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not a huge deal to me either way. You could work it into [note 3] as "some prominent examples of sources that have stated such are x, y, and Coleman; for analyses of those from systematic reviews and major professional organizations, see a, b, and s." NW(Talk)18:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I think we need to avoid arbitarily making one organisation with its review de-facto spokes-organisation on the subject. The APA seems inadvertantly to have assumed that position at least as far as this article is concerned and that brings with it an american-centric focus, which is at least to some degree influenced by a number of significant factors, including the american constitution, court rulings and political debates.62.254.133.139 (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
If other reputable major medical or scientific expert bodies have issued a position, then we could include their statements as well. If you're worried about Americocentrism, the U.K. Royal College of Psychiatrists is reviewing the evidence and will issue their own statement in autumn of this year. Their draft report found that "there is no evidence of elevated risk of mental health problems and some evidence of lower rates of psychotic illness for women who have an abortion compared with those who deliver the pregnancy." ([24]) In other words, there seems to be a fair amount of unanimity to expert opinion even outside the U.S., to the effect that abortion is not a threat to women's mental health. If you're in a hurry to globalize the article a bit, we could include the RCP's preliminary findings; or we could wait for the final report, which is the tack we've taken so far. MastCellTalk06:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
That's not true; please re-read the article. The section on the abortion debate describes fetal personhood as central to the pro-life viewpoint (e.g. "the [pro-life] position argues that a human fetus is a human being with a right to live, making abortion tantamount to murder.") MastCellTalk02:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Participants on both sides in the debate acknowledge that a human fetus is a human being, as does basic biology. The right to live is inalienable for all humans. Recasting it to be merely a view held by one side is incorrect, and WP:ORUser:DMSBel
I don't think you're correct, but more importantly I'm not willing to continually argue over your personal opinions and viewpoints. Please use this talkpage to discuss specific content issues and reliable sources. There are many other online venues in which you can voice your personal views about abortion, the beginning of human life, and pro-choice/pro-life belief systems. MastCellTalk17:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Given time I or other editors can find sources and suggest them here, are you in agreement viewpoints on Fetal Personhood need better coverage?DMSBel (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to present two versions of the American Psychological Association position on abortion and mental health for consideration:
Version 1: The American Psychological Association has concluded that the relative risks of mental health problems following a single, legal elective abortion performed during the first trimester are not greater than for those who deliver an unplanned pregnancy.
Version 2: The American Psychological Association has concluded, based on available scientific evidence, that a single abortion is not a threat to women's mental health, and that women are no more likely to have mental-health problems after a first-trimester abortion than after carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term.
The sources supporting these statements include [25] and [26]. I think the first version is rather difficult to read, and the second version more clearly summarizes the APA's position (and is more clearly in line with the APA's own summary of its findings). However, the second version was reverted by DMSBel (talk·contribs), apparently because he was concerned that it "overstates" the safety of abortion ([27]).
I don't think either statement is "stronger" than the other. I just think that the second version is a) more readable, and b) more in line with the APA's own presentation of its position. I'd like to get some additional thoughts on these two versions, or on any other proposed wording which might help communicate expert opinion clearly and directly to the reader. MastCellTalk18:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The first one is based on the actual report rather than the press-release - it uses "relative risks" and specifically refers to a single, first trimester, nontheraputic abortion (I used the term elective). I don't really have time to waste on a long discussion about this so, briefly if you could explain how that is not in line with the APAs presentation?DMSBel (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to address this one sentence before moving on to the other changes. Given how quickly things bog down here, I think our only hope of progress is to focus on one thing at a time. To elaborate, I think these two versions express largely identical ideas, but the second does so in more readable and comprehensible fashion. There's nothing magical about the term "relative risk"; the second version clearly covers the concept of relative risk as well. As to your last question, we are fortunate in that we do't have to guess how the APA would summarize its position - they've already provided a summary, which I linked above. I'm not really understanding the resistance to using the APA's own summary of its position as the basis for our summary. MastCellTalk21:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Here we go again. Nothing "magical"!!! No of course not, so why not just leave it. You've said they are largely identical. This wastes a lot of time, could you not have just left as it was yesterday, if there is nothing "magical" about it. DMSBel (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
What I mean is that we don't need to use the technical term "relative risk"; we can just as easily convey the same concept using more accessible language, as I think version 2 does. I said that the meaning of the two versions was virtually identical; I prefer the second version because I think it communicates that meaning more clearly. MastCellTalk21:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The APA task force report concluded that the risks to mental health associated with abortion are no greater comparatively than those associated with an unplanned delivery. Have I misunderstood it?DMSBel (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Well I have some linguistic understanding and I am not sure the two versions do have exactly the same meaning. the first may be very slightly more technical, but I think (on reflection) it does say something a little different (from version 2) does it not?DMSBel (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
To elucidate further the APA report version carries with it the suggestion that there would be little more risk involved to just have the baby. Right? DMSBel (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Can you elucidate further than simple agreeance, is there a problem with the language used in the APA task force report's own conclusion? DMSBel (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
We may as well speak freely and frankly about why we prefer one version over another. All this "more readable, flows better", for the reasons already said is not the reasons at all. DMSBel (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Come on Wikipedians? The fetus is a baby, a baby is alive and a baby is a human being/person. Abortion kills an unborn baby. We are pussy footing round the whole issue, which is worse than just coming out and being honest about it - no roe v wade said this or said that. We all know, all of us here. We all have to face it. Lets be honest and then go from there.DMSBel (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
What relevance do your personal beliefs about abortion have to the wording choice under discussion? Why can we not even discuss a basic matter - like a choice between two semantically equivalent wordings - without this sort of counterproductive soapboxing? MastCellTalk23:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
What relevance does your personal belief that what I said is only my personal beliefs have to the discussion? You are soap-boxing a paricular philosophical and ideological view in your own comment. 00:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)DMSBel (talk)
You know it as well as I do. This is the problem with this article and a lot of others, irrationalism, absurdity and plain denial. Why should I convert my language and always be refering to a fetus, rather than unborn baby, or gravida rather than mother or pregnant female. Maybe a lot of folks will be mightily annoyed, I really don't care that much, I'd rather just use normal words that everyone understands, than all this wikipediaspeak. Lets just get back to talking plainly. DMSBel (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
So? The article is full of abortion advocacy. Its alleged safety, politically biased research from organisations like the APA (and self-declared pro-choice activists), Guttmacher Institute etc. DMSBel (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Why are you not against that Binksternet? Sure just ignore my comments like you do the abortion advocacy in the article. Its only the talk page after all. DMSBel (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
DSMBel, I certainly do respect your right to think of the fetus/unborn baby as a baby and I would guess that many or most of those that post feel the same way. I even feel the same way. But somehow you must get it in your head that some people do not feel that way and their beliefs must be respected as well. Since you seem to feel so passionate about the well-being of infants, I can think of a hundred different ways you could work to support the welfare of the already born, especially in the present political climate that sees being poor and uneducated as a personal choice rather than a result of political/economic circumstances. The last thing that many women need today is a child to care for when they are unable to take care of themselves or any children they may already have. Gandydancer (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
How do you know what I am doing and what I support? You are expressing a very personal view now yourself. Thats up to you. At least we will start to see POVs more clearly. Yours is that a mother can kill her unborn baby if it is going to be a burden. Then you tell me to support those who don't. Scratch the surface as they say. Knowledge is not feeling. Every kid coming out of high school knows abortion kills a baby. Ask the group of teenagers you survey from time to time to see if editors on here are stupid. DMSBel (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) What is this? Why are you refactoring the comment that has already been challenged as unacceptable, leaving it slightly different but much the same?
I had not intention of making it any different only making my comment clearer. I can refactor my own comment it was only you and mastcell who seem to find it unacceptable. DMSBel (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed the APA has a position. Its just there is a difference and not a minor one between relative risk, absolute risk and no risk. What does the APA press-release mean by "no threat" when its report acknowledges a relative risk. Clearly "no threat" cannot mean "no risk" or they are contradicting their own conclusions. When things go to the press they usually are dumbed down. The press-release title carrys all the scholarly weight of a soundbite. Why not just say it is a press release, and then repeat their actual report conclusion of "...relative risks no greater than..." largely in the conclusions own words. This cannot be simplfied to such a degree, we are not writing an editorial. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The APA report does not "acknowledge a relative risk". Exactly the opposite is true: the report found no increase in relative risk with a single first-trimester abortion as opposed to carrying an unplanned pregnancy to term. This evident confusion over the report's findings is, to my mind, a strong argument in favor of clear and direct language. MastCellTalk17:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
...the relative risks... no greater than, no increase in relative risk. You highlight the no in exclusion to increase. Both these statements indicate a relative risk. Stop playing word games MastCell.DMSBel (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Actual report:
...the most methodologically sound research indicates that among women who have a single, legal, first-trimester abortion of an unplanned pregnancy for nontherapeutic reasons, the relative risks of mental health problems are no greater than the risks among women who deliver an unplanned pregnancy.
I don't think I'm playing word games, although I can't completely follow your logic so I'm not totally sure what I'm being accused of. I think you are confused by the report's use of the term relative risk, and you're confusing me as well, which reinforces the need for us to use clear, direct language. And please stop editing your comments repeatedly after you post them, if not out of respect for the talk page guidelines then out of basic courtesy to other editors. MastCellTalk18:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I think I see what might be the misunderstanding here between us MastCell. What is your reading of "single" here? I am reading it as covering women who have one abortion. Are you reading it as an individual case of abortion, ie. in the case of one woman?DMSBel (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I apologise for re-editing my comments (its to make them clearer), and it seemed to me like word games, but maybe it is just misunderstanding. DMSBel (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
That is in the case of unplanned pregnancy I should add. A planned pregnancy might have less risks, being expected and wanted and prepared for.DMSBel (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The inability to obtain a safe, legal abortion of an unwanted pregnancy also carries risks that are incontrovertable. Editors here might, for instance, wish to improve the coverage at Magdelene asylums to familiarize themselves with some examples. LeadSongDogcome howl!19:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe on #1; I'm not sure how widespread of a view that is. I would say no on #2; the history section is too Euro-America centric as it is. Yes, probably, on #3, and maybe as well on #4. NW(Talk)02:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The article would be better to focus on the common ground, that which is acknowledge by all sides, the above hypotheses would be highly likely to tie the article up in disputes (as there are contra views on all of them) until it pretty well becomes unreadable. Thanks for noting them, but given the tendency for the article to become bog down in disputes we might well find ourselves spending more time in mediation and dispute resolutions than editing the article, if all that was covered.62.254.133.139 (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd say no to #1 and #2. Yes to #3 and we have discussed the need earlier on the talk page, but have been bogged down in the definition discussion. A big yes to #4 as well, but it would need its own article. Here is a review: [31]Gandydancer (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Why should an neutral encyclopedia give an entire article to a feminist argument? Why a "big yes"? This is the problem here, every side has editors who want special articles, not just coverage in other articles, oh no, its own article. I'd simply drop all the pro-life/pro-choice/feminist-centric articles altogether from the site, including specific articles "arguments for", "arguments against" etc. I'd dump the lot of this verbiage in a land-fill. Sorry but generally and on the whole I defend the right of those whose opinions I detest to have and publish those opinions. But there is clearly soapboxing going on in these arguments for/against type articles. Maybe they started out as sections of other articles which is different, but I'd recommend topic banning anyone (for 3 months, indefinite banning stinks and is dystopian) who started (and that means actually started, not simply in response, or simply as a split) an article on arguments for something. Include in that some [support for] [opposition to] type articles. They are not encyclopedic subjects and are prone to disputes and attract partisan editors, namely those who want present just one side and those who just want to undermine it. If the book (by Leslie J. Reagan) meets notability (or however it is decided what books to cover) sure have an article summarising the book, if it is controversial which it probably is, that would need to be balanced by independent reviews and note any responses contra to it. But I see a basic problem even in the title, abortion wasn't criminal in every case everywhere in the US prior to 1973 and roe v wade. Even if it is flawed I guess it deserves coverage if it notable. Has this been discussed before? If the book is about legal issues, and is notable surely it is reviewed in a legal journal somewhere? Glancing at the review and the site it doesn't seem very impartial.DMSBel (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
If there is a specific concern about abortion with prominent arguments in society, we should summarize the arguments rather than fail to mention them. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
DMSBel, a discussion of the history of abortion and how it became criminalized is not a feminist argument for abortion rights, it is history. It seems you want to erase anything that suggests the reasons for where we are today if they don't suit your fancy, and that is not acceptable. Look, for instance, at the history of using radical surgery in the U.S. for breast cancer long after it was well-known that it was seldom needed. Radicals left women disfigured and physically handicapped for life. I was around in those days and I can tell you that the entrance of women into the medical profession and the feminist movement played no small part in changing the automatic breast removal thinking of that time. From the Wikipedia article:
Radical mastectomies remained the standard of care in America until the 1970s, but in Europe, breast-sparing procedures, often followed radiation therapy, were generally adopted in the 1950s.[102] One reason for this striking difference in approach may be the structure of the medical professions: European surgeons, descended from the barber surgeon, were held in less esteem than physicians; in America, the surgeon was the king of the medical profession.[102] Additionally, there were far more European women surgeons: Less than one percent of American surgical oncologists were female, but some European breast cancer wards boasted a medical staff that was half female.[102] American health insurance companies also paid surgeons more to perform radical mastectomies than they did to perform more intricate breast-sparing surgeries.[102] Gandydancer (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not at all evident that they are prominent. Having heard an argument doesn't necessarily indicate it is notable. Currently there is concern the article reads like an attempt to make a case for legalising abortion, so I can't see how these hypotheses redress what at least seems to be an undue weight issue. Adressing aspects held in common in the debate are a better way of balancing the article. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Too vague to be helpful in moving the article forward, I'm afraid. If you could list an item you find biased, or specify an item you think is "held in common" perhaps we could discuss, but there is no way to figure out what you're talking about from your post, sorry. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice16:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I think there is a lot of work that could be done with point number 1. I have seen that around a fair bit and I'm sure there are buku sources on it. I haven't ever really heard much of point 2-4 but make of that what you will. - Haymaker (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Re #1, note that the info in that link is from 25 to 40 years old. The only thing "modern" about it is the fact that it has been resurrected to use as a pro-life argument. See this article: [32]. I will quote from the article:
The question of how to counter the “Black genocide” argument is almost as complicated as its history. Ellen Chesler, historian and author of Woman of Valor: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America (1992) says that, after one hundred years of variations on the argument, she’s not sure what the response could be.[53] Alex Sanger says it’s the same dilemma that faces the larger prochoice movement, of boiling down a complex argument to a catchphrase, to counter anti-abortion slogans that claim abortion is murder, or now, genocide.[54]
It looks like the primary editor of this article has finally removed all my contributions to the "history" section.
Right now, the article fails to communicate a significant fact (arguably, the most significant fact that should be contained in the historical section): that abortion was all but nonexistent prior to the late 20th century (because "in ... the U.S., abortion was more dangerous than childbirth until about 1930") and then, by 1980, it got to the point where some countries recorded 1 abortion or more per 3 live births.--Itinerant1 (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "primary editor" - the number 1, or primary, editor of this article is more or less retired and has been for some time. Top 10 editors by contributions are:
On a factual note, it's almost certainly wrong to conclude that abortion was "all but nonexistent" before the late 20th century. I think what you mean is that reported abortions were all but nonexistent. MastCellTalk17:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Breast cancer hypothesis - older / quality / postulated
Don't like this diff, older isn't correct as a 2009 study found a slight risk[1] as did Melbye in 1997 for a sub-group. Even the existing "some" isn't correct, especially for older studies; the "majority" of which find a small correlation.
"Higher-quality evidence" is straight up ... (self control = good) ... poor editorial control. Yes, record based cohorts is a higher-quality methodology, that does not guarantee better evidence, just as with Lindefors-Harris craptastic gold-standard yet fictional overreporting. Gaps in records make claims of better "evidence" precisely that, claims. Rework and ref the opinion of the NCI workshop or PParenthood.
Re-reading the paragraph, one study postulated the association, others "indicated" it may exist. I'll change now. The "currently" addition seems okay. - RoyBoy02:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Let's be crystal clear. When I wrote "higher-quality evidence", I'm not talking about my personal concept of high-quality evidence. I'm conveying the fact that the National Cancer Institute, the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society, RCOG, and every reputable medical body on Earth has found that the evidence they consider "higher-quality" shows no link between abortion and breast cancer. I think it's poor editorial control to substitute one's own judgement - in article space - for that of the entire reputable medical and scientific communities. MastCellTalk04:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Crystal clear -- fine -- you wrote:
"more recent and higher-quality evidence"
NW wrote:
"the scientific community has concluded upon reviewing the highest-quality evidence"
This isn't just a grammatical slip, it's the difference between Mastcell's opinion and the opinion of RS's. As to NW's version, I may end up disagreeing; as it situates the epidemiological evidence quality as an objective fact. It isn't. - RoyBoy 00:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC) I should have added otherwise NW did a Great job. - RoyBoy02:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
That is precisely how I feel ABC should be presented, but it should tweaked slightly more towards the majority view that Mastcell accurately reflects, sometimes :"). Instead of "existing evidence" perhaps, "largest studies" or "current large studies" or even "current studies". The last one isn't 100% correct, but I think it conveys the mainstream reality. To be clear "existing evidence" is the best scientific option IMO. - RoyBoy02:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I was more concerned with "some studies". Do we have a secondary source citation to back that up? So far as I can see, it was a single 1981 primary paper. LeadSongDogcome howl!00:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
So "some studies" refers to the "series of international studies on breast cancer epidemiology conducted during the late 1960s by Brian MacMahon in collaboration with researchers in both eastern Europe and Asia", as reviewed in Jasen 2005? Or are there others? LeadSongDogcome howl!05:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
That and Howe's cohort study (1989), several studies purposely excluded in Beral (2004), and Brind's meta-analysis (1996) [all mentioned in the subarticle]. It's clear that the scientific community doesn't think the studies were well done, but that is a different matter. NW(Talk)14:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The language about "some studies" is supported by the National Cancer Institute workshop ([33]), which found that through the mid-1990s, "some studies suggested there was no increase in risk of breast cancer among women who had had an abortion, while findings from other studies suggested there was an increased risk. Most of these studies, however, were flawed in a number of ways that can lead to unreliable results... Since then, better-designed studies have been conducted... The newer studies consistently showed no association between induced and spontaneous abortions and breast cancer risk." MastCellTalk18:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Yup, though the entire "Abortion-Breast Cancer Research to 1994" section applies; Daling studies are notable, in concert with higher breast cancer incidence for young women in the early 1990s (mostly attributable to better awareness & detection). MastCell's ref is a great shorthand, but Jasen really kicks ass. - RoyBoy00:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Lead sentence opposition
The lead section options section has indicated multiple options. I've tried to list them here in order of most supported, to least. Here we should discuss / list opposing reasons for each option in an attempt to remove some of the options. The emphasis, in my opinion, is on the functionality of the definition and adherence to Wikipedia policy and our goals.
At the last second, I've added "Oppose reasons", the intent is to put point form problems with the lead option; the points can be tweaked and expanded as necessary (hence not signed) please re-sign if modified. But a consensus is needed to strike out a reason, with a followup signed rationale for removal. (see below for my example attempt, anyone can unstrike and say why) An RFC can be listed for this. Hopefully by September we can at least agree on what we don't prefer. Oh and please comment on possible tweaks to remove your opposition to an option. - RoyBoy04:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Termination before viable
“
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy before it is viable.
”
Oppose reasons
While complete for medical text(s), it is too narrow a definition for a generalist encyclopedia. Wikipedia should include exceptions. Or simply: Wikipedia is not a dictionary / medical text.RoyBoy03:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:Lead, "In general, specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided...." Many medical and non-medical sources use a broader definition, and it's not NPOV to favor the narrower specialist terminology, or use it to limit the scope of the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not going to mince my words here - this is weak factually, it would be intellectually dishonest [we know that third trimester abortions do take place and can be legally performed up to full term in some jurisdictions and that they are called abortions and are abortions regardless of the stage of development of the fetus, or it's ability to survive outside the womb]. Lacking in content [no mention of baby/embryo/fetus or mother/female], and bad semantically and gramatically. Would set a very poor example for an encyclopedic definition.DMSBel (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Comments
Termination with medical clarification
“
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, involving destruction of a fetus or embryo, although medically the term "abortion" does not usually apply if the fetus has become viable.
”
Oppose reasons
"usually" is a weasel word we should avoid. Used in Britannica; and there are unknowns we cannot rigidly define. - RoyBoy03:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Removing "destruction" now makes the definition so broad that it could cover live birth. After "embryo" I would add "and its demise". The word "demise" is not merely a synonym for "death". Sometimes it means death, but it can also simply mean termination.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I came back to this definition with those very concerns. Demise cannot be used because it requires personhood (while death/destruction doesn't). I have put destruction back, and switched "a" to "the". Thanks for the feedback. Well, looking here demise does seem appropriate, but here it seems not appropriate. - RoyBoy17:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Your second link doesn't seem convincing, because if you click on "more" you'll see that Google Dictionary has met its, uh, demise. Google Dictionary is not a reliable source. I can support "destruction", though.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Ironically based on Wikipedia, demise being "used as a stilted term for a person's death" seems to exclude it from consideration. It was an excellent attempt at creative compromise. - RoyBoy15:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Version superseded
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Current version
“
Abortion is technically defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before fetal viability; however, the term may be defined more broadly to include any termination of pregnancy before birth.
The goal of a lead is to broadly yet accurately define a topic, not relegate it to a secondary option.RoyBoy03:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Additionally, a reader might easily think that inducing a premature labor qualifies as terminating pregnancy before birth, so it would be clearer to say "other than birth" instead of "before birth".Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Previous death consensus
“
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus or embryo from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death.
”
Oppose reasons
Death has a dual meaning, broadly it fits; but in common usage it implies an individual / person has died.RoyBoy03:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Death is blunt, simple and straightforward, but it's not used when tonsils are removed. Tonsils are not really a distinct organism, whereas a fetus/embryo is regarded as a distinct organism, or at least a parasitic distinct organism. The word "death" has strong connotations, perhaps suggesting brain death, which is an organ that may not yet have formed in the embryo. The word "demise" is much better; it sometimes means death but can also simply mean termination.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
This is straightforward and clear as a formal definition, there is nothing counterfactual here in regard to what an abortion basically is. Some may regard a fetus/embryo as a parasitic organism, it is incorrect though as parasites are from a species different to the host species. In origin and manner the dependent intrauterine relationship of baby on its mother is not the same as parasite on a host. I don't see a NPOV issue or a need to give more than one definition as viability will be mentioned in the article, but is non-essential to a formal definition. DMSBel (talk) 01:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't regard it as parasatic. My point was merely that some people do regard it that way, and as far as I know there's no dispute about whether parasites end in death. Of course they do.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
We had this discussion already a million times. Consensus by posting until other editors give up and go away is not strictly forbidden, but there is a time to just leave things as they are and walk away. NW(Talk)03:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Talk page discussion is rarely discouraged regarding how we can get a consensus that allows removal of a disputed tag. Only three or so editors have even commented about whether "termination before birth" might be misunderstood to include premature labor induction, for example. No one likes endless discussions, but that's often what happens when high-profile articles are substantially changed without any consensus whatsoever for the changes (as happened here). I can support changes and compromises here, but the thing is not settled yet.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Anythingyouwant. The removal of death was non-consensual, supported with bogus (anti-scientific) arguments and anyone who dissented was/is accused of being a right-wing religious nut-case. We should revert back to the 2006 death consensus.-- cheers, Michael C. Pricetalk11:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
It's worse than that. The original section for comments was repeatedly changed--statements modified after people had voted for them--and it continues to happen here. There has been a long discussion to get to the current stable version and any discussion not starting with that is just another attempt to get the much-loved 2006 version back in. If a discussion of this form is to work it needs to include statements that are not modified during the discussion of them, just for starters. Waiting until a stable version was reached then trying to get it thrown out and the old, old version restored is just another delaying tactic in hopes of wearing out the editors on the other side. It isn't an honest attempt to reach consensus. JJL (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
A 48 hour straw poll qualifies as a honest attempt? If changes to unsigned proposals are noted, transparency remains, this is the Wiki-process. "stable version" is that another joke? Motive guessing again, I waited for the "Lead section options" to slow then proceeded to construct an actual consensus. The current lead is messy and (I think) undermines the whole point of a lead (to define something broadly once), if you want to keep it, fine. I'd like to verify this is what the community actually wants / expect; they'll likely want the "termination before viable" version... well I certainly hope not. - RoyBoy04:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
But it wasn't structured very well, like the current lead. If the current version holds its own re WP:Lead, then there is no change required. Besides, if things were "left as they are", we would be forced to revisit every year. That possibility is preposterous to me, but if you're willing to sign up then awesome fantastic! BTW, NW do you find "demise" okay, or equally poor / misleading as "death"? - RoyBoy04:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Misleading is a bit strong; perhaps "imprecise" describes my feelings towards it a bit better. In any case, can we postpone this discussion until after the Arbitration case concludes? I plan to request some sort of binding mediation structure imposed by the Arbitration Committee and administered by an uninvolved editor/admin, which I think might help us. NW(Talk)14:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. No worries, this section has long intentions; and it can float... opening an RfC to get more voices in this section could help. However, there is no rush. - RoyBoy01:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Current version Sept
“
Abortion refers to the termination of pregnancy at any stage that does not result in birth; medically, abortion is typically defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before fetal viability.
It's getting better. Perhaps tweak first "termination" to "ending" (hmmm... ending might not be good enough), and "end with" to "result in"? - RoyBoy04:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Glad to see we are near to same page. I'm not sure that either termination or ending works there (the former because it's repetitive, the latter just seems off), but the other thought sounds good. NW(Talk)13:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Once technically became 2nd fiddle, lead wasn't awful... perhaps "loss" for the first termination? But I come back to this: "A definition should not be negative where it can be positive." I brought it up here and Anythingyouwant replied many definitions use not viable / nonviable. Though I'm still thinking it's poor form simply for political correctness. - RoyBoy23:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, does "loss" run the risk of conflating the definition with stillbirth? A stillbirth does not terminate/end the pregnancy, but its technically lost? - RoyBoy00:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Updated lead with "result in" tweak, also removed "live" as birth is always alive. Now I want to replace ", though it is often technically defined" with "; medically abortion is defined" - RoyBoy23:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the "often" or "generally" could be inserted before medically, and I think "live birth" was used in previous revisions to differentiate birth from stillbirth. I have no strong opinions on either though. NW(Talk)16:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
After some minor edits after, "often" got changed to "typically"... I tried often simply to avoid another "lly" word. I concur with JJL it's weaselly, so I'll add that as an objection. - RoyBoy00:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
If the medical defn. with all its sourcing, is only "typically" as given, what possible basis is there for the first half of this highly synthesized defn.? Wouldn't it require even stronger caveats? JJL (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The first definition is meant to be encyclopedic, broad but accurate, so caveats and even refs aren't necessary. That's why it is first, primary, and I'd maintain; only definition required. I admit, over the arc of the debate I've come to acknowledge the medical def is more relevant than I initially weighted. - RoyBoy03:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The sources waffle, so we should waffle. Both the medical and general language dictionaries go back and forth regarding the viability limitation, with the medical sources leaning a bit more toward that limitation. Using words like "generally" and "usually" is virtually mandated by WP:NPOV, so we don't end up endorsing one medical definition over another, or one general-language definition over another. BTW, the sources that use the viability limitation never seem to tell us what we're supposed to call a termination of pregnancy after viability, which is a mystery I guess.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Why this one particular section of yours? There are lots of discussions of the topic throughout the archives and we'll no doubt need to revisit the whole issue anyway. There were so many midway changes to this one that I don't see any reason to treat it specially. JJL (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
The reason I didn't pursue an RfC for this was active arbitration, the goal is to eliminate oppose reasons... if not addressed lead maintenance remains difficult and revisiting might be every few months, instead of years. I don't see how "midway changes" impacts its utility. Treat it for what it is, unresolved. The current lead is written by committee and doesn't mind redundancy and defining it "technically" first. I doubt I'm alone in taking issue with this. - RoyBoy02:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I think I've addressed this in great detail and endless repetition, but once again: The one-line viability-based defn. used by the medical community. JJL (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Nailed me on that one! Abortion takes a while to load, sometimes I skip. Trying to massage it in my head to streamline... hmmmm, not succeeding. - RoyBoy03:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Needs a picture
This article needs to be illustrated with a picture, or several pictures, of babies murdered through abortion - so that readers can better understand the anti-abortion point of view. Note that I am not using wikipedia as a soapbox by making this comment, and I shall treat any removal of this post as censorship. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
It is a bit amazing that with all the graphic procedures featured on Wikipedia the Abortion article is more or less blank on the matter. I suppose showing pictures of this particular procedure qualifies as propaganda. PeRshGo (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not blank at all. The article does have an image of an abortion being performed. It's a diagram rather than a photograph, which seems to leave some people unsatisfied. MastCellTalk17:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I am proudly pro-life and I believe that abortion is murder and always wrong. I want a picture of a baby murdered through abortion here not to push my point of view, but because the pro-life side often uses such pictures, and it would help to show one here to explain their perspective. Why is hard-core porn acceptable on Wikipedia but not a picture of a murdered baby in this article? Conservative Philosopher (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Had to add the image request tag, since an image was requested. My own view is that we need to be careful here and not put in images just for shock value remembering this is an encyclopedia and the subject is a highly sensitive one. DMSBel (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The video is from the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, a pro-life pressure group which believes that "abortion represents an evil so inexpressible that words fail us when attempting to describe its horror." I'm not sure that's the sort of source envisioned in WP:RS, although I'm sure opinions will differ on the subject. MastCellTalk20:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
While offtopic, I feel the need to point out "innocence" appears meaningless. A felled tree is an innocent life. A person born with severe mental retardation and dies at the age of 28.25 is "innocent". Innocence is relational to lack of consciousness or agency. While it has religious meaning, practically I don't see it having meaning. Child mortality takes the innocent, to many religious folk this is "in the hands of god". - RoyBoy03:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
It appears meaningless? Sorry I am not at all clear as to what you are saying. No one refers to trees as either innocent or guilty.DMSBel (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Some see trees as innocent... but set that aside. To clarify, innocence is a state of lacking knowledge or agency. A lack of agency can be demonstrated by a tree (not a perfect example). A fetus can bring optimism with its potential and fresh outlook, it is offset with the larger reality the fetus is blank. There is no moral imperative from innocence, same for a tree. To bring on-topic: this is why Wikipedia avoids these descriptions. (Not accusing, just trying to tie into article/talk.) Religious texts speak to protection of innocence, but this is laid waste by human / deity destruction and the harsh reality of nature, where innocence is lost every moment. While I appreciate we wish to rise above this, it does not make absence of guilt an asset. - RoyBoy06:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Having watched some of it (not all), it's very unpleasant to watch, which I knew it would be. I don't agree with it going in the article, for a reason that is difficult to explain, and may be flawed, but is not to do with censorship - I don't disagree with CBR for making it available. Thats were I stand on the matter, the CBR are quite correct though abortion is horrible.DMSBel (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Where is the video? 03:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from , 18 October 2011
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change "The incidence of abortion has declined worldwide as access to family planning education and contraceptive services has increased" to "The rate of abortions has increased worldwide even as access to family planning education and contraceptive services has increased" because the former claim is factually incorrect.
The low down: As contraception becomes more easily available, behavior trends change, abstinence rates drop, unintended pregnancies increase and abortion rates increase. Since 1973, both contraception usage rates and abortions rates have increased. Recent downward trends in abortion rates are not due to increased contraception usage but to trend of increasingly negative sentiment towards abortion.
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The sources you've supplied don't support your contentions. This has been discussed extensively on this talk page before, for example here, where additional sources are discussed. MastCellTalk23:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from , 18 October 2011
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change "Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before it is viable" to "Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before it is fully born" or "...before completion of pregnancy" because the former definition is an obsoletism.
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. There is an extensive discussion about the lead sentence above. Please participate there to help reach a consensus. MastCellTalk23:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Legitimate definition
This was deleted:
*"Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the fetus or embryo; therapeutic abortion." {{cite book|title=The American Heritage Medical Dictionary|publisher=Houghton Mifflin|year=2008|pages=2,395|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=kT7ykAhh3fsC&pg=PA2&dq=%22termination+of+a+pregnancy+with+destruction+%22&hl=en&ei=gneUTq21BY-htwf0uLWDBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22termination%20of%20a%20pregnancy%20with%20destruction%20%22&f=false}}
I didn't take a look at the URL; I thought from the last two words quoted that you had come up with the definition for "therapeutic abortion", not "abortion". Please feel free to readd it, along with the second definition that you left out for some unstated reason. NW(Talk)20:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
(Undent)I don't know why this should be the only definition in the "Note" that should include both the primary and secondary listed meanings, but I'd be willing to add the second meaning if you like. However, I am reluctant to revert your mistaken edit for the reasons I'll explain.
This source still contradicts our lead, as do several of the other sources given in the Note, but you've indicated no willingness to insert a qualifier in the lead (like "typically" or "usually" or "often"), no matter how many contrary sources are added to the Note. To say that medical sources never use the word "abortion" with respect to abortions after viability is, well, inaccurate to say the least. Repeatedly removing the qualifier "often" or "typically" is wrong, misleading, contrary to NPOV, and disruptive. If I were to reinsert such a qualifier, doubtless I would be accused (and sanctioned) for disruption, when in fact there was never any consensus for how to change the lead sentence that existed for five years, much less to change it in this misleading way that wrongly indicates a uniform medical denial that there is such a thing as abortion after viability.
It seems that there's one set of rules at this article applicable to one set of editors, and another set of rules applicable to another set of editors, and that's about as civilly as I can describe it. An editor (MastCell) correctly said at this talk page on July 11 that there is an "obvious lack of consensus" regarding changes to the lead sentence.[34] Yet WP:Consensus plainly says that "More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes". Editors have changed the five-year version without even a simple majority agreeing how to change it, and continue to change it without consensus. This type of aggressive behavior has made this article and talk page a battleground, and driven away many editors who do not want the aggravation. Whether ArbCom ratifies this type of activity or not, I don't ratify it, FWIW.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The sentence should be reverted to the last consensus version, and anyone who changes it repeatedly without any hint of consensus should be blocked. The first half of the sentence would be wrong without qualifiers, and the second half of the sentence is that qualifier. The problem is that it's too categorical. If we cannot go back to the last consensus version, then I'd modify the sentence as follows: "Abortion refers to the termination of pregnancy at any stage that does not result in birth; medically, abortion is usually defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before fetal viability." In the mean time, I've decided to go ahead in a few minutes and insert some medical dictionary sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
There was strong consensus this year against the version from way back when. The Bush years are over. JJL (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The five-year-long lead sentence is something that I supported changing, and it should be changed. But not without consensus how to change it. I'm not aware that Bush was editing Wikipedia, which seems kind of beside the point. Feel free to identify any particular date on which there was any consensus about how to change the five-year version of the lead sentence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
You supported it being changed, and it has been changed. We can certainly continue discussing what the lede should be, but I can't imagine why anyone would think it helpful to keep complaining about how long the last one was successfully defended by its ardent supporters here. WP:OWN is not an argument. JJL (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Please answer me this: Are there are dictionaries that you looked up that you did not add? If so, why not? Also, is there any particular reason you are doing a google scholar search for "termination of pregnancy destruction" instead of doing a more systematic listing of, say, all Credo Reference medical dictionaries? NW(Talk)02:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't do a search in Google scholar or anywhere else for "termination of pregnancy destruction" or anything like that. I don't know why you think I did. WP:NPOV instructs us to proportionately cover what significant reliable sources say. My purpose in adding further medical dictionary definitions was to point out that a significant minority of them do not deny there's such a thing as abortion after viability; I was not attempting to confirm that a majority do deny that, which has already been established here. So the sources I picked out were picked out for this reason.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The sources don't deny anything: They state a defn. Saying that they are deniers of your truth because they don't mention what's important to you isn't helpful. Does the defn. of red deny blue? JJL (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The phrase "termination of a pregnancy with destruction" is an exact quote from the source, and it should be extremely obvious that I already knew what the source said. I was not using that to search for sources, but rather to go back to that particular source to get more info about it. Regarding setting up a set of sources that support my point of view or my proposed wording, that assertion is false. I simply want this Wikipedia article to recognize the minority view in the medical community. Since our Note already had several sources reflecting the minority view, and since our lead continued to ignore and deny that minority view, I added more refs to the Note reflecting the minority view. I was not seeking a lead that parrots the minority view, only a lead that does not flatly deny the minority view.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Can we agree that the length of the Note is now unreasonable? At this point its very bulk seems an attempt to undercut the defn. it presumably is meant to (on balance) support. JJL (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I did answer your question: "The sources I picked out were picked out for this reason". BTW, NuclearWarfare, why did you include tons of dictionaries in your Note, including a dictionary of "cultural literacy" and a dictionary of philosophy, but not a single legal dictionary? Any objection if I include one? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘ Is there some reason why you chose the 1979 edition of Black's Law Dictionary to cite here? It looks like the most recent edition of Black's was published in 2009 - why not use the definition from the current edition, rather than one from 30+ years ago? Are they different (I don't have immediate access)? MastCellTalk16:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, I had access to the 1979 edition and not the 2009 edition (I own the former and not the latter). An editor has updated the info to 2009, which of course is fine.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
@Anythingyou want: If I recall correctly, for dictionaries I first included all major medical dictionaries from the 2003 McGraw-Hill (?) list and then went through Credo Reference's dictionaries in sequential order to ensure that I obtained as unbiased a sample as possible. we aren't looking for a systematic listing (such a thing would be longer than the actual article), and listing what individual editors deem to be important is very subjective. NW(Talk)17:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't know much about Credo. It must be a poor resource if it doesn't include any law dictionaries. Several of the medical dictionaries that you listed defined abortion without regard to viability, so it's perplexing why you insisted that abortion occurs before viability according to the medical definition, without allowing any qualifier like "usually".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Credo includes several law dictionaries; none of them came up in when I typed in "abortion" into the dictionaries selection and went straight down the list. And I'm not sure why you're insinuating that; I really don't care too much (see above to discussion with Roy, myself, JJL). NW(Talk)18:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, it must be a poor resource if it didn't give any legal definition. I don't know exactly where you want me to look for the discussion you had with Roy and JJL (my little iPhone screen isn't good for finding stuff like that), but I do know that you've cared enough to revert other editors who sought a less categorical and one-sided statement of what the medical definition is. Anyway, we'll hopefully get this resolved before Wikipedia becomes obsolete. And then maybe MastCell will allow discussion of the fetus image.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Why is it important that the defn. of a medical matter be sourced (in part) to a legal dictionary? Of course there are legal issues associated with abortion--there are legal issues associated with any medical procedure. That's why you sign so many papers prior to surgery. I don't understand the insistence on using a legal dictionary here. Is that done to define other medical issues on WP? JJL (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘ I think it's reasonable to include legal dictionaries, assuming we're committed to the dictionary-listing approach. My main concern is that the law varies substantially by jurisdiction, and so by focusing on U.S. legal dictionaries we're locking ourselves into some serious U.S.-centrism.
I'm not familiar enough to judge the most prominent or reputable legal dictionaries, although it seems Black's is certainly among them. The resources for legal counsel at my institution rather surprisingly don't include Black's, but they do include:
Ballantine's Law Dictionary: 1. The explusion of the fetus at a period of utero-gestation so early that it has not acquired the power of sustaining an independent life. 2. The crime of "abortion" is the wilful bringing about of an abortion without justification or excuse. 3. Although there may be a technical distinction recognized in medicine between abortion and miscarriage, the words are usually synonymous in law.
Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 2001: The word abortion, strictly speaking, means no more than "the expulsion of a non-viable fetus" (W3).
Interesting. I guess if we're committed to legal dictionaries, the question is how wide of a net we wish to cast. Again, I don't pretend to have personal knowledge of the most prominent legal dictionaries - these are dictionaries chosen as relevant by the legal counsel of my institution. MastCellTalk19:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Black's is the leading legal dictionary, but there are others. The Nolo Dictionary says: "The termination of a pregnancy by the removal, by surgical or other means, of an embryo or fetus from a woman's uterus." I don't intend to insert this in the Note, because it seems like Black's is enough for now. I'm not trying to establish that one definition is the definition whereas all others are illegitimate imposters. Which is what our lead presently says.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe the lede says such a thing. It's an introduction to the article. We either have to have a defn. in the lede, or a statement that this case is so unique that no defn. can be given. I'm sure every defn. on WP would be argued by someone. I don't believe those reading WP are interpreting these lede sentences as mathematical defns. that precisely characterize the meaning of the term in accordance with everyone's judgment in all circumstances. You're setting the bar for this article unreasonably high. Think about what happens at articles like Philosophy and Mathematics. It's impossible to get all parties to agree that any defn. covers all conceivable aspects of the situation. We're not designing a dictionary entry. Does this lede help a reader decide if this is the right article, and what the basic idea is? JJL (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
This word has two specific meanings in reliable sources: one has a viability limitation and one doesn't. Mentioning both in the lead is not rocket science. Instead, you want to use only one---the one with the viability limitation. When anyone disagrees with limiting the scope of this article in that fashion, you accuse us of trying to sneak the word "death" in the backdoor, or trying to bring back the Bush presidency, or some other bad faith motivation. Please stop trying to limit the scope of this Wikipedia article by contradicting the Oxford English Dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary, and a large minority of medical dictionaries. Read the first paragraph of WP:NPOV; we're not supposed to rule out one POV in favor of another, but should describe both.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
You're intentionally conflating the issue of putting all significant POVs in the article, which no one has ever opposed, with the issue of creating a single sentence that includes all possible defns. By your logic the lede sentence of Moon landing would have to include the material in Moon_landings#Hoax_accusations. As has been said here many times: It's a medical matter with a medical defn. Feel free to expand on that in the article body. Oh, and when I referred to the previous presidential administration I was really referring to your urge to cling to things as they were 5 years ago--you had cited the five-year time frame ad nauseam at that point. JJL (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Given the number of sources that use viability; I do not see how we can take silence on viability as meaning the source excludes the limitation and thus there are two specific definitions. Sounds more like one specific definition and one not so specific definition.
Also, Black's is not silent on viability...
The word 'abortion,' in the dictionary sense, means no more than the expulsion of a fetus before it is capable of living. In this sense it is a synonym of 'miscarriage.' With respect to human beings, however, it has long been used to refer to an intentionally induced miscarriage as distinguished from one resulting naturally or by accident.
— Rollin M. Perkins & Ronald N. Boyce, Criminal Law 186-87 (3d ed. 1982) in Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.). 2009.
I looked up that quote online, and it appears to be from someone named Rollin M. Perkins, who is one of various people of various points of view quoted in Black's. So, it's not quite correct to attribute that quote to Black's. On the contrary, under it's definition of abortion, Black's gives "late term abortion" as an example. Anyway, putting aside Black's, it seems crystal clear from the Oxford English Dictionary that the word "abortion" (like thousands of other words) has more than one meaning, and I don't see why we would want to tell the OED that they're wrong. It's not at all unusual for a word to have more than one meaning.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I'm just not sure the "two specific meanings" can be derived from the sources. (Added the cite from Black's above. Thx for pointing it out). - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how we're telling the OED anything. No, it's not at all unusual for a word to have more than one meaning. But it's quite unusual to try to jam them all into the first sentence of an encyclopedic article on the topic rather than using the essay-length entry to elaborate on the subtleties and point to references for further reading. You say that "thousands of other words" have multiple meanings--do thousands of WP articles put those meanings all in their very first sentence? JJL (talk) 04:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's make a deal, JJL. Since you're asserting here that your main concern is simply to not have a cluttered first sentence, I'd be happy to accommodate you, even though you've led a months-long edit war against a stable, five-year-old consensus version without forming a consensus how to change it. Incidentally, I'd be glad to call that version "Fred" or "Ethel" or whatever you want, to allay your discomfort (described above) about who was POTUS five years ago. Anyway, getting back to my offer of a deal.....I'm not interested in showing you the many Wikipedia articles that present both a primary and a secondary meaning in the lead sentence. I could do it, but why bother if you still prefer not doing it that way? So here's the deal: how about if we simply split the sentence that you recently erased into two sentences? "Abortion generally refers to termination of pregnancy at any stage that does not result in live birth. Medically, abortion is usually defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before viability"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
For someone who has been complaining about lack of consensus, trying to settle the issue by a deal between just the two of us is surprising. Among other things, your suggestion puts the non-medical defn. first and re-inserts the weasel-word 'usually' into it. However, I am not opposed to the notion of addressing the fact that there are opposing views on the matter in the lede paragraph. I'd start with "Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before viability." perhaps followed by "The term is also used to refer to termination of pregnancy at any stage that does not result in live birth." JJL (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I never said that a deal between you and me would settle anything. In any event, since you've refused the deal, we ought to go back to "Fred" or "Ethel" or whatever you want me to call the longstanding consensus version that you've been warring against for months. I do not agree that a specialized technical definition should come first (see WP:Jargon), and I do not agree that the word "usually" is necessarily a weasel word if it happends to be accurate (see WP:Weasel).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you should clarify what you meant by "Let's make a deal, JJL". If it's not supposed to settle anything, what would be the point? JJL (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
When you write things like "If you don't think it would be helpful for us to agree about anything, fine" in response to my agreeing with your basic idea but reversing the order of the sentences, I continue to thing that you're arguing for the sake of arguing and playing word games rather than hoping to reach consensus. JJL (talk) 02:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
We apparently speak different languages. The second sentence is specialized and full of jargon. The first sentence is general and very understandable. WP:Jargon applies here. I've offered my support for splitting the sentence in two, but that's it. It's pretty clear from the article as it stands now that you want to push one POV, and if you can't do that then you want that POV to come first. We'll see what transpires, I guess. Have a nice day.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Lead sentence
I disagree with this edit from yesterday. It inserts a viability-based definition of "abortion" into the lead, contrary to numerous cited sources that allow that abortion is definitionally possible after viability. The lead sentence should take neither position, but rather needs to simply describe what the sources say. The new lead sentence is therefore contrary to just about every Wikipedia policy, mainly WP:NPOV. It also violates WP:Consensus, but that's nothing new around here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the Note, I doubt that we can simply describe what those sources say. However, this is the best-supported version we've had this year--that's as close to consensus as we can likely hope to get currently. JJL (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Have you read the first paragraph of WP:NPOV? If not, please do. It's not appropriate for us to pick out one POV and exclude all the others, even if the one you pick out is arguably dominant. This is a matter of following Wikipedia policy, not (as you said above) affirming the end of the Bush years. As for your version being the best-supported version, it isn't, and even if it were that's not the same thing as consensus, especially given the huge number of versions that have been proposed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The first paragraph of WP:NPOV does not state that "all significant views" must be represented in a single sentence, which seem to be what you want. JJL (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The source from the 9 May 2011 "consensus" version:
Definition: In non-medical circles, the term ‘abortion’ is usually used to refer to the termination of an early pregnancy by artificial means whereas ‘miscarriage’ is used for those pregnancy losses occurring because of natural events. The medical term for both of these is an ‘abortion’, the definition of which is the termination of a pregnancy before 28 weeks (note that there is no mention of the cause); ‘miscarriage’ has no medical definition.
— Dutt, Trevor; Matthews, Margaret P.; Scott, Walter (ed.) (1999). "Chapter 13: Abortion". Gynaecology for Lawyers. Medico-legal practitioner series. London: Cavendish Publishing. p. 173. ISBN1 85941 215 7. {{cite book}}: |first3= has generic name (help)
"Before it is viable" is moot because of the beginning of human personhood: the viability, defined as the "ability of a fetus to survive outside the uterus", does not mean that before that a fetus is a non-living thing - it may not survive outside the uterus, but is still a living human being. So I propose to remove "before it is viable". Brandmeistert10:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The language is almost universally used in medical defns. of 'abortion'. The archives have lots of sources that go against your other comments--those issues are muddled. JJL (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
(Undent)This is from Roe v. Wade, FYI:
If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother....For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
Lede: .. is the deliberate termination of a pregnancy that is unwanted or harmful to the health of the woman. The fetus (Leibesfrucht) does not normally survive the procedure.
Terminology: Abortion: Tröndle/Fischer define it for § 218 Criminal code (Strafgesetzbuch) "Any act that results in the (intentional) death of an in the womb located living (not necessarily viable) fetus. The term 'termination of pregnancy' is rather misleading, because not the pregnancy but the embryo is the 'object(?) of the procedure' (Tatobjekt)."; the Fedaral Court defines it as "any operation on the pregnant woman or the fetus that leads to the death of the still living fetus in the womb or the miscarriage (Abgang) of the fetus in non-viable state".
Seems they don't use an explicit medical definition anywhere in the article. But the claim that the language is almost universally used in medical defns., is hardly supported by the references when almost all of them are US or UK publications. DS Belgium (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Within reason, and when speaking to style and not content when the source is WP as in the German case, these comparisons are useful. I think we've seen that speaking about the definition isn't likely to be useful. I find it hard to belive that in all Spanish-speaking countries there is one andonly universally-accepted defn. of anything nontrivial. We had a survey of the English-language professional-quality sources. Per Wikipedia:SOURCE#Accessibility, those in English are the most appropriate sources ("Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available."). Also, there isn't a "viability limitation"--it's just that the word (or concept of) 'viable' appears in most medical defns. and a great many other defns. JJL (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
This comment of yours does not seem consistent with how you have insisted on writing the lead of this article. This article says (at your command): "Abortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo before it is viable." You have thus made this article deny that there is any such thing as abortion after viability, thereby misleading readers to think that there is one and only one definition, narrowing the scope of this article to cover only procedures that occur before viability, confusing readers as to what to call the procedure after viability, and establishing that this article will primarily be about medical matters rather than the many other aspects of abortion. Oh, and you did all this by edit-warring, without establishing any consensus.
Regarding accessibility, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. If you can find English-language sources that describe how abortion (or its equivalent) is defined in non-English contexts, then please feel free to cite them.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Given the last supreme court ruling about Roe vs. Wade, it's understandable that US manuals talk about "non viable". The section on Spontaneous abortion is also a US definition, in germany it's below 500 grams, not 22 weeks. An overcoverage or toofewopinions tag seems justified. DS Belgium (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
We had a long discussion of this this summer. The standard is whether it's viable--whether can it survive outside the womb. Of course the only to know that is to remove the fetus from the womb. Because viability is easy to test in principle--remove it and see if it survives--but hard to determine in advance by testing, there are various laws and medical guidelines about when the fetus is likely to be nonviable or viable. The numbers--500 grams, 22 weeks, and so on--are attempts to second-guess the matter. The 20-22 weeks comment currently has a note saying it varies--is that not enough? JJL (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not enough to have a definition in the lead sentence that denies there's any such thing as abortion of a viable fetus. People have been telling you that for months, but you don't listen. Your rationale for editing the lead without consensus seems to be that it is of overarching importance to cleanse this article of any prior consensus version that originated during the Bush administration. Anyway, this newspaper article may be of incidental interest: "Definition of Abortion is Found to Vary Abroad", NYT (11/24/99).Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
To be extremely clear: I mentioned that NYT article incidentally, not to support or undermine anything that I or anyone else has said here at the talk page or in the article itself. Thanks for the link, MC.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't deny anything. It states the medical defn. There was broad consensus against the version you're so enamored of, and the current version is the one that had the greatest support as its replacement. It was chosen based on what a survey of the best sources said--which was almost uniformly the defn. now in place, not the synthesized one from before. That's progress--more accuracy, better sourcing, no WP:SYNTH. Why not add your concerns later in the article? You've been encouraged to do that for months. JJL (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The definition you have repeatedly jammed into the first sentence of this article does not say anything about being a "medical" definition. It says it is the definition without any qualifier. So it is a false sentence (contradicting the Oxford English Dictionary, the Roe v. Wade decision, and lots of other sources), and there has never been any consensus for that falsehood. If you magnanimously decide to insert the word "medically", the sentence will still lack consensus, and still be contrary to NPOV, because it would still completely exclude the general defintion in favor of a technical medical definition. I am not demanding that anything be put in the first sentence, except the last consensus version, which you deplore because of its age. I don't care how old the last consensus version was; the fact is it was a stable consensus version, and you have no business erasing it without consensus. I favor revising the last consensus version, but not without consensus for the revisions. "More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes." There is no consensus version right now, and there hasn't been one since the lead sentence was overhauled by edit-warring. In such an instance, you are not supposed to write whatever you want in the lead sentence. As MastCell said on July 11, "you pretend there's a 'consensus' version in the face of an obvious lack of consensus". So I intend to keep objecting to your unilateralism. Putting aside WP:Jargon, WP:NPOV, and WP:Consensus, also see WP:NOT. Article titles are supposed to reflect common usage, not the less common technical usage. When readers come to this article, they expect it to be primarily about "abortion" according to that term's common usage. Do you really think that general English dictionaries are a poor guide to common usage?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
You keep referring to me doing things because I'm the only one bothering to reply to your tirades but you're being quite disingenuous in pretending that there wasn't a consensus of many editors that the old version should be removed. This was a decision endorsed by a strong, double-digit majority of editors--a clear consensus for removing the old version. We surveyed a wide variety of sources and a majority of editors favored using the definition that included viability--which is indeed the definition of the term. I don't think this language is overly technical. The only new term is viable which is standard English and is, in addition, linked. as impressive as the lengthy list of WP: pages you've listed is--and it's impressive--you're arguing for no changes, and that's not how Wikipedia works. JJL (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
You can say it a hundred times, but you know it's not true that I'm arguing for no changes. I'm arguing for restoring the last consensus version, and then revising it based on consensus; e.g. removing the word "death". I intend to move up the general dictionary definitions in the Note, given that we are required to have a title that reflects common usage. You may now respond with a tirade if you like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The last "consensus" version was not supported by the cite supplied and was WP:SYNTH. It cannot be restored, consensus or not. I would suggest starting from the here and now will be more productive. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Mayhem, are you speaking of the version that was in the article for five years? Well, if that can be changed to something else without consensus, then why not let JJL fashion thus article exactly as he pleases? If no consensus is required, then let's go forward by decree.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that's an unhelpful caricature of what people are actually saying. Look at how much energy has been devoted to fighting over the two old, clearly unsatisfactory versions, and to wikilawyering about the meaning of "consensus". People are asking that a small portion of that energy be redirected constructively, toward fashioning a new and more satisfactory lead. Or, to quote directly from WP:CONSENSUS: The consensus process works when editors listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they have decided on, and are willing to filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, destroy the consensus process.MastCellTalk03:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
(Undent) MastCell, I have tried to be flexible, and have devoted considerable effort to trying to build a new consensus. I commented on all the versions that RoyBoy presented. I was willing to go along with the version that JJL recently reverted, and that version was very different from the five-year consensus version. Since there is no consensus process at this article anymore, JJL can revert whatever he wants. It's pretty much anarchy, and not the good kind, IMHO. I've cited policy, with no substantive response whatsoever. No response regarding WP:Jargon, no response regarding WP:NOT, et cerera. Indeed why should anyone care about policy when Wikipedia's core consensus policy has already fallen by the wayside? I don't see this process going anywhere useful, but I'll keep an eye on it. The chaos has already driven away a lot of editors, so I'm not optimistic.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I responded to your comment about jargon yesterday [35], as I have many times before. When you say you cited policy you mean that yesterday you wrote something like this: " Putting aside WP:Jargon, WP:NPOV, and WP:Consensus, also see WP:NOT." That isn't a conversation. You're just firing random shots. What's in there now is what more people wanted than anyone else--and given the stonewalling by those invested in the status quo, or those (like the IP) pushing a POV, what more could be hoped for? There was discussion, voting, etc. This is what bubbled to the top. It's the best consensus we've got. You're not working toward any better--you're just complaining that other people aren't following your interpretation of the rules. Don't you think you're part of the problem? JJL (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
You say, "That isn't a conversation". Anyone can look back at this talk page and see that I not only cited WP:NOT but went on to paraphrase it. You are wrong to suggest I merely cited it without paraphrasing. And your diff doesn't mention "jargon". Like I said below, you've worn me out, as you have lots of other editors. So you win on endurance, it seems. We'll see whether ArbCom has anything to say, and if I'm not banned for life then maybe we'll have an RFC. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
^Ozmen, Vahit; Ozcinar, Beyza; Karanlik, Hasan; Cabioglu, Neslihan; Tukenmez, Mustafa; Disci, Rian; Ozmen, Tolga; Igci, Abdullah; Muslumanoglu, Mahmut (2009). "Breast cancer risk factors in Turkish women – a University Hospital based nested case control study". World Journal of Surgical Oncology. 7 (37): 708–14. doi:10.1186/1477-7819-7-37.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
Fixed. NW (Talk) 04:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The sources you've supplied don't support your contentions. This has been discussed extensively on this talk page before, for example here, where additional sources are discussed. MastCell Talk 23:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
