Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:57, 1 April 2006

Active subpages for topical discussion: Talk:Abortion/First paragraph Template:Todo priority

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:TrollWarning

Discussion Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19

In Archives: unborn/human vs. embryo/fetus

RfC - NPOV approach and Pro-Lick's editing behaviour

An RfC has been made at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology regarding the following:

• an NPOV approach to the introductory line
• an NPOV approach to : Hypothesized Abortion Breast Cancer link, Mental Health (particularly negative effects), and the Pro-Life viewpoint
• the editing behaviour of Pro-Lick - mainly in regards to the user's refusal to reach consensus before altering article content on a particularly heated and controversial topic.

Let's see what happens....DonaNobisPacem 06:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I'm going to be blunt: this article had gotten stuck in a rut due to the constant bickering from all sides. We can't even come to a consensus about the very first sentence, much less anything else. In the meantime, so much effort has been expended on fighting each other that the article has been allowed to rot and editors have left in disgust. Pro's editing style may offend the over-cautious, but by being bold and being competent, he's fixed a lot of really awful sections. Fundamentally, he's moved this article into being based on evidence, not on bipartisan compromise. This is as it should be and I support it. This article needed a reboot, and now it's gotten one. I will vigorously oppose any attempt to punish Pro's efforts and return this article to its previous, decayed state. Alienus 06:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Even though I question DonaNobisPacem's motivation, I appreciate the RFC. I had already added RFCs in 2 different sections. I definitely don't mind more and differnt people than our present group. With any luck, they'll remind the parties involved that consensus is only an article content tool when used in determining what the majority of WP:RS sources think, as is also made clear on the consensus page and WP:NPOV#Undue weight.--Pro-Lick 07:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you arguing WP:NPOV#Undue weight supports your position? Because I don't see that. The definitions and sources you have accumulated are all well and good; but the "viewpoint" the fetus dies from an abortion is held by the vast majority of people you actually understand what an abortion does. I've been busy recently but I do want to bring in more views on putting murder mention in the following paragraph allowing us to remove "death" or if both should be there. - RoyBoy 08:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight is policy. The section topic is RFC. If you'd like to pursue the use of murder, do so in a different section. If you can show mentioning it is not undue weight, then I have no problem with it.--Pro-Lick 08:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not doubting undue weight in the least, I'm doubting your ability to apply it neutrally. Frankly the Encarta mention of "death" in their definition undercuts about every single policy point you've made here regarding death. The only one that might stick is consensus of sources; but I would again reiterate many sources don't have the same summary style goals we do. - RoyBoy 02:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

One more time: the issue is not whether, in some technical sense, abortion involves something dying. Obviously and uncontroversially, it does. The issue is whether we should use a definition that specifically mentions "death". If we look at the definitions out there, it looks like they generally do not. Alienus 08:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You see what Alienus just did Pro-Lick; said exactly what you are saying but in summary form; and not being confrontational. Just putting it out there for consideration instead of trying to force it on the article. - RoyBoy 08:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Opps forgot to answer Alienus. What is also generally true is the definitions "out there" are not encyclopedic. - RoyBoy 02:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, we're here to paraphrase or quote what's out there, not replace it with original research. Alienus 17:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Another lie from the anti-abortion let's-ignore-Wiki-policy-and-reality team: On the RfC page, it claims I drove Severa (kyd) away, yet, quite obviously, he/she/it is still here.--Pro-Lick 17:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

He/she/it hadn't edited this article since Monday. And, if you're such a stickler for adhering to Wiki-policy, perhaps you should investigate WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. -Severa ?? | !!! 18:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

As shown by the edit logs, this is not the first time you've wondered off for several days after claiming you were tired of it all. Sorry, but I don't buy unsourced pleas for sympathy that are blatant requests for POV support. As for civil and NPA, take a look at the RfC they posted before you start suggesting I did anything that hasn't already been publicly accepted and unpunished. I guess that tells you how much those policies mean.--Pro-Lick 18:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

medical sources

Moved to : Talk:Abortion/First paragraph#medical sources

New proposal - subpages

It seems like progress on this article comes to a halt when debate fills up the talk page. One thing that other controversial and active pages have done is to create topical subpages (see Talk:Jesus). This way, all the debate can be in one place, and the basic talk page is left uncluttered for other 'priorities'. I would propose creating Talk:Abortion/First paragraph, and moving appropriate threads there. Does that sound like a good idea?--Andrew c 21:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As long as the link is noticeable on the talk page, I think it's an excellent idea....DonaNobisPacem 05:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't bother me. -GTBacchus 09:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I would welcome this. AvB ÷ talk 11:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --WikiCats 12:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be more fun to call it Talk:Abortion/KillKillKill.--Pro-Lick 16:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please start moving discussion to Talk:Abortion/First paragraph

I have created Talk:Abortion/First paragraph, and moved some of the older topics to that page. Since there seems to be some active discussion going on under "22 Is Abortion the death 'of a cell'", "28 Before able to survive", and "32 medical sources", I have left those sections in place for the time being. So I encourage everyone to start discussing this topic on the newly created subpage! If this system works, I may suggest subpages for other common topics, such as pregnancy definition, and ABC. --Andrew c 19:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved those sections, too, leaving links to their new locations in their old spaces. -GTBacchus 20:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, thank you for this, and for always having a level head when dealing with the heated debates that sometimes insue on this page. Kudos!--Andrew c 06:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Always having a level head? I wish I did that, but thanks for the vote of confidence. We'll get that darn encyclopedia written, somehow. -GTBacchus 07:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Andrew_c, I've taken the liberty of restarting the first paragraph discussion from the top: the new discussion can be found at Talk:Abortion/First paragraph redux. I know you and others have done a lot of work to get a legitimate, "good faith" discussion going, but I think it's fair to say that one of the participants may not have been acting in good faith, and their efforts may have tainted the process enough to make further progress difficult. Justin Eiler 03:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Dead Unborn Puppies

Stop the cruelty: --2006-03-28 16:57:25 Pro-Lick

Natural abortions Pro-lick, and from now on sign your comments. Your pro-abortion stance and irrelevant topics to insult pro-life people is appalling but if you must you should be held accountable. Chooserr 23:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's very relevant. Someone had included a definition from a vet. I'm providing perspective, even if your POV of it is "appalling". I can't control your feelings.--Pro-Lick 00:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The point of the vet definition was simply to show the neutrality of the word death and its use in the wider scientific community in referring to the fetus. I agree with chooserr that your addition here is inappropriate - trolling is not highly regarded amongst the Misplaced Pages community.DonaNobisPacem 05:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

What I was getting at is that you were poking fun at pro-life people by your comment "Stop the cruelty". If it wasn't a natural miscarriage it would be semi-appropriate, but I don't see how you can justify such an inaccurate heading. Chooserr 00:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

As some of you may know, Pro-Lick was blocked yesterday for violating 3RR. During the block, several new users sprang up, and started reverting to his version. A user check has established that Pro-Lick is AbortMe, Cry Me a Shill, and Vote Machine Malfunction, all of whom began to edit during his block. He is also the previously-blocked user Halliburton Shill. Pro-Lick's block has now been extended, and the new sockpuppets he created in the last 24 hours have been blocked indefinitely. AnnH ♫ 20:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I added User:Undermined to the indef blocked socks. KillerChihuahua 21:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't endorse sockpuppets (nor do I know for a fact that sockpuppets were involved). However, I do oppose the notion that edits should be removed due to their origin as opposed to their content. While his methods may not have been consistent with Misplaced Pages standards, the content was on the whole an improvement. Alienus 21:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, some of the edits were an improvement. Many more were not. The problem is not the source of the edits; the problem is that Pro-Lick added large sweeping edits, both "good" and "bad", "sourced" and "unsourced", in single edits without gaining any kind of support or consensus, violated 3RR, then used socks to evade the block. This is against WP policy. Violating 3RR then using socks to evade block is what he did, not making bad edits (in this context). If there are any particular edits which you feel should be reinstated, please bring them to the table. KillerChihuahua 21:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with KC on this--Haliburton Shill/Pro-Lick was one reason I stepped away from the article. Bad-faith edit warring even with the best of intentions is more stress than I need ... and frankly, I can't state that his/her intentions were good with any degree of confidence. If it wasn't such a hassle, I would revert to the last edit before Haliburton Shill's "sock army" started the melee and evaluate any changes on the talk page. Even if every single edit done was a "good" edit, we have a situation where the end simply does not justify the means, (IMO, YMMV). Justin Eiler 21:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Justified or not, the means have come and gone, and we are left with the ends. We need to focus on making the content better, not how it got to where it is today.

For the record, I walked away from this article in disgust when I got sick of the endless (and still continuing!) debate over the very definition of "abortion". Perhaps war is better than stalemate. Alienus 22:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious, or did you just not read the whole edit? At the beginning, it's not too bad, but then he did things like changing "Suggested effects" to "Dubious effects" and then writing "All of the effects listed in this section have no proven links to abortion. They are reviewed here because they have become well known as a result of political and religious campaigns." in that section. That's NPOV? --Rory096 22:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

My two favourite NPOV edits are: "Death" in this context is equivalent to taking medicine to kill bacteria and: If a fetus does feel pain, it does not experience pain in the same sense a human experiences it. It would be interesting to know, not if Alienus thinks they're true, but if he thinks they're models of NPOV writing. AnnH ♫ 22:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now, let's not pounce on Alienus. He merely stated some of the edits were worth considering, and has not specified which. I'm surprised at you, Ann. KillerChihuahua 22:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I apologize. AnnH ♫ 22:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Alienus--regardless of how the article got here, it's here now. However, I do have a suggestion...or a "cunning plan," if you prefer. :D

On some of the articles there has been a process of reviewing the article paragraph by paragraph and getting community consensus on that paragraph as a whole before changing any of it. You can see an example in process on the Talk:Jesus page. Do we think that this would be a workable process for this page? (I notice User:Andrew_c has already started such a process, and I'll tip my hat to acknowledge his efforts to avoid looking like I'm trying to steal his work outright. :D ) Justin Eiler 22:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable plan. My concern is that we're currently stuck on the very first sentence, with little movement forward. At this rate, abortion will be obsolete by the time we finish. Alienus 03:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd submit the problem is not with the content; but with us pro-choicer's not learning to "lose" gracefully. (I'm using "lose" loosely here) - RoyBoy 19:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

S-protection

Let me state and stress that the current semi-protected state is totally in response to Pro-Lick's continued flood of sock puppets and block evasion. It is not an issue of Vandalism, as the default S-protection tag stated. I do not consider the actions of either side in the current debate to be vandalism, and apologize for any implication of such that may have come from my use of the standard tag. I have edited the tag to be specific to the current situation. And if Pro-Lick will stop his sock parade, I'll gladly lift the protection. - TexasAndroid 15:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Despite Alienus' reasonable objection on TexasAndroid talk; this is not only prudent but full protection will likely be needed at some point. Semi-protection does not stop discussions and will not stop users with a minimal amount of contructive participation in Misplaced Pages. Something I think should be expected from those who wish to edit controversial articles. - RoyBoy 19:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Health Effects: 1972 is old data

Right now it appears that in the lead sentence of this section 1972 data is used to justify the claim that abortion is safer than childbirth. Is there any more recent research? There has to be.Good 23:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well if you read further down, there is a paragraph that compares mortality rates for 1999 in the US and UK rates in the early 90s. Also, the cited study was published in 1979. If you look at table 19 here, you can see that the mortality rates in the US have gone down since '72. But for more recent information there is this that says "The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 11 times as high as that associated with abortion" which is referencing another study here.--Andrew c 01:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The article should not reference 1972 data as a source for this sentence, regardless of when the study was published.Good 05:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I exactly understand your reasoning, but go right ahead and update the source if that's what you want. I agree that more current sources will only improve the article.--Andrew c 06:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Finnish study: induced abortion mortality rate higher than natural birth

More info to consider adding to the article. The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology study (Gissler M et al., Pregnancy-associated mortality after birth, spontaneous abortion, or induced abortion in Finland, 1987–2000, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2004, 190(2):422–427.) cited by the pro-abortion AGI has some interesting information in it about pregnacy and abortion mortality rates. A pro-life organization has also cited the study, noting that the researchers found that the mortality rate associated with abortion is 2.95 times higher than that associated with pregnancies carried to term. An abstract of the Finnish study - largely ignored by the pro-abortion media and medical community- is here at the online NCBI/NLM/NIH database. From the abstract: population-based, retrospective cohort study from Finland for a 14-year period, 1987 to 2000, database included all deaths of women aged 15 to 49 years in Finland.

• 36.7 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies - all pregnancies
• 28.2 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies - birth
• 51.9 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies - spontaneous abortion
• 83.1 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies - induced abortion

Good 08:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Were these deaths the direct consequence of abortion-related medical complications? No. The study's authors mined the Finnish database and compared data on women who had undergone abortion, birth, or miscarriage within a year of dying for other reasons — evidence of correlation, if anything, but certainly not causation. It would thus be highly inappropriate to refer to this as the "abortion mortality rate." -Severa (Kyd) ?? | !!! 09:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You can cateogrize it however you like. But it is evidence that bringing pregnancy to term is associated with a higher degree of health and lower incidence of death than having an induced abortion. If this article is going to include information about the risk of death associated with abortion and childbirth, then this related information is worthy of mention, as well. Good 10:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The risk of death would only be applicable if the deaths counted were directly caused by induced abortion. -Severa (Kyd) ?? | !!! 10:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

NY Times: 7 deaths from "safe" abortion pills

Should this article include this recent development?

• But the number of women who have died in the United States after taking Mifeprex has now reached six, according to reports received by the Food and Drug Administration; another has died in Canada..."The complications associated with RU-486 far exceed the complications of surgical abortion," said Dr. Damon Stutes, a provider in Reno, Nev., who refuses to offer pill-based abortions. Dr. Stutes, whose clinic has been bombed, said he was uneasy about agreeing with abortion opponents on anything. "But the truth is the truth," he said.

Good 07:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There is more information on this at the mifepristone article. 6 deaths out of the estimate 580,000 uses of the drug in the US is still around 1 in 100,000. The deaths have all been related to an off-label use of the drug that involves a vaginal insertion of misoprostol. The CDC's investigation into 4 deaths concluded "that there is no established causal link between the deaths and the drugs". So, why is safe in quotation marks? --Andrew c 13:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

LA Times acknowledges abortion bias in the press

For editors to keep in mind. And perhaps for inclusion in this article: Abortion Bias Seeps Into News Here ae some quotes from this LA Times article:

• A comprehensive Times study finds that the press often favors abortion rights in its coverage, even though journalists say they make every effort to be fair.

• The news media consistently use language and images that frame the entire abortion debate in terms that implicitly favor abortion-rights advocates.

• Abortion-rights advocates are often quoted more frequently and characterized more favorably than are abortion opponents.

• Events and issues favorable to abortion opponents are sometimes ignored or given minimal attention by the media.

• Many news organizations have given more prominent play to stories on rallies and electoral and legislative victories by abortion-rights advocates than to stories on rallies and electoral and legislative victories by abortion rights opponents.

• Columns of commentary favoring abortion rights outnumber those opposing abortion by a margin of more than 2 to 1 on the op-ed pages of most of the nation's major daily newspapers.

• Newspaper editorial writers and columnists alike, long sensitive to violations of First Amendment rights and other civil liberties in cases involving minority and anti-war protests, have largely ignored these questions when Operation Rescue and other abortion opponents have raised them.

• Television is probably more vulnerable to charges of bias on abortion than are newspapers and magazines.

Good 09:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

world tag

Hi, I am just trying to understand what part of the page is deserving of the world tag. It seems to be very factual based to me. For one it has more references than any other wikipedia page I have seen, which would suggest that it either has been neutralised or it is has both points of view in it. To me it seems to be neutralised from reading it. Ansell 14:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem isn't that the article is POV or lacking sources, the problem is that it is mostly dealing with issues of Abortion in the west. To fix this, we could add in more information about abortion in Africa, Asia, and South America. (The problem is that information on abortion issues in Asia and Africa are much harder to come by.) -Quasipalm 19:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

News you can use

• Surprise, they can't have abortions in this country.
• Surgeons remove two fetuses from infant.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pro-Lick (talk • contribs) 16:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what this has to do with the wikipedia article, but I'm pretty sure the first one is a hoax -- i doubt such large deformities would allow a newborn to survive in that condition without medical intervention. -Quasipalm 19:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sort of an obvious photoshop creation. Take a look at the date ;). Jefffire 19:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I considered that, but the site is a legit news site. Consider these birth defects before you start up the photoshop conspiracy network.--Pro-Lick 19:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics