Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:22, 27 March 2009

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.

Template:Pbneutral

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.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Should we add or expand coverage of a particular aspect of abortion? It is likely that we have already done so. There was so much information on abortion that we decided to split it all into separate articles. This article is concise because we've tried to create an overview of the entire topic here by summarizing many of these more-detailed articles. The goal is to give readers the ability to pick the level of detail that best suits their needs. If you're looking for more detail, check out some of the other articles related to abortion. This article seems to be on the long side. Should we shorten it? See above. The guidelines on article length contain exceptions for articles which act as "starting points" for "broad subjects." Please see the archived discussion "Article Length." Should we include expert medical or legal advice about abortions? No. Misplaced Pages does not give legal or medical advice. Please see Misplaced Pages:Medical disclaimer and Misplaced Pages:Legal disclaimer for more information. Should we include or link to pictures of fetuses and/or the end products of abortion? No consensus. See the huge discussion on this topic in 2009 here. Consistently, there has been little support for graphic "shock images"; while images were added in 2009 the topic remains contentious, and some images have been removed. Should we include an image in the lead? No consensus. Numerous images have been proposed for the article lead. However, no image achieved consensus and the proposal that garnered a majority of support is to explicitly have no image in the lead. Should we mention the "death of the zygote/embryo/fetus/child/etc." ? No - It is not mentioned because it is well known and understood by everyone that this happens. To explicitly mention it is POV of anti-abortionists. No one believes that in an abortion procedure the embryo will be transplanted to another woman's uterus or transferred to an artificial placenta so that it can then gestate to term and be birthed. Are the terms "safe" and "safety" used correctly in this article? Yes - please see this RfC on the topic.

	Abortion was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 26, 2006 Good article nominee Listed January 14, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Template:MedportalSA

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Abortion This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Ethics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Archives
Chronological archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31
Topical subpages
First paragraph Archives:1, 2, 3, 4, 5 To-do items (active)
Notable precedents in discussion
"Unborn"/"human" vs. "embryo"/"fetus" "Fetus" vs. "foetus" Graphic pictures, 2, 3, 4 "Death" First paragraph|in intro

Guttmacher "facts" are factually wrong

The lede section of the article contains figures referenced to the Guttmacher Institute. The number of abortions in 2004, as counted by the Guttmacher, was 42,000,000. That is, in one year, one in 83.3 women (pop. 3.5 billion) is claimed to have had an abortion. Ten years, at 42 million a year, means 420 million abortions a decade! That means, according to those numbers, that one in fifteen women in the world has an abortion per decade. This number is false on its face, and its not really clear why that organization would publish numbers like that. Perhaps in its quest to promote abortion, it thinks that using inflated numbers somehow supports its position.

Let's start with some basic facts. In the United States, we know that on average there are 850,000 abortions a year. That is 8.5 million a decade. That's one in 176 U.S. women per year. China is understood to be the worst offender, in spite of the low official numbers it releases, with perhaps twice the U.S. number, though we don't really know. There is a figure that says China destroys perhaps a million female children a year through sex-selective abortion and infanticide.

Even if China had 1.5 million abortions a year, the U.S. and China together would still only have 2.35 million abortions a year between them. Adding the second largest contributor, India, with 1.1 million abortions a year, makes the total for the big three only 3.45 million abortions a year. Assuming the rest of the world equals the big three in terms of abortions, and we have a number of 7 million a year. A far cry from Guttmacher's claimed 42+ million in 2004.

The Guttmacher Institute is a poor source of information, and in no way can it be considered a "reliable" source. -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 22:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is problematic because you are arguing against published scientists. Simply going to the Guttmacher Institute link shows that they also cite their sources. The source for the 42 million figure is "Legal Abortion Worldwide: Incidence and Recent Trends", an article published in The Lancet (one of the most renown peer reviewed medical journals). If The Lancet isn't WP:RS, then by golly, we are in big trouble ;) The article doesn't seem to break down abortion by country, but it does by continent and region. They estimate N. America had 1.5 million abortions, while Asia had 25.9 million. Europe had 4.3, with the bulk (3 million) coming from Eastern Europe. If you have a chance, read through the Lancet article or . If we have any sources that respond or contradict this article, then we can present them as well, but unfortunately, we can't cite the suspicions of individual editors. We must always have sources (and in this case, the source clearly is reliable). We might want to consider directly citing the Lancet article instead of citing the Guttmacher webpage. But then we have to consider primary vs. secondary sourcing.... anyway, hope this helps.-Andrew c  23:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If guttmacher isn't a reliable source we are well and truly screwed - there isn't another research organization on the planet that is cited to their extent by advocacy groups on both sides of the abortion debate, with Guttmacher, I'm nor sure who is left.--Tznkai (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Zahd (talk · contribs) suggests that China performs 1 to 1.5 million abortions per year, citing without elaboration a "figure" he's seen somewhere. The Lancet article indicates that China performs 1/5 of all abortions worldwide (42 million / 5 = ~ 8 million abortions per year in China). That's a big discrepancy, and probably the root of the "problem" here. I'm going to go with the Lancet on this one. MastCell  23:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Andy wrote: "They estimate N. America had 1.5 million abortions, while Asia had 25.9 million. Europe had 4.3, with the bulk (3 million) coming from Eastern Europe." Asia had 29 million abortions? In one year? Anyone can see how ridiculous that number is. Further, this number was contradicted by MastCell, who does a little math (read:original but necessary common sense research):"The Lancet article indicates that China performs 1/5 of all abortions worldwide (42 million / 5 = ~ 8 million abortions per year in China)" which means ~29 million Asia != ~8 million in China. India doesn't make up the difference. I think its time we pulled the Guttmacher figures, along with the Lancet figures it claims to be based on and ask them by mail to substantiate or else update their numbers, providing us with some statement about how they arrive at those figures. If that means some people have to reconsider what they call a "reliable source" so be it. I suggest removing the Guttmacher/Lancet references from the lede, as they are obviously false. -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 01:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't do that; it's a poor editing practice to remove a completely reliably sourced, verifiable item because it conflicts with your untested assumptions. More power to you if you'd like to challenge the figures. Until Lancet issues a retraction or correction, though, the material is appropriately included here. MastCell  01:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Zahd, if you can find a more reliable source with more accurate figures, go ahead - but you are not a reliable source.--Tznkai (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

We can and should at least comment in the article that those figures are problematic. It's the least we can do to prune Misplaced Pages of vandalism, even that kind which comes at us through "reliable" medical journals. -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 01:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a great idea, as long as we can cite a reliable source stating the study's figures are problematic. If we don't have a source, then I'm not sure this discussion can continue. Misplaced Pages follows sources. If we personally disagree with a source, we are supposed to put our personal feelings aside, and not publish original research. Again, we must follow sources. That is one of the core tenets of wikipedia. So, is there a reliable source that disputes the Lancet article's figures? If not, can we move along?-Andrew c  01:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Concur with MastCell. Zahd's evaluation of the sources seems based on Zahd's own estimations of abortion figures which in turn all seem to be based on the assumption that China has fewer than twice as many abortions per annum as the USA. Simply considering relative populations of these countries, that seems a very low estimate, and the influence of the religious right in the USA and the Chinese government's policies will surely raise this ratio significantly. There are also many countries in Asia other than China and India, and many countries worldwide where abortions are performed which Zahd does not account for.

The bottom line is that the Guttmacher and Lancet figures are close to the top of the scale as far as our reliable source guidelines are concerned, whereas Zahd's own figures, and any arguments based on them, are unpublished original research and per policy must not influence article content. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 01:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There is not an editor here convinced by your arguments I think.--Tznkai (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're right about that. I think everyone here knows those figures are destroyed, and that I've made a clear case for their destruction. Naturally we all want to attribute this to a source, and perhaps I'll just have to write an article somewhere to deal with it. -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 01:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me put this another way - the apparent consensus of editors is that you are proposing changes that are specifically against Misplaced Pages policy, including the policy on reliable sources, policy on verifiability versus obvious truth, and our policy on novel research. These policies are in place to ensure that Misplaced Pages articles conform to a neutral point of view, that is an attempt to accurately represent the facts seen in the world, not our own interpretation or positions on those facts. We work hard to prevent Misplaced Pages from becoming a battleground for political or cultural battles. Please stop--Tznkai (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's hardcore. - RoyBoy 05:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Guttmacher is a terrible source of information. It is the research branch of Planned Parenthood, and as such is highly subject to bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.43.88 (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

".. in one year, one in 83.3 women (pop. 3.5 billion) is claimed to have had an abortion. Ten years, at 42 million a year, means 420 million abortions a decade! That means, according to those numbers, that one in fifteen women in the world has an abortion per decade." your logic is flawed here. you assume the female population is static, and that abortion is a one time only occurrence per entity. the female fertile population is dynamic however. let me try to explain this. lets say women are able to between their 15th and 35th. that is a timespan of 20 years. after a period of 10 years, half of the old population will be replaced with new entities. this means it is not possible to just take the number of abortions per year and multiply it and apply it to the population because not all entities present at that time have been part of it, and some entities that have been part of the population are no longer included in the set. Kasparkaspar (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Lancet or Guttmacher?

Research shows that the researchers who wrote the Lancet publication are almost all affiliated, and indeed even employed with the Guttmacher Institute. This makes referring to the study a "Lancet" study incorrect, as it is in fact a Guttmacher study, and no doubt carries with it implicit assumptions associated with that "Institute." There is a conflict of interest in citing that source. -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 01:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: I've sufficiently demonstrated that the study is not in any way a scientific one. Furthermore the source is an entirely POV source, as it deals with the POV concept of "unsafe abortion rates" and states the information in the study "is crucial for identifying policy and programmatic needs aimed at reducing unintended pregnancy and unsafe abortion and to increase access to safe abortion." I.e. its referring to abortion as a means to correct an unintended pregnancy and it states clearly that increasing "access to safe abortion" is it's goal. Not a reliable source, and not an unbiased source. We would be better off quoting Conservapedia, or Uncyclopedia. -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 01:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Zahd, consensus is against the changes you've proposed. Considering your history, and your unusual interpretation of terms such as "POV" and "conflict of interest" (which have very specific meanings to Wikipedians), I advise against making changes, to this or any other abortion-related article, without first getting support from other editors. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 01:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Am I mistaken or do I detect a certain bias in your views, and this is reflective in your comments above? Surely what your'e doing is defending a biased, unscientific source. -Zahd (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

To my earlier advice regarding the policies of consensus, verifiability and no original research I must now add that our policy entitled "no personal attacks" applies to your post above - comment on content, not the contributor. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL 02:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You're mistaken. The Lancet is a reliable scientific source.--Tznkai (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Often, if bad studies do get published, science, by nature, has a corrective force. There will be counter studies and responses and letters and all sorts of things. If this article is really so bad that somehow it got by the peer reviewers and editors of one of the most prestigious and reliable medical journals, then surely we can simply point to the countless publishes, scientific responses to this bad study, right? So where are they? I encourage you to read WP:RS (and read it again if you have already read it before) and seriously consider, in terms of wikipedia policy, if there is any way that this source is anything but "reliable".-Andrew c  02:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think by inflating a number which appears to be under 7 million a year into a number of 42 million a year, the source is at the very least "demonstrably wrong" if not "entirely inaccurate." I will leave it to the experts to decide whether these have bearing on a source's "reliability." Note of course that both of you are failing to deal with the bias issue, to which I contend the Guttmacher Institute is a biased "source", and the study (quoted in red above) makes no pretense otherwise. Lancet's decision to publish the Guttmacher "study" is likely attributable to the Sokal effect. You would certainly object to using Priests for Life as a source; why the hypocrisy in defending Guttmacher? -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 03:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Mate, what you're failing to address is the simple point that we only have your word for it that the number is under 7 million a year. You have no citations, no standard by which we can test your points, no methodology we can examine. The Lancet study can be examined, it has methodology we can evaluate, it is accountable to the wider scientific community, to its peers, and to public inquiry. If reputable scientific minds have both approved the Lancet study, and then presented no challenging evidence (which, to my knowledge, they have not as yet), then Misplaced Pages has a duty to take reputable studies into account when discussing the issue. Compare the following two statements: "The scientific publication "The Lancet" stated in a study found in (x issue) that the number of abortions performed worldwide over (x period) was 42 million." and, "Zahd, an editor on Misplaced Pages, states on the Misplaced Pages talk page for Abortion, that the number of abortions performed worldwide in a year must be under 7 million." This is not a slight on you personally, Zahd. But reputable sources are a must. How are we to know that your truth is backed by anything? On Misplaced Pages, any point which is likely to be challenged, or which has been challenged, must be attributed to a reliable source. YOU have challenged this point, ergo a reliable source is needed. The Lancet study is reliable. Your word is not. Presenting contrary studies is the only way to alter concensus or get your viewpoint included. Ex-Wikipedian Lurker, AKA: 24.222.254.156 (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern. But you said "the Lancet study is reliable," which is simply not true. You can say it all you want to though. I really don't mind. Again, you've not addressed the bias issue. -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 04:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're obligated to point out where someone's accused The Lancet of bias. Remember to use a reliable source which makes a valid assessment of The Lancet as NOT being neutral or peer reviewed. The Lancet's study is based on proven, transparent methodology. You can't question the numbers unless you can point to someone having questioned it who is in another reliable source. Otherwise your remarks are rooted in original research and thus invalid for admission to wikipedia. The Lancet study is definitionally a reliable source as per WP:RS. If you doubt this, there are noticeboards where you can challenge or test reliability in the assessment of the community. But since the concensus on this page is in favor of the Lancet article, it goes in. That's the nature of concensus. This is a collaborative project, standards for admissibility have been admitted. I have addressed the bias issue: I state that the article is not biased and the source is reliable. As my evidence, I submit the nature and tradition of peer reviewed articles and publications, the criticism and peer pressure of the community, and, point plank, the traceable methodology sourced from the study itself. If you have contrary evidence stated in a reliable source, cool! We can change the article to mention the study and then state that the study has been questioned by "x source". But YOU cannot be x source. Again, no grudge, but accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about is a rather poor discussion method. I know what I am talking about, I have seen no sources from you. I've seen claims, but no sources. Provide sources, and your opinion will have an impact on the article. Without sources, all you're doing is drawing out a discussion which will never swing around to your point of view as long as it remains sans sources. 24.222.254.156 (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Not all biased groups are created equal, priest for life are not a research organization for example, nor are they widely respected by independent observers and both sides of the fight as a repuable source of information, and the burden on you is to prove that the Lancet study is not a reliable source.--Tznkai (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Zahd, i think you're misunderstanding what is meant by reliable. read WP:RS and then come back. the lancet and other peer-review journals clearly meets the requirements. when you have a source with a publishing process that is similarly reliable that supports your claims, then we should start talking about whether the report published by the lancet is erroneous or not. until then, we're all wasting our time.  —Chris Capoccia ⁄_C 05:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, reliable sources... -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 20:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please actually read WP:RS. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If we have two bits of data that contradict one another it is worth checking that we have correctly sourced and understood both, I did something similar recently on Malawi, and there it emerged that radically different percentages for tobacco exports related to different years. In this case I suspect that Zahd simply missed 11 million in his calculations . If the US with circa 5% of the world's population has 850,000 abortions a year, then if the other 95% of humanity was like the US with similar demographics, availability of contraception, abortion law and attitude to abortion one would expect 17 million abortions per annum worldwide - rather more than double Zahd's 7m but still less than half the Lancet figure. Of course the rest of the world is not quite like the US - in many countries contraception is less freely available than in the US so one would expect "backstreet abortions" to be more frequent, and Zahd says in China there are also a million female embryos aborted simply because of their gender, (though he seems not to have calculated this as an additional million) so we shouldn't be surprised if global abortion rates per million people are more than double the US rate. In all I find Zahd's bit of original research, once the obvious errors are corrected, a useful reality check on the Lancet figure of 42 million abortions per annum. Of course Zahd or anyone else is free to write to the Lancet as an individual and query if what they wrote was a typo, but I for one do not consider that the US abortion data and the Lancet's worldwide figure are so different as to be incompatible. ϢereSpielChequers 20:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Zahd, you are not a reliable source. I promise you, its nothing personal.--Tznkai (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Second-guessing a notable and highly reliable source is pretty much the definition of original research. Spotfixer (talk)03:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am hostile to lies, fabrications, erroneous concepts, and bogus statistics. -Zahd (talk" 04:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Enough is enough, soapboxing and personal attacks removed. Zahd: go get a reliable source and prove your contention.--Tznkai (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"We can infer that China, with three times the U.S. population, might have three times the number of U.S. abortions." source

No, we cannot infer that at all since China has a One-child policy enacted making abortion mandatory and readily available. The U.S. does not, indeed some segments of the U.S. have large families and even larger segments oppose abortion so much they have significantly reduced the number of abortion clinics in their respective states.

Explain why those well known realities are not included in your analysis. As I want you to somehow clarify how you are not trolling, and how you should not be barred from this issue entirely until you can improve your arguments and/or behavior. - RoyBoy 05:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Zahn; we have to cite sources in wikipedia, simple as that. That does not however mean that what it says in the article is not a bit presumptive. It is obvious that we have a limited ability to monitor abortions in many poor or undemocratic countries. WHO has cited it as approximately 50 million in 2001 and an estimated 40 - 50 million in 2003 (http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/safe_abortion/safe_abortion.pdfan" other sources have it as low as 20 million or as high as 88 million as far as i can see. None of these estimations are as hihly regarded as the lancet however. My point is that a number as exact as 42 million or 46 million should be regarded as estimations not approximations(it is also called so in the lancet article). This may be a small difference but still... Lets change it to "an estimated number" in stead of "the approximate number".Nightwanderers (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Demon "doctors" performing abortions.

With all due respect to Tznkai, I just don't see how an imaginary being pounding on a woman's belly is a suitable example of an abortion. Where I come from, demons aren't licensed to practice medicine. In fact, not only don't they exist, but whatever acts they commit in fiction do not quality as medical procedures, which is what this article is supposed to be about. For that matter, there is the issue of bias, in that the entity depicted as performing an abortion is, quite literally, being demonized. In a country where gynecologists have been murdered by 'pro-life' fanatics, this strikes a sour note.

For these reasons, I think we need to remove this picture, perhaps replacing it with something appropriate, like a picture of one of the herbs or poisons once used to induce abortion. What do you think? Spotfixer (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Using a picture of a demon is mischaracterising of the professional and benevolent nature of the abortionist and his or her profession. We should instead use a picture of an angel with a labcoat and a stethoscope around their neck. The instruments signify their respectability, and the angel wings illustrate their Holy purpose. Instead of crudely pounding on the woman's belly and killing an unborn child, they would be using the power of the Holy Spirt to carefully and surgically remove from her body any excess tissue she might want to be rid of. -Zahd (talk, choose or choose" 04:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Zahd, out of line.--Tznkai (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No, its not out of line, it's exact. Through sarcasm I made you understand quite clearly that the image in question is appropriate and perhaps even an accurate likeness. -Zahd (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Spotfixer: One of the pressing known issues with abortion is its, to be gruesome, back alley nature at times. Abortion is, to put it mildly, unpopular in many places and carries significant stigma, add issues such as poverty, minorities, and youth, you get a lot of abortions performed outside of medical conditions. While in some people's ideal world (safe, rare and legal) abortion is only performed by medical professionals for medical reasons, we know thats not how it works - the other methods section tries to reflect this fact without being judgmental. As to the rest, I think you're reading into it a bit too much - although the picture is probably better suited to the history section.--Tznkai (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the point. The point Spot is making is that it's demonizing a profession full of charity, nobility, and grace, and not to mention human mutilation. -Zahd (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If the drawing showed a midwife or other semi-medical professional banging on some desperate woman's belly with a hammer, I'd say keep it. The problem is that it's an actual demon. I'm not even sure whether this is intended to depict an intentional termination or is a metaphor for a natural miscarriage (based on the "demon theory of disease and disaster"). In short, it doesn't depict anything like a real abortion. Spotfixer (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Glancing at the history of abortion page, the bas-relief is the earliest known visual representation of abortion: the place where we see abortion broaching the public consciousness. (Hopefully that didn't sound too post-modern) Anyway, keep it, history of abortion section, we'll have to move the existing image there somewhere else. IMO anyway.--Tznkai (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Abortion was not always the sterile and noble practice that some consider it to be today. In fact the image might be the last remnant of anything kind of contrary or negative concept of abortion in the article. -Zahd (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Really, I guess "death" doesn't do it for you anymore. Should we just remove it? - RoyBoy 05:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say keep the image. There is entirely too much censorship going on at this article. According to the FAQ, no image is allowed at this article showing what is aborted, either after it is aborted, or even before it is aborted. I continue to view that as a preposterous outcome at Misplaced Pages, particularly since Misplaced Pages now features a sexually suggestive image of a ten-year-old girl with full frontal nudity. This is supposed to be an informative article, not a sanitized propaganda piece. It really is an embarassment.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

((editsemiprotected))

((editsemiprotected))Under 7.3 Mexico City Policy the first sentence is a double negative that is incorrect. "The Mexico City policy, also known as the "Global Gag Rule" forbids any non-governmental organization receiving US Government funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services in other countries" and should read: The Mexico City Policy, also known as the "Global Gag Rule" requires any non-governmental organization receiving US Government funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services in other countries. (Mabic (talk) 03:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC))

looks like this has been done.--Tznkai (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis

Editors interested in this article may want to look at Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. 69.121.221.174 (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Human right or Particular human right?

I noticed a little back and forth in this page's history as to whether Abortion merits the template Human rights or template Particular human rights and I figured I'd bring it to the talk page. I figure the template Particular human rights is more appropriate as abortion is specifically mentioned there and the designation of abortion as a human right is controversial. What do you folks think? - Schrandit (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is no objection I'll move it back to Particular human rights template. - Schrandit (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoa whoa. I'm coming late to the party, but could you explain all of that please?--Tznkai (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. As of this dif by a rather controversial editor the template Particular human rights was replaced with the template Human rights. Whether or not abortion is a human right is a highly controversial subject, as such I figure the first template is better suited to it. - Schrandit (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a huge fan of that template, and this article doesn't address properly whether or not abortion is a right... so I'll abstain on this.--Tznkai (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As it happens, an entirely uncontroversial editor made an uncontroversial change. The human rights template already lists reproductive rights, the primary example of which is... abortion. Spotfixer (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Reproductive rights is a much broader topic than abortion and there are reproductive rights that are currently nearly universally accepted (such as freedom from coerced sterilization), which is why it is appropriate for reproductive rights to appear on the Human rights template. However, using the Human rights template on this article is POV. In addition to that, both reproductive rights and abortion appear on the Particular human rights template, making that template more relevant regardless of the POV concerns with the other. -Neitherday (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The designation of abortion as a human right is highly contentious, see Reproductive rights#Abortion. The template Particular human rights is far more appropriate. - Schrandit (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've explained that reproductive rights is already listed as a human right in that template and abortion is already listed as a reproductive right, so your WP:OR is irrelevant. You would need an actual argument, not hand-waving about controversy. Spotfixer (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Along with also including reproductive rights, abortion is specifically included on the particular human rights template. Plus, adding the particular human rights template to this article is NPOV.

As reproductive rights is also on the particular human rights template, I don't see any advantage to the human rights template in this article. What advantage do you see in adding the human rights template over the particular human rights template? -Neitherday (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(I'm going to break the nesting here, because it's getting too narrow.)

It's not the level of detail, it's the title. Template:Particular human rights covers the same trio of broad categories as Template:Human rights, but in addition to enumerating these rights, it replaces the short, simple "Human rights" title with the weaselly "Concepts that may be considered as human rights".

Frankly, I find the weaselly-titled template deeply offensive, as it implies that a fundamental rights like freedom from discrimination is merely something that "may be considered" to be a human right. Obviously, there is some disagreement among people regarding what ought to be considered a human right, but this is best handled in the context of each specific article, not with weasel words for the entire bunch.

The WP:BOLD thing to do would be to simultaneously remove the weaselling and roll this article back to the specific template. Since I've only been blocked twice in the last week, I've still got plenty of courage to be bold, so that's exactly what I'm going to do. Spotfixer (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I like your solution. Looking at Template talk:Particular human rights, it seems more in line with the original intent of the template. Thank you for making the change. -Neitherday (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

{{particular human rights}} was the result of splitting the human rights template (which had become quite large). Since the template includes abortion, abortion should continue to transclude the template. (Or use the human rights template with the argument that makes it include the particular template.)

The title of the template was carried over from the section title in the human rights template. (The title seemed too long to use as the template name, so I came up with the shorter, though not altogether satisfactory name). (For response on the template title, see template talk page).

Please consider discussing matters like template title on talk page of the template, or at least providing an indicator there of discussion going on elsewhere. (So editors of the template know where to find all the discussion.) Thanks. Zodon (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)

Since the title of the template was changed back to the offensive one, I just removed it from this article entirely. Spotfixer (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Need eyes

We could use some more eyes on an abortion-related article, Hyde Amendment. Spotfixer (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

History of abortion

History of abortion could use some attention. Spotfixer (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Newer "Abortion Surveillance" Report

There is a newer Abortion Surveillance report than the 2003 one this article currently uses.

Unsafe abortion

Currently, the lead of the "Unsafe abortion" sub-topic is "Women seeking to terminate their pregnancies sometimes resort to unsafe methods, particularly where and when access to legal abortion is being barred" - this seems like common sense, but I think it requires a source to keep it from appearing NPOV (in the sense that it might be considered advocation of the legalization of abortion). The same deficiency exists on the main page for this topic, BTW. Kerri Lynne (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. How's this one http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/l10/l10chap1_2.shtml ? Hadrian89 (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for the citation, but it's hardly our fault if basic logic leads to apparent support of one side or another. Spotfixer (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, with a controversial topic like this there's no harm in erring on the side of caution. Hadrian89 (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to go to the medical literature, there are the following:

• PMID 18249585 ("The determinants of unsafe abortion include restrictive abortion legislation, lack of female empowerment, poor social support, inadequate contraceptive services and poor health-service infrastructure.", emphasis mine).
• PMID 17933648 ("Unsafe and safe abortions correspond in large part with illegal and legal abortions, respectively.")
• PMID 17126724 ("Unsafe abortion mainly endangers women in developing countries where abortion is highly restricted by law and countries where, although legally permitted, safe abortion is not easily accessible... Unsafe abortion and related mortality are both highest in countries with narrow grounds for legal abortion.")

Among many other such sources... MastCell  18:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Human life

My points ARE about improving the article, yet people who feel strongly pro-choice keep editing it out. Ironically, they do that though I'm pro-choice myself. It seems some people just don't want to face an unpleasant inconvenient fact.

Please TRY to be intellectually honest.

Nor is this edit warring. I keep ASKING for solutions to improving the article. Just deleting my comments, might make some people here feel happy, but it doesn' solve the problem with the article.

Try to actually offer solutions to the problem with the article.

A major problem is that this is NOT a neutral topic, but a highly charged one, and people on opposing sides keep trying to edit out what they disagree with. I think the article would be improved if it DID present, fairly, the different sides. LABEL them as such.

I don't have all the answers.

But the article does not deal with the fact that MODERN SCIENCE doesn't support the idea that humanity begins at birth. The idea that it begins at birth is magical thinking from a time when we didn't have the scientific knowledge to know better. It is also, at times, a legal fiction.

Whether the unborn child is human _IS_ part of the debate that goes on, whether you agree that it is human or not, and leaving that out IS a problem with the article. It _IS_ a significant ommission. DeniseMToronto (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what all this is about, but I'm sorry that you feel agitated over whatever this is. It does not appear that you have ever edited this article, and you haven't been on Misplaced Pages in over a month. Perhaps you should simply start fresh, either a) making a bold change to the article to try to improve it and/or b) starting a new topic here discussing specific issues you have with the article, and then making a proposal on how you would specifically change and improve the article. Without specific things to discuss, I cannot help you any further. -Andrew c  14:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

A subsection on the "beginning of life" might be worth while - somewhere. It can discuss conflicting ideas such as "viability" (Roe V. Wade), ensoulment, and quickening in brief and human being/human life/personhood. Any other terms I'm missing?--Tznkai (talk) 18:10, 30 January

2009 (UTC)

The latest addition isn't sourced and is too conversational. Try to avoid editorial comments like "it is indisputable that..." Its important we don't draw any conclusions when we write or provide in depth analysis (determining that modern science has changed the humanity question is analysis)--Tznkai (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see that rather than IMPROVE my addition, someone has just deleted it. I'm sure it would be easy to provide a source for the information about umbilical cords --- if that is REALLY necessary --- and the same with modern science's findings (which are facts, not analysis). Whether any of us like it or not, THIS IS PART OF THE ABORTION DEBATE, so it DOES belong here. Maybe it SHOULD be somewhere else too, but it DOES belong here. I have TRIED to be fair to both sides (all the sides) in how I have worded it, but WELCOME improvements on either side --- i.e. that the fetus is part of the woman's body, and that the fetus is human. Just try to keep BOTH sides fairly represented, as in a highly charged issue like this, that is probably the closest to neutral that we can come. DeniseMToronto (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC) DeniseMToronto (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

as I mentioned in the edit summary, your addition is unsourced original research, and doesn't have an encyclopedic tone. I looked over it from some time, and I couldn't figure out a way to get past all those problems and keep a significant part of the original text. Your addition is too much like a introductory college level ethics paper: its got good ideas, many of which I am sympathetic to, but the approach is not encyclopedic. See my comment above as well.--Tznkai (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Seeing your contributions reverted can seem discouraging. But please don't let it get to you personally. You should take it as encouragement to go out and make your edits that much better. Please keep in mind some basic wikipedia policies. ALL content must be verifiable. We do that though citing sources which are reliable. Also, we cannot publish original thought, but instead simply summarize our cited sources. We must also remain neutral. Your edit was full of generalizations and WP:weasel words. I agree with Tznkai that the tone seemed more like an introduction to an essay, than part of an encyclopedia article. Perhaps you could find some sources and post them here on the talk page and we can help work on a section together? I'd like to encourage you to keep working on this, and not be discouraged, but instead read up on basic policies and see if you can't do even better! Good luck.-Andrew c  15:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A better way of saying what I was saying indeed.--Tznkai (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, what you might consider weasel words are an attempt to be balanced, and to say things with respect to both sides of the debate. You talk about neutrality, even though this isn't at all a neutral subject. That can remain a Misplaced Pages policy forever, but it still won't make this a neutral subject. All I'm calling for, in order to make the article more complete, is HONESTY and RESPECT. I don't give much credence to complaints about a lack of verifiability. Nor is what I said original thought. If anyone really doubts what I said about the umbilical cord, by all means provide a cite. I INVITED people to add cites. Isn't this supposed to be a colloborative effort?

DeniseMToronto (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Abortion is a very controversial issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabemeier123 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Pictures?

I'm sure this has been argued several times, but it is possible that we could include pictures of aborted fetuses or abortion activities in general?

I'm sure many might see this as POV pushing, but the article is about abortions - why dance around it. A picture(s) could prove to be very valuable, as I believe most people truly don't understand the typical phases of an abortion.

Or, if we aren't going to include pictures, why not an illustration?

Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I was working on File:Vacuum-aspiration-temp.gif, but the main advocate for "images of abortion" didn't seem to really care about something like that, but instead just wanted gory/offensive images for the sake of being gory/offensive, so exhausted of arguing and trying to do something productive, I simply gave up and never finished the diagram.-Andrew c  12:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I like it, User:Andrew c. It's clear and professional. Have you thought of creating an image representing the other methods? -- Ec5618 13:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That looks good, and avoids any appearance or substance of POV pushing.--Tznkai (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The one complaint I had back then was that the transparency of the sac was obscuring the embryo underneath on some people's monitors. If I was to finish this, I said I would make the embryo more visible. Thanks for the words of encouragement. I'll see if I can't pull the original file up and work some more.-Andrew c  18:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I'm not going to argue with Andrew c here about this, so I'll just refer to him in the third person. On average, an abortion occurs about two months after fertilization. At that point, the fetus has every major organ, including head, eyes, legs, arms, et cetera. The image that Andrew c is preparing is wonderful, but it shows none of those organs. It shows a blob. So, please do include the image that Andrew c is preparing, but don't imagine that it gives the reader the slightest idea of what it is that is being aborted. I wish that realistic images of what is aborted were not gory/offensive, just like I wish that realistic pictures of lots of horrible things were not offensive. I wish that pictures of piles of skulls in the Cambodian killing fields were not offensive. I wish that sexually suggestive images of nude ten-year-old girls were not offensive. It is not my fault that they are offensive.

Additionally, there is nothing offensive about an image of an average abortus before it is aborted. Andrew c once suggested this mocking image. It would be a far cry better than what we have now, and also better than what Andrew c now proposes.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured article topics such as this are often painted POV pushing when in fact it's political correct pushing. =D If we can host extremely graphic pictures, I don't see why we can't include relevant abortion-related photos. Maybe some people just don't understand the realities of abortion. Understand, I'm not trying to convey an opinion, but rather provide a crucial quality that could VASTLY improve the integrity and educational value of the article.

White-washing for sake of "neutrality" doesn't make sense. I just don't want this to get shelved like every other controversial idea...Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, don't get your hopes up. It's been shelved many times before. Misplaced Pages is packed full of offensive images, but this article has always been an exception. See Hemmorhoid, breast reconstruction, breast cancer, prosthetics, feces, decapitated heads, to name a few.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. OK. Lets try this again. If we use graphic images, we're taking a position - either by substance, or by appearance. If all of the images available are horrifying, then we have trouble - but that doesn't mean we have to use the images, nor that we are being politically correct by doing so.

The fundamental issue is that this article must inform without convincing. If I show graphic images when discussing abortion, I both appear to be, and probably am, trying to convince you of a position. Not only is this against policy, it immediately turns off the reader. These articles are written as a service - not as a platform for advocacy, nor as a place to fight wars over political correctness or the lack thereof, and before anyone makes the argument that we host graphic images of, I dunno, mass killings, and therefor we should be able to show it here - think about whether that sounds like a neutral argument.--Tznkai (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is indisputably factual and accurate information that is used by one side in a political dispute, then excluding it from Misplaced Pages merely because it is used by one side is wrong and biased. Additionally, there is nothing horrifying about an image of an abortus before it is aborted. Incidentally, Misplaced Pages is not censored.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It still devolves down to advocacy - either in substance or in appearance.--Tznkai (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Whitewashing does the same.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, first of all, this article is "abortion" not "aborted fetuses". Second of all, do we have a freely licensed image to consider. We can say "let's put some gory pictures of dead babies all over this page" until our faces turn red. But if we don't have something that is FREE, then we have no use arguing over this. Please, in the future, discuss SPECIFIC IMAGES. Due to our strict image use policy, arguing hypotheticals is simply wasting time. I hope this brings focus to these discussions.-Andrew c  21:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the FAQ for this article, no images of what is aborted are allowed at this article, either before or after the abortion. I'm not going to waste my time trying to obtain quality free images as long as that policy stays. Why would I want to waste my time if there's not just a prejudice but a prohibition against whatever I obtain?

The average stage of development of an abortus is between 6 and 8 weeks of development, with a large percentage of abortions occurring before that range, and a large percentage occurring after that range.

Are there still objections to inclusion of these images in this article?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I just read the FAQ. What a load of crap. "OH NOES!, IT'S SHOCKING!! WE MIGHT...UHH...OFFEND SOMEONE!! CEEENSSOOORRRR!!!"

I couldn't care less whether you are for or against, but this article is about ABORTIONS. We are obligated to include illustrated or real-life pictures to ensure balance and not make this yet another controversial articled reduced to PC in the name of neutrality. If we can include pictures of mass graves, dead bodies, concentration camps, bloody Gaza children, all of which are often interpreted as "shocking" (the exact excuse give in the fact) and therefor advocating a POV, then this article should receive the same treatment. Section 5 contains a picture of a stoned tablet depicting a demon inducing an abortion. Why is that allowed but everything else isn't?

This is the FIRST hit for abortion on google, meaning wikipedia will be the first place people will go when they search. I cannot begin to emphasize how important this is. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I object to the inclusion, and also to the tone. Please remain civil, polite, and respectful - I have been doing that for you, I would appreciate it if you did the same. It remains my position that any photograph expected to create a knee-jerk reaction should not be used as it damages the encyclopedic nature of the article. I maintain that position about abortion procedures, just as I would maintain that position if someone wanted to put up pictures depicting a rape. We're not here for that.--Tznkai (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, would you please clarify what you're objecting to? Are you objecting to the two drawings pasted above?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I object to those images, yes - not because they are graphic (they are not) but because they are tenuously related. I could find the average age of a woman/girl/what have you having an abortion performed and post a picture, but that wouldn't get us anywhere. Unfortunately, this article lost its best graphics team a while back.--Tznkai (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This article already discusses the incidence of abortion by gestational age, and additionally already contains some discussion about the age of women who get abortions (e.g. "This risk of spontaneous abortion is greater in those ... over age 35"). Might I kindly suggest to you that it would be unwise to include an image of a 35-year-old woman here because everyone knows what a 35-year-old woman looks like? In contrast, many people have no idea what an abortus looks like. Do you see no relevance or importance in showing readers what is being aborted? And were you objecting to my tone? If you are really saying that we should include this image portraying what is aborted as a blob, but should deliberately omit images which show otherwise, then I must conclude that something has gone seriously awry here at this article, yet again.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A wikilink to Embryo or fetus usually handles that sort of thing nicely. I believe gestation stages are also in the pregnancy article.--Tznkai (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As I asked above, Tznkai, were you objecting to my tone or not? If so, maybe my tone is something that I should be working on.

Regarding your idea of wikilinking various different articles, those articles say nothing about what stage of development the average abortion occurs at, and of course therefore do not illustrate those facts. Moreover, this is a summary article, and therefore including some information from other articles is not only acceptable but necessary. I see that you are all well on your way to including the blob image, and excluding any realistic image of what is aborted, so I don't expect that what I say will make any difference. However, I sincerely believe that that is the path of censorship, and the path of misleading readers.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ferry, it's no use. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. : ) Anything that is remotely controversial and is prone to bandwagon is almost always reduced to POV-pushing. It always has, it always will. I know a few admins but even in the event that a picture is agreed upon, it will start a revert nightmare. We might as well trash the article all together if something so simple can't be implemented. Oh yeah, and sorry about my tone. I know the real-world can be quite "shocking." LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the last time there was anything remotely funny about abortion.--Tznkai (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm grateful to Wikifan12345 for bringing up the subject of images again. And I certainly don't think his slight jest was anywhere near as inappropriate as other humor I've seen at this talk page. And, please, let's not forget what it is about abortion that makes it not remotely funny: the reality of what is aborted (i.e. the reality that thus far has not been shown at this article).Ferrylodge (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh, this bothers way too much. I think if we are going to start with the picture process, the FAQ needs to be discussed. According to the author of the FAQ, pictures that detail an in-tact fetus, aborted fetus, illustrations of a fetus or an abortion, are either shock images or POV pushing. I don't get the reasoning behind this. How does a picture of an aborted fetus, or perhaps an illustration of the abortion process (or frick, the tools used), constitute a violation of NPOV?

It's just so arbitrary compared to other controversial articles that seem to have no issue including arrays of disgusting pictorials. So, if we solve the FAQ sheet, and come to a reasonable compromise over a picture, then this could get done.

It's sad to see an article with so much popularity and potential to be in a lockless prison. This can be solved. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The topic of certain types of images have been discussed in the past, and there was no consensus to include those images then. That is all. Consensus can change. However, due to the VERY IMPORTANT issue of licensing, I suggest we work with specific images, instead of going around in circles about the types of images we may or may not allow. If you have a specific, freely licensed image in mind that you think would make this article even more encyclopedic, then please make your proposal, and hopefully the editors can discuss it on it's individual merits, not on some general vague notion regarding certain types of images. I really think this discuss needs focus, as it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. -Andrew c  06:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this will bring some focus, Andrew c: do you support or not support the flat prohibition on images in the FAQ? Simple question. Here's another: do you support or oppose inclusion of the images I presented above? Simple question.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for singling me out. 1. I support the FAQ as it is summarizing past discussions/consensus. I do not believe it is simply a "flat prohibition on images", so it's hard to answer a loaded question like that. 2. No I do not believe it would be appropriate to include either of those images from 3Dpregnacy.com. Hope this answers your questions!-Andrew c  01:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It certainly does, Andrew c, and your answers are exactly as I would expect. Thanks so much!Ferrylodge (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The previous two pictures of embryos aren't sufficiently relevant. If a reader wants to see the images, they are easily accessible, a single click away.--Tznkai (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the two images was not an embryo, and is not available in the article on embryo. If a reader does manage to track down images of embryos and fetuses at Misplaced Pages, how is the reader then to determine which images are close to depicting what is aborted in an average abortion? I don't intend to mince words here. You are behaving like a censor and a propagandist. Feel free to criticize my tone all you want, but it's the truth. You allow images in this article of women, but not a single image showing what is aborted, either before or after the abortion. Instead, you favor inclusion of a blob image, that will be misleading to readers. I strongly disagree with your approach to this article, and wish you would reconsider. The exclusionary mentality at this article is unlike any other at Misplaced Pages, AFAIK. Except perhaps the fetus article, which does not even include accurate picture captions, as you must know very well.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

We are only going to be showing what happens to an aborted baby. That is not NPOV in my opinion. It is not pretty what happens to the baby, so why should we try to hide it. And before anyone asks, yes, I am pro-life. --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 19:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an aborted baby. Please try to adhere to NPOV, even when discussing this topic. -- Ec5618 15:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ec5618, THAT is a pretty good example of edit warring or going POV.

To deny that it is a baby is itself POV. NPOV is an admirable goal, but by objecting to her using 'aborted baby', you ARE yourself going POV. DeniseMToronto (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, DeniseMToronto, it isn't. Accuracy isn't inherently POV. -- Ec5618 12:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy can certainly reflect POV even if it is accurate. I can, for example, say that when Martin Luther King Jr was killed, a preacher was killed. I can say he was assasinated. I can say someone who touched a lot of people, who many considered to have said important things, who had considerable influence, was assasinated. Each is an accurate statement, and each would seem also to express a slightly different POV.

And as you are I'm sure aware, as you seem well informed, whether it is a fetus alone or also a baby is very much one of the issues in contention. So it is POV. The notion that humanity comes at birth is certainly a widely held belief, and frequently incorporated in laws, but it is still a matter of great debate, and there is no widespread agreement as to even what humanity consists of, never mind when it exists. Heck, if I look only at the science, I could argue arteries to and from the umblical cord don't disappear or close up until DAYS after birth... does that make it still in some sense really a fetus rather than a baby? ... No, as you know, this isn't as simple and straightforward as you suggest.

DeniseMToronto (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh, alright we're getting no where. I am right now absolutely opposed to graphic images in this article, with no room for compromise, and I think its unlikely I will be convinced otherwise. If we do so, we open the door for escalating pictures of aborted ZEFs (Zygote/embryo/fetus) side by side with images of coathanger abortions with the arguments fundamentally similar on both sides. That having been said, no one knows what D&X, vacuum aspiration etc. is, and some sort of visual would help. Where can we find compromise there?--Tznkai (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Double sighs. You said, "I am right now absolutely opposed to graphic images in this article, with no room for compromise....Where can we find compromise there?" Perhaps it would help if you would explain what you mean by "graphic images." Does that mean you're uncompromisingly opposed to any image in this article that accurately shows readers what is aborted in an average abortion, including both drawings and photos, and including both before-images and after-images? Does it make a difference to you whether a photo shows flesh and blood, as opposed to merely a skull or skeleton?

Although perhaps not the best analogy, I'd like to point out that the article on the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster has an image of the astronauts taken long before the accident. That image does not show them being blown up and ripped to pieces, but rather informs the reader of what they looked like beforehand. Hundreds of Misplaced Pages articles are the same way. But not this one.

Another key to finding compromise might also be to not talk past each other, but rather to try being as responsive as possible. For example, you could explain to Miagirljmw why graphic images are forbidden at this article but permitted at virtually every other Misplaced Pages article; has a slippery slope argument like the one you gave above been employed successfully at any other Misplaced Pages article? Or, you could explain to me how a reader would be able to navigate to other Misplaced Pages articles to find out what a fetus or embryo looks like at the gestation of an average abortion, when those other Misplaced Pages articles do not say anything about abortion, either in the image captions or in the text (much less say anything about whether each image is before or after the average abortion gestation). I'd also be interested to know why you do not think WP:NOTCENSORED applies here.

Another possible solution would be to include an "inset" or two in Andrew c's image, showing what is actually inside the blob shape that is supposed to represent the fetus. An average abortion occurs at 7.5 weeks after fertilization, so I think it would be appropriate to have the inset be one of our images of an 8-week fetus, either a drawing or a photo. Or we could have two insets, one before the average abortion gestation, and one after.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Showing a ZEF is an emotional appeal and isn't otherwise relevant the article. Your very reasoning shows that it comes from an emotional pro-life knee jerk reaction to something being "torn apart." That is not an argument I am interested in having over a Misplaced Pages page. Find me a neutral reference source in the world that does that sort of thing.--Tznkai (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Your position appears to be that we can show the tools, we can show the intrauterine environment, we can show the pregnant woman, and the protestors, and every imaginable thing associated with an abortion. But not what is aborted. Your position is POV in the extreme. You're asking for a neutral reference source that both mentions abortion and also shows an image of a fetus? You must be joking. There are millions of them.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Tools are relevant, although it creates very little information on its own. Pregnant women can also be used as an emotional appeal, and also of tangential relevance at best. Protesters are relevant elsewhere (coverage of abortion debate and its incontrovertibly major impact on politics). I listed several image types that cannot be used because of their non-neutral nature as well. Time is a news magazine, and you might read the little line in the lower right about how pregnancy crisis centers don't play fair (since they use emotional appeals such as images, ultra sounds, although they do it deceptively). The second piece illustrates a specific point, that imaging techniques are effecting the debate - which is a valid insertion somewhere else under the Abortion debate subheader, chor maybe articles on pregnancy counseling, legit and quasi-legit (if you can find that sort of image freely licensed) --Tznkai (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are asking me to find another Misplaced Pages article titled "Abortion" that includes images of what is aborted, then I confess: I cannot. However, if you seriously think that I cannot find a thousand more such images that accompany abortion articles in reliable sources, then you are mistaken. I look forward to seeing you at the article about the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, deleting the photo of the astronauts as "irrelevant." Or maybe you'll be at the Tonsillectomy article stamping out, censoring and suppressing all of those knee-jerk images of the tonsils? I agree with you about one thing: "we're getting no where."Ferrylodge (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Its a bad analogy, and I didn't ask if reliable sources, I meant references sources, encyclopedias and the like, which serve a similar purpose and mission as Misplaced Pages. The first source doesn't show me the context, but I'd wager significant cash that its either a news feature, opinion or a partisan advert. The second source is from one of the world's most notorious tabloids unless I've badly misunderstood British standards for journalism.--Tznkai (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There's not the slightest hint that the "Abortion Graphic" from the Independent is anything other than an abortion graphic. And the Sun has the highest circulation of any daily English-language newspaper in the world. So, now you're restricting me to "encyclopedias and the like". Interesting. How's about I go into this article right now and delete all of the references that don't fit that description. Would you find that disruptive?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What I asked you was to find a Misplaced Pages like reference source that uses images the same way you wish to, and the piece you linked is a feature (at least, that is how I would term it) about a legal battle on abortion and the arguments involved about how developed an embryo/fetus is. Again, those articles are good places for pictures of fetuses and embryos. This one is not, because it is not sufficiently relevant or encyclopedic.--Tznkai (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) You have given me a very time-consuming and narrow assignment. There are many such images available for various types of fetal surgeries. Limiting it to abortion and to encylopedic-type sources makes the search much more difficult. I dare say that your narrow criteria would rule out much Misplaced Pages content, in this article as well as many others (e.g. see here). Off the top of my head, here are two sources that do a much better job than this present Misplaced Pages article currently does: IMHO, the ban on such images at Misplaced Pages is beyond absurd, and the worst kind of political censorship. Given time, I could find lots more and lots better examples for you. But I do not have the time right now.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hay, "Ec5618", don't tell me about WP rules when you don't even have a link to your user page where I can contact you about it. Now, down to business. If it makes anyone feel better I will use "fetus" from now on. I do believe in the fact there is no censorship on WP. If anyone is worried that this might affect a woman going to have an abortion, it won't. She will do what she wants no matter what she sees. Why should we not provide all the info on abortion that we can to all people. The good and the bad. The pictures is the bad part. But the good parts of abortion are the fact that the woman gets rid of something she does not want. And I think, as a pro-lifer, I am being pretty neutral. --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 23:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Miagirljmw14. Firstly, m:don't be a dick. Secondly, I didn't ask you to use feel-good words, I asked you to use correct words. There is an obvious difference there. Thirdly, using emotionally charged (and incorrect) words to make a point does not make you neutral. -- Ec5618 09:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what educational or informative value images have. Many people know of such images, whether they've seen them personally or not. The images don't seem to educate or inform anyone. I question whether they are POV. It is quite possible to look at them and ignore their resemblance to living creatures --- and many people do look at them and do manage to ignore that. Or at least not see it. DeniseMToronto (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That said, I suggest the "blob" image should be taken out. The person who prepared it meant well, I'm sure, but a "blob" is probably misleading, being largely unrepresentative. DeniseMToronto (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "blob" for people who weren't here when the proposal was first made... Underneath the amniotic sac is an embryo from my File:Fetus proposal.svg series. I made the "sac" transparent, but not transparent enough for people with cheap or poorly adjusted monitors (sorry). I said even back then that in the final revision I would make the sac less transparent to account for that (so I have no idea why people who were there the first time around are still complaining about that). That said, my source imagery and the World Health Organization, for example, all have "blobs" or worse in their diagrams. Keep in mind my sources are gynecological textbooks. Hope this helps clear up some old topics.-Andrew c  15:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrew c, I do vaguely recall your images of a fetus (File:Fetus proposal.svg) but I do not recall what people said about them. Perhaps you have a link to the talk page archives?

In this present talk page thread, you suggested inserting this image into this article. I may have a cheap or poorly adjusted monitor, so I don't see any fetus. Would it be possible for you to upgrade the image for people like me, so that we can see the fetus?

Your images of a fetus would violate the FAQ for this article, which says: "No illustration of intact fetus; more appropriate to articles on pregnancy" and also says "normal fetus images violate neutral point of view policy." Shall we modify the FAQ, or just disregard it?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussion is at Talk:Abortion/Archive 29#Not another image discussion. There is no such thing as a FAQ violation as FAQs are simply summaries of past discussions, not binding policies or anything (although they can represent past consensus, though, needless to say, consensus CAN change). The past discussions the FAQ link to were in regards to fetal images taken outside of the context of abortion, and therefore I don't believe the quoted text even applies to my diagram. Furthermore, not a single person has raised concerns regarding the idea of a more clearly depicted embryo in the diagram. If I am wrong, then someone please speak up about the diagram before I spend more time working on it. However, because of mixed comments and no clear universal support, I must apologize that I have been reluctant to donate any more of my time in completing the image if it is simply going to be blocked (which is why you need to use your imagination in regards to the amniotic sac transparency issue ;).-Andrew c  21:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can sympathize with that. No one wants you to donate time working on an image that will be blocked. I think the best (and quickest) solution would be just to do an inset. For those who aren't aware, an inset is "a small graphic representation (as a map or picture) set within a larger one." That way, you could simply copy and paste one (or two) of Wikimedia's current images into the inset. And it would allow far more detail than in your image here. No offense, but we've got some very professional images at Wikimedia Commons.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What I would really like to find is a photo like the one that they have on the "in the womb" documentary's on national geographic channel. Does anyone think we can pull off fair use??? --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 01:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the documentary. Is it a documentary about abortion? (if it isn't I'm not sure a non-free image from that documentary would be relevant on this article) We have a fairly strict fair-use policy (see WP:FUC). Criteria 1 and 8 seems most applicable here. Would it be possible for a wikipedian (say who is a doctor or nurse) to produce a free equivalent? Or could a user-created illustration or photo serve the exact same purpose of the copyrighted photo? There may be a case, but since I am not familiar with the imagery in question, I can't say either way.-Andrew c  02:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about abortion, so we should have either a picture of te result, or a picture of the procedure from the outside, prefarable. For the latter, that graphic posted at the begining is great, but for the latter I don't know.--Patton 16:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the documentary is not about abortion. But I am sure that a doctor (along with a person that has great computer skills) could be able to reproduce the image. Sorry, but I really do not know how they do the imaging for the documentary. Here is a link to the documentary site In the womb. And I would personally vote for the aborted fetus, b/c an abortion from the outside might mean nudity (I know WP is not censored), and I think we should avoid those kinds of things when we can. --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 23:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent)As things stand now, I plan on doing an RFC next week regarding inclusion of the images presented above. One is an image of an embryo, and one is a fetus, and together they show pretty clearly what is aborted in an average abortion. There's no reason to conceal such information here, but show it for a tonsilectomy. Without these images here, readers would find it difficult enough to obtain embryo/fetus images at any other single article at Misplaced Pages, and even then would not be able to discern which of those images show a conceptus that is younger than average or older than average for an abortion. Whether you're pro-life or pro-choice or somewhere in between, we should agree that it is unacceptable for this article to not show any image of what is aborted, at least before the event.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we should add images of what is being aborted, if WP really wants to be neutral. --Miagirljmw14 Miagirljmw~talk 22:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed image

I propose that File:Vacuum-aspiration.svg be added to the article in the surgical abortion subsection, with the caption "A diagram of a vacuum aspiration abortion procedure at 8 weeks gestation." -Andrew c  18:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Aye. I would also not object to the embryo having slightly more defined eyes and/or head, but I prefer this one without seeing the alternative. --Tznkai (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No. As far as I can tell, the only difference between the two figures is that one includes the fetus blob, and one does not. Therefore, I see no need for two figures instead of one. The caption could explain that the blob is sucked into the tube, or you could insert a small arrow into the figure indicating the same thing. Additionally, I do not understand the comment that the eyes and/or head should be more defined. No eyes or head are visible on my monitor. I do agree with Tznkai, however, that there should be an accurate image of what is aborted.

I would support the upper figure, together with the image shown at right (Correction: the image is now shown in the next section, because Andrew c has moved it there.)Ferrylodge (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you please not hijack this thread with the proposal you made above (and which was rejected above). I created a new section for this proposal for the purpose of separating it from your proposal.-Andrew c  20:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Please watch your tone, Andrew c. I made a good-faith comment, and am not hijacking anything. Both the image that I pasted here, and your proposal, have been discussed and objected to before. Please don't try to inflame this discussion with personal attacks. Tznkai asked that the embryo have slightly more defined eyes and/or head, and I am showing a way to accomplish that. I am also showing the circumstances under which I would find your image acceptable. As I said, "I would support the upper figure, together with the image shown at right."Ferrylodge (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the best answer would be to have a diagram with a vague representation of the aborted prenatal, followed by images of what that prenatal could look like. A better way would be to decide how to best represent the image in the first place. To be fair, for its size, the proposed image doesn't seem very different from the 8 weeks diagram found at this site. Also to mention, I wouldn't much care for the proposed caption of "What is aborted depends on when it is aborted." I'd find that statement a bit troublesome. -BaronGrackle (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The image you linked to still has more definition, and Ferrylodge's proposed solution is dubious.--Tznkai (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrew c's proposal would be the first image of aborted material in this article. That's progress. It never made sense to me that we should have images of everything but the aborted material. That said, we should not go down this route unless we make it clear to readers that the appearance of aborted material depends on when the abortion occurs. The two images that I've combined into an image file would accomplish this, and their accuracy has been very well-settled (they've been in other Misplaced Pages articles for years). I'm not sure why they would be considered "dubious". We even converted them to black and white after there was an objection that the more realistic reddish color made them look too cute. Please bear in mind that "8 weeks after fertilization" does not necessarily mean "eight weeks' gestation."Ferrylodge (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the first time that surgical instruments used during abortions would be shown in this article. Do speculums really look like that? What about the vacurette? There is a level of detail given to objects in this illustration which is relatively consistent (let me add, that I added the detail of the embryo which was not found in any of my sources). Now you are asking me to do even more on that one part, but not increase the details elsewhere? Seems like undue weight to me. But I will take all of your comments under serious consideration. As for the two figures, I got that from my sources as well. If medical textbooks thought it was necessary to have two different figures, then who am I to question them? But the second figure isn't that informative, I agree with FL on that. We can reduce it to just the top figure if that is what the consensus is for.-Andrew c  22:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

On my monitor, your image of the abortus has no head, no arms, no legs, no eyes, and no features at all other than a blob. Is that your intention? As you know, I am not asking you to do any artwork at all. I said your first image would be acceptable, together with the image that you removed from this thread without my permission.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added the requested details. Please check the file again. Shall I add the details to the rectum next (what I mean to say is it seems a little odd to have to zoom in so much (1600%) to add a few lines here and there for the embryo, but not any other feature of the image)?-Andrew c  23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, on my monitor, your image of the abortus has no head, no arms, no legs, no eyes, and no features at all other than a white blob. And, as you know very well, a layperson's concerns and interest about abortion (e.g. moral, political, religious and other concerns) have nothing to do with anyone's rectum. Do I really have to gather reliable sources on that point for you?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You might be looking at label #1 instead of label #2. Label 2 is the darker shadow within the white blob, showing at least the distinctive "C" shape of the prenatal. The depiction is small, but that's because it's to scale with the rest of the image. Adding this diagram would be huge; it gets around the no-images block that the FAQ has declared and allows us to have an actual depiction of one of the procedures, including the terminated target. I'm actually surprised that the "no-shock-images" supporters aren't the ones finding fault right now. -BaronGrackle (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm looking at label #2, and all I see is the slightest discoloration, with no arms, no legs, no head, no nothing. Same when I click on the image to enlarge it. And why is there such intense opposition to showing an enlargement of whatever it is that is not showing up on my monitor? Additionally, the image above still includes a second figure which seems superfluous to me. An enlargement could take the place of the bottom figure. And why have callout numbers, if there is no explanation in the caption of what the callouts represent?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you are or are not seeing, so I apologize if my comments don't help. But perhaps you are looking at a cached version, and the new image hasn't updated? Also, SVG format is a scalable format. You can zoom in as much as you like. Feel free to zoom in and check for the presence or absence of details. From a technical standpoint, we cannot simply superimposed your images on my image because of the difference between rastor and vector images. On top of that, there has been numerous outstanding concerns with those specific two images raised in the past that I'd rather not discuss in the thread about my proposal.-Andrew c  00:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

On my screen, the sac "1" is empty. No enlarging or refreshing is changing that. Also, the image above still includes a second figure which seems largely superfluous to me. An enlargement could take the place of the second figure. And why have callout numbers, if there is no explanation in the caption of what the callouts represent? Regarding the callouts and the caption, it seems like the callouts are unnecessary in this article, and you could instead simply write in the caption that a vacuum device is being used to suction out an embryo (the callouts could be included at the image description page, if at all). But whether or not there are callouts, my main objections are that no image of the embryo is showing up on my screen, and even if it were showing up, one or more enlargements (such as the figures that were moved out of this section) should be provided instead of the second superfluous figure.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think this image would be a useful addition to this page. I would suggest that only the top part is needed as I think the second image adds little that cannot be imagined. Perhaps the foetus is too small for the most common age this procedure would be attempted? Yours is probably 2-4cm in length compared to an average of 8cm at 10 weeks gestation. The discussion about adding detail to the foetus is distracting and the current level of detail is more than enough, especially given the normal viewing size. Nice work on the svg, and you lot are brave to bring this up again! |→ Spaully† 01:08, 10 February 2009 (GMT)

Thanks for your comment. According to the CDC's latest figures, 62% were performed at <9 weeks' gestation, while File:UK abortion by gestational age 2004 histogram.svg shows a spike at 8-9 weeks. Fetal_development also gives smaller lengths than what you list (8cm at 12 weeks, and 30cm at 8 weeks). I wasn't trying to undercut the average age, or put this on the smaller end of the scale. I'm partial to the 2 image version because my sources had two images, and it illustrates the action of the procedure. It gives a sense of visual motion and sequence. I feel like without it, it seems more like it's just an anatomical diagram with a hand in it than a diagram of a procedure (as a procedure has steps). But perhaps I'm too familiar with the drawing, and it really does just work better without the 2nd figure. I would not oppose by any means a final version with just one figure, but I support the 2 figure version more.-Andrew c  01:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The size of foetus and gestational age seem reasonable given that evidence. Thinking about it further I am not sure about the size of the uterus though - it perhaps should be larger. You mentioned you used a non-gravid uterus as your guide and if my obstetrics knowledge remains correct it should be 'grapefruit' size at 8 weeks. This is all nitpicking though really and I think it is good as-is.

I take your point about the 2 image version showing some motion but I probably still prefer the 1 image version. Again this seems a minor issue as both would be perfectly clear. |→ Spaully† 12:41, 18 February 2009 (GMT)

I agree with Spaully that the second figure is unnecessary (and Andrew c has already acknowledged that "the second figure isn't that informative"). I would support replacing it with this enlargement of the first Figure, until we can agree on a better image of the abortus. Please note that the abortus in the first figure is still not visible on my monitor, and even if it were it would be exceedingly small and difficult to discern. Does anyone else have an opinion about including this enlargement produced by the Graphic Lab?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

An SVG is scalable, so by definition, anyone can zoom in on any part of the illustration to their hearts desire. Therefore, an "enlargement" second figure is much less useful than the current second figure, IMO. I'd be glad to produce another version that crops out the second frame. I cannot support FL's alternative proposal, though. -Andrew c  17:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If you mean that an SVG can be enlarged by clicking on it, I've already explained that that is not possible for computers that do not have the software for it. Additionally, even for those who do have the software, it is advantageous to be able to see stuff without clicking on it. You could reduce your Figure 1 to the size of a postage stamp, and argue that some people will be able to enlarge it, but I don't think that would be a valid argument. I cannot support inclusion of Figure 1 without an enlargement, because it exacerbates a severe and existing problem with this article: there is not the slightest summary description of what is aborted, or the fact that it changes over time, or the fact that an average abortus has any bodily organs whatsoever. Figure 1 adds to this problem by portraying the abortus as infinitessimal, and (on some terminals) completely invisible. The article on tonsilectomy shows before-images and after-images of what's removed. In contrast, this article omits such info entirely. I oppose inclusion of Figure 1 without an enlargement.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrew c, do you believe me when I say that no embryo is appearing on my monitor? If so, is a solution possible? I have never had any difficulty viewing any other images at Misplaced Pages. It puts me in a very difficult spot to be critiquing something that I cannot see. If I cannot see it then there surely must be others who will have the same difficulty.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I do believe you. Though I'm not sure what to say. I've tested this on 5 monitors. One is a 5 year old laptop LCD with very poor contrast, one is an old CRT monitor, one is a public terminal (though I could even see the embryo in the proposal picture on that monitor), and 2 are my personal monitors, and I am not experiencing this problem. If you have a LCD monitor, try shifting your viewing angle to see if you can make anything out in the amniotic sac. You can also try adjusting your brightness and contrast to see if that helps, or try calibrating your monitor. I'll keep this under consideration and try to find even worse monitors to test this on (with out seeing what you are seeing, I'm not even sure what I can do to fix the problem, as it could be a number of things).-Andrew c  02:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, you might try a different format, such as jpg. I've got a Dell, and it works fine for eveything else I've used it for.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion, but it probably isn't the image format. Anyway, this is a vector image and thus should be in SVG format. If it were a raster image, JPG would be fine. (Rule of thumb #7 and WP:IUP#FORMAT) Besides, the wiki software renders the SVG as raster images automatically in their thumbnails, so the file format shouldn't be an issue (as the images of the thumbnails you are seeing are PNGs). If you are running Firefox, you can try to using the Zoom and Pan extension so you can zoom in on the actual SVG in browser.-Andrew c  02:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have Internet Explorer and Firefox, and it looks the same on both; i.e. there's nothing in the sac. Why not make the thing all black, or at least darker red?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I see a pink fetus inside the sac very clearly. (Calibrated to FP standards) §hep • 21:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it pink? I still can't see a thing on my monitor. There were considerable objections at another article to showing the fetus as pink, because that allegedly made the fetus look too cute. Regardless of color, I think we should have an enlargement.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you are summarizing past objections poorly. I don't see anything on the talk page saying pink=cute, per se, furthermore, that archive is real confusing because I see that the users are talking about pink images, but it only shows black and white images... as if someone has overwritten the pink images with B&W version, thus rendering the past discussion "incomprehensible". If this is really a concern of yours, perhaps we should contact User:Antelan, the user who raised the "cute" objection and ask if my proposal is too cute (though that user hasn't edited since August). But if no one here currenltly thinks my image is too cute for wikipedia, then I think we can considered the "cute" matter closed here :)-Andrew c  22:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Another editor said about the black-and-white images: "These are much better than the bright pink ones." However, if we have consensus here to go with the original pink, then that is fine with me. No need to contact Antelan if he's not been around for a long time. The pink is obviously more realistic, even if it makes the thing look more like a kewpie doll.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for accompanying figure

I posted the image to the right at this talk page, but another editor moved it. This image is intended to accompany the image proposed above of a vacuum abortion, in order to provide an enlargement of what is aborted. This article ought to have an image or two of what is aborted in a typical abortion that is large enough to have some detail.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

We are asking the readers to mentally average two images? Neither image is what the caption is supposed to illustrate, the average age. So why not use an image that does meet that criteria?-Andrew c  22:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Because you have disruptively decided to move the image that I posted, the comment that I made (accompanying that image) no longer makes any sense. It is not among the responsibilities of a Misplaced Pages administrator to alter the comments of other editors thereby making them incomprehensible.

While you may enjoy posting disgusting editorial images on this talk page, the image that I posted is directed at improving this article. It is not a separate proposal. It is a proposal to make yours acceptable.

And are you disputing the accuracy of the caption? No one is asking readers to mentally average any images. Obviously, an "average" abortion refers to the average gestation at which abortions are performed. The exact average is not known with certainty, and varies somewhat from country to country. Even within a single country, the average fluctuates by region and over time (e.g. the average in the United States has receded toward fertilization over the last few years). Showing a small 4-week range solves that problem, while also illustrating the important fact that what is aborted depends upon when the abortion is performed.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not inaccurate. It just seems conflated. The caption is basically saying "an average abortion is around 8 weeks, but since we don't have a picture of an 8 week fetus, here is week 6 and week 10." I'm saying, if we are to talk about average, why not just show the average. Assuming A->B->C, showing the steps before and after B requires a type of mental averaging of A and C on behalf of our reader in order to imagine what B looks like. I say, no need to show A and C when we are really talking about B. Just show B (ignoring for a second that 3dpregnancy.com didn't donate a thumbnail image of B). Seems like one image, in theory, could replace these 2 and be more to the point.-Andrew c  01:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks for acknowledging that it's not inaccurate. Do you see some value in showing readers that the thing that's aborted changes over time? One figure alone cannot show that. Perhaps more importantly, there is uncertainty about when in gestation the average abortion is performed. Using US and European statistics alone is misleading; developing countries such as China, India and Viet Nam have "more second trimester abortion than in developed countries." Therefore, the average gestation is somewhat later in developing countries. Even in the US and Europe, a very substantial percentage (more than a third) of abortions happen after 8 weeks from fertilization, so I don't think it's at all inappropriate to include an 8-week image.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No. I think it is not helpful to include these images, at no stage would anyone in the process see something such as this - they look distinctly alien with the grey colouring and pose. These look somewhat amateurish with the differing textures or illumination, and there is no sense of scale. In general I don't see what could be gained by including such images save to insinuate that they are essentially babies. |→ Spaully† 01:14, 10 February 2009 (GMT)

Yes. This article ought to have an image or two of what is aborted in a typical abortion that is large enough to have some detail. I fail to see how an image that looks "distinctly alien" could possibly be intended to insinuate that it is "essentially" a baby, and therefore I cannot take such a comment seriously. There has been steadfast opposition at this article to showing a clear image of what is aborted, and that opposition seems to be continuing. If you would like to confirm the veracity of the 8-week image, for example, see here.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not misconstrue what I was saying - this image is distinctly alien; such images which might be better formed seem to serve mainly to insinuate they are essentially babies. |→ Spaully† 01:34, 10 February 2009 (GMT)

Pardon me if I misunderstood you. I'm still not sure if you're saying that I have tried to insinuate anything. All I have tried to do is provide accurate images that show readers what is aborted in a typical abortion. Any problem with that?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I won't comment on the general idea of the type of image you want. I'll comment on these specific images that you are proposing. Please do not misconstrue the two. If I oppose these specific images, it does not mean I oppose the general idea of "what is aborted in a typical abortion" (though I don't see any sense in talking generally when we are discussing specific proposals). These particular images are remarkably poor in a number of counts. They are extremely low resolution (120px x 120px). They are in greyscale (not that the "pink" original images were any better). They are also inaccurate, to the extent that they don't show how translucent the skin is, and they are isolated from their surroundings and the other products of conception (placenta, amniotic sac, etc) which are expelled during abortions (nor is any sense of scale achieved.. in fact placing the two side by side at the same size makes matters WORSE). Furthermore, I personally do not like how they were rendered. It looks cheap, silly, and cartoonish (especially the eyes), and I think that they are of poor quality and unprofessional. I'll also note that other users in the past have questioned the reliability and motives of the source of these images, 3Dpregnancy.com, being a site targeting expecting mothers, not medical professionals (nor abortion patients for that matter), though the source issue is minor in my eyes.-Andrew c  01:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrew c, I am not contending that these are high-quality images. All I am contending is that they show much more detail than you could possibly show in such a tiny space on the image that you have provided. These images are in use at other Misplaced Pages articles until we find something better. I urge you to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If you can deplore these images, why should I not deplore the image that you have provided, which must show much less detail?

I provided this link above for confirmation of the 8-week image. You will see that the match is very good.

You object that these photos do not show the placenta, amniotic sac, and other things in the environment of a typical fetus. Well, that's very typical, because lay people are especially interested in the fetus itself. I can give you tons of links to reliable sources that show the fetus or embryo itself. That's not to say we cannot also have an image that shows the other environmental things. In fact, I have supported inclusion of your first figure, which does show environmental things. But why must every single photo that depicts a fetus in this article have to also include the environmental things?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• No - If I understand this correctly, I think the inclusion of an image of a fetus or an embryo is not particularly useful but is in fact rather crufty.--Tznkai (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

How about this one, from Gray's Anatomy?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I'll assume from that non-response that you (and perhaps Andrew c) would not find the Gray's Anatomy image acceptable at this article. May I ask, then, whether you think the Endowment for Human Development is a reliable source? If so, perhaps I'll approach them for permission to use a couple of their images. This question is directed also at Andrew c and anyone else who may have an opinion.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My activites on-wiki and in meatspace mean I don't always answer your questions promptly - but I'll list my objections to the picture (again). For this article it is cruft. It doesn't add anything substantial to the article - this is not an article about feti, it is an article about abortions. A number of things are involved in abortions, a gravida, a fetus/embryo/zygote/unborn, and typically, a doctor. Lets take the pro-choice and pro life positions for a moment and split the difference and give the gravida (as has been pointed out, not all gravidas are women) and the unborn equal weight in the event. Does adding a picture of the gravid add anything to the article? Not really, its ancillary, adding a "thousand words" without significant meaning, because what new information is actually given?

Its also prone to non-neutral interpretations. If I show a picture of say, a terrified pregnant teenage girl (not an entirely atypical candidate for abortions), what am I saying to the audience? What if it is a person dressed displaying low socio-economic status? If we have a white woman or a black woman, what does that choice say. Is there a male figure in the photograph as well? Pictures are, as rightly pointed out below - potentially powerful statements - and I am uninterested in running the gauntlet of neutrality problems unless the picture has clear and immediate relevance.--Tznkai (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My question did not involve the image that you previously called "cruft". It involved this image from Gray's Anatomy, and also sought your opinion about the Endowment for Human Development. Are you calling all of that "cruft" as well? I feel like you have not addressed my question at all.

As far as your assertion that abortions involve zygotes, I believe you will find that less than 1% of induced abortions are of a zygote, so I don't think there is a pressing need to show an image of that. I'm not sure I understand your comment that "not all gravidas are women." You mean as opposed to girls? You said above: "the inclusion of an image of a fetus or an embryo is particularly useful." If that's really what you meant, then I hope we can work toward that goal. I am not sure what your argument is regarding images of women and girls. First, this article already contains images of pregnant females. Second, readers are very familar with what a pregnant female looks like, but are not familar with what an abortus looks like. Third, are you saying that including more images of pregnant females in this article would make it more acceptable to have images of what is aborted?Ferrylodge (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I would highly encourage you to see if the EHD wouldn't mind donating some images to the commons so that all wikimedia projects can use them. There are some really neat images there, that could be useful on hundreds of projects, and multiple articles. So even if there isn't consensus for their inclusion on this specific article, they would still be really useful to the project in general. In your request, you should make it clear that their images are being considered for use on the abortion article (this may be an issue that the pregnant woman who allowed cameras inside of her may not want her baby to be the poster-child for abortion).-Andrew c  15:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, all images donated to Wikimedia would be available for all Misplaced Pages articles. So, I'd make it clear to EHD that that would include this article and many others. And what about the Gray's Anatomy image?

If I approach EHD, I will have to explain what type of image we are looking for in this article. If people would please tell me what is undesirable about this image from Gray's Anatomy, then that will help me understand what to ask for. I don't want to play a game here where every image I come up with gets shot down for one reason or another. All of the images I have suggested at this talk page show much more detail than what is in the article now, and no one claims that the images I have suggested are inaccurate, so frankly it seems like people are asking for perfection.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. Take my response, and apply it proposals all images of feti regardless of originating source. Also corrected a missing "not" in one of my statements above. Also also, since I apparently cannot communicate my point in a way you will understand, I object to any inclusion of an image whos primary subject fetus, embryo, zygote, toddler, child, or human of any sort because it does not add value to the article, because (in my editorial judgement) they do not add value to the article.--Tznkai (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, now that you have reversed your previous statement, I do understand your position better: no image or enlargement should be included in this article that primarily shows what is aborted, either before or after the abortion. I disagree, and will try to put together an RfC about it later this week or maybe next.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

But I think I understand their argument, Ferrylodge. Look at the article on capital punishment. You won't find any single image of a human condemned to be killed, or of a body of someone who was killed. You WILL, however, find quite a few illustrations of people undergoing different processes of execution. This is why I think the diagram proposed by Andrew c, fetus and all, is the right direction. -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Revised image

If I do the RfC it will probably focus on the image at right. So, if the regulars here would like to comment now, maybe we could get consensus without an RfC. Obviously, my photoshop skills are limited, but you get the idea.

I feel like it would be censorship to have a whole article about abortion without a close up showing some detail of what is aborted. It has legs, hands, a head, eyes, fingers. I feel like this is very relevant, and has not thus far been shown in this article. Part of this image is also used in a couple of other Misplaced Pages articles. The present article is a summary article, so it seems very appropriate to include this relevant information. Ferrylodge (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This idea has been put before the graphic lab (see here) so another image will be forthcoming soon. We already have File:Fetus About to be Aborted.svg which is a zoom in of my diagram with minor modifications. -Andrew c  22:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Graphic Lab is considering the matter. In the mean time, to the left is a cleaned-up version.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't think any images will add anything useful. To some people, it is an image of a human being. But as people here illustrate, some other people will see a fetus. It won't convince anyone either way, and I suspect it won't educate anyone either. That said, the FAQ is simply wrong in ruling it out as POV. If you truly believe the fetus is not human, and have a reason convincing yourself of that, then you believe whatever is shown in the image is not human. So it should not be a problem to you. You might be disturbed or bothered by rememblances, but if you honestly believe it isn't a human, then you still should be able to accept the image. I doubt any undecided people come here, and I don't see that a single photo by itself should be any problem.

WHAT MIGHT BE A PROBLEM is the caption on the photo or image. There should definitely be caution with the caption. There's where care should be exercised.

DeniseMToronto (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC) ~

Does anyone object to inclusion of the image (above left) in this article?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes.-Andrew c  04:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

And would there be a reason for that?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

And yes. Spotfixer (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So, you both would prefer that this article exclude this information. With no apparent reasons. As mentioned previously, I support inclusion of Andrew c's first image, but believe this enlargement should also be included, so that this article gives at least some slight indication of what is aborted in a typical abortion. The information is verifiable, relevant, reliably sourced, and necessary for NPOV. If the best you can say is that you don't want it, without giving reasons, then no weight should be attached to your opinions, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I and others, for years now, have discussed issues with the 3dpregnancy.com image. I urged you at length at the graphics lab to use another image. Your version, while clearly made to try to address one of my many concerns (the lack of scale/background context), it does a poor job of addressing that concern and fails to address mine and others numerous other concerns with that specific image (needless to say other users issues with having an image focused solely on the fetus). Your image looks like a psychodelic, techno, alien. The zoomed in view has the weird looking fetus situated in a series of colorful, concentric amorphic circles. "wow, trippy, man!" (I'd add that caption to your image, but you'd hang it over my head for the next year and a half). Plus, there are technical issues (such as aliasing), and the fact you have converted a perfectly good SVG into jpg, and the fact that it is a color diagram with a black and white fetus in it (although the original 3dpregnancy.com colors are problematic from the get go as well). I understand your concerns to an extent. I added details to the fetus in my diagram, against my personal preference, for the sole purpose of to trying to address those concerns, but they were not satisfactory to you. I guess similarly, in creating this image, you have tried to address some of our concerns, but again they are not satisfactory to us. Perhaps there still is a way to meet somewhere in the middle, or perhaps our differences are irreconcilable. All I'm saying is that we clearly are not at that point yet. Your image is just the highly disputed image placed on top of a zoom in of my image (but it's zoomed in to the point where the context is not recognizable), and as I suggested at the graphics lab, if we weren't using the highly disputed image as a starting point, perhaps I'd feel differently. I hope this explains my opposition to this image, and I really hope that none of this is a surprise to you because I feel like I've said most of it before, and I was acting in good faith to avoid this situation by my intervention at the graphics lab.-Andrew c  13:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrew c, the black-and-white image has been accepted in multiple Misplaced Pages articles for years, so whatever concerns there were ultimately have been addressed. I do not know what "aliasing" is. You say, "I added details to the fetus in my diagram." That is incorrect, because the image in your diagram is not a fetus. It is an embryo. For example, it does not have separated fingers, and there are no legs connecting the feet and torso. The description page for your image does not say where you got the embryo image from, but does confirm that it is an embryo rather than a fetus (i.e. it's at 8 weeks gestational age which is two weeks short of becoming a fetus). Would you agree to use an image of a fetus instead of an embryo, and to have an enlargement of same in this article (keeping in mind that I cannot even see the tiny embryo image in your figure on this talk page)?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

<= Firstly, I consider the revised image to be completely inappropriate for this article simply based on quality - the amalgamation of the two images is misleading and incorrect. If such a zoomed image was to be included it would have to have similar detail paid to all parts, so if the uterus and placenta are included they should be well detailed. I see this image as more of a guide than anything suitable for inclusion.

We have previously agreed to 8 weeks gestation on the basis of statistics and so the correct detail should be included and the correct terms used. If that is embryo then it would be incongruous to start using foetus.

Here is an interesting image of this stage of life, scroll down a little for a progression of gestations.

Finally, the discussion on this image is derailing Andrew's diagram which I think has significant merit on is own and should progress. I don't think one can block that image conditional on this one being passed. |→ Spaully† 23:32, 15 February 2009 (GMT)

What is your position about including an enlargement of Andrew c's image? Is that image defective as well?

I assume you agree that whatever enlargement we use should reflect an average or typical abortion. It follows that we should not calculate the average based only on statistics from developed countries such as Europe and the U.S. China and India generally have a larger percentage of later abortions. Therefore, I think we should have an image of a fetus at least 8 weeks after fertilization (i.e. 10 weeks gestational age). Can we at least agree about that?

Regarding holding up or delaying Andrew c's (un-enlarged) image, it shows the abortus as something so tiny that it is barely visible (and on some monitors completely invisible). That is in keeping with this article's uniform minimization of fetal reality. This article sets up a bunch of straw men (e.g. fetal pain, breast cancer, mental health) and then knocks them down, while assiduously avoiding any fleeting mention of the fact that a fetus has a head, brain, arms, legs, fingers, and movement. So, in my view, Andrew c's un-enlarged image exacerbates the problems with the present article. If it is included right away, then an enlargement will never be included, because that would be the easiest way to keep this article slanted in a pro-choice direction. What I want is the reader to be fully informed, and that requires an article that does not censor, does not whitewash, but rather is honest. Given the importance of informing people about this volatile topic, I do not see why we cannot provide the slightest information about what is aborted (other than the notion that whatever it is feels no pain), in stark contrast to an article like tonsilectomy which shows what's removed both before-the-fact and after-the-fact. I have never seen a Misplaced Pages article that exemplifies censorship more than this one.

Additionally, I believe that Andrew c's un-enlarged image takes up too much "real estate" in this article, and his Figure 2 is unnecessary (it's virtually the same as his Figure 1).Ferrylodge (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you WP:AGF here. Spotfixer (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Spotfixer. When censorship or POV are evident, there's nothing wrong with pointing it out. If I did not assume some capacity for good faith, I would not bother trying to engage people such as yourself.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent)

At right is a drawing that I believe would be useful for this article. As you can see, it shows an abortus before an abortion. Why should an article like tonsilectomy show what is removed, but an article on abortion should exclude that information? This article does not even include any written description of an abortus. People can raise all kinds of objections to the image at right, but it is vastly better than nothing. Similar images have already been accepted in a couple other Misplaced Pages articles for years. I've alternatively proposed here that we include an image from Gray's Anatomy and an image created by the Misplaced Pages Graphic Lab, but they have been rejected. The images at right depict a typical abortus. Readers cannot go to any other Misplaced Pages articles to find this information (because other articles do not explain the gestations at which abortion is typical), and even if other articles did provide that information, this is a summary article which appropriately provides summary information. I think it's obvious that the image at right is hugely informative, and it's not even close to being a shock image.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you've presented a new argument here, you've just repeated yourself, and I'll repeat myself: it doesn't add anything to the article, and raises NPOV concerns because of the emotional impact of images. We're at an impass until someone comes up with something new, or a compromise, or maybe even an RfC.--Tznkai (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, we've used about 86k on this topic alone. Can we move onto something else instead of repeating ourselves incessantly?--Tznkai (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The image above right is not a repetition. In case you didn't notice (and I think you did notice), this adds a size comparison, which none of the previously-discussed images contained. It also has the attribute of being a rough drawing, so people will not be inclined to haggle about details which are not shown. Perhaps you also didn't notice that the previous B&W images were objected to by two different editors because of lack of scale, given that the two figures were side by side at the same size. But I understand that no image whatsoever would be satisfactory in a censored, whitewashed type of article. RFC on the way, though.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Given difference of monitor sizes and user-display settings will show images at very differring sizes, would an included ruler-bar (or some length measurement bar) help with size comaprison ? David Ruben 05:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The caption says the image on the right is 1.25 inches. It doesn't seem like including a ruler bar would make that more clear. But if something like that is done, I'd prefer a coin to a ruler.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean the image's description (as not in the caption shown immediately above-right), but yes that would help. As for comparative coin, I like the idea of relating to a common everyday item, but from which country ? Dimmes, euros, 50 pence sterling all probably meaningless outside respective locations, so perhaps a golf-ball (and that's not a serious proposal... I think... hmmmm) :-) David Ruben 12:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe a pencil then. Also, the image under discussion is immediately below right, not immediately above right. Would inserting a pencil make the image acceptable? I'm not sure how popular or familiar golf is in some countries.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Terrible bias

First Image: A misleading chart as it suggests that no abortion is or can be performed after approximately 30 weeks of pregnancy. Enough said.

Second Image: A demon who induces an abortion. Could be interpreted as pro-life as it is a demon who performs the abortion. However an important pro-choice talking point is that abortions have always been performed. Of course what is really meant here is that anti-abortion laws have no effect whatsoever on the number of abortions, a claim so absurd that it can't be said directly, which is why it is claimed indirectly. The image reinforces that pro-choice talking point especially as it is so old.

Third Image: An histogram showing at what point in the pregnancy abortions are performed. One of the pro-choice talking points is to insist abortions are usually performed "early" in the pregnancy. That histogram happens to be the most efficient way to reinforce that talking point.

Fourth Image: Almost unreadable. Who cares about the content? Actually it relies on a pro-choice organisation and promotes the pro-choice talking points to the effect that abortion is "the" answer to unexpected pregnancies. Many people who experience such pregnancies do not undergo abortions, even among pro-choicers. The real reasons explaining why abortions are performed are elsewhere.

Fifth Image: An old ad for an illegal abortion pill. Reinforces the pro-choice talking point explained in Second image.

Sixth Image: An old poster promoting legal abortions over illegal abortions. Another image favouring the pro-choice position.

Seventh and Eighth Images: The pro-life demonstration seems to be bigger, however the pro-choice demonstration is shown first. One can easily read a pro-choice slogan ("It's Your Choice ...Not Theirs") but no pro-life slogan can be easily read. Overall these images lean pro-choice.

Ninth Image: I can't detect any bias in that map.

Overall it is obvious that the images currently included in the Abortion article promote in a not-so-subtle way the pro-choice point of view. I find it fascinating to see that this doesn't seem to be a problem for some users, but somehow if an image promotes the pro-life point of view then it becomes a problem.

Trulymakes (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What is your point, exactly? Are you suggesting that the facts are biased? Are you actually arguing that images of demons performing abortions are 'pro-choice'? -- Ec5618 20:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No he isn't, he clearly said he thought that image had a pro life bias. He says he thinks the rest of the images have a pro-choice bias. That's his review of the article, and we should strive to make it seem neutral to all editors, including him.--Patton 20:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he is. Please read the comment:

"Of course what is really meant here is that anti-abortion laws have no effect whatsoever on the number of abortions, a claim so absurd that it can't be said directly, which is why it is claimed indirectly."

As for making the article neutral, I honestly doubt we can make the article unbiased in the eyes of someone who considers any text or image that deals with socalled 'talking points' to be biased. We can hardly remove all content that has been deemed to be worth talking about. -- Ec5618 21:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)I'm afraid not. We should strive to make it neutral, but making it seem neutral to all editors is impossible. If we try really hard, we'll get neutral-enough. What we're seeing here is a problem with the overall tone of the article - and a neutral tone is going to be tilted away from the pro-life pole because the core pro-life position is one of moral outrage. Merely by addressing abortion as a medical procedure, and the skills and . Pro-choice and Pro-life arguments use facts - and we can't avoid repeating those facts just because some support one side over the other. For a pair of examples, a factual, neutral description (especially in jargon-free text) of intact D&X (also known as partial birth abortion) is one of the most horrifying things any person can read. If I can ever find a source to back it up, I'd like to note that the vast majority of pro-choice OB/GYNs refuse to use the procedure and to associate with those who do. Flipside, abortion is historical, and just because pro-choicers have decided to use that kind of appeal doesn't burden us with not repeating the fact - just from repeating the appeal.

Does that make any sense?--Tznkai (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that any particular fact should be removed from this article just because it may happen to promote one point of view (no matter which point of view). In some cases the wording could be improved but that's another matter.

The problem in my humble opinion is that, as they say, "a picture is worth a thousand words" and if the selection of images in the article have the effect of promoting one point of view, when this could be avoided (either by adding images promoting the opposing point of view, or by removing or correcting images supporting the point of view initially promoted), then something should be done to address this problem.

Trulymakes (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any specific proposals to make? Do you have any images you'd like included, or ones you think should be removed? Any suggestions for changing captions, or things that could be done to the current images? I don't think it's productive to argue over your personal perceptions of these images (though I don't necessarily agree with everything you said). What I do think would be productive is to see some specific ideas for improving the article... so... any proposals :) -Andrew c  23:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative images would be great as well.--Tznkai (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Should we allow a discernible image of what will be aborted in a typical abortion?

This article does not show or describe what is aborted in an abortion. Should we allow a non-shock image of an abortus that has not been dismembered? Analogous images are in tonsillectomy. An image from Gray's Anatomy was rejected here. Then an image from the Misplaced Pages Graphic Lab was rejected here. So, there have been accusations of political censorship. Most recently, a simple undetailed drawing was rejected showing an embryo on the left, and a fetus on the right, at typical gestations when abortions are typical. The article includes images of women, but not an image of a discernible abortus. This seems to be the first RFC on this question (links to previous similar discussions can be found at the FAQ at the top of this page).

Comments of involved parties

• Yes. The image at right would be acceptable, for example. It is similar to images accepted in several other Misplaced Pages articles for years. Its lack of detail is advantageous so that people will not haggle about details. It contains a great deal of relevant information that would be useful to readers. The article is currently not NPOV because it completely lacks information about what is aborted. Readers cannot go to any other Misplaced Pages articles to find this information (because other articles do not explain the gestations at which abortion is typical), and even if other articles did provide that information, this is a summary article which appropriately provides summary information.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Ferrylodge made a rather non-neutral and otherwise dubious request for comment, but I'll add my comments anyway. I've objected to the image primarily on this ground: adding an image of a fetus is of limited relevance. Adding an image of a fetus doesn't add any more to the reader's knowledge than would a picture of a hospital bed, a pregnant woman, the same woman not pregnant, a typical OBY/GN or any number of slightly related images. Furthermore adding the image of a fetus makes an emotional appeal, which presents neutrality concerns. An analogous emotional appeal on the opposing viewpoint would be an image of a young woman (teenager) with the caption "a girl about to undergo an abortion." The emotional appeal in that example should be obvious - and is analogous to the emotional appeal in the fetus image, neither which are neutral.--Tznkai (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A brief reply. Neutral facts often have emotional appeal, but that is no reason to exclude the neutral facts. This article already has some images of women, even though everyone already knows what a woman looks like. Most people also know what a bed looks like, and yet we have an image of a bed, not to mention a familiar image of a doctor. Many people have no idea what an abortus looks like. There is no exception to Misplaced Pages's no-censorship policy, for things that some readers may find emotional.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, I notice that you did not preface your comment with a clear statement in bold, saying yes or no, support or oppose. Perhaps this meant that you were keeping an open mind about it? I have recently edited a section of the article in response to your concerns, and I think the image would be very relevant there, now more than before. So I would like to ask you: is it still your position that the image is of insufficient relevance? Here are several itemized reasons why it seems extremely relevant to me: (1) it illustrates the rapidly changing size discussed in the corresponding text; (2) it gives the reader some clue about the difference between the technical terms "embryo" and "fetus" used in the corresponding text, so that the reader can choose which one to click on in order to get more info; (3) it gives the reader some description of what is aborted in a typical abortion, whereas the rest of this article does not (nor do the articles on fetus or embryo); (4) it is as toned down as much as humanly possible, and yet conveys considerable information, without getting into much detail that could raise questions about accuracy; (5) to the extent that it may have emotional impact regarding abortion, that suggests people would find the image relevant, and the image on the left (showing a tiny blob) balances any impact of the image on the right; and (6) it has no greater emotional impact or appeal than anything the reader would see by clicking on "fetus". If you still oppose this image, I would like to know how we might make it more acceptable for you, and why you disagree with each of these six points I’ve listed (and also why you think that WP:NOTCENSORED does not apply here, and whether you also oppose the images in the tonsillectomy article). If you support this image, please add to the numbered list I have just given, if possible. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I try to always keep a relatively open mind, so let me respond: 1. Rapidly changing size is interesting for the gestation, fetus and embryo articles Now, I believe you found a reference linking fetal size to miscarriage rates, so I can see where a single sentence or phrase (along the lines of, "after 10 weeks the embryo has become a fetus, X times as larger and is therefor at greatly reduced risk for pregnancy). 2. I can wiggle somewhat on explaining the fetus/embryo difference, but the majority of the explanation is taken up by different, more relevant articles. Illustrations on the other hand, are to be used sparingly, and I don't think its useful in this article. 3. We don't need to do that. There is no typical abortion, there is no typical abortion product. The most common abortion is a miscarriage, and it looks like menses, and abortions done before the second trimester also tend to look that way as I recall. We're not really going to add much to the reader with that kind of imagery. 4. See above. 5. Some readers may find it relevant, but it doesn't make it good writing and you can't "balance" appeals - a good article is not written by even amounts POV shlock from opposing sides, its written in a single unified neutral voice. That is difficult to happen, but that is my goal.6. Context, context, context - on Fetus you would rightly expect to find images of a fetus, on abortion, the image of a fetus is cruft at best, and an emotional appeal at worst. I do think some room can for compromise with ultrasound images - in the context of "pregnancy crisis" centers, pre abortion counseling, sex-selective infanticide, abortion frequency reduction, and I believe ultrasounds are used during some abortion procedures. I still maintain however that the picture of a fetus just because "its what is aborted" doesn't add enough to the article - certainly not more than it potentially takes away.--Tznkai (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Induced abortions are vastly more common during a particular period of pregnancy. See here. The proposed drawing illustrates that typical period. I have proposed an image for the section titled "induced abortion" so your comments about miscarriage do not seem pertinent, because miscarriages are not induced. That section on induced abortion mentions that the abortion technique changes as the size of the abortus changes (the footnoted source says: "As the fetus grows in size, however, the vacuum aspiration method becomes increasingly difficult to use”). The proposed image is extremely relevant to showing the change in size that determines the abortion technique, and is extremely relevant to giving the reader a hint of the difference between an “embryo” and “fetus”, so that the reader can decide which to click on for more info.

Neither this article nor any other Misplaced Pages article presently gives the slightest description of what is aborted in a typical induced abortion. You are effectively concealing information, and allowing only information about how innocuous abortion is ("safer than childbirth", no substantial risk of breast cancer, fetal pain, mental problems, et cetera). Excluding this image is a case study in censorship, contrary to the Misplaced Pages policy against censorship, and contrary to the Misplaced Pages policy to preserve information.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The tonsillectomy comparison is poor because it doesn't show a healthy pair of tonsils. Following that line of reason, we'd need to show anencephaly images to understand therapeutic abortion, because it is a condition that often is alleviated with the procedure which is the subject of this article (similar to how tonsillitis is related to the topic of tonsillectomy). I'd recommend not trying to say "hey we have images of a nature X in other articles, so we need to have them here". It stinks of OTHERCRAPEXISTS. At least try to focus on featured content if you must make comparisons... but I think it is best to focus solely on this article and not worry about what other articles are or are not showing.-Andrew c  03:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear from the caption of the image above-right that the abortus is not — or soon will not be — healthy. I admit that an unwanted embryo is different in many ways from a diseased tonsil, but there are also similarities. Anyway, your argument about OTHERCRAPEXISTS would be more compelling if you had identified the tonsillectomy article as crap. I think my argument is very compelling even putting the tonsils aside.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your first sentence. How does altering a caption change what 3dpregnancy.com drew? Anyway, it sounds like we can agree to put the tonsillectomy article aside. Thanks.-Andrew c  14:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence means that when an embryo or fetus is aborted, it is obviously no longer healthy. Regarding tonsillectomy, I don't happen to believe that that article is crap. And I also don't know whether you think it is crap. Feel free to ignore it if you think it is crap.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The sentence in the summary above If the article can include images of women, why not an image of a discernible abortus? makes no sense. What images of women do we include? Do we show images of pregnant women specifically? Images of women undergoing abortion (or about to undergo abortion)? I don't understand the logic behind the sentence, so I am inquiring further.-Andrew c  14:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrew c, I believe that if you look at the images currently in the present article, you will see that more than one of those images includes a woman. And, there is much less reason to include an image of a woman in this article than an image of an abortus, because most everyone already knows what a woman looks like,, whereas many people are not aware of the information conveyed by the abortus images I have proposed. It seems perverse to educate readers about what they already know, but to deliberately omit information about what they do not know.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you specifically tell me what image is being used to illustrate what a "woman" looks like? I disagree with your characterization of how we currently use images in this article. If the article can include images of women, why not an image of a discernible abortus? still makes no sense to me.-Andrew c  02:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai has repeatedly stated that showing what an abortus looks like is no more relevant than showing what a woman looks like, or showing what a bed looks like, or showing what a doctor looks like. I find that assertion preposterous, since everyone knows what they look like, but few people have an accurate sense of what an abortus looks like. Yet, we somehow manage to include images of women, of a bed, of a doctor, and of lots of other things in this article, while assiduously avoiding giving the reader the slightest information about what an abortus looks like. You may view that as merely coincidence and happenstance. I view it as censorship, whitewashing, propaganda, and POV.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Question Where would we put an image of an embryo and/or fetus? What section of the article? Does this proposal also involve adding accompanying text which describes these stages in more detail?-Andrew c  14:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This RFC is not about positioning the image. It is about whether it should be completely excluded from this article. It is about whether an article on Abortion as long and detailed as this one should protect hypersensitive readers from the emotional trauma of learning rudimentary facts about what is aborted. This proposal does not rule in or rule out accompanying text. There are several possible positions for this image, such as here. Ferrylodge (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The image should be excluded unless there is a specific spot where it is useful in the article. The purpose of graphics on Misplaced Pages is to inform the reader in a manner better accomplished by images than by text. If there is no place where the image should go, it ought to be excluded. There is no place where an image of an oil derrick should go in this article, and thus we exclude images of oil derricks. Unless the person who wants to add the image has a specific place in mind, and placement of the image in that place will further the reader's understanding of abortion or an abortion-related topic which is prominent enough to warrant inclusion on the main article, the image should be excluded, just like any other image which isn't directly relevant. 24.201.116.45 (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

HERE.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Is this Talk:Abortion/Archive 29#New paragraph and technical language and Talk:Abortion/Archive 29 all over again? Perhaps we could link to past discussions at the top of this RfC.-Andrew c  14:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, this is the first RFC related to this question. Links to previous discussions are in the FAQ at the top of this talk page. None of those discussions involved an image of more than one abortus, much less an image of two abortuses four weeks apart shown to scale.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• No. Inherently inflammatory; non-instructive. KillerChihuahua 16:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  Per Misplaced Pages policy, “some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links where they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis or masturbation). Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness, but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, 'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.”Ferrylodge (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  I am quite aware of Misplaced Pages policy, and your wikilawyering to twist it. It isn't informative. This is not the fetus article. Therefore, the ONLY reason to include it is to be inflammatory, hence it is against NPOV. Against policy. KillerChihuahua 16:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  The only reason? How about that depicting what is removed (often graphically) on many other articles is not controversial at all and that no other medical article has had such images actively blocked? How about that a fetus/embryo is central to an abortion, the entire point of which is to remove the fetus/embryo? Why is it so POV to simply show what intended to be removed in this medical procedure as is done in many other articles? The image is informative, truthful, relevant, and neutral. Many pro-choice editors, including myself, have expressed support for its inclusion. -Neitherday (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  Oh, because the Tonsillectomy debate is similar to the Abortion debate? I think not. You cannot compare a diseased part of a human which is removed for health reasons with what is considered by many to be a human with a soul. Its not even remotely the same; your Red herring won't wash. KillerChihuahua 17:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  Do you consider the image in childbirth a red herring too?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  This isn't about the abortion debate article, this is about the abortion article. The red herring is the claim that the image is POV. Misplaced Pages does not exclude factual information simply because those facts may be seen by some as supportive or detrimental to a POV. -Neitherday (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  Allow me to quote Jimbo here: "I will simply restate the obvious: imagery in articles is often one of the most attractive points for POV-pushing of all kinds, for a couple of reasons. (1) Images can have a strong emotional impact, thus making implicitly a point that would not be possible to make in the text. (2) Images are often "either/or" with no easy way to work for consensus. My own perspective is that many of our articles have needlessly graphic photos inserted either by POV-pushers or by people who are borderline trolling" KillerChihuahua 20:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  Jimbo was obviously not referring to the proposed image, because it is not a "graphic photo". Images can be very useful in articles, or there wouldn't be any. This Misplaced Pages article currently not only excludes all images of what is typically aborted, but also excludes all written description of what is typically aborted. As many other editors have pointed out below, this results in a severe NPOV and censorship problem. I very much doubt that this information would be excluded except for the fact that there is a controversy about this issue in society at large; that is why this article only says how harmless and beneficial abortion is ("safer than childbirth" et cetera). I believe that Jimbo Wales has acknowledged the possibility that this article is being used for "propaganda", including pro-choice propaganda. Ferrylodge (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  Jimbo was speaking of images in general. He mentioned graphic images as part of his comments. If it is unclear to you that he is not speaking of any specific image or situation, I can explain further. That said, the point is simply that images can be used by POV pushers and often are; that Misplaced Pages is not censored is not a blanket justification for inclusion of images. If you cannot comprehend that, perhaps we need to discuss basic policy understanding before we discuss this particular situation. KillerChihuahua 13:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

  If you can, it would be much appreciated if you would restrain yourself from gratuitously insulting other people's intelligence. I agree with you 100% that Misplaced Pages is not censored is not a blanket justification for inclusion of images. However, it is justification for inclusion of some images, no?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

  Images can be sometimes be used to push a POV, this is true. But this is far from the case here. A number of pro-choice/pro-abortion editors, including myself, have expressed support for the image. Those editors are clearly not pushing an anti-abortion POV. -Neitherday (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

  An image can tilt an articles balance towards one POV or another without direct intent of the editor. I am stating my opinion of including the image, not commenting on your or anyone else's beliefs or views. Your views, and mine, are quite irrelevant. I have commented on the content; please do not reply as though I had commented on you as an editor, nor on your views. KillerChihuahua 20:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

  You have attributed the image to POV-pushing several times in this thread. POV-pushing is an action that bad-faith editors engage in to further an agenda, which means you have (perhaps unintentionally) been suggesting that editors are using this image to push their POV. My previous reply was to that. As to the image potentially "tilting" the article in one direction, I reiterate that Misplaced Pages is (or at least should not be) in the business of excluding relevant and factual information simply because it may be seen by some as support of or detrimental to a POV. -Neitherday (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

  (ec)Having an image of embryo/fetus outside the context of abortion is not comparable to other articles. It's like having a basic picture of blood cells on blood donation or a basic diagram of a tooth in tooth extraction. Giving that much elementary background information in an article dealing with a much more specific topic is not necessary. Images of fetuses and embryos within the context of abortion (or in situ) would make it on topic. People have pointed to the mastectomy article. All of those images can easily be identified with the subject of the article. I could view the images in isolation of that article and see how they clearly relate to the topic. The proposed image here would be more like having File:Breasts01.jpg on the mastectomy or breast feeding articles. These images, if examined outside the context of their respective articles, do not clearly relate to the topics under consideration. I cannot view File:Abortus.PNG and say "oh, it's illustrating abortion". -Andrew c  17:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a featured article about a disaster. If you look at most of the images (without peeking at their captions) you would have no idea that the article is about a disaster.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to be civil, please. Directly quoting a policy without comment is hardly twisting it. I believe that this image (showing both an embryo and a fetus) is essential to NPOV. This article should say something about what is aborted in a typical induced abortion; the fetus article says nothing about that, and shows all kinds of fetuses that are aborted extremely rarely (e.g. a fetus at 8 months is almost never aborted). Are you saying that what is aborted is irrelevant to abortion? Additionally, if this article gives no hint about the difference between a fetus and embryo, the reader will not know which one to click on. This article already includes much info about how safe abortion is ("safer than childbirth", minimal risk of cancer, of mental problems, of fetal pain, et cetera), and discernible pictures are included of just about everything except the abortus. Thus, the article has a POV problem. A typical abortus is nowhere described, except to say that whatever it is feels no pain. Tons of other Misplaced Pages articles show things that are removed from the human body, and this article should not be an exception. See tonsillectomy, treatment of human head lice, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, blood donation, breastfeeding, mastectomy, dental extraction, childbirth. Also, this image would accompany text that says the abortion technique depends on the size of the abortus, and this image illustrates that size spectrum.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments of uninvolved parties

• Yes can't see a single reason why we shouldn't.--Patton 20:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• No such an image would be a non-neutral, divisive emotional appeal, with no (or extremely little) relevant informational content. Links to Fetus seem more appropriate, so that the curious can get a more complete picture/context. --Scray (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A link to Fetus provides some images, but a reader cannot discern which of those images show gestations for which abortion is typical. Also, Fetus provides no info about an embryo, nor describes gestations at which abortion of an embryo is typical. All of that info is contained in the small image at the start of this RFC, which also includes a size comparison. Informational content in that image also includes the fact that a typical aborted fetus at 8 weeks has a head, legs, arms, fingers, and eyes. Is there some reason to hide that info? Is there some reason why intelligent adults are better off not knowing that info? Those are simple facts. If some people get emotional about them, that's their problem. Are we supposed to only show the pleasant, uncontroversial, un-upsetting aspects of abortion? Why is it better for this article to imply that abortions only involve insignificant blobs that are not even worth the slightest brief description? I would think that people who are pro-choice would be interested in promoting informed choices, rather than ignorant choices.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with also linking Embryo. I did not raise most of the things brought up in your response; however, your response does suggest to me that this RFC is based on a specific agenda, not just information. --Scray (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a summary article. You are opposing the slightest summary in this article of what is aborted. My only agenda here is to put an end to that sort of censorship.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

And it seems that unless I agree with you, you'll call it "censorship". You have not provided an adequate argument for inclusion of the image proposed. That's my comment. --Scray (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

People disagree with me all the time at Misplaced Pages, but this is the only instance where I believe it's due to censorship. It's really difficult to imagine anything that could possibly be more relevant to this article than a brief description of an abortus that is aborted in an abortion.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"...the only instance where I believe it's due to censorship." You have used that word a half-dozen times already on this page alone in the past few weeks, haven't you? --Scray (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have used that word plenty of times recently, all with reference to this one particular issue at this one particular article. And the shoe still fits. In this world, not all people make decisions like Mr. Spock; both society as a whole, and individual people, make many decisions based partly on emotion. If it were not for emotion, there would never be any sense of injustice, love, compassion, or outrage. Society would have no laws against animal cruelty or hate crimes, or a million other things. People would never get married based on affection, or give gifts out of generosity. If you want to stamp out any and all information from this article that may have an emotional impact, then you are doing something with little or no precedent at Misplaced Pages, and certainly without support in Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines. And it's not even-handed to remove all factual material that might make abortion objectionable to some people, while leaving in material that would make abortion more palatable to people. That's called censorship and propaganda, and I stand by that assertion. I hope you don't consider that a personal attack, but rather a statement of my honest opinion about this article. Imagine something with me: suppose that someday scientists conclusively discover and prove that human beings have no soul until the first Friday the Thirteenth after they are born, and everyone on Earth acknowledges the validity and certainty of that discovery. Even then, I would say that the proposed image would belong in this article, simply because it shows what is aborted. Lots of Misplaced Pages articles have images of body parts that are relevant to the surgery in question.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

TLDR - "Amplification is the vice of modern oratory" (Thomas Jefferson) --Scray (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

At the same time, Jefferson explained: "Speeches measured by the hour die by the hour." I assumed that you could read 280 words in less than an hour.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes There is no disagreement as to whether the image is factual and it is obviously relevant. This image is not a shock image and effectively illustrates what is being aborted, which is unarguably a key aspect of an abortion. I can see no reason not to include it in this article other than the claim that it is non-neutral. However leaving notable, factual, and relevant components of an article because of the unease that some on one side of a debate may feel is far more non-neutral. -Neitherday (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Meh. If it can be fit in properly, and depending on the image itself, I don't see any particular issue with it. The proposed image, for instance, is okay (though it's fairly crappy looking). That's not to say that there's a pressing need to include it either. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Andrew c's Diagram Does that silouette still not show up on everyone's monitor? That abortus is the same shape as the proposed image in this section, and there's less argument on its relevance. If the prenatal is too small, we could enlarge it. -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't show up on my monitor. I proposed adding an enlargement that the Graphic Lab produced for us, but that proposal was rejected above. Additionally, the enlargement shows an embryo and does not show or compare it to a fetus (most abortions on this planet are fetal rather than embryonic); so, in the enlargement of Andrew c's image, there are no fingers, no legs joining the feet to the torso, et cetera. The image I've suggested at the top of this RFC is intentionally crappy looking; it lacks detail so that we do not get into arguments about detail, and lacks color so that it is as neutral and drab and uncuddly and unobjectionable as possible, yet it includes lots of info that is not in the enlargement of Andrew c's figure (which has already been rejected anyway). Some people may be able to click on Andrew c's image to enlarge it; I can't do that on my computer. In any event I believe that this article should have a discernible image of what is aborted, without any need to click anything.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

This is from an edit summary to the article by Ferrylodge: Putting more info into caption. There is an ongoing RFC about images at talk page. I oppose this new image without also including a discernible image of what is aborted. To my knowledge, this RfC had nothing to do with my image. This RfC did not mention my diagram until now. I'd like for those coming into this discussion to understand the context of this RfC. On FL's monitor, he apparently cannot see discernibly the embryo in the diagram File:Vacuum-aspiration (single).svg or can come up with half a dozen other excuses why this image alone doesn't meet his requirements for having images of what is aborted. Even though I have made 3 separate edits to my diagram to try and address FL's concerns, this hasn't been good enough. So instead of working further on my diagram, various proposals to include even more abortus imagery has been brought forward and rejected, and this RfC apparently filed to uncover the terrible "censorship" because there was no support from regular editors for any of FL's proposals. I'm not sure where any of this is going, but hopefully to a conclusion that all parties can live with. Carry on...-Andrew c  16:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Andrew c, I can see no embryo in your new image, on my monitor. And if I could, it would be so infinitessimally small as not to be discernible. I would think that you could see that the image at the top of this RFC is much more discernible. Are you disputing that? I have consistently and repeatedly stated at this talk page that I oppose Andrew c's new image without also including a discernible image of what is aborted, because his image exacerbates the problem with this article: it treats the abortus as insignificant and infinitessimal, and not worth describing in the least. And FWIW, I have never called your censorship of this article "terrible." I will provide you a list of other adjectives upon request.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I should have been more clear; I know this proposal is unrelated to the one above. I meant that my opinion was to not include this image, with the understanding that the above diagram would be made satisfactory and included. And when I said "we could enlarge it", I meant the entire diagram, not just the fetal part. That could fix the "does not show up unless I click on it" issue. This discussion is meant to be unrelated to the above discussion, sure, but I feel that this discussion only exists because the above one has not been resolved. And, I think it can be resolved without this. -BaronGrackle (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• No due to caption. The image gives date since fertilization. This is not used in medicine. We use date since LMP. The fact the whoever wrote the caption used this gives me great feeling of POV. They are trying to make the embryo / fetus look as big as early as they can.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that’s incorrect. The image on the right is based on one at 10 weeks’ gestational age, which is the same as 8 weeks from fertilization. The source image says: “PREGNANCY WEEK 10 (Counting from the first day of your last menstrual period).” The image on the left is at 4 weeks from fertilization. So, the fertilization ages in the caption are correct. The caption can easily be augmented to clarify this.

Obstetricians often find it convenient to measure “gestational age” from two weeks earlier than fertilization (i.e. from the first day of the last menstrual period), but embryologists typically measure age from fertilization. See Segen, J.C. The Dictionary of Modern Medicine, page 187: "obstetricians calculate gestational age; embryologists are more correct as they calculate the ovulation or fertilization age." Also see Dudek, Ronald et al. Embryology. Also see Drews, Ulrich. Color Atlas of Embryology.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've clarified the caption. Incidentally, you can find a table of crown-rump lengths here.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I can see where a real photo of a fetus might be objectionable, but the illustration offered would appear to be as neutral as possible, and there shold be no valid objection to it at all. Collect (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments of uninvolved parties (2)

• Follow external precedent. Do any other neutral texts about abortion aimed at the layperson include a picture or diagram of a fetus? I'm not talking about medical manuals, and certainly not about material published by those with an agenda. If other ostensibly neutral texts about abortion include a picture of a fetus, we should; if not, we shouldn't.--Father Goose (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Britannica has "amnion" with image at . Clearly it feels such an image is not particularly political. Collect (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I would expect to see a picture of a fetus in an article about the amnion, which is the membrane that holds the fetus. An image of a fetus in that article isn't any more political than an image of a fetus in fetus would be.--Father Goose (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Just for kicks, I went through all 64 interwiki links, and two out of the 64 had imagery similar to this proposal: nl:Abortus and ur:اسقاط_(حمل). I also went through google books with the phrases like "encyclopedia abortion". The majority of books weren't illustrated, but I found on the one hand, and . I'm not sure why Britannica was brought up as "amnoion" is a completely different topic from "abortion", no? How does Britannica illustrate it's abortion articles? Good question Father Goose. -Andrew c  14:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The majority of the interwiki links are stubs and most have no illustrations at all. While put forth in good faith, 2 out of 64 is misleading as to what the ratio would be if more of the articles were fully developed. -Neitherday (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, because the Urdu article is fully developed and that stopped them from using images.... :) Mislead was not my intent. Comparison was.-Andrew c  16:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Father Goose, it is very very common for neutral and reliable sources to discuss abortion in conjunction with images of what is aborted. The question about what other neutral sources show was discussed way up above on this talk page. Some of the examples that were cited above are as follows: User:Tznkai felt that at least some of these were not good examples, but I think they are all pretty good examples, and I can find lots more if you would like. Even if external sources censored images of what is aborted (which they do not), Misplaced Pages is supposed to be different.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The newspaper links you give are for the most part about a debate in Britain over where the cutoff for abortion should be set, in terms of weeks of gestation. Most of them are tabloids using attention-getting images to drum up the controversy and sell newspapers. The Time cover is similarly provocative -- and the copy of it you linked to is hosted on a pro-life blog, which does not improve its claim to neutrality. Thefreedictionary.com images are included in a "thesaurus" section on abortion, and frankly, I'm not sure why.

However, you did mention a single source that does seem to be neutral and potentially representative of the kind of information we should have in our article -- thesurgeryencyclopedia.com. Not surprisingly, their information seems to be oriented toward information about surgical procedures, and many pages contain fairly graphic illustrations of such surgeries (for instance, amputation). At the very least, that is a decent argument for including a diagram such as File:Vacuum-aspiration.svg in this article, and very strong argument for including such a diagram in vacuum aspiration.

Now, let's go to a survey of actual encyclopedias and comparable texts aimed at a general readership:

• Encyclopedia Brittanica (online version) - One picture in their "abortion" article, of a protester. There is a picture of a fetus in their "fetus" article.
• Encyclopedia Americana (online) - No picture of any sort in their abortion article.
• Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia (online) - No picture of any sort in their abortion article.
• WebMD - No picture.
• Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine - One picture in "Abortion, therapeutic", quite similar to File:Vacuum-aspiration.svg.
• Women's Health Advisor, article "Induced abortion" - one picture of general female pelvic anatomy.

I won't claim I've made a complete survey -- but if one accepts the rationale that the above neutral texts are a reasonable guide for how we should present the subject neutrally, the answer so far would be Yes to a diagram of an abortion procedure in this article, No to a diagram of a fetus. I see nothing as yet to suggest that a diagram of a fetus belongs in abortion any more than a diagram of an abortion belongs in fetus. However, a diagram of an abortion does belong in abortion.--Father Goose (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Update: and Maybe to diagram(s) of pregnancy, with relative fetal sizes (see comments below).--Father Goose (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That rational would also lead to the conclusion that no more than one image should be included in the article. It is impossible to judge whether or not an image should be included among the 10 others in this article based on what other sources use as a lone image. The comparison is apples and oranges. -Neitherday (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I didn't make a definitive survey. But at the very least, it gives credence to including a diagram of an abortion procedure in this article (which we indeed recently added). Most of the sources listed above by ferrylodge that do include a picture of a fetus are periodicals focusing on sensationalizing the abortion debate, which I do not take to be a neutral form of coverage. But if a picture of a fetus were to be found in a article about abortion comparable to ours, that would give credence to including one here.

I should also address the picture on thefreedictionary.com in greater detail; take a look at their entry for vaporize, for instance, which contains a weird assembly of images: a cartoon; a picture of some form of gas processor; an advertisement for evaporated milk; and a picture of a Las Vegas casino. I don't believe that site can be used as a useful indicator of what images we should be presenting in our article.--Father Goose (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A few quick comments. As has been noted, this Misplaced Pages article contains many images that are completely unlike anything else available in an online encyclopedia-type work. The same is true of images in many other Misplaced Pages articles (including this one). If we are to disregard newspapers (because they're apt to sensationalize), and only focus on online encyclopedia-type references, the choices are very limited. I'm not aware that it's even possible to do an image search in Google Books. Anyway, here are a couple more refs for you to munch on: . I think the main focus here should be on whether the proposed image is verifiable, neutral, and informative.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right that the choices are fairly limited in terms of online encyclopedia-type references. To delve more exhaustively into the question of "what pictures neutral sources on the subject of abortion use", we'd need to start looking through dead-tree books dealing more extensively with the subject.

However, the AllRefer example you just gave lends support to the argument for including a picture of a fetus in our article. If we were to follow their example, a picture of a fetus in the context of "pregnancy" could be considered. The three images File:Month_1.svg, File:Month_3.svg, and File:Month_5.svg from human pregnancy are potential candidates, though there remains the question of where in this article would be an appropriate place to put them (provided you could get them in the article at all).--Father Goose (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

And what about the UCLA example?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That's an article about "early miscarriage", which is not the primary topic of our article. Incidentally, both sources are copies of the A.D.A.M. database; here is a copy of the "Abortion - elective or therapeutic" ADAM article on UCLA's site, which is more nicely formatted than AllRefer, and here is a copy of the general "Abortion" article, which contains a diagram of a D&C.--Father Goose (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The UCLA image shows a fetus in an encyclopedia article about spontaneous abortion, so it seems relevant. We’ll never find the precise, exact thing currently proposed, with the exact same article title and exact same image. I assume you'll be advocating removal of this article's images of "French Periodical Pills" and the map titled "International status of abortion law"?  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(responding to the last two links FL posted). The first image you pointed to is great. It isn't there to illustrate the variations in size that embryos and fetuses have at different stages, it is a diagram of the topic at hand, threatened abortion (in the miscarriage article). However, I'm not sure what your second link is. I mean, I'm not sure what I'm seeing, or what purpose that page serves. I see a headline "Abortion - Elective or Therapeutic", I see 5 links to "Top News stories" that have nothing to do with abortion, then I see the image "early weeks of pregnancy", then I see the 5 news stories links again; there is no text at all to contextualize anything that I'm seeing. So I don't really know what's going on with that image. What sort of web page is that, and where is the accompanying critical commentary, or encyclopedic text to accompany that image?-Andrew c  22:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You can disregard the second link if you like, the first is better. I don't want to repeat myself, so I'll just say that no matter what examples I come up with, there will always be distinctions that can be made: "that's a newspaper instead of an encyclopedia" or "that encyclopedia article's title is different" or "that encyclopedia used the image for a somewhat different purpose." The point is: there is nothing unusual about reliable sources using images of an abortus.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent) I'm not trying to match title-for-title, but it would be a mistake to not match subject-for-subject. What appears in an article about miscarriage is not necessarily a good indicator of what should appear in an article primarily about elective abortion. As it so happens there is a similar picture linked to in the actual ADAM Abortion - elective or therapeutic article. Both of the pictures there depict the fetus in utero, unlike what you've been suggesting so far with the grayscale CGI images. So this would continue to suggest "no" to a picture of a fetus not shown within the context of a womb, or better still, a pregnant woman. What's your opinion of using some derivation of File:Month_1.svg, File:Month_3.svg, and File:Month_5.svg instead of the File:Abortus.PNG that you've been pressing for?--Father Goose (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It is unclear from the images I've suggested whether they are in utero or not. No background or other environment is depicted. I would still like to know whether you would advocate removal of this article's images of "French Periodical Pills" and the map titled "International status of abortion law." As for what references I can use to persuade you, am I completely limited to encyclopedias, or not? I have already suggested an enlargement of Andrew c's in utero image, but that suggest of mine was rejected. I do not see why every single image of an abortus in this article has to clearly be before or during the abortion. Why not after, or leave it ambiguous as it is according to my suggestion?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

As I've been suggesting since the beginning of this thread, I feel we can look to how these other sources approach the subject as reasonable guidance for how this topic can be covered neutrally. Since the fetal images in these other sources are always explicitly in the womb, I would continue to suggest we emulate their approach instead of showing an isolated fetus. Expressing my own opinion for a minute, I think an image showing mother+fetus together would also help to straddle the... shall we say, "pro-woman"/"pro-fetus" divide. Such an image also has the advantage of giving an immediate sense of scale that is not present in an "isolated fetus" image.

I do not believe the neutrality of including the map or the historical advertisement is being questioned, so I do not feel the need to call upon other sources to try to answer a question that's not being asked.

As for what sources I consider worth using as a guide for our own coverage, I will continue to suggest that any source that provides neutral information about the general subject of elective abortion (and that is aimed at a general readership) is likely to qualify. So far, that has been encyclopedia articles and health guides.--Father Goose (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

We already have an image in the article that shows an infinitessimal embryo in utero, and I do not see how it straddles a divide to make that a uniform requirement for the article. It would be a simple matter for me to draw a circle around the embryo and a circle around the fetus in the image proposed, and connect the umbilical cords to each respective circle, without otherwise changing the image proposed. If that would make people happier then I'd be glad to do it, but I'm not sure that I see the need (and people then may object: "where's the placenta?" and "why should we omit the woman's head?" and "the caption is no longer accurate" etc etc). If drawing the two circles won't be acceptable for you, then maybe we'll have to visit the Library-of-the-Dead-Trees.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess all I can say at this point is that including close-up images of fetuses in this article is likely to remain controversial (and thus unimplemented) in perpetuity. If you're just enjoying arguing about it, then you can also go on doing so forever (until such time as the community finally and completely loses patience with you). If, on the other hand, you are realistic about the situation, you might consider lobbying for a set of images of mother+fetus as a compromise position. If that's wholly unacceptable to you, our abortion article will remain wholly unacceptable to you, and you should find something else to do than agitate against this impasse. In the meantime, I am simply one more person whose patience you have expended.--Father Goose (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope you will review the Misplaced Pages policy against censorship, and the Misplaced Pages policy to preserve information. There is no policy against including verifiable and relevant information merely because some editors find the information "controversial." If that were a legitimate criterion for including information, then a majority of Misplaced Pages editors would be entitled to exclude whatever information is causing controversy at a talk page. Incidentally, I enjoy nothing less than arguing with you about this. There is already a drawing in this article showing an infinitessimally small embryo in utero, and I have not heard any suggestion from you how we can improve on that.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• No - there's nowhere in the article for it to be reasonably put, hence it does not assist in illustrating the article. There's other problems: the caption seems misleading, because it fails to give the size (about an inch and a half) for the foetus on the right, instead giving a comparison to an unsized embryo. It's also an emotional appeal, which I don't think any of the images currently in the article are, which means that its inclusion would add a POV-slant to an article with currently reasonably-neutral images. I'm against having this article used for advocacy by either side. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just inserted the height into the caption. The height is about the same as the size on your monitor.

The article presently goes on at great length about how good and harmless abortion is. Entire sections are devoted to asserting that it probably does not cause breast cancer, or fetal pain, or mental health problems, and it may be "safer than childbirth". But you would apparently forbid the slightest indication of any facts that might inspire any reaction against abortion, even if the facts are facially neutral and obviously relevant. Where is the Misplaced Pages policy that says information that happens to have an emotional impact on some people ought to be selectively forbidden?

Additionally, people ought to learn what an appeal to emotion is: first and foremost, an appeal to emotion is a fallacy. In contrast, there is nothing false or even slightly misleading about the image at the top of this RFC. While some people might want to classify every fact that weighs against their POV as an "appeal to emotion", that does not make it so. The images here and here at Misplaced Pages may inspire some emotions in some people, but they are perfectly appropriate.

And why couldn't the image be reasonably put here? The only image now in this article of an abortus shows an infinitessimally small and barely discernible embryo. How small would we have to shrink the fetus image at the top of this RFC before it could be accepted into this article? Ferrylodge (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that your point was clear before this. I'm not sure why you thought that a three-paragraph response restating your position was necessary, simply because I disagreed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

My response indicated that I modified the caption to address a concern of yours, which you do not acknowledge. My response indicated a precise location where the image could be placed, because you said that no such place existed, but you have not referred at all to that precise location. My response pointed out that the article currently has much information to soothe the emotions of people concerned about abortion, but you have not acknowledged that fact, or acknowledged the existence of that information. My response wikilinked appeal to emotion, and described that it means a "fallacy", neither of which I had done anywhere else at this talk page. Et cetera, et cetera. If you would like to be nonresponsive to good faith efforts to address your concerns, that's your business, but please don't blame me.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Because there is no discussion related to the image in the point you suggest it, your typical range for when abortion happens is uncited, and it's clear that this image is simply part of a campaign for you to make the article push an anti-abortion viewpoint. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Please see WP:AGF. I am not "anti-abortion." I believe it should be completely legal to abort an embryo. Providing the most rudimentary facts about what is aborted does not "push" anything - but censoring it does. This article includes a graph showing when typical abortions occur, and I'd be more than delighted to accordingly footnote the caption in the proposed image. Additionally, the point where I suggest the image be located is a general section about "induced abortion" which says: "The manner selected depends chiefly upon the gestational age of the embryo or fetus." The image shows why the manner varies: because the size of the abortus varies.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose proposed image/caption. Everyone's screen has a different pixel density. The way I set up a computer for my nearly-blind grandfather, your image whould show a fetus that was approximately one foot in height, yet state that it was "1.25 inches." I also echo all the comments about 'This is transparent POV pushing.' Hipocrite (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In your view, would the slightest information in this article about the thing that is aborted be POV-pushing?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you stopped beating your wife? Mu. Hipocrite (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then what info would you allow into this article about the thing that is aborted? Could we have a single sentence that merely says: "An 'embryo' becomes a 'fetus' about eight weeks after fertilization (i.e. 10 weeks LMP), when the major structures, shape, and organ systems of the newborn have formed"? Or is that too much?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments of uninvolved parties (3)

• Oppose. I don't think there is a particularly good case for including this image, or any image, of a fetus in this article. I'm not sure a neutral image is possible on this subject. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 22:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • For what reason is it impossible, and what constitutes neutrality in your mind? We've got controversial images at Muhammad, and I would argue that they are "neutral" despite that. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Essentially, the problem is that the image looks a lot like a little person, and thus gives the impression that a fetus is a lot like a little person, which is basically the pro-life position on abortion, not to mention the proposer's position. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SheffieldSteel that the best way to prevent readers from becoming concerned that an abortus might be similar to a real person would be to hide what an abortus looks like. That way, readers will not become concerned, readers will not visit other Misplaced Pages articles to get more facts about an embryo/fetus, and readers will therefore be better equipped to make ignorant decisions. That is what will happen if this article only presents information about how beneficial and harmless abortion is, and how infinitessimally insignificant an abortus is. My notion of Misplaced Pages is to present relevant facts no matter what, and treat readers with enough respect to let them make up their minds based on those facts. As for the assertion that I have "basically the pro-life position on abortion", my personal beliefs are apparently unknown to SheffieldSteel, and vice versa, and they should be irrelevant here anyway.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Setting aside the question of whether this sort of sarcastic response is really appropriate in a request for comment, I think Ferrylodge has made his position quite clear enough. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I seriously do agree with you that the best way to prevent readers from becoming concerned that an abortus might be similar to a real person would be to hide what an abortus looks like. Secondly, please do not incorrectly state my personal positions and beliefs, and expect me to not defend myself from misrepresentation. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So, while you object to me putting words in your mouth by saying your position is basically pro-life, in the same post you state for the second time that you agree with a statement of mine (that I have not in fact made). I remind you that this is a request for comment as opposed to an RfA or AfD discussion, where it might be expected for contributors' opinions to be challenged, and potentially disregarded by a closing admin or 'crat. I have to wonder what you hope to achieve with all this. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't hope to achieve much. The RFC will remain open for a good while longer, and hopefully I won't have any need to continue making so many comments. If the image is not accepted, we will at least have created a thorough record documenting the whole thing. If I mischaracterized anything you said, feel free to explain why you think so.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of the image: it is factual, informative, relevant and reasonably neutral (not shocking al least). I think inclusion of the image will improve the article Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yes An image of the fetus at various stages of development, without being bloody, fairly helps present the issue. However, I would recommend that the sizes be listed in metric units in addition or in place of the English units, so that an international audience can better relate. Ngchen (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Done.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. We have to make the distinction between presenting factual information through images, which may or may not have an emotional impact on readers, and attempting to manipulate our readers by using images to construct a narrative that favors one side of the argument. It should be ok to have a selective use of images that are not contrived to shock or overwhelm the reader's judgment. If the reader is influenced to oppose abortion simply after becoming apprised of what is actually involved, that is really none of our business. We aren't trying to push one point of view, but neither are we trying to stop people from taking another point of view. The idea is to let people find out information and make their own judgment. Fletcher (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Include images please. Misplaced Pages is not censored. Shock value or potential shock value of images should be ignored. As long as pictures are GFDL-comaptible content, verifiable and accurately described, no reason why potential abortus, foetuses, acts of abortion or post-abortus products should not be depicted in illustrated form on an article about Abortions. Not putting pictures in because a political group may misinterpret them is self-censorship and letting terrorists win.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You scored a para-Godwin on that one.--Father Goose (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, from someone totally uninvolved who hasn't even seen the article, you are correct ZayZayEM that Misplaced Pages is not censored, but we are also not in the business of making people vomit their lunches because they stumble upon an image here. This isn't the same as some other controversies (like the Mohammed pics) because I think we can agree that gratuitously disgusting images transcend cultural/religious/abortions views. Use common sense. Joshdboz (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support image per my comment above, the discussion has made it clear that the image to be used would not only be proper, but valuable to the readers. Collect (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Err. What? By my informal count, we've got significant split in opinions, with about half of us saying that the image adds little to nothing of value, and the other half insisting that it adds significant value. We're nowhere near anything being clear yet.--Tznkai (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support it is factually valid thus it would be censorship to remove it. This is a catch 22: it will bias the article either way. Considering we cannot comply with WP:NPOV fully (you cannot in any article, as bias will still somehow exist), I suggest we apply WP:CENSOR. Computerjoe's talk 17:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  Saying that, attention should be paid to the caption. Computerjoe's talk 17:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  I notice that the article discusses "rape" and "incest." There are no illustrative images of those two events. Do you support adding graphical depictions of those to this article about Abortion? Hipocrite (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  Bit of a hyperbole? Compare the ratio of the number of abortions that involve rape/incest with the number that involve an embryo/fetus. -BaronGrackle (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  There are also no images of penises, which are involved in every abortion also. In fact, picures of penises have been removed from this article already, I'm certain, and even called "vandalism." Are you saying we should use our editorial decision making process to determine what should and should not go in this article? Hipocrite (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  It borders on the ridiculous to attempt to claim that penises are as related to abortion as fetuses/embryos. Abortion is a procedure to remove a fetus/embryo. Excluding an image of what is aborted is like excluding an image of tonsils on the tonsillectomy article. Those tonsils were inside someone who formed from a fertilized egg and the sperm that fertilized the egg probably went through a penis at some point, but a picture of a penis is far less relevant to the article than a picture of tonsils. -Neitherday (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

  You will not find me very many definitions of abortion that include the word "penis", as opposed to those that include fetus or embryo. But, we could go through this back and forth until you eventually come back with the statement the FAQ has: The Amputation article has no images of severed limbs. There. Makes much more sense, and it eliminates needless arguing. -BaronGrackle (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  Thank you for bringing this point in the FAQ up, as I believe the FAQ has it wrong. The amputation article has only one image, far fewer than are found here. If it were more fully illustrated, the situation would likely be different. For instance, if someone created a free image illustrating possible various amputation points for a limb or a non-photographic illustration of limbs with injuries that would require amputation, it would likely be accepted into the article. -Neitherday (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

But see Autotomy.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

See also tonsillectomy, castration, masectomy, gastrectomy. All depict what is being (or was) removed and usually graphically so. -Neitherday (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps my comment wasn't clear. Embryos and fetuses are clearly an extremely important aspect of this process, considering they are what's being removed. By the way, I have no strong opinion either way about abortion, but believe an encyclopaedia article shouldn't be censored for purposes of being politically sensitive. Computerjoe's talk 21:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  First off, I completely agree with your last sentence, but I don't see how it is applicable here. We have an image of an "abortus" already in the article, in the diagram of a specific abortion procedure. I believe that image is superior to the image proposed because it contextualizes the subject matter and is more holistic. Two images of "abortus" outside the context of the amniotic sac, outside the context of the uterus, outside the context of abortion doesn't seem particularly topical or helpful, and it seems like some individuals have been suggesting (or implying) that an average reader doesn't know what a fetus looks like so we need this specific image here for that purpose (as opposed to images of specific abortion procedures which include the "abortus" in situ).-Andrew c  22:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Abortion is a brief expulsion procedure. It is relevant to describe what happens before or after the procedure. This article has sections on breast cancer and mental problems which would only arise long afterward. Following an abortion, the embryo or fetus is separated from the woman, and that's just a fact, so alluding to it is fine. Your image is fine too, except that the abortus is very tiny, though perhaps enlargeable for people who have the software and the inclination to use it (it's still not enlargeable or even visible on my monitor). You rejected an enlargement, that would have shown an abortus in the womb.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Golly me, I said those things? Oh noes... I guess that means I also said this...-Andrew c  23:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No Andrew c, you're mistaken. Take a good look at your comment here, and notice the previous comment by me. I was not proposing any image that included B&W.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support inclusion per WP:CENSOR. It's relevant. That is all that matters. Reswobslc (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for telling us that it is relevant, and that that is all that matters. Perhaps you could explain why you believe it is relevant, and why CENSOR has anything to do with this. I don't believe you have added anything to this discussion.-Andrew c  22:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Reswobslc has added to this discussion.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. Illustrates a medical reality. Any judgment on similarity to any other form of life or the ethics of terminating it is left to the reader. Nevard (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments of uninvolved parties (4)

• Strong oppose - our surgical procedure articles are not illustrated with "gruesome" pictures of the procedures themselves (there's a statement to be proved wrong by examples, so let me pre-empt with a qualification of "or should not show"), nor generally do articles go into the depths of details of surgical techniques (on basis not WP:NOT#MANUAL) - e.g. see nephrectomy, appendicectomy (where image only really indicates an external view to confirm the operative site as the abdomen area), colectomy, and for female-specific ops hysterectomy, oopherectomy and hysteroscopy (1898 image is so not what the modern procedure looks like it now seems Heath Robinsonish). Inclusion of images of the foetus as some independent free-floating object in the womb is, IMHO, POV pushing, per Informed_consent#Abortion. The foetus is not free-floating, it is enclosed in an amniotic sac and connected via the umbilical cord to a placenta that in turn is parasitic to the women (OK perhaps that could be phrased a little closer towards symbiosis on the basis that the eventual child passes on the mother's genes which is of course beneficial) and it has no possibility of being considered viable as a separate entity until at least 24 weeks. Patients no more expect to be shown pictures of gangrenous appendices or abdominal peritonitis prior to an appendicectomy, nor of close up images of blood transfusion intravenous line insertion by which we might suppose (unbecomingly) Jehovah's Witnesses to wish for in order to put people off open heart surgery. In essence this is a highly emotive topic (quite rightly so) where religious/moral/ethics viewpoints differ (over obviously very challenging issues) and inserting in sanitised images of cute foetuses would not be following a neutral position. David Ruben 00:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Informed_consent#Abortion (which you cite) does not say anything about POV-pushing. Perhaps you mean that a Misplaced Pages article that tries to inform readers is POV-pushing, but I do not see the logic in that. You also cite WP:NOTMANUAL, but that Misplaced Pages policy would be more useful in banishing this how-to image from the present article, rather than banishing the image at the top of this RFC (which is not a how-to guide). You also say that Misplaced Pages does not have “surgical procedure articles … illustrated with ‘gruesome’ pictures of the procedures themselves,” but then you criticize the present proposed images as “sanitised images of cute foetuses.” To call the proposed image both "gruesome" and "cute" seems grossly contradictory. You characterize a fetus or embryo as a “parasite,” but parasites generally reproduce more quickly and in greater numbers than their hosts, and thus are generally a different kind of organism (i.e. a different species); many dictionaries explicitly say that the host is a different species. So, I do not think we will come to any agreement here that a fetus is a “parasite,” but we can all certainly agree that a fetus does not become viable (able to survive a premature birth) until after more than five months’ gestation, and the proposed image does not in any way contradict that fact. The proposed image is not showing or implying an embryo surviving an abortion; it is instead showing an abortus. You have listed several different Misplaced Pages articles that do not show any removed body part, but most of the articles you have listed involve relatively obscure procedures that have no illustrations whatsoever (in stark contrast to this article), and that is true of nephrectomy, colectomy, and oopherectomy. I’m not sure why you mentioned hysteroscopy, since that is primarily an inspection procedure. Misplaced Pages has many articles about processes for removal of stuff from human beings, that show the stuff removed. For example, see tonsillectomy, treatment of human head lice, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, dental extraction, childbirth, blood donation, breastfeeding, and many more. The proposed image at the top of this RFC does not show a fetus as a “free-floating object in the womb”, because it does not show the womb at all; it instead simply shows an abortus. The umbilical cord is clearly shown in the proposed image, and if people would like to learn more about its function they need only click on the link to “Fetus” in the caption.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As seems typical of your style, you wikilawyer and attack the editor rather than discuss the issues. I clearly indicate that some points open to disagreement (?per Reductio ad absurdum), but your cross-comparing adjectives from different sentances & different points to see if consistency is just being silly and misses the general view/points that I was (trying to) discussing. Mattopaedia's points below are a far better (in presentation and logical approach) counterargument to what is just my stated humble opinions. Having opened a RfC, it should not be your role to be seemingly police through each opposing view - this is a comments section to a proposal you've already made. As for not 'RFC does not show a fetus as a “free-floating object in the womb”', I disagree, for while it is the object of primary concern to be removed in an abortion, it is not the complete removed matterial (for amniotic sac & placenta also of course removed too), nor is it the appearance of the fetus after removal by vacuum aspiration which is the commonest method of abortion used (at least here in the UK); or are we to restrict the image to the Abortion#Medical &/or Abortion#Spontaneous_abortion sections (or indeed into latter's main miscarriage article, which would seem heartless in compounding possible grief over such unfortunate event). David Ruben 05:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

When accused of "POV-pushing" by you, I wanted to reply. And I think my reply included a lot of useful info and wikilinks that had not been mentioned thus far in this RFC.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair retort :-) On wider issue of procedure images, of the examples you give, interestingly the dental extraction does show the act itself in progress, yet child birth does not (has a just-delivered neonate), so perhaps no real clear cross-article consensus except general principles of per-article consensus & sense of self-editorial taste, as this RfC seeks.David Ruben 12:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Both dental extraction and childbirth have images of what is removed, independent of the person from whom it is removed. The image proposed at the top of this RFC is no different. Same for tonsillectomy, treatment of human head lice, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, blood donation, breastfeeding, masectomy, et cetera. I do not know of any article at Misplaced Pages where editors have deliberately barred an accurate non-gruesome image of what is removed, and I find this extremely alarming.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on those examples, the comparative imagery here would be pictures of aborted fetuses. The image proposed at the top of this RFC IS different. An aborted fetus would be a resulting image of what is removed during an abortion and and a neonate would be a resulting image of what is removed during childbirth. Your proposal is more akin to proposing your image for the childbirth article, as it is an image before the actual procedure in question occurs. It is more like having this in the blood donation article, or this in the dental extraction article. These are background images that are sort of related to the topics, but aren't required for the basic understanding of the topic (as we have other articles dealing with those background topics). That said, I have to say that the topic of abortion is much different from those topics, in that it is the subject of much social and political controversy. Therefore, a straightfoward comparison between a controversial topic and a non-controversial topic fails. You image proposal, is more akin to proposing this image in the Steak article. In this case, a cutesy, cartoon cow relates to your cutsey, cartoon fetuses, on an article where we don't necessarily need to see what a living, healthy cow looks like to understand the topic (where animal rights activists might arguing profusely to the contrary). Or do we need to see healthy, cutesy cartoon images of animals in the animal slaughter article? I don't see any comparative article that we could point to for the purpose of saying "hey, this article includes a similar image in a similar fashion, therefore let's do so here". -Andrew c  21:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The proposed image does not contain "cutsey, cartoon fetuses." It comprises professional drawings in black and white, with detailed supporting references at the image page; similar drawings have been accepted for years in other Misplaced Pages articles such as Pregnancy and Fetus. The fetus image does not show a tail and gills because an actual fetus does not have a tail or gills. Putting aside your assertions about cutesy cartoons, this image is meant to show what is aborted, and it omits a bunch of separate body parts in order to avoid becoming a ghoulish shock image. Many abortions result in an intact abortus, so the fact that the proposed image shows an intact abortus does not mean it is unrealistic or cartoonish, and it does not mean it is unrepresntative of what is actually aborted in a typical induced abortion. It seems that you are willing to object to any image put forth here, from a Gray's Anatomy image, to an image produced by the Graphic Lab, to the present proposed image; the only alternative you have suggested (and indeed insisted upon over my objections) is an image that shows an embryo (not a fetus) that is infinitessimally small unless a reader clicks on it, and shows no comparison between a typical aborted embryo and fetus. And it is completely invisible on at least some monitors (including mine). The fact is, most induced abortions in this world involve a fetus and not an embryo, so only showing an embryo is misleading, and showing it only in an infinitessimally small size merely exacerbates the main problem with this article: i.e. this article tells the reader virtually nothing about what is aborted in a typical induced abortion. I can only conclude that you are happy with this current bias in this article, and are happy to censor any additional information that would describe what is aborted.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel like you are repeating yourself, not addressing anything specifically in my reply to you, but instead go on the offensive and attempt to put me on the spot (and personally attack me as a "censor")... I have nothing more to say at this juncture except to ask you to consider how you interact with other users (i.e. civility). -Andrew c  22:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrew c, you have over and over again accused me of advocating inclusion of a "cartoon" into this article. Unless I am mistaken, your main concern is how the eyes are drawn. The eyes are precisely realistic. See here. This link is also at the image description page, so I do not understand why you are objecting to the depiction of the eyes.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, include the image provided it is agreed it is accurate. I am pro-abortion, just so folk know where I stand. --bodnotbod (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support inclusion . The subject at hand is emotive, and pretty much anyone who reads it has some opinion. I believe people with a pro-life position may support inclusion of the image because they perceive readers may attach some emotional value to the image, and that will ultimately result in some women deciding against having the procedure. I also believe people who are pro-choice may object to inclusion of the image, because they perceive some readers will attach emotional value to the image, and that will add further emotional burden to what is already a difficult and emotional decision for a woman to make. I believe they’re both right. I agree that a POV is supported if the picture is and isn’t included, so arguing along the lines of neutrality does not necessarily apply in this article. I believe it is more appropriate in this instance to argue for inclusion on the basis of non-censorship policy, although I do acknowledge that doing so will indeed add to a woman’s emotional burden in taking the decision to have an abortion, should she read the article. But that’s the truth of the situation – it is a difficult decision, and not one to be made flippantly. For the record, my position is pro-choice – I believe it is up to the woman involved, and I believe she should be able to make an informed decision. I imagine a woman may wonder what the foetus looks like, how big it is, etc, as part of taking this decision. As things currently stand, you can go look at fetus and get some idea of the size (although metric units would be nice!), features and activity of a foetus at various gestational stages. It doesn’t take much mental effort to join the dots and gain some appreciation that the foetus is not a blob, but it really does look like a little person, it moves and so-on. But, again, that’s the truth, as unpalatable as that may be. Some people may want to comment, “Well, if that’s your position, why not include a photograph of evacuated products of conception?” I say, very well, I’ll take a photo of one and upload it. Would you like foetal body fragments discernable or not? But it should also be included in the Evacuation_of_retained_products_of_conception article, as well as the dilation and curettage article – because, for the third time, that’s the truth, and we’re not about hiding it. Or are we? Yes, as a society we like to make taboo subjects like death, body parts and so on. That’s why there aren’t pictures of EPOC’s floating around wikipedia, just like there aren’t pictures of (whole human) bodies being dissected at autopsy, although there is some description of the procedure. I think we can stand at the thin edge of the wedge & put in a fairly sanitary diagram, without sliding down the slippery slope. Draw a line, stand by it, and put the diagram in. Have a lovely day! Mattopaedia (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, well-written articles should cover all aspects of the topic, see point 1.b in the featured article criteria, and "what is being aborted" is a relevant aspect. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments of uninvolved parties (5)

• CommentThe image should also depict a full-grown fetus to see the difference in size. Those would look minuscule in comparison, you don't need to show the whole fetus, just make part of it appear on the border, so they can be compared, for example from this file File:40_weeks_pregnant.jpg. (I think it's 16 times bigger than the second fetus, from 1.25 inches to 20 inches?). I added that the final fetus at 38 weeks is 96 times larger than the first one. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple problems with including in the image a 40-week fetus. First, the present image is aimed at a "typical abortus", whereas a 40-week abortus is extremely unusual. See here. Second, including the 40-week abortus would require us to immensely shrink the images of the typical abortus that we already have, although we could depict only a small part of the 40-week fetus but that would look kind of odd IMO. Please note that a 40-week fetus is pictured in the Fetus article that is already linked in the caption of the proposed image. The present caption is already very large, and I do not think we need to also provide the dimensions of a 40-week fetus, since people are roughly aware already of how big a newborn is.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding the size of a fully grown fetus puts in perspective the size of the abortus, me thinks. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There was some discussion above about maybe including a common item in the image, such as a pencil, golf ball, coin, or ruler to emphasize size. What do you think of that idea?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That would be very good. It would solve many of the complaints above about the apparent size of the abortus when you look at it on the screen. Archeologists and palentologists used to include a cigarrette box in the photographies of their discoveries, back when smoking was more popular, so people could see the size of the objects. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I inserted a pencil eraser for size comparison.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the addition of the "eraser" for size comparison. The primary reason is that it is only useful to American viewers - that form of eraser or rubber is certainly not common in the UK and I would imagine not elsewhere. I had to look at the description to realise what it was - I assumed it was something related to abortion. As such I think it is misleading. I think the scale bar was unambiguous and informative, but if you do include an object it must be universally common. |→ Spaully† 11:14, 4 March 2009 (GMT)

Okay, I thought eraser caps were common wordwide. What scale bar are you referring to?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought in one of the previous versions or images there was a bar indicating length on the right of the image. Perhaps not, in which case I would suggest it would be a good way to impart some sense of size. |→ Spaully† 16:10, 4 March 2009 (GMT)

Done, thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

A US quarter is 25 mm in diameter -- making it useful for people in the US and worldwide. Collect (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how a US quarter is useful worldwide, many will be acquainted with them but by no means all. |→ Spaully† 22:33, 9 March 2009 (GMT)

Can you tell me a more universal measure than 25 mm? If you need it, "25 mm" coiuld be added to the fact of the quarter. Collect (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A scale bar is unambiguous yes, but you seem to be suggesting adding an image of a coin for comparison and few people know a quarter is 25mm in diameter. I think having a coin and scale bar is unnecessary and still makes the image US-centric which is to be avoided if possible, especially in a non-US based article. |→ Spaully† 22:57, 9 March 2009 (GMT)

Spaully is right that a coin shouldn't be used for scale. See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) My country only uses Euros, "the size of a quarter" is meaningless for europeans. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - clearly a POV push; in the less contentious article miscarriage no such images are deemed necessary to see what was lost. Therefore, the inclusion can only be to push some point of view or another, because as far as the fetus is concerned abortion and miscarriage have the same result. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Images have to go first somewhere. The miscarriage article currently does not have any images at all, but I hope that will change. The probable reason is simple: this article gets a lot more visitors than the miscarriage article, so a lot more editorial effort has gone into this article. In February, this article got about 220,000 hits, whereas the miscarriage article got about 49,000 hits. There are various other reasons too (e.g. the present image illustrates the need for different abortion techniques whereas there are no miscarriage techniques; the present image of typical abortuses illustrates the difference between an embryo and fetus whereas a typical miscarriage does not involve a fetus, et cetera).Ferrylodge (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's the contentiousness of the article that draws the visitors. When everyone is calm, as they seem to be at miscarriage, they seem to be fine without the images. There are other articles which could be populated with descriptive (or provocative) images which seem in bad taste (most tumor or skin condition articles, autopsy, and defacation come to mind quickly), but doing so doesn't seem right. WP is here to educate not to push a point of view or shock. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a shock image. It conveys a lot of info. BTW, both defecation and urination show emitted material.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support for inclusion of the image. I am pro-choice. The suggested image is informative, relevant and not-at-all cartoonish. I agree with neitherday, collect and bodnotbod above. - Hordaland (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Full disclosure: I'm hesitant to opine since I've had some major interaction with some of the disputants here, and don't want to be seen as "backing a friend", etc. (no one contacted me in conjunction with this request for comment, though). However, I would agree that the current File:Abortus.PNG makes sense to be included. As Hordaland notes, it is informative and relevant. I am currently opposed to adding any graphic/shock images of actual aborted fetus/embryos/babies/cells/whateverthekidsarecallingthemnowadays though. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• Yes - I don't understand the view that this image is inflammatory or an appeal to emotion. It's an undetailed, neutral depiction of the very thing the entire procedure of abortion is all about. If abortion is "the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus", and many people don't even knows what an embryo or fetus looks like, wouldn't an image like this be informative and useful for this article? I see no conflict between this image and keeping this article as clinical and unemotional as possible, and it gives me pause to see people objecting to a harmless (and useful) image like this. -kotra (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments of uninvolved parties (6)

• Support any reasonable image, and I hope that the chosen image will also be added to Miscarriage. In fact, why not put this image on this page, under #Types of abortions#Spontaneous abortions? It's a fine illustration for that image-free section. (Also, Abortus redirects here, so using that word somewhere on the page would be appropriate.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

  Just thought I'd respond by mentioning that the image at the top of this RFC is directed at a typical induced abortion rather than a spontaneous abortion. A typical induced abortion occurs from 4 to 8 weeks after fertilization according to this graph, so that's why the two images are for those two gestations. Therefore, I think the image would probably work best in this section of the present article (where it would also illustrate the text saying that the technique depends on the size, and furthermore illustrating the terms "embryo" and "fetus" used in the text). If we reach a consensus, then I hope we can later consider inserting an appropriate image into the miscarriage article. On average, miscarriages typically occur quite a bit earlier than induced abortions.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Strong oppose: Obvious POV push, an attempt to arouse sentiments, when the whole idea is as absurd as including a picture of an arm or a leg in the amputation article. What will be aborted is a fetus. If readers want to know what a fetus looks like, they can go to fetus. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• It is not an attempt to arouse sentiments. It is an attempt to inform readers about what is aborted during the 4-week window when induced abortions typically occur. Nothing like the image on the left is available at the fetus article, because it is not a fetus. People know what an arm looks like, so there is no need for an image of an arm in the amputation article. In contrast, most people have not the slightest idea about the size and shape of a typical induced abortus, and they cannot get that info from any other Misplaced Pages article. Excluding this info from this article is not just a POV push; it's blatant censorship.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Embryo or fetus. My bad. But the article is nearly 300 kb, more than half of which are taken up by images. Most people probably don't know what a spleen looks like, but if splenectomy were a long article with a lot of pictures illustrating various social and medical aspects of the process, then a picture of the product might best be reserved for the spleen article, which is where the reader might naturally be inclined to go if he encounters splenectomy but remains sufficiently interested in how a spleen appears. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• I doubt that a picture of a spleen would be reserved only for the spleen article. See tonsillectomy, treatment of human head lice, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, blood donation, breastfeeding, mastectomy, dental extraction, and childbirth. In any event, how is a reader supposed to know whether to click on embryo versus fetus, if we don't indicate the difference? And if a reader does go to the fetus article, most of the images there do not show what is typically aborted in an induced abortion (i.e. fetuses after 5 months are very rarely aborted).Ferrylodge (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course we should - why are you having such a long debate over nothing that slows down progress? I came from here. This is an encyclopedia, not an advocacy joint.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• That is a very good point. If the choice is between including it or excluding it, I'd still go with excluding it. But if the choice is between including it or dragging this debate on even further, then I'd opt to include it and move on. Changing my opposition to "weak." Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• No-It already does. This article already includes a picture of an embryo/fetus, within the context of an abortion. If you look at the vacuum aspiration abortion image in the surgical section, it depicts a small fetus being surgically aborted. Since this picture is already included, why is it necessary to include yet another picture of an embryo/fetus outside of the context of abortion? Hasn't this picture simultaneously provided the reader with a depiction of what the abortion process is doing (or what the "abortus" looks like, a Ferrylodge puts in, in context of the abortion procedure)? With that in mind, I'll have to oppose adding yet another image of an embryo when one is already included in a way that is more clearly in the context of this article, unless someone can give a good reason why it calls for redundant inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Locke9k (talk • contribs) 14:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comment, and I'll take a crack at giving the good reason you request. First, the image to which you refer shows an embryo rather than a fetus, although most induced abortions in this world are of a fetus rather than an embryo. Second, the image to which you refer is extremely tiny unless someone clicks on it, and on my monitor the embryo image is not visible at all. Third, Misplaced Pages is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook so there are doubts about whether the image you refer to will remain. See WP:NOTGUIDE. The image to which you refer therefore does not accomplish several things accomplished by the proposed image; the proposed image is discernible, the proposed image indicates how an embryo differs from a fetus so the reader can decide which link to click on for more info, the proposed image shows the rapidly changing size that necessitates different abortion techniques, and the proposed image shows a fetus whereas the image to which you refer does not. I don't see why we cannot have both images in this article, but if I had to pick one or the other it would be the proposed image.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly Support. It is ridiculous that an article like this does not have a clear image of what all this is about - the foetus that is being aborted. The proposed picture is as neutral as can be. It certainly isn't one of the truly shocking pictures of actual aborted foetuses that are available. Arguments that the image proposed might encourage an emotional response are themselves POV in seeking to keep hidden a key element of the core of the article and its controversial impact. The argument that there is no room for the picture - when there is plenty of room for pictures of banner-wavers and mayan demons, is ludicrous. The picture should have gone in long ago. Xandar 20:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support. There should be at least one image of a fetus, as abortion is about the early ending of the gestation of fetuses. This is not breaching NPOV if the facts are presented and the reader is left to draw their own conclusions. The article may induce an emotional response, but that is unsurprising consider the subject matter. It seems like censorship to block the addition of a visual reminder that fetuses are involved in abortion. Misplaced Pages is not sanitised; we do not need to protect readers from medical images. I favour the addition of this image of a 10 wk therapeutic abortion, as it is a striking image and is very illustrative: . Fences and windows (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Include it. That specific image improves the article and is toned down enough that it isn't POV. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Alternative image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Human_Embryo_-_Approximately_6_weeks_estimated_gestational_age.jpg - this is a spontaneous abortion at 6 wks. Fences and windows (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, Fences and Windows. I just want to explain very briefly why the image at the top of the RFC is a black-and-white drawing instead of a color photo. Regarding B&W versus color, some editors found that B&W is more toned down and less graphic. Regarding drawings versus photos, it seemed that drawings would be less gruesome and graphic. The color photos are very useful for establishing the accuracy of drawings, but my impression is that more editors would object to them for inclusion in this article, because they are closer to being "shock" images.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Good work finding this image. I would support the addition of this image with a sense of scale added as I think it delivers exactly what is being discussed here. It clearly shows the abortus at a common gestational age and does not suffer from most of the problems of the proposed image. I do not see it as a shock image, however being in the medical field and as such desensitised to certain types of images I am willing to accept the majority opinion may be different. Any views? |→ Spaully† 16:48, 17 March 2009 (GMT)

Good point, Spaully. I am a biologist, so I have equally been exposed to medical images to an extent where most are not shocking. I found another image of a therapeutic abortion; please see mini-gallery below. Fences and windows (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support Inclusion: I support the inclusion of this image as it seems to me to be non-inflammatory but relevant. DRJ (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Tally

I know this isn't a vote, but in case anyone is wondering, the comments in this section as of 07:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC) are roughly 19/11/3 (Support/Oppose/Neutral). I didn't count comments preceded by "Comment", and I didn't consider the relative merits of the arguments presented (or "weak" vs "strong"). Judging by this tally alone (which may be a flawed measurement), I'd say there is not enough consensus for inclusion at this point. Full disclosure: I support inclusion. -kotra (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Do we need "consensus" for inclusion of a relevant fact? I don't believe so. If wikipedia contained only "consensus" facts, images and views it would be half the current size. The picture should be included if it is from a verifiable source and breaks no WP policies. Censorship should not be part of the WP process. As wikipedia guidance states: "A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information." A majority of contributors believes the picture should be in the article. Even if a minority did, the picture should go in if it is significant, (it is), and if it breaches no important WP policy. It doesn't so far as I can see. Arguments that there is "no room" or that a foetus shouldn't appear do not signify. Xandar 12:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say there appears, unfortunately, to be still some controversy about whether the image breaks WP policy. Most of the opposers feel that the image violates WP:NPOV in that it's an "appeal to emotion" or otherwise biased (which seems ridiculous to me, but that's what they say). I think this needs to be resolved first before we can include it. If a third of us think the image violates policy, that's not consensus enough for inclusion, in my opinion. -kotra (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... that's odd, my tally is 18(2)/15/1 (Support (conditional support)/oppose/meh). I believe about a third of the opposes lead to discussions where compromises were suggested or hypothetical other images proposed (and another third of opposes were turned off further by Ferrylodges abrasive nature of attempting to argue with every single oppose). But we don't need to simply count votes, we need to see where the discussion lead, and what the consensus generally is. I believe that the results of this discussion show that there is a weak consensus to include "any description of what will be aborted,", but that the proposed image itself doesn't have consensus. While it was touched on, I'm not sure there was enough concrete discussion on whether to include a section of text devoted to the "abortus", so I'm going to say not enough data/no consensus for that aspect of the proposal, and we'd probably need to work on specific text that we can all agree upon. I think there is still a lot of work ahead, and this clearly still is a contentious and divisive issue, but there does appear to be some common ground. -Andrew c  13:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrew c, I would think that after participating in Misplaced Pages for so long, and being an Administrator and all, you might know about WP:NPA. There are many epithets I could throw at you as well, and they would all be very accurate, but that is not the purpose of one of these article talk pages, is it?.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I counted again, and got 19/14/2. The first time, I only counted the top-level comments, not comments added further in. For example, the first time, I counted BaronGrackle and Father Goose as "neutral" due to their initial comments; I suppose they could be considered opposes due to their subsequent comments, so I've put them in the "oppose" camp this time. Also, the first time, I didn't count 24.201.116.45, because it was nestled in the middle of a thread. As for having one more support than your count, possibly it's because I counted Ali'i's comment as a support.

In any case, I still agree that merely counting votes is often a flawed measurement, and any decision should be based on reading the arguments thoroughly. I was just trying to gauge what the general ratio of support:opposition probably is, since the discussion is so long at this point. We agree, in any case, that there's no consensus for inclusion of the image at this point (although the later comments tended to be mostly in support, so it's possible that may change). -kotra (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep the RFC open until next weekend, and then draw conclusions. At this point, there seems to be a majority in favor of including the image, but not necessarily a consensus for inclusion. Some of the reasons pro and con have been addressed by only a few commenters, many different Misplaced Pages policies have been cited, and there seems to be consensus about some issues and not others regarding inclusion.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. -kotra (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Angkordemon.jpg

I just realized that File:Angkordemon.jpg was improperly licensed. Since it is not a 2D work of art, {{PD-art}} does not apply. I have retagged it as being a non-free 3D work, but now it needs a fair use rationale. Personally, I think that this is replaceable because anyone could go and take a photo of this sculpture so it fails WP:NFCC #1, and will most likely be deleted. Take this opportunity to fix this issue (or make a case that I am mistaken ;). I apologize for this. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c  18:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages:Public domain: “In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain.” Is there a dispute about whether 1150 is before 1923?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Further down on the same page It should also be noted that the exemption of reproduction photographs extends only to two-dimensional artwork in the U.S. A photograph of a three dimensional statue may acquire copyright protection even if the statue itself belongs to the public domain. Such rights derive from the creativity involved in the positioning of camera, lighting, and other variables., and more detailed Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag.-Andrew c  18:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The key word there is "may". Let's continue this discussion at File_talk:Angkordemon.jpg.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The slightest information about what is aborted is always deleted from this article

This edit is all too typical. If an article uses technical terms like "embryo" and "fetus", is it asking too much to give the slightest explanation? This is a summary article, but I have yet to see the slightest summary of what is aborted. No text, no discernible image, no nothing. Why is that?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There can be no possible constructive result from this talk page section. I have archived it. Hipocrite (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

While I'm currently neutral on the necessity of defining terms, recontextualizing "newborn" is a too typical example of poor POV editing. Exercise restraint. - RoyBoy 04:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I was merely trying to track a cited reliable source. See The Columbia Encyclopedia (Sixth Edition). Retrieved 2007-03-05: "the fetal stage begins seven to eight weeks after fertilization of the egg, when the embryo assumes the basic shape of the newborn and all the organs are present." If you'd like to modify the language, I would have no objection.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

In reference to the archived discussion, it's strange that Columbia Encyclopedia would use a term like "newborn" before the child is born. I guess the issue is that most of the terms that would encompass fetus, embryo, zygote, etc. are politically loaded. Child? Baby? Organism? Prenatal? Ironically, our reliable source gives us the inaccurate term. -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Unborn is also incorrect technically, a closer approximation would be "pre-born" to bad we can't just make up terminology for this article.--Tznkai (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Columbia Encyclopedia does not use a term like "newborn" before the child is born. That Encyclopedia is saying that the transition from embryo to fetus marks the point at which the thingy has all the structure it will have after it is born. From that transition-point onward, the organs are all there, and its just a matter of growing and developing those organs.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I reread it and see my mistake. The use of "the newborn" instead of "a newborn" threw me off. If we were to include it, I'd recommend saying "of a newborn" or "that a newborn possesses" to establish that this is a comparison and not a synonym. But I'm sure others will argue that this is more about prenatal development than prenatal termination. -BaronGrackle (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

A sentence containing roughly that information may work in the 3rd paragraph of the "Spontaneous abortion" section. The risk of spontaneous abortion decreases sharply after the 10th week from the last menstrual period (... corresponding roughly with the beginning of the fetal period where the major structures.... have formed...) The previous placement I found problematic as it broke up the flow of two connected sentences, and was further explaining topics already introduced earlier in the article. Also, as others have noted, there were some wording issues, specifically "newborn", but that has been discussed above. I wasn't deleting the material because of it's subject matter, rather it's placement and phrasing. I don't appreciate accusations otherwise (and they don't lead to a productive, cooperative atmosphere). But enough... -Andrew c  21:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if you had explained yourself more fully at the time, that might have helped some. I've proposed similar language before, and it's been rejected before, by the regular editors of this article. Would you be willing to put this into the 3d paragraph of the "Spontaneous abortion" section, or shall I? (Impressive sarcasm in your edit comment, by the way.)Ferrylodge (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Well, I went ahead and did it, and of course have been reverted without any further discussion at this talk page. The edit summary says: "Rm 'This corresponds...' 1. novel synthesis, need a cite that says 'miscarriage risk declines sharply once ebryo becomes a fetus' two, explanation is extraneous and POV bait."

Of course, this edit summary is utter nonsense. Anyone can see that we have a cite that says pregnancy loss is “virtually complete by the end of the embryonic period." See E. Jauniaux, et al. "Early pregnancy loss" in "Fetal medicine: basic science and clinical practice", page 835 (Churchill Livingstone 1999).

I will ask the editor who reverted this: why won't you allow the slightest description in this article of the terms used (fetus, embryo), or the slightest description of what is aborted? And why can't you bring yourself to use the talk page before reverting an edit for which there was a talk page consensus? And when will you stop POV-pushing? JHC. This is supposed to be Misplaced Pages, not the Abortion Promotion Guide. Do you think this is some kind of game, where only certain people have to follow the rules, and others do not?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Making it personal is against policy by the by, so you might want to reign in the the accusatory tone. I'm not sure what talk page consensus it is you refer to, but you made an addition, it was reverted, now we discuss, preferably without any more political theater. The sentance that was deleted was a two parter. First, "This corresponds roughly to the point when an "embryo" becomes a "fetus" about eight weeks after fertilization (i.e. 10 weeks LMP)" emphasis added, shows that this is novel synthesis. Highlighting the relationship between spontaneous abortion and the transition stage between embryo and fetus will require its own citation - we can't synthesize our knowledge about the downturn in ZEF mortality and the definition of fetus, especially by refrencing a citation describing the definition of a fetus. Instead, you use a citation that states clearly exactly what is being said. The citation you provide above is left intact for a later sentance. The second half "by which time the major structures, shape, and organ systems characteristic of a human being have formed" is extraneous. It seems dubious that the only thing we feel the need to tell the reader about the transition from embryo and fetus is that abortion rates go down and that fetuses look more like human beings. The asthetic and functional similarity is extraneous information, and is POV bait.--Tznkai (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If you would kindly read what is written above in this section, you'll see that Andrew c specifically recommended the language "corresponding roughly with the beginning of the fetal period where the major structures.... have formed." That's the talk page consensus I was referring to. And there was not the slightest hint of novel synthesis in Andrew c's suggestion. We already have a source in the article that says pregnancy loss is “virtually complete by the end of the embryonic period." See E. Jauniaux, et al. "Early pregnancy loss" in "Fetal medicine: basic science and clinical practice", page 835 (Churchill Livingstone 1999). You are POV-pushing.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Use that source for the statement on viability and the link at becoming fetus then. Actually, on second I'm looking at your source right now and it says something slightly different. Page 836 says that in a prospective study of 232 women with positive urinary pregnancy tests and no antecedent history of vaginal bleeding, pregnancy loss was virtually complete by the end of the embryonic period." Which translates to miscarriages are very common. Going to chew on this a bit, see if there is a better quote in this source that illustrates the pregnancy loss problem.--Tznkai (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved the citation and associated sentence to earlier in the topic to illustrate the rather significant loss rate, although I'm concerned that we've giving mixed messages about how common pregnancy loss is.--Tznkai (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent)If you are going to "chew on" matters for a bit, and are concerned that your edits may be giving "mixed messages", then you might want to consider reverting your recent edits that unilaterally overturned a talk page consensus. That might be an excellent way to set a good example for non-admins who might be tempted to make edits prematurely. The Jauniaux reference stated exactly and precisely as I stated:

"An early pregnancy loss (EPL) is defined as a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion occurring within the first 12 weeks of gestation....It has been estimated that about 60% of all fertilised ova are lost before the end of the first trimester is reached. Most of them are lost during the first month after the last menstrual period and are often ignored as conceptions, particularly if they occur around the time of an expected menstrual period....The rate of pregnancy loss is known to decrease with gestational age (Table 63.1). The precise incidence of EPL at different periods of gestation has been more clearly defined with the routine use of transvaginal ultrasound. In a prospective study of 232 women with positive urinary pregnancy tests and no antecedent history of vaginal bleeding, pregnancy loss was virtually complete by the end of the embryonic period (70 days after the onset of the last mestrual period)....No pregnancies were lost between 8.5 and 14 menstrual weeks. The fetal loss rate after 14 weeks was 2%."

This reference was properly relied upon by me, and by others. We should all strive here to edit this article harmoniously and in conformity with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, without trying to steamroll the article. When a term like "embryo" or "fetus" is used, there is nothing wrong with explaining what makes those two terms different, and dictionaries tell us that the difference is that this transition marks the time when all organs are in place, and the shape is substantially determined. From your edits and comments, you seem to be opposed to including any hint of that definition, or any similar information about an abortus. IMO, that renders this article highly POV. The article has lengthy sections on why abortion is beneficial and/or harmless, but virtually no information about the abortus.

I do not want to make this article my life's work, and I am sure that you and like-minded editors will mold this article as you see fit. But please consider that WP:NPOV is supposed to be more than a goal: it is a minimal requirement, especially at controversial articles like this one.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just read what you've written here a few times, and I still have no idea what your actual objection is - and if talk page consensus is you and Andrew c, that isn't much of a barrier to prevent bold editing.--Tznkai (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside incorrect edit summaries, lack of prior talk page discussion, and reversion of a consensus edit without discussion, I find these consecutive edits of yours problematic for two main reasons.

First, a “fetus” is defined differently from an “embryo” and you removed the explanation of this difference. Maybe I didn't do it perfectly (see comment by Tropaeolum majus), but there's no reason to categorically reject the notion that the definitional difference between these two technical terms is worth explaining briefly. It seems that you completely removed this material from the article because you do not want this article to say one single word describing the abortus, unless it soothes the emotions of people who obtain abortions (e.g. the abortus feels no pain). I continue to find this attitude a 100% NPOV violation, and I continue to be very frustrated by it.

Second, before you edited, this article contained the following understandable and well-sourced sentence: “The loss rate between 8.5 weeks LMP and birth is about two percent; pregnancy loss is ‘virtually complete by the end of the embryonic period.’” It was neutral, verifiable, and understandable. Instead, you wrote, “Some pregnancy losses are ‘ignored as conceptions,’ one study of 232 pregnant women showed ‘virtually complete by the end of the embryonic period’ with a pregnancy loss rate of only 2 precent after 8.5 weeks after the last menstrual period.” This latter sentence is extremely difficult to understand. Looking at the phrase “ignored as conceptions” in context within the cited source, it apparently means that some pregnancy losses were not recognized as conceptions, but taking this phrase out of context makes the reader wonder if it means that the women thought they were conceptions and therefore ignored them. And tagging on the latter part of the sentence about pregnancy loss being complete by the end of the embryonic period gives the incorrect impression that that fact is significant because it supports or confirms the statement that some preganncy losses are “ignored as conceptions” (which is hard to understand anyway).Ferrylodge (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The embryo fetus definition issue, as always, can be taken care of by wiki-links. Readers are more than capable of clicking a link and finding information they are curious about, and with wikilinks, its instantaneous. The sentance "pregnancy loss is virtually complete by the end of the embryonic period" actually isn't clear at all, what it implies is that pregnancy loss is a process, a proccess that is mostly complete by the embryonic period. I don't like the "ignored as conceptions" verbage myself, but its the wording of the original source, so I stuck with it.--Tznkai (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, if you think wikilinks are sufficient, then you may as well get rid of the sections about lack of fetal pain, breast cancer, and mental health problems, and instead just link to the sub-articles. You have made it very clear that you think information about the abortus "appeals to emotions" and so it's hard to take at face value that you would like people to click on the "fetus" link so that they can have their emotions appealed to. By not suggesting anything interesting about what a fetus is or what the word means, you simply encourage people to skip over it. Likewise, you kept the phrase "pregnancy loss is virtually complete by the end of the embryonic period" that you say is unclear, and merely made it more unclear by tagging it at the end of an incomprehensible sentence. Basically, I find that your edits have had the effect of obfuscating (intentionally or not) everything that they changed.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Context, context, context. Information on the fetus can, and is, in this article. Find me a (single and unified) citation that says "A fetus, unlike an embryo has a recognizable heart and other organs. This explains the increase in viability." Find me a citation that says "the fetuses' asthetic features are more human like, which is thought to be related to its viability." I can define woman, I can define human being, I can define doctor - all of which are of dubious relevance. This article once had a section on abortion terminology, discussing use of fetus, embryo, unborn, child, and so on - and it was removed due to strong objections to the style, objections I now agree with. It is a writing problem, and my objections on it have nothing to do with my personal thoughts on abortion, of which you know nothing, but my understanding of what good writing is. Good writing, depends on understanding context.--02:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I really, really wish you would stop comparing a definition or image of "fetus" to a definition or image of "woman" or "doctor". Those are exceedingly poor examples, because everyone knows what a woman looks like and how the word is defined; everyone knows what a doctor looks like and how that word is defined. Your arguments would be much more persuasive if you would follow that generous advice I'm giving. <sarcasm>If the distinction between an embryo and a fetus is not relevant to this article, then stop using those two terms. That way you can be absolutely sure that no one will click on "fetus" to have their emotions appealed to. How about "conceptus" (I know that the word "unborn baby" or "pre-born baby" is forbidden in this article)?</sarcasm> Seriously, can you please work with me to get a word in edgewise into this article that will describe what is aborted in a typical abortion? Is that so much to ask? Please? A typical abortion in developed countries occurs between 4 and 8 weeks after fertilization. So, we could say that a typical abortion in developed countries occurs before an embryo becomes a fetus, at 8 weeks after fertilization, and thus occurs before the organs are formed and the thing has the characteristic shape of a human being. Can we do that, please? The easiest way would be to just insert the image from the RFC; you must know that it's a perfectly reasonable image, and it really does impart a huge amount of information.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I can equally assert everyone knows what a fetus or embryo looks like to - or at least could with a simple click. Describing a fetus is the job of another article, similarly, we don't have to explain gestation, growth, or sex - most of which the audience will not know very well (how much do people REALLY know about sex anyway?) And no, we can't do that thing you want, because I think its bad writing and POV bait. To flip it around "occurs before the organs are formed and the thing has the characteristic shape of an alien" which is equally true. Absurd, no? I really do, genuinely and totally, devoid of any agenda, disagree with you.--Tznkai (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You honestly believe that it would be bad writing to briefly mention to the reader that the words we use incessantly ("embryo" and "fetus") have distinct meanings, and say in a single sentence what that distinction is? And you truly believe that showing what a typical abortus looks like would be too emotional for readers to process properly? I disagree on both counts, devoid of any agenda. You simply cannot have a long and detailed article about abortion like this without describing the thing that is aborted. It's wrong. We don't even say which comes first: a fetus or an embryo, so how are readers supposed to pick which one they want to click on? And if they do click on one of them, those articles will not say anything about which embryos and which fetuses are typical subjects of abortion. That's why so many people (such as yourself) are running around shouting "ZEF, ZEF" when the "Z" is almost completely irrelevant to induced abortion. But readers of this article will never learn that, will they? I simply cannot accept that good writing requires us to portray an abortus as an infinitessimal non-entity devoid of any features that are worth noting, except imperviousness to the pain of abortion.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I never accused you of having an agenda (at least not that I recall, and if I have, I apologize), I've simply suggested you're incorrect, and I don't think its the job of this article to define the difference between embryos and fetuses unless and until its relevant - which we are almost at. I have no problem believing that the fetuses more defined organs are linked to its viability - but I'm not a reliable source - neither at you. All we need is a source, and that piece of information can go in.--Tznkai (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted, and I hope you will get a chance to reply to my comment here.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the question in all the traffic, I'll get to it later tonight.--Tznkai (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've posted at the NPOV Noticeboard.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

<tiptoeing cautiously into the fray> As I see it, the trouble with this edit is the implication of a cause-and-effect relationship between a decline in miscarriage rates and the formation of "the major structures, shape, and organ systems characteristic of a human being." Perhaps it is true that the development of those structures decreases the risk of miscarriage, or perhaps the two occurrences are related only by timing - the reference does not say one way or the other. I assume the intention was not to imply causation, but putting those statements together does, in my mind, create the implication. <end tiptoeing> -Tropaeolum majus (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tropaeolum majus, that's a sensible criticism.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Archiving Discussions

Hipocrite, please reread the above discussion. It is discussing the article, the language the article uses, and what should be included in the article. Please do not prematurely archive this again. Further, if and when this is archived, there is no reason to hide/collapse it. -Neitherday (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to add that your archiving has done nothing to stop the current discussion (it went on even in the archived state), it only served to hide it (or part of it) under a collapse. -Neitherday (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Vacuum Aspiration Image

Instead of adding a second, larger super-imposed image of the procedure, or of adding a fetus image on its own, how do we feel about just enlarging the current vacuum aspiration image where it appears in the article? I know it can be clicked on and viewed in greater detail on most computers, but there are objections that this isn't enough. Would it be too much of an eyesore to make the diagram slightly bigger in the article? -BaronGrackle (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I oppose playing with image sizes as a rule. See Misplaced Pages:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size and Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style#Images. Hipocrite (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I see! Well, ah well. Resume above discussion. -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I just enlarged the image 9 times (tripled each dimension) so at least when someone is viewing the image page (and the actual image) it will render even larger for those who cannot zoom SVGs readily. I know this doesn't help the thumbnail in the article, but we can't read the text of half the graphs and maps in the article without clicking through as well.-Andrew c  15:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Image hypothetical

Related to above, but broken off for sanity. Can we get an image that is a side by side of an ultrasound or x-ray two feti, one clearly healthy, and one clearly not, for example these. The caption would be. "Abortions are sometimes induced because of fetal abnormalities. The use of ultrasounds allows doctors and possible parents to see abnormalities before birth. Healthy fetus on the left compared to deformed fetus on the right" An additional sentence can be added clarifying that some abnormalties are dangerous to fetus, mother, or both and some are minor and cosmetic. This would allay my concerns about relevance. Thoughts?--Tznkai (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent)This chart in the present article indicates that abnormalities account for a small portion of induced abortions. The source used for the chart says (emphasis added):

"Women rarely report that fetal defects or potential problems for the baby motivated their decision to have an abortion. This probably stems from one or more factors, including the low actual incidence of birth defects, the fact that most women obtain abortions before such defects could be known, and fetal defects are generally not detected in developing countries (where advanced testing and modern medical care are not widely available). Furthermore, in many surveys, this reason may not have had its own separate category, but may have been grouped into an "other" catch-all category. Finally, the reason may have been omitted altogether in some studies.

"This reason was recorded in only one-third of the countries, with Indian women the most likely to have given fetal defects as the most important reason (11%); 5-8% of women in three other developing countries (South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand) also cited this as their main reason. In all four of these Asian and South Asian countries, sex selection is believed to play a role in abortion, and in such instances, some women may report that "fetal defect" was the main reason for their abortion.14 In the United States, only a small fraction (8%) of the women who reported fetal defect as a contributing reason said that they had been advised by a physician that the fetus may be deformed or abnormal, suggesting that many women may be making this determination on their own."

If we did include an image of a deformed abortus (which would be WP:Undue weight because it's very atypical), an ultrasound or x-ray would probably not be a good substitute for a medically accurate drawing, given that ultrasounds and x-rays are usually fuzzy.

The suggested image at the top of the RFC (of a normal embryo alongside a normal fetus) is very very relevant. It shows what is aborted in a typical induced abortion, rather than an atypical induced abortion. It also illustrates the change in size that necessitates different abortion techniques. And it gives the reader a hint of the difference between a fetus and embryo, so that the reader can decide which link to click on for more info.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The number of abortions done because of deformities is low, true, but they still occur. So long as there is no effort or effect of portraying that its more significant than it is, there isn't an undue weight problem. The caption could be easily amended: Fetus with spinal deformity on left, healthy fetus on the right "Ultrasound technology allows prospective parents and their doctors view the fetus while it is still developing in utero. Approximately 8% of abortions are because of concerns about fetal abnormalities" With two good ultrasounds showing comparison. I'd like to get a picture of an ultrasound into the article in general, its an important piece of technology that has changed the abortion equation significantly - certainly a contributing factor to sex selective abortion for example. --Tznkai (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to including an ultrasound, especially a 3D ultrasound which is much more accurate than the old-fashioned kind. A 4D ultrasound would be evn better. But none of that should be a substitute for a non-fuzzy drawing, IMO.

It is not correct that approximately 8% of abortions are because of concerns about fetal abnormalities. If you look carefully at the "8%" figure in the blockquoted text above, they're saying that only 8% of the already miniscule number of women who reported were actually advised by a physician.

In short, we can discuss including additional images in this article that are ultrasounds, perhaps even ultrasounds of an extremely atypical deformed fetus, but that would be no substitute for a discernible drawing of what is typically aborted in an induced abortion. I frankly do not understand how anyone could think that the former would be more relevant here than the latter. Including the former and not the latter would indeed be undue weight, IMO, by giving readers the impression that deformities are more typical than they actually are. A decent compromise could be to include the image at the top of the RFC, plus an ultrasound of a deformed abortus somewhere else in the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Tznkai, some questions, if you don’t mind....Is this RfC the last step in content dispute resolution? Do we let it go 30 days and then close? If the RfC were hypothetically to not change by the time it is closed, what then? And, do you also find pics of the removed material in the following articles to be irrelevant: tonsillectomy, treatment of human head lice, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, blood donation, breastfeeding, mastectomy, dental extraction, childbirth? I include "head lice" since one editor has compared the abortus to a parasite, and I include "childbirth" because another editor has compared the abortus to a being with a soul. Also, if you don't mind, would you please explain why it is okay for this article to provide wikilinks to "embyo" and "fetus" without giving the reader any idea of the difference so they will at least know which one to click on? Also, would you accept a compromise that would allow the image at the top of the RFC, while allowing an ultrasound of an image of an abortus having a birth defect?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's an ultrasound of an ectopic pregnancy. However, termination of an ectopic pregnancy is not always called an "abortion." Therefore, this ultrasound of an anencephalic fetus might be better for this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the ultrasounds above. They're too blurry and show nothing useful as far as I can see. A clearer ultrasound is this one. But I would be just as happy with the line drawing originally discussed, or a photo.

Here is another image from Wikimedia commons. And here is a second one. Xandar 13:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This is going to get confusing conversation without some clear reference labels, so here is a gallery:

• (A) Ectopic
• (B) 20 weeks
• (C) Foetus in womb
• (D) Baby foetus
• (E) Ferrylodge's Abortus image

If consensus moving towards inclusion of an image (per Andrew's assessment of where debate going), then I agree with Xandar that ultarsound image (A) so indistinct as to be meaningless. Whilst (B) at 20 weeks is clearly more developed than the "typical what is aborted" which is most commonly around 8-12 weeks gestation, (C) looks similarly so (or is that an illusion of image size being enlarged), and (D) looks close to being viable ? Of all the images I've so far seen discussed, (E) looks the best (in that I can see something unlike the ultrasound scan and has a size indication). However for (D E) the caption (as given a while back in thread higher up this page) would be best (IMHO) describing by gestation rather than fertilisation age (given that is what in UK we typically refer to) and statement of x6 size difference not helpful (relative increase from 4 to 6 weeks gestation will be even higher, and from 2 to 4 weeks gestation some silly number (1 cell to many)). David Ruben 15:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Bold proposal: these fetus images and diagrams discussed above do not depict the subject of the article as well as images of actual fetuses post-abortion. There are two such images with appropriate licenses on WikiCommons.

• (F) Spontaneous abortion at 6 weeks gestational age.
• (G) Therapeutic abortion at 10 weeks due to cervical cancer.

I propose that we should include these two images, as they seem to me to be the best illustration for this article, and they are not unnecessarily provocative. Indeed, it is probably in their favour that neither depicts an elective abortion, which is where the main controversy in this debate lies. Fences and windows (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Captions

Thanks for the gallery, David Ruben. I'm not sure where the caption is for (D). The proposed caption for (E) uses both LMP as well as fertilization age, so in that sense it seems kind of even-handed (plus it alerts readers that there are different age measures). Here's the proposed caption for (E):

Size and shape of a typical abortus depends on when abortion is induced. At left is drawn an embryo 4 weeks after fertilization (i.e. 6 weeks LMP). At center is a fetus 4 weeks later, and 6 times taller. The selected abortion procedure depends chiefly on the size.

The schism between those who use LMP versus those who use gestational age is at least as much between obstetricians and embryologists as between Europeans and Americans. See Segen, J.C. The Dictionary of Modern Medicine, page 187: "obstetricians calculate gestational age; embryologists are more correct as they calculate the ovulation or fertilization age."

I agree with you regarding the “6 times taller”. We can certainly delete that (e.g. becuase it’s already shown in the image to scale).Ferrylodge (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - sorry yes my typo of 'D' (now struck out) for 'E'. Couple phrasing issues re caption proposal:

• if embryo is on 'left' then fetus should be described as being on 'right' rather than 'center' (yes I know its in middle between the embryo and the height bar, but it is the right-most of the two objects described).
• should last sentance describe 'abortion method' vs 'abortion procedure' as that, to my mind, infers just surgical approaches rather than also including medical abortions ? David Ruben 19:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I think those are good suggestions:

Size and shape of a typical abortus depends on when abortion is induced. At left is drawn an embryo 4 weeks after fertilization (i.e. 6 weeks LMP). At center right is a fetus 4 weeks later, and 6 times taller. The selected abortion procedure method depends chiefly on the size.

Ferrylodge (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

David Ruben, in view of the changes to the caption, do you remain strongly opposed to including an image that shows what is typically aborted in an induced abortion?Ferrylodge (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm still personally don't think article needs any image, but I think AndrewC somewhere way up above concluded the RfC shown a weak consensus for image addition. That currently seeming the case, yes your image/caption the best of options shown. The problem with the photographs located by Fences and windows are that whilst the first (F) is dissected, preserved and photographed with great skill, it is not what most people see looking at what is aborted (which frankly is just blood of various degrees of liquid flow to clots, and with a larger lump that often is described by patients as a "large clot" - the cut-away internal view is not what is generally seen) and (G) has surrounding placenta dissected away and is not what would be seen either (both images have very good descriptions of their circumstances). So truely stunning as F & G are as histological preparations, I (weakly) still would tend favor your image (E) comparing the embryo & fetus and with a size scale. But as AndrewC noted, the RfC does not seem to have concluded which image to use. I guess the two pink images at top of #Revised image section are not current candidates - but might be useful at this stage for other editors to just clarify image preference (but not re-debate whether or not to have an image at all) Davidruben 03:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

My preference is E. Gives more info on size too. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I prefer (E) also, which is the image at the top of this RFC. It's not my own favorite, but I think it is the one that has the most support.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Abortion Debate section

Curiously this section contained no inkling about what this debate was about, or the positions held by the main parties in contention. Since this information is vital, I have added some sentences to the section reflecting these points. Xandar 20:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Big Suggestion

I highly recommend that we change the definition of Abortion to "the practice of killing babies in the mother's womb", or the "legal killing of baby humans". --Manning38 (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Your first obstacle would be to come up with a reliable source for such a definition; while some reliable sources might refer to a fetus as a baby, I don't know of any reliable sources that refer to an embryo as a baby. Also, there are some abortions that are illegal, yet still called "abortions". Additionally, some abortions accidentally result in birth of a live infant that soon dies outside the womb/uterus. And, a spontaneous abortion could hardly be characterized as a "killing".Ferrylodge (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Clear POV; fetuses are not babies. Fences and windows (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

More opposition here, as per Ferrylodge. If you find a reliable, unbiased source with such a definition, then it can be considered; I highly doubt that could be found, though. -kotra (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of the word "baby" is strongly opposed by pro-abortionists. Is that a valid reason for not using it anywhere in the article? It is standard non-scientific English usage. Xandar 10:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never met a "pro-abortionist," just people who think it shouldn't be illegal. -GTBacchus 14:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"Abortionists" are people who perform abortions (though that is not among the terms contained in this Misplaced Pages article). So, I suppose a "pro-abortionist" is someone who supports abortionists. The term "pro-abortion" is used occasionally by reliable sources like the BBC. I don't think Xandar was suggesting that this Misplaced Pages article should use the term, nor am I.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just commenting on the rather biased name to give to one side of the debate. I don't think that such rhetoric is conducive to the kind of discourse we want to cultivate here. -GTBacchus 15:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup, it's probably best to go with how people self-identify (i.e. pro-choice and pro-life instead of anti-abortion and pro-abortion). Although a term with "abortion" in it certainly is more descriptive of the subject of this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I use "pro-abortion" because that is the older name (before "pro-choice" was invented,) and "pro choice" is pretty meaningless without further definition. However for the article WP rules would predicate use of self-identifying terms. Xandar 02:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It would seem to me that the term "pro-abortion" is misleading, because many supporters of the pro-choice view are anti-abortion. Myself, for example. -GTBacchus 14:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

GTBacchus, would it be acceptable to you if this article would include a discernible image of what is aborted in a typical abortion?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. -GTBacchus 23:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I would add that it's also acceptable to me if it does not include such an image, as long as it's somehow clear that a relevant image is one click away. People who want to see it should be able to see it via Misplaced Pages. -GTBacchus 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As things stand now, no other Misplaced Pages article shows or describes what is aborted in a typical induced abortion. For example, the fetus and embryo articles include lots of images, but there's no indication there of which images are typical of an induced abortion.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

<-- Yeah, I would be happy if this article made it clear enough where to look. For example, if we said "a typical therapeutic (or whatever kind of) abortion is performed at gestational age ; see fetus for more details on that period of gestation." Something like that could work, I guess, as long as it's clear in the fetus article what an n-week fetus looks like. We shouldn't confound people who are trying to see it. -GTBacchus 00:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Then you get into the problem that a typical induced abortion occurs near the embryo/fetus dividing line, so a reader would really have to memorize the gestations here in this article, and then go look at two separate articles, not just one. I think the key thing here is that this is a summary article, so it's okay to summarize relevant info here. Some of the info may give a woman pause before getting an abortion (e.g. the image we're discussing), while some of the info may remove a woman's concerns before getting an abortion (e.g. multiple sections of the present article that assure us there won't be breast cancer or mental problems or fetal pain, et cetera). As a matter of NPOV, we should be careful to not provide only the latter category of info here, and make readers go hunting for the rest in other articles, IMO.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I tend to think that we're clever and creative advanced primates who can solve the problems you bring up, if we really decide that's what we want to do. One solution might be to have some kind of "click here to see images of such-and-such" link. Isn't that how they handled autofellatio, or something?... Ah, no. Apparently not anymore. This case is certainly different from that one. What would you think of images on a clearly linked subpage? -GTBacchus 00:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we're clever and creative primates, and I think the clever and creative thing to do here is to simply do what they do at autofellatio: include the image. The only problems I've identified are with not including the image here in this article, not with including it. Of course, WP:IDL is not a real problem, right?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Obtaining consensus can be a real problem. If it's possible to obtain consensus for a clear one-click link, but not for an inline illustration, would that be an improvement over the current situation? -GTBacchus 00:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

A hide and show option might be acceptable, but it's kind of silly because nothing in the proposed image is vivid or graphic or gruesome. If we were to go look carefully at the comments in the RFC, and look only at the comments that discuss censorship, I think we might find a clear consensus that what's going on here is censorship.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've looked through much of that RFC, and I see no consensus there. If you have to hunt for it, it's not a consensus. (I define consensus in the strictest manner - it's an ideal.) I think we could get a clearer picture if we ask explicitly what people think of a hide/show image. I agree that it's silly, but I'm not willing to foist my notions of silliness on the world at large. -GTBacchus 00:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

How about an NPOV tag on this article? I strongly feel that it is being censored, and that it has a huge bias in favor of information that favors a "pro-choice" view.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. However, if it's taken down, it's back to the talk page. I understand that you strongly feel it's a censored, pro-choice article, but no amount of being right obviates the necessity of obtaining consensus. That's not a rule, it's a reality, and none of us can change it. Progress tends to come by very small degrees. -GTBacchus 01:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting doing the NPOV tag right away. I think we ought to leave the RFC open until next weekend, and even then a hide-show option would be preferable to a POV tag. But I'm not sure you're correct about removal of the POV tag. "the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved….if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."Ferrylodge (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

What you quote is fine, as far as it goes, and written from the wisdom of experience. I don't think that contradicts what I said earlier, which is that if it's taken down, we'll end up dealing with it here on the talk page. Ultimately, the only thing that works is what you can make work. Nobody made that rule, and you can't negate it by quoting, editing, or authoring a "policy" page. I take a very pragmatic approach to Misplaced Pages.

All of that said, I would support the posting of an NPOV tag if there doesn't develop some sort of consensus to allow readers to find out - easily - what an abortion looks like, already. We can't refrain from answering that question without compromising too much of our mission, in my opinion. Whether you and I and all the king's horses could actually keep that NPOV tag up is a question to be answered empirically — I can't predict the future. -GTBacchus 05:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

My reasoning was not that the word "baby" is opposed by any particular group of people. My reasoning is that abortion, a medical procedure, should be defined in medical terms like "infant", "fetus", "embryo", or "pregnancy", not non-medical terms like "baby". This isn't simple:Abortion (which apparently could use simpler language, so perhaps the definition could be suggested there). -kotra (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But the term "fetus" is not defined in general language, and really should be for the sake of non-expert readers who may have little idea what a fetus is. The online Encyclopedia Britannica for example, has no problems with using the word "baby". See here Xandar 02:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

According to fetus, "A fetus is a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate, after the embryonic stage and before birth." Seems well defined. Also, an abortion is not simply "killing"; abortion is a word that applies to the cessation of any pregnancy (obviously other than live birth), including a miscarriage. Fences and windows (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

But we're talking about a Human foetus - and we need an explanation, in English rather than Latin, on the page. Xandar 00:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally, medical jargon should be explained. See Misplaced Pages:Jargon. One way to explain what a fetus is, and how it differs from an embryo, would be to include the image at the top of the RFC above.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Britannica's usage of "baby", I believe it is referring to the post-pregnancy infant: "A therapeutic abortion is the interruption of a pregnancy before the 20th week of gestation because it endangers the mother’s life or health or because the baby presumably would not be normal." As in, when it became a baby (via birth), it would presumably not be normal. This may be my own understanding of the word coloring my interpretation, though. -kotra (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this a reasonable proposition?

Is it reasonable to say that readers shouldn't be forced to go to a propaganda site in order to see a picture of an aborted fetus, if that's what they want to see? Opinions? -GTBacchus 00:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No. I don't think that this article should include any image of a dismembered abortus, because such an image includes no information that is not included in an intact image. Maybe there's a place at Wikimedia Commons for those shock images, but not here in this article, IMO. I have no problem with forcing readers to go elsewhere for such images. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, "images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Misplaced Pages readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." Keeping dismembered fetus images out of this article does not make this article less informative, relevant, or accurate.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoa. Who ever said "dismembered"? -GTBacchus 01:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what's at the propaganda sites.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but I didn't ask whether we should host the same pictures they do. I asked whether we should force readers to go to a propaganda site for a picture of an aborted fetus. I'm being very literal here. Wikimedia commons could be an option, as you suggest. So might infinitely many other options. You can't have a brainstorm without a little wind. -GTBacchus 01:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Brainstorms and wind are fine.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that seems reasonable. I think the images suggested by Fences and Windows above might be a good way to do this. The question is, on which article? |→ Spaully† 19:56, 24 March 2009 (GMT)

Spaully, a large number of editors have okayed the image at the top of the RFC. If the photos mentioned by Fences and Windows are not accepted into this article, would you oppose including the image at the top of the RFC instead? By the way, one of the images mentioned by Fences and Windows is already in the miscarriage and embryo articles.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep this section on the reasonable proposition put forward by GTBacchus. I am undecided on the RFC image as yet and would prefer to pursue what I feel is a more ideal outcome before deciding on it. |→ Spaully† 21:22, 24 March 2009 (GMT)

We've built a box!

Prompted by this thread, Ferrylodge has created a hide/show box — "toggle box" is a name I've just now learned — with the image of the abortus. According to the MOS, there is some technical reason that toggle boxes, along with scrolling lists, are acceptable inside an infobox or navigation box, and not outside of one. I say "Ignore all rules!", but Ferrylodge went ahead and did the sober thing, making: User:Ferrylodge/HideImageInInfobox. Mad props to Ferrylodge for figuring out how to do that.

I've asked at WT:MOS about the technical issue, and it seems at least possible that we could place a toggle box version of the image in the article.

What do people think of the collapsing box? -GTBacchus 23:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

For a photograph of an abortus, sure, something like this could be useful. For an inoffensive drawing like File:Abortus.PNG, it seems totally unnecessary. -kotra (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation 76

I followed citation 76 to find an incredibly aggressive opinion piece unsuitable for even a cited reference for a term of art. This phrase can be found in published articles exhibiting less disgusting bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.70.166 (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific to what citation you are referring? The current article's #76 is a "dead link" citation to the World Health Organization. Is that what you are talking about?-Andrew c  16:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have updated that link. KillerChihuahua 17:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Still not sure to what the original objection was referring... -Andrew c  00:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Delisted good articles
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• B-Class Abortion articles
• Unknown-importance Abortion articles
• WikiProject Abortion articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• High-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class ethics articles
• High-importance ethics articles
• Ethics task force articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• High-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• B-Class Human rights articles
• High-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists