Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:25, 14 January 2007

Template:TrollWarning

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.

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:Releaseversion

Abortion has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

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
Topical subpages
First paragraph (active) Archives:1, 2, 3, 4 To-do items (active)
Notable precedents in discussion
"Unborn"/"human" vs. "embryo"/"fetus" "Fetus" vs. "foetus" Graphic pictures, 2, 3, 4 "Death" in intro (see First paragraph & archives)

GA Passed

Congrats, great article and I see this as a potential FA candidate. Great job! —ExplorerCDT 07:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! This news is extremely welcome (and, if I might say, somewhat unexpected). Congratulations and thanks to all of the editors here, past and present, because you have helped to make the article what it is today. Let's keep up the great work! -Severa (!!!) 21:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Not to diminish any of the other GA guidelines or the comprehensive aspects of the article that I had considered in approving the GA status, but what impressed me immensely was that the article portrays a very-POV-passionate issue with a cool NPOV attitude in the best traditions of the Misplaced Pages policy, between that and having a low-incidence of edit wars, etc. Those two factors stand out, and are definitely a mark in the "pro" category when it comes time for FA nomination. If you do recommend it for FA, do let me know, you'll have my support. —ExplorerCDT 21:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, sure. Andrew c recommended above that we nominate this article for FA. I was pessimistic, given the divisive nature of the topic, but, now that this article has passed the GA test, I'm more hopeful that it could pass FA. However, there is still a lot that remains to be done (see the To-Do List), and, as far as I know, it isn't preferrable for large changes to be made to an article after it becomes an FA. Is this the case? Also, I probably shouldn't nominate this for FA myself, given my long history here, but, should anyone else want to, feel free! We could always discuss any major future additions to ensure they meet the FA standards. -Severa (!!!) 22:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• I would first put the article through Peer Review, if you haven't already done so. That way, a lot of the issues that will come up in FA are already dealt with. If there are large swaths of material to do, I'd do them first...just to have a better, more comprehensive article to present for FA. There's nothing stopping you from proposing this as an FA. No rules against nominating an article you've worked a lot on. (I thought about that with my first FA candidate Paulins Kill, but realized...no one else would do it, so I had to.). —ExplorerCDT 22:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. However, I am still concerned, because aren't article size considerations also a factor in FA nominations? I fear that, if we expand the article too much more, it won't meet the criteria (although mark-up, external links, and refs don't count toward article size — and this article has a lot of those). -Severa (!!!) 23:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and great work everyone! --Andrew c 21:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Public Opinion

The "public opinion" section currently has several flaws that can be easily fixed. First, the section focusses on only several particular countries, to the exclusion of all others. This imbalance does not seem to be a big problem, as long as readers are encouraged to visit Abortion by country.

Also, the intro to this section omits any mention of the disparate poll results on account of gender. This is a significant phenomenon, and at least one such poll result should be mentioned. Also, the intro makes it seem like the public is split into absolutes, but this is incorrect as to some aspects of the controversy. For example, consensus exists regarding legality of second trimester abortion, and at least one such poll result should be included here.

I propose to add 59 words to remedy these flaws in the U.S. "public opinion" section. I will also delete some existing material (21 words) that is redundant or that does not provide significant information. If Severa objects to any of this, then I look forward to further discussion here on this discussion page.Ferrylodge 20:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a top-tier article. As such, it must summarize the content of many sub-articles, while attempting to balance the seemingly contradictory goals of comprehensiveness and concision. Misplaced Pages is intended to represent a global perspective and your edits have shifted this article toward a more Amerocentric representation. We simply do not have the space here to accommodate detailed coverage of American attitudes toward abortion. This is why I suggested that you consider adding your information to Abortion in the United States, where WP:SIZE limitiations, or systematic bias concerns, would not be such an issue. Engaging in edit-warring, or blanking a section of the article, will not help further the goal of bettering this article.

This section is intended to be a breakdown of public opinion by region — not gender, age, religion, marital status, sexuality, or any other indicator — and has never been intended to represent anything else. We simply do not have the space to cover every possible breakdown, and, thus, regionality is the most neutral and comprehensive one. If you want to cover the details of an American poll in-depth, try Abortion in the United States.

Also, one poll regarding the legality of abortion in one trimester in one country (the United States) can hardly be used to infer that there is any sort of widespread consensus over abortion throughout the world.

This section has been stable for a very long time. The onus is on you to demonstrate that your edits are preferrable; it is not on us to defend the stable version from modification. I would like to see this article become a Featured Article. Given WP:SIZE, and WP:BIAS, I do no not see how your edits will help us toward this goal. -Severa (!!!) 21:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether this is a top-tier article that has been stable for years, or a bottom-tier article that is brand new, it should be accurate and balanced. Currently, the public opinion section is not. The very brief edits I suggested should be non-controversial, and I hope that this controversy will dissipate. One of several problems is that the current introduction to the section is misleading:

In fact, there are important aspects of the abortion controversy about which there is substantial consensus. I suggested changing the intro to the following:

As people can see from the edits I suggested, I cited three different Gallup polls plus a Los Angeles Times poll for this proposition that there is consensus. Severa says:

I cited four polls, not one, regarding second trimester abortions. And Severa has cited nothing to contradict any of that information. The US section currently contains a Harris poll regarding the legality of abortion in the first trimester and yet I don’t hear Severa objecting about that, or about the fact that the US section is the only section dealing with poll results on "rape" and "incest."

I suggested expanding the US section by a mere 38 words in order to address the flaws in this “public opinion” section of the Misplaced Pages article (with additional supporting material in the footnotes). Here is the bulk of what I suggested to insert into the US public opinion section:

These poll numbers reflect a high degree of consensus, contrary to what is currently stated in the public opinion section (which says that political sides have largely been divided into absolutes). Right now, Misplaced Pages's summary of US public opinion gives poll results supporting the legality of first trimester abortion, and there is no rational or objective reason to exclude poll results that oppose legality in the second trimester. This discrepancy has the appearance of blatant bias.

Regarding the allegation of “Americocentrism”, there is nothing “Americocentric” about the edits I suggested. Right now, the “public opinion” section only mentions five countries, without even providing a link to opinion information for other countries. This focus on only Australia, Canada, Ireland, UK, and US could be construed as anti-Asian bias, anti-African bias, and/or anti-hispanic bias. There is no justification for opposing insertion of a link (as I suggested) that will lead people to info about those other countries; to characterize this proposed edit as “Americocentric” is obviously incorrect, and counter-factual.

The idea that expanding the US section by a mere 38 words is “Americocentric” is also incorrect for other reasons. Ireland, for example, has 4 million people, and an area of 70,000 square kilometers. The United States has a population of 300,000,000 people and an area of 9,631,420 square kilometers. Yet, this public opinion section currently devotes 146 words to the US and 60 words to Ireland. These numbers are not “subjective”. They are objective. And adding a mere 38 words to the US section will not throw anything off kilter.

If there is some concern that adding a few more words to the “public opinion” section will make it too long, then I would suggest deleting some of the redundant material. Or, you may want to consider moving some of the older poll results to footnotes (e.g. the 1998 poll in Australia and/or the 1997 poll in Ireland), or deleting them.

I agree that engaging in edit-warring, or blanking a section of an article, will not help further the goal of bettering this article, or any other article. It takes two to engage in an edit-war, and such behavior is particularly unhelpful if one of the two parties has begun a discussion on the discussion page while the other party does not indicate any inclination to participate in that discussion (despite repeated requests). Nevertheless, I now realize that dispute resolution procedures are available, and therefore I would do things differently if I had to do it over again.

Regarding “blanking”, I had assumed that Severa would approve of my proposed shortening of the poll results section, and when she indicated otherwise I no longer advocated those edits. After all, Severa had said, “There is no neutral basis to claim US warrants more coverage than Canada, Australia, etc.” Therefore, I assumed she would agree with my statement that “There is no neutral basis to claim Canada, Australia, UK, Ireland, and US warrants more coverage than other countries”. When she expressed disagreement (without any explanation), I dropped the matter. Severa still has not explained that one.

Regarding the gender-gap, it is an obvious error to omit any mention of that gap, in this article. That gap is significant, and that fact has been well-documented. I see no reason not to include seven words that say so. As people can see from the edits I suggested, this is all I said:

I included the following footnote to this very brief statement:

This footnote not only supports the very brief statement that I proposed to insert regarding the gender gap, but also supports the three Gallup polls about second trimester abortions.

We are talking here about adding a mere 38 words to the US public opinion section. If the concern is space, then all the older poll results from the 1900s (for all countries) could be deleted or at least moved to footnotes; the end result would be a shorter, and much more balanced article.Ferrylodge 23:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is, basically, to summarize many other articles. As such, the space is limited, and a line must be drawn in terms of the kind of information that is covered. We simply cannot cover everything, which is why I suggested you try adding your information to a more appropriate article, Abortion in the United States. I'm not saying that the poll information is inappropriate — just that you're suggesting its inclusion in the wrong place. Doc Tropics got the ball rolling on trimming this article down to WP:SIZE, and, although I can't even begin to take on the task of downsizing the current sections on my own, I can at least help it from expanding more. Lots of people contributed to the "Public opinion" section before you. There was a lot of debate, but, I'm sorry to say, I see the section as completed, apart from adding more up-to-date data or new countries. We'll never be able to move on to new sections of the article if we keep rehashing this one. However, Abortion in the United States doesn't even appear to have its own "Public opinion" section, unlike Abortion in Canada (actually, most Abortion by country articles don't have "Public opinion" sections yet, so it's not logical to suggest simply directing people there), so your information would be a good start.

The "absolutes" in the "Public opinion" section are intended to refer to the pro-life and pro-choice movements. You allege that, somehow, this is contrary to evidence of a "consensus," but I still do not see how public opinion data from one country can be taken as representative of the entire world. The attitudes of Americans — particularly in response to one question, regarding second trimester abortion — are not indicative of the world at large. As for a "gender gap," it doesn't matter whether it is significant, or well-documented. That isn't at issue. I can see no reason why there should not be coverage of any potential racial gap, ethnic gap, religious gap, age gap, education-level gap, or income-level gap. Gender is no more significant than any of these. The simple fact is that we do not have the space to cover every single detail of every single poll in a top-tier article. As logical as it might be to include a information on U.S. attitudes toward abortion by gender, or second trimester abortion, there is no reason why we should exclude other information (opinions by race, age, urban/suburban/rural, etc.). So, if we don't draw a line, there's no limit to how long this article will get. We went for the broadest polls. I see no evidence of "bias," because I'm not suggesting that these things not be included anywhere, only that it doesn't belong here. Sub-articles exist to cover everything else that doesn't fit in a main article.

As for why no non-Western countries are represented in the "Public opinion" section, that is because most of the people who edit this article are English-speakers, using English sources, and we haven't been able to find international stats from non-English-speaking countries. "Add public opinion data from more diverse countries" has been an item on the to-do list for a very long time. We would greatly appreciate it if you would help us to find such data. It would improve the article and help to reduce systematic bias. As for the older polls, those were the newest, most-up-to-date polling data for those countries that we could find. There was a more recent poll from the U.K., if I remember, but it was conducted by BPAS, so it was ruled out due to conflict of interest. If you find newer polls, let us know, but deleting them because they are "outdated" will just worsen the WP:BIAS concern.

-Severa (!!!) 04:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I am certainly not suggesting that this article cover everything. That is a red herring.

Regarding the size of this article, I have suggested to shrink the size, by deleting poll results from the 1900s, as I said. So the notion that I am insisting on a size increase is a red herring too.

You say, "I still do not see how public opinion data from one country can be taken as representative of the entire world." I never said it is representative of the rest of the world, so that is a further red herring. The intro correctly states that poll results vary from country to country, and therefore none of the poll results from these five particular listed English-speaking countries can be taken as representative of the whole world.

Severa, you say, "The attitudes of Americans — particularly in response to one question, regarding second trimester abortion — are not indicative of the world at large." And yet, you include pro-choice US poll results for first-trimester abortion, and omit pro-life US poll results for second trimester abortion. As I said before, this has the blatant appearance of bias, and you should be able to acknowledge that. And surely you must realize that the attitudes of English-speaking people are not indicative of the world at large, while I don’t hear you urging that poll results from other people be included in the poll results section. If you're going to include US poll results, then be fair about it.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that we do not have the space to cover every single detail of every single poll in a top-tier article. However, we do have the ability to reduce the size of the poll results section, while simultaneously removing the blatant bias toward pro-choice poll results about the first trimester.

You say, "we went for the broadest polls." How is the first trimester "broader" than the second trimester? It defies common sense.

Moreover, you impliedly admit that the four poll results I've presented do indicate a consensus at least in the United States. It is therefore misleading to say (as the intro currently does), that the world is split into absolutes. The United States is, after all, part of "the world."

As far as a gender gap is concerned, that is much more relevant than other types of gaps, because this well-documented fact is contrary to expectations (i.e. counterintuitive). In any event, the LA Times poll that I cited also supports the consensus on second-trimester abortion, so I would think that the LA Times poll results are just as relevant as the three Gallup poll results that I mentioned.

Your opinion is this: "I'm sorry to say, I see the section as completed." Well, I’m sorry to say that you are being inflexible. There is always room for improvement, and in this case, a LOT of improvement. For you to flatly refuse even to put a link in the intro referring people to info about other countries than the five listed is quite simply inflexible, as is your refusal to understand that the intro is misleading and that the US results are biased toward a pro-choice position.

Even if the intro to this section had no misleading statement about the world being split into absolutes, and even if the US poll results had no results skewed to first-trimester abortions, I would still strongly urge that US poll results be mentioned that show people as a whole are much more supportive of abortion rights in the first trimester as opposed to the second. To write a whole article on abortion without mentioning such a thing would be to dumb down the discussion, and would be to disregard a critical feature of the debate, and would be to further divide this political issue into absolutes.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ferrylodge (talk • contribs) 05:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

The poll you're referring to was done by Harris Interactive and published in the Wall Street Journal. It wasn't conducted by NARAL and published in its newsletter. If that were the case, then, yes, I could understand the accusation that it is "pro-choice poll" — but we've taken care to avoid biased polls. We rejected a poll commissioned by British Pregnancy Advisory Service. So, the accusation that the Harris poll is somehow "pro-choice" doesn't stand, especially considering that 49% supporting and 47% opposing isn't anywhere near overwhelming support for the pro-choice position (and even though the 3% margin of error might very well knock the pro-life position into the lead). I fail to see how cherrypicking polls for "pro-life" results can correct a POV imbalance that isn't there. This isn't a contest. We don't need to level the playing field with another poll if one position has a 2% lead. Numbers are numbers. You don't get NPOV by stacking the deck — quite the opposite, I'd think.

"As far as a gender gap is concerned, that is much more relevant than other types of gaps, because this well-documented fact is contrary to expectations. The purpose of Misplaced Pages is not to tell people what they already know; it’s not useful to tell people that Catholics are more pro-life than Jews. Everyone knows that. But I dare say that people would be interested to know that men are more pro-choice than women, because very many people think just the opposite."

Misplaced Pages is, foremost, an encyclopaedia. We are in the business of facts, not "what people would be interested to know," because that savours strongly of trying to prove something. A gender gap in U.S. attitudes toward abortion would be no more significant than a statistical gap between races, ethnicities, ages, religions, levels of education, place of residence (urban/suburban/rural), etc. To single it out as "more relevant," because it is "contrary to expectations," is counter to WP:NOT#SOAP. As Tznkai used to say, "Readers aren't stupid. They don't need to be lead around by their noses." We don't handpick out information with the intent of causing the reader to come to a conclusion which we have predetermined. We present all the facts that are relevant and let the reader come to his own conclusions. And, as for the statement, "...it’s not useful to tell people that Catholics are more pro-life than Jews. Everyone knows that.'", what people who claim to be Catholic think themselves might very well be quite independent of the Church's official position, and Jews hardly constitute one homogenous demographic. I highly doubt that opinions on abortion among Orthodox Jewish communities are any more permissive than opinions among an average Catholic community (see Religion and abortion).

"For you to flatly refuse even to put a link in the intro referring people to info about other countries than the five listed is quite simply inflexible."

Let's have a breakdown of why, exactly, such a link really wouldn't be functional:

• Abortion in Australia "Public opinion" section.
• Abortion in Iran: Stub. No poll information.
• Abortion in New Zealand: No poll information.
• Abortion in the Philippines: Stub. No poll information.
• Abortion in the Czech Republic: "Public opinion" section that is more a general summary of national sentiment. No poll information.
• Abortion in Finland: Stub. No poll information.
• Abortion in France: Stub. No poll information.
• Abortion in the Netherlands: Stub. No poll information.
• Abortion in Sweden: Stub. No poll information.
• Abortion in Ireland: No poll information.
• Abortion in Germany: No poll information.
• Abortion in the United Kingdom: Poll information under "Statistics."
• Abortion in Argentina: No poll information.
• Abortion in Brazil: Stub. No poll information.
• Abortion in Chile: Stub. No poll information.
• Abortion in Guatemala: Stub. No poll information.
• Abortion in Nicaragua: No poll information.
• Abortion in Canada: "Opinion poll" section.
• Abortion in the United States: No poll information

3/18 articles have information on public opinion polls. What's the purpose in directing readers to something that isn't there? As for the L.A. Times polls, although these are sound, we simply don't have the space to cover them (WP:SIZE), and your rationale for inclusion isn't sufficient. My advice is that you begin a "Public opinion" section at Abortion in the United States instead. -Severa (!!!) 05:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of what polling company conducted the poll on first trimester abortion that is currently mentioned in the Misplaced Pages article’s public opinion section. After all, I previously said in this thread, "The US section currently contains a Harris poll regarding the legality of abortion in the first trimester ...." Contrary to what you seem to be implying, Severa, I have never asserted that the Harris poll was inaccurate, nor have I ever asserted that the Harris poll results should be removed from the other poll results in this Misplaced Pages public opinion section.

I deplore your accusation that I am "cherrypicking polls for ‘pro-life’ results." That is insulting and inaccurate. I direct your attention to the top of this discussion page, which says, "Be polite, Assume good faith, No personal attacks, Don't bite the newcomers!" I have tried to conform to those requests (at great difficulty) and I wish you would as well.

The fact that Misplaced Pages's description of poll results (e.g. the Harris poll results) is accurate does not make that description fair. If the Home Builders Association (which has a vested interest in low interest rates) published a newsletter article about inflation, and cited only an accurate Harris poll result showing that people enjoy the inflationary effect of higher salaries, while omitting Gallup poll results showing that people dislike the inflationary effect of higher prices, then that would be a blatantly biased newsletter. And so it is with the Misplaced Pages “public opinion” section. The result of the Harris poll tends to favor the pro-choice side, and more importantly it cements the misguided statement in the intro that there is no consensus about this issue.

If I wanted the Misplaced Pages’s “public opinion” section to be biased on the pro-life side, then I would urge that the Harris poll results be deleted, and that the Gallup and LA Times poll results that I’ve mentioned be inserted instead. However, I am not advocating that, and never have advocated that. What I have advocated is a neutral point of view.

I entirely agree with you that “You don't get NPOV by stacking the deck”, which is exactly how the deck is currently arranged, whether intentionally or not.

Regarding a gender gap, you are quoting (at 05:38 on 2 January) some material that I rephrased (at 08:45 on 1 January). If anyone else is reading this thread, I hope they will judge for themselves whether it is objectively “counterintuitive” that men are more pro-choice than women. You have not addressed counterintutiveness as an important factor that makes information encyclopedia-worthy. In any event, the LA Times poll results I mentioned are independently very relevant to the existence of a consensus on abortion.

Regarding my suggestion that the intro to the public opinion section include a link to further info specific to particular countries, you say, “3/18 articles have information on public opinion polls. What's the purpose in directing readers to something that isn't there?” It would be easy enough to say in the intro that “readers MAY find further public opinion information about abortion specific to particular countries.” Currently, there is no suggestion in the abortion public opinion section that readers can find --- elsewhere at Misplaced Pages --- abortion public opinion info about the Czech Republic, the UK, the US, or Australia. That would not only enable readers to find relevant public opinion info, but would facilitate and encourage editors to insert relevant info. Furthermore, the intro to the public opinion section on the global abortion page currently links to Misplaced Pages's Public_opinion page, which says not a word about abortion public opinion, even as you resist any attempt to direct readers to precisely such information.

I am not sure that much else needs to be said here. The issues are pretty simple. I continue to urge shortening the Misplaced Pages abortion page’s public opinion section by eliminating old polls from the 1900s, and by providing additional information (primarily the Gallup and LA Times poll results I mentioned) that will eliminate the NPOV problems, while making the article more informative.Ferrylodge 10:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) You have not made it clear how a 2% lead in a poll with a 3% error margin represents a POV concern by "favor the pro-choice side." I think that most people reading the U.S. polls paragraph would intepret a 49%/47% split as a practical tie, and, thus, not favouring either side. But, even if a poll showed, unequivocally, that 80% of people professed an opinion which could be described as, say, pro-life, would that represent an NPOV concern? No. The poll's results are simply numbers, and numbers are neutral. If 80% of people in a survey said that they were pro-choice, it would simply reflect the opinion of those polled, not that their opinion was better or correct.

Again, my suggestion is to check out Abortion in the United States. I'm sure that article would benefit very highly from the addition of a "Public opinion" section. -Severa (!!!) 11:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Severa, I have made it perfectly clear that the current page suppresses poll results regarding the second trimester, in favor of poll results for the first trimester, in order to buttress the false statement in the intro that public opinion is divided into absolutes. You say that poll results "are simply numbers, and numbers are neutral." Therefore, you have not made it clear why you are waging such a battle to prevent inclusion of the neutral numbers that I have presented. Ferrylodge 12:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for just butting in. It's hard to follow the conversation when your posts are so long. I just wanted to add that (at least in the US) around 90% of all abortions occur during the first trimester. If more weight is given towards public opinion regarding the vast majority of all aboriton procedures, then we are doing nothing wrong. We must avoid giving undue weight to minority positions (as may be the case with late term abortions). I'll hold off giving my opinion on the specifics until I have time to weed through this past conversation.--Andrew c 21:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Andrew C, you're correct that a vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester. However, that doesn't mean that Misplaced Pages is justified in paying less attantion to the ones in the second trimester. The ones in the second trimester are far more controversial, because the fetus is far more developed. If you want to compare the two sets of abortions by numbers, then you could also compare total aborted fetal weight, and then you'd find that the numbers for the first trimester are much much less than 90%. Or, you could compare the total number of aborted livers and kidneys and fingerprints (those features have not been formed yet in a vast number of first trimester abortions).

There is no objective justification for focusing on first trimester but not second. The reason why many pro-choice groups choose to focus on the first is because the public opinion polls are much more favorable for them regarding the first trimester. If pro-choice groups were to acknowledge or publicize the poll results for the second trimester, then that could put decisions like Roe v. Wade in jeopardy, because Roe legalized all abortion up until viability (at seven months in 1973). And the simple fact remains that there is consensus regarding the most controversial types of abortions, contrary to what is stated in the intro to this "public opinion" section.Ferrylodge 22:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

When did 65% become a consensus?--Andrew c 23:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Second Edition, the primary definition of consensus is "majority of opinion." It seems to me that 65% is a consensus, as I and Random House use the term.Ferrylodge 14:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you not acknowledge that there are more meanings to the word than just "majority of opinion", and that by trying to slip in the phrase that there is a consensus opinion regarding 2nd-tri abortions, it could be interpreted by some as something else? I believe strongly that the wording you inserted in the article in the past is misleading because it is not "An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole" (primary definition from answers.com). I apologize for being skeptical, but it seems like you are using cherry picked data and word games to say something is more significant than it really is. I understand your underlying point, and perhaps it is valid and should be included, but from what I gather of the recent edit history, your approach has concerned a number of editors. I think there is nothing wrong with saying generally that public opinion on abortion in general is divided. And perhaps, the more detailed information can go in one of the more topical spinout articles. However, with size constraints and such, I feel that a number of your recent edits to the article have been to detailed and wordy for a top teir article, and at best should be briefly summarized and included in a spinout article. Just my two cents, and I apologize sincerely if I am missing something. Thanks for listening.--Andrew c 16:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Andrew C, I wasn't trying to slip anything anywhere. If someone thinks the word "consensus" is inappropiate then I'd be happy to change the wording to "more agreement". I gave the poll numbers, so people could judge for themselves.

There is nothing wordy or misleading about the following material that I am requesting be inserted into the U.S. public opinion section: "Gallup has asked the following question: 'Do you think abortion should generally be legal or generally illegal during the second three months of pregnancy?' 69% said illegal in March of 2000, and 68% said illegal in January of 2003." That is NOT wordy.

Andrew C, you are missing something else pretty significant: I've suggested shortening the "public opinion" section, not lengthening it, by deleting poll results from the 1900s. So, your concern about size constraints is misplaced.

You say, "it seems like you are using cherry picked data and word games". Look, this is not rocket science. The "public opinion section" currently gives poll results for first trimester abortions. I've requested that it also contain poll results for second trimester abortions. If Misplaced Pages views that as cherry-picking and word games, then Misplaced Pages is very obviously wrong.

You say, "your approach has concerned a number of editors." As far as I know, my requested edits to this abortion page have only concerned one other editor. I hope you won't join that list.Ferrylodge 17:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) You are suggesting removing poll results from foreign countries and expanding the U.S. section. As I said before, polls from the 90s were the most recent, up-to-date ones we could find in our search for public opinion data. Unless you are willing to replace these data, I fail to see how your suggestion will help the artice, especially given the fact that it will only double the WP:BIAS concern (by increasing the U.S. section and entirely eliminating the Irish section). Also, as for your preemptive deletion of the Ireland polls, I had objected to this before.

"As for the older polls, those were the newest, most-up-to-date polling data for those countries that we could find. There was a more recent poll from the U.K., if I remember, but it was conducted by BPAS, so it was ruled out due to conflict of interest. If you find newer polls, let us know, but deleting them because they are "outdated" will just worsen the WP:BIAS concern."

-Severa (!!!) 17:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Severa, prior to seeing your most recent comment in this thread, I deleted an old Australia poll from the 1990s, without deleting any discussion of Ireland. I hope this will be acceptable to you.Ferrylodge 18:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidently, you do disagree, since you have yet again reverted my edits without engaging any discussion. Severa, there is only one poll for Ireland, and only one poll for the UK. Is this tragically unfair to the UK and Ireland? I suppose if I went and found poll results for a whole host of countries that are now not even listed, you would find some objection to that. Can you please spare me the effort, and try to concoct some objection right now? Thank you.Ferrylodge 18:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is evidently going nowhere. The "public opinion section" currently gives poll results for first trimester abortions. I've requested that the public opinion section also contain poll results for second trimester abortions: "Gallup has asked the following question: 'Do you think abortion should generally be legal or generally illegal during the second three months of pregnancy?' 69% said illegal in March of 2000, and 68% said illegal in January of 2003." Tomorrow, I intend to pursue a dispute resolution procedure to make this edit and thus cure a blatantly obvious NPOV problem.Ferrylodge 18:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You have made significant edits to a long-stable version of the article without approval for such edits — in fact, you have made such edits in spite of disapproval from at least one editor, myself, but I'm going to AGF and assume that you merely forgot my earlier objection.

See the discussion "Article length" in Archive 25. Basically, the gist of it as that Doc Tropic well-meaningly tried to cut the article down to SIZE, but by the wholesale removal of large portions of the article. We decided to opt for trimming the article through careful copyediting instead. Your edits resemble the former and so I don't think they are in the spirit of the current SIZE improvement drive.

As for the comment, "I suppose if I went and found poll results for a whole host of countries that are now not even listed, you would find some objection to that," I have already noted that "Add public opinion data from more diverse countries" has been an item on the To-do list for a very long time. Finding such poll data would be constructive and would greatly help to improve the article. -Severa (!!!) 18:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Severa says we can expand this article to include poll results of dozens more tiny countries, by including results of multiple polls for each of those tiny countries, as long as we don't add a poll to the US section on second trimester abortions that would supplement the existing poll results on first trimester abortions. This is as absurd and as biased a policy as I have ever encountered, and I fully intend to pursue dispute resolution. It is a blatant NPOV problem to include first but not second trimester poll results.

And I find it completely ridiculous that there could be the slightest "bias" problem if a very old Australia poll result is deleted, leaving Australia with the same amount of poll results as Ireland and the UK.Ferrylodge 18:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes basically recommends discussion. As for the U.S. poll section, it is the product of discussion going back over a year, see Talk:Abortion/Archive_14. The Harris poll was not selected because it dealt with first trimester abortion; it was selected because it asked Americans broadly about their opinions on Roe v. Wade. It replaced another poll which asked people whether they considered themselves "pro-choice" or "pro-life," which another editor had found problematic, because the terms were "undefined" and "vague." A poll which asked whether Americans wanted Roe v. Wade to be overturned or not was also deemed to be too vague. Find a poll which addresses Roe while describing what it is (i.e. what would be overturned or upheld) — problem solved. I suppose, if the "first trimester" bit of the Harris poll represents such an issue, we could revert to another poll which simply asks whether Americans want Roe overturned or upheld. But, I don't see why we need to add a poll on second trimester abortion, because the intent of the Harris poll was not to inform about U.S. opinion on first trimester abortion, but on Roe. There are many other angles which could be covered, but aren't, such as opinions on third trimester abortion, abortion methods, whether parental notification laws are a good idea, whether people consider themselves pro-choice or pro-life, or whether abortion is considered immoral or not. We want to cast the broadest net for our summary section, but, there's nothing preventing more detailed, specific polls from being covered in a sub-article. -Severa (!!!) 19:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Severa, again, I have never suggested getting rid of the Harris poll result in the "public opinion" section --- only that it be supplemented to complete the picture and eliminate the NPOV problem. You greatly mischaracterize that Harris poll result in the "public opinion" section. You say that it, "asked Americans broadly about their opinions on 'Roe v. Wade.'" That is false. The Harris poll question quoted in this Misplaced Pages article asked: "Do you favor or oppose the part of Roe v. Wade that made abortions up to three months of pregnancy legal?" This particular question does not address the other part of Roe v. Wade, that made abortions between three and six months of pregnancy legal. Roe v. Wade made abortion legal for any reason up until viability, which in 1973 was at seven months.

You say that "the intent of the Harris poll was not to inform about U.S. opinion on first trimester abortion, but on Roe." And the particular poll result quoted by Misplaced Pages does an incomplete job informing about Roe.

And thanks for mentioning the futility of a dispute procedure. Is that how Misplaced Pages works? Can people write an article that intentionally or unintentionally has an NPOV problem, and then those people can forevermore require unanimity to fix it?Ferrylodge 20:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait, what is the reason for deleting polls? Simply because it comes from 1998? What is wrong with 1998? Is there any[REDACTED] policy that citing a poll from '98 violates? I see no reason what so ever to remove this poll based soley on the year it was conducted. Perhaps I am missing something. Is there another reason why you want to delete this content?--Andrew c 20:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comment, Andrew. The Australia section has two polls, one recent and one old. The UK section has only one recent poll. Therefore, if we delete the Australia poll, the UK and Australia paragraphs will be balanced in that regard. Moreover, it seems to me that this is a "public opinion" section, and there is a separate "history" section. Wouldn't you agree that at some point a poll result becomes sufficiently old that it should either be removed or should be placed in the history section? This seems rather self-evident.Ferrylodge 20:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Pardon the mistake. I should have clarified that the intent of including the Harris poll in the Misplaced Pages article Abortion was to provide information on U.S. opinions of Roe v. Wade. There was never any intent to cover opinions of abortion in any trimester. Because this is the case, we could easily substitute the Harris poll for another which asks a broader, more straightforward question, e.g. "Do you think Roe v. Wade should be overturned or upheld?" and leave more specific polls for Abortion in the United States.

The "History of abortion" section is also intended to cover the history of the topic prior to the 20th century. It was never intended as a place for information pre-dating 2000, as, otherwise, it would be quite long and off-topic, because if you check the "References" section, many of the sources are from the 90s and earlier -Severa (!!!) 21:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Severa, I would prefer to keep the Harris poll question and supplement it with the brief Gallup results I mentioned. This is because the generic poll question you suggest ("Do you think Roe v. Wade should be overturned or upheld?") rules out partially upholding Roe, and that last option is the option that far more Americans prefer. I doubt that you will be able to find a poll specifically asking "Do you think Roe v. Wade should be overturned, upheld, or partially upheld?" That is why it would be easier to just include the Gallup poll results I mentioned.

Severa, you've said that you would like this "public opinion" section to include poll results for as many countries as possible. I would be willing to invest a substantial amount of my time gathering such info for you (including info that would make at least two of the currently listed countries have poll data as lengthy as that for the U.S., if you like) provided that I am allowed to include the second trimester Gallup info that I've mentioned. This is the best way to solve the NPOV problem, IMHO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ferrylodge (talk • contribs) 21:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Good job starting the section at Abortion in the United States. However, some of the text was nearly identical to a blog comment at the Washington Post site, so I went ahead and modified it, just in case (WP:COPY and all). I also tweaked the format a bit so that it should be easier to add more polls. -Severa (!!!) 04:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected the false poll numbers that you inadvertently inserted at Abortion in the United States. I also clarified that Roe made abortion legal not just in the first but also in the second trimester, contrary to what is implied by the cited Harris poll result. You did not respond to my previous entry in this thread, and I look forward to a response. Ferrylodge 14:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The version of "Public opinion" including the Harris poll goes back over a year. Adding the Harris poll was the result of discussion between multiple users; in particular, the poll was added to address specific concerns. This former consensus cannot be overlooked. New input from more than just two people would be needed to form any new consensus against the former consensus (WP:CON).

If you find international poll results, feel free to post them here. Future efforts to improve the "Public opinion" section should probably be more collaborative, like the writing of the introduction was in the past (see Talk:Abortion/First paragraph), in order to avoid issues right out of the gate. -Severa (!!!) 18:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Severa, the inclusion of the Harris poll data is a blatant NPOV violation, absent poll numbers regarding the legality of abortion in the second trimester. Roe legalized abortion in both the first trimester and the second trimester. You apparently disagree with one or all of these statements. Therefore, I plan on commencing a dispute resolution procedure later today. It may be futile, but it is certainly the right thing to do. How you can believe that the "public opinion" section currently has a neutral point of view is completely beyond my comprehension. I am not overlooking any former consensus. That former consensus was apparently based on the mistaken belief that you expressed earlier in this thread: that Roe only legalized abortion in the first trimester. You have admitted that error.Ferrylodge 19:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Severa asked me to go look at the Talk archives. It will take me awhile to find the pertinent discussion.Ferrylodge 21:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Harris poll inclusion is not a POV violation, blatant or otherwise. It is not misrepresented in the article, nor, being a poll, can it "support" one side or the other. So long as we are careful to clearly represent what the poll asked, and the demographics selected (if given) it is simply information. KillerChihuahua 22:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Harris Poll

The Harris poll results in the "public opinion" section were added on May 5, 2006. There was no discussion as far as I can tell, nor even any comment to accompany the edit and let people know what the edit was about.

In any event, as I've said, the Harris poll discussion in the "public opinion" section is a blatant NPOV violation, because the poll question conveys the impression that Roe v. Wade only legalized abortion in the first trimester, which is false. It also legalized abortion for any reason a woman chooses, at least in the first and second trimesters.

I have attempted to correct this NPOV violation in two ways. First, I tried to include poll results for the second trimester, in order to accompany the poll results already presented for the first trimester. This idea was rejected by Severa, although I'm not aware that anyone else registered an opinion about it.

Then, I attempted to delete the Harris poll Roe v. Wade results for the first trimester. That too was rejected by Severa, although I'm not aware that anyone else registered an opinion about it.

There is a third way to deal with the problem, that I would like to suggest. That is, to rewrite the entry as follows, in order to let the reader know about the flaws in the poll:

An April 2006 Harris poll on Roe v. Wade, asked, "In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that states laws which made it illegal for a woman to have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy were unconstitutional, and that the decision on whether a woman should have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy should be left to the woman and her doctor to decide. In general, do you favor or oppose this part of the U.S. Supreme Court decision making abortions up to three months of pregnancy legal?", to which 49% of respondents indicated favor while 47% indicated opposition.(ref) Harris Interactive, (2006-05-04). "Support for Roe vs. Wade Declines to Lowest Level Ever." Retrieved 2007-01-04.(/ref) It should be noted, however, that Roe v. Wade also made abortions between three and six months of pregnancy legal for any reason a woman chooses, even if her doctor does not approve of the reason.

If no one objects, then I will edit the "public opinion" section in this way. I have included a new and better link to the poll results, in order to provide the full text of the question asked, as well as other related poll results. The poll question has two drastic flaws: it suggests that Roe only legalized abortion in the first trimester, and it also suggests that a doctor has some power to control the outcome of an abortion decision.

Goodandevil was, shall we say, a very persistent single-issue editor. I suppose the one thing I've learned about Misplaced Pages is that you can never please everyone. One user will edit war to have something added, and, just when you think you've succeeded in reaching some semblance of agreement and stability, another user will campaign to have it removed.

We can remove the poll for the time being, although, honestly, I still don't see the issue. There is no suggestion in the Harris poll that "Roe only legalized abortion in the first trimester." It's actually very clear from the question it asks that the poll is only addressing one aspect of Roe : "Do you favor or oppose the part of Roe v. Wade that made abortions up to three months legal?" The logical conclusion is that there's more, i.e. abortion is still legal in the second trimester, if not as widely practiced (in 2002, 86.7% of abortion in the United States were performed before 12 weeks ). You're not giving readers enough credit. They don't need to be lead around by the nose.

The issue has been rectified. I've requested that others comment here, but, honestly, I think the volume of material needing to be reviewed beforehand is daunting. Maybe more heads will help the situation. -Severa (!!!) 08:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Severa. There was no reason for the Harris poll to exclude second trimester abortions from its question and from its poll. They are less frequent, but more controversial. If you compare the two sets of abortions by numbers, you could also compare total aborted fetal weight, or you could compare the total number of aborted eyeballs and ears and noses and fingerprints (those features have not been formed yet in a vast number of first trimester abortions). Harris excluded the second trimester abortions in order to boost the apparent support for Roe, IMHO.Ferrylodge 13:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what your point is on how Harris chose to conduct its poll. We don't know why Harris chose to poll only on first trimester, and your speculation that the reason was to boost support for Roe is just that, speculation. You are wasting talk page space and editors' time with your personal opinions about highly speculative matters. If you had found a statement from Harris, or rather a Harris executive in a position to set policy, who had clearly stated that was a reason, then you would be completely supported by me (and likely other editors as well) for bringing it here. Please try to focus on the article, and verifiable information, rather than using this talk page as a blog or soapbox. Thanks much - KillerChihuahua 22:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, you are unhappy about my wasting talk page space with the sentence I wrote above: "Harris excluded the second trimester abortions in order to boost the apparent support for Roe, IMHO." It was my mistake for speculating and wasting talk page space. I retract that sentence, but everything else I said stands. Everything else I said did focus on the Misplaced Pages article, and on verifiable information. I hope that you will not further waste talk page space by focusing on a single brief sentence that I have now retracted. Thanks in advance for pardoning my oversight.

As to your other assertion that the Harris poll inclusion is not a POV violation, I almost agree with you. I've said that there is no problem including that poll if the full poll question is given along with an explanation (not in footnotes) that Roe v. Wade also made abortions between three and six months of pregnancy legal for any reason a woman chooses, even if her doctor does not approve of the reason. Alternatively, I see no problem including that Harris poll result if poll results are also given for the second trimester.

The way the article read prior to removal of the Harris poll, it was misleading. It is not enough to clearly state what the poll asked. If the poll asked a question that could easily be misleading, then the meaning of the question should be clarified.

Louis Boccardi, former executive editor of the Associated Press said in 1981 that, "The decision is often misreported....it's wrong to say only that the court approved abortion in the first three months. It did that, but more." William Humbach, Assistant to the Executive Editor of the New York Times said in 1982 that "the phrase 'in the first three months of pregnancy' might be incorrectly interpreted to mean that abortions in the last six months of pregnancy remain illegal." As you can see earlier on this talk page, Severa herself erred on this point. By the way, the quotes from Boccardi and Humbach can be found at the following link (which is from a pro-life group): http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/Roedistort112904.html

Suppose Misplaced Pages puts poll results into an article about Iraq, and the only poll questions are these: "Do you agree that it's a good thing Saddam is no longer in power?" and "Do you agree that the United States is right to help Iraqis achieve democracy and a better way of life?" This would be a blatantly slanted Misplaced Pages article, because it would ignore poll questions and poll results unfavorable to the war in Iraq. To paraphrase Mark Twain, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Ferrylodge 23:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the verbiage describing the poll currently accurate, in your opinion? If so, there is nothing more to say. If not, please state so, and suggest improved phrasing. Please be concise, thanks. KillerChihuahua 23:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The verbiage describing the poll at Abortion_in_the_United_States#Public_Opinion is currently accurate, in my opinion, and the context is balanced. In contrast, the poll has been removed from Abortion#Public_opinion, so there is no problem in my view with Abortion#Public_opinion as it now stands.Ferrylodge 23:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand your urgent need to demonstrate that abortion in the U.S. is legal in the second trimester, throughout no less than three articles, Abortion, Abortion in the United States, and Roe v. Wade. "It should be noted, however, that Roe v. Wade also made abortions between three and six months of pregnancy legal for any reason a woman chooses, even if her doctor does not approve of the reason" is in no way "balanced." It reminds me of the kind of unnecessary personal commentary qualifications G&E once added. This information is already available in the "Legal aspects" section Abortion in the United States, so, the out-of-place repetition seems like it's trying to spoon-feed or frame the issue. The solution to perception of POV is not to add more POV. As KC said, Misplaced Pages is not a blog. Do any other editors share Ferrylodge's objections to the Harris poll? If not, I see no issue with including it in this article. -Severa (!!!) 00:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Do any other editors share Severa's objections to the current verbiage describing the poll at Abortion_in_the_United_States#Public_Opinion, or to the current verbiage at Abortion#Public_opinion? If not, I see no issue with leaving things as they are. Severa, you say that the Harris poll (which discusses Roe in a very incomplete and misleading way) should be inserted into Abortion#Public_opinion without explanation, because information about Roe is buried on a separate Misplaced Pages page in a section that is not even linked from the Abortion page. I disagree. Would you at least acknowledge that there is some validity to the concerns expressed by Louis Boccardi of the Associated Press, and William Humbach of the New York Times (quoted above)?Ferrylodge 01:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the poll question/result Severa desires to be included specifically mentions that Roe made abortion legal in the first three months of pregnancy, it seems disingenuous of her to clam that is simply improper opinining to make it clear that Roe has been consistently interpreted by the SCOTUS as legalizing abortion throughout all 9 months of pregnancy. To include poll results from such a biased question (that so blatantly misleads the respondent into thinking Roe did NOT legalize abortion beyond the 1st trimester) - and to then allege that seeking to provide context to remove any chance of the[REDACTED] reader being similarly mislead - is to advocate for a low quality article. Hats off to Ferrylodge for bringing up this concern.84.146.233.113

By the way, Gallup has poll results for the second trimester:

Question: "Do you think abortion should generally be legal or generally illegal during the second three months of pregnancy?"

1996 Results: 65% said "generally illegal"

2000 Results: 69% said "generally illegal"

2003 Results: 68% said "generally illegal".

84.146.215.12

I'm Glad

I'm glad this article is not stacked with bias on one side or the other. This is how Misplaced Pages should be. Facts are usually well agreed upon and easy to cite. Opinions should be stated as opinions. This page is a good example, I think. Maybe. (ShitakiMan 11:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC))

Credit goes to Severa who has worked tirelessly to maintain balance on this article, which given the emotional nature of the subject, has been a very difficult task. KillerChihuahua 11:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's only natural that maintaining balance on this article would be difficult. However, I can't take sole credit for this article, because we've had a lot of great editors who've helped to make it what it is. :-) -Severa (!!!) 21:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

public opinion

just a comment from a viewer: I think you guys did a wonderful job on the article. I understand that there is missing data in the public opinion section. But the poll numbers, coming all from anglo-saxon countries, are not representative at all of opinion around the world. At this stage, since this sample is not representative, and represents the anglo-saxon culture only, I question its relevance. Or at the very least, you should put a mention of this.--Left of the right 12:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I found a few international polls last night and integrated them into the article. I suppose if the section gets too long, though, we can always move some of it to Abortion and public opinion. -Severa (!!!) 20:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Biased much?

I'm sorry, but is this some sort of joke? Has no one noticed the incredibly biased manner in which this article has been written? "Abortion should be illegal in all 50 states" is NOT A FACT. It's an opinion, which can certainly be left out of informative articles.

Honestly, I was appauled to read that. Whether it's what you believe or not, this isn't the place to be writing something like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.165.220.154 (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

That was vandalism, which has been reverted. You will also sometimes see every instance of the word "abortion" replaced with "MURDER" which is also vandalism. Next time you see vandalism, revert it: view article history, and "edit" then "save" without making any changes, the version PREVIOUS to the version edited by the vandal. KillerChihuahua 14:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Spontaneous Abortion

The article currently says: "The risk of spontaneous abortion decreases significantly after the 8th week."

I am now changing it to read: "The risk of spontaneous abortion decreases sharply after the 8th week, i.e. when the fetal stage begins."

As Severa requested, I will not link to any other Misplaced Pages article in this sentence, nor will I include additional footnotes. The already-footnoted BBC article says that the risk diminishes "dramatically" at this point. No thesaurus equates the words "dramatically" with "significantly." Severa says that she doesn't like the word "dramatically" because it's doesn't have "encycopedic tone." I suggest that we use the word "sharply" which does have encyclopedic tone, and is synonymous with "dramatically" (also see Lennart Nilsson's non-political book "A Child is Born", page 91 (1990): at eight weeks, "the danger of a miscarriage . . . diminishes sharply"). I also think it's informative to briefly point out that this point is when the fetal stage begins.Ferrylodge 00:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hierarchy

The hierarchy of geographic articles related to abortion is currently very awkward. Currently, there is a link at the right-hand-side of this article to "abortion by country" under the heading of "law". However, there is no reason why it should be under such a heading, since the articles within "abortion by country" are not limited to legal articles.

Additionally, I think that all the countries with a general page about abortion should be listed in "abortion by country", instead of only listing regions. A Misplaced Pages user will become frustrated having to click so many links from this general abortion page just in order to get to a general abortion page for a particular country.

I was in the process of listing all the general abortion pages for each country, in the category "abortion by country." However, I see that those edits have been reverted, and even the few general country-pages that were listed in "abortion by country" have now been deleted. This is the wrong way to go, in my opinion.Ferrylodge 23:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an established system to categorization overseen by WikiProject Abortion. "...By country" is the titling convention set down in WP:NCCAT. See the post I made here. -Severa (!!!) 23:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Today I created the Oceania & Australasia category for abortion, and this hopefully conforms to how Misplaced Pages wants it done. Moreover, at Abortion by Country, I have simply linked the abortion pages for various countries, without altering the categorization. I still think that the link to "Abortion by country" at the main abortion page should not be tucked away under the "law" heading.Ferrylodge 23:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Categories aren't intended as lists. See Misplaced Pages:Lists (stand-alone lists) for information on how to create list articles. -Severa (!!!) 23:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have linked in this article to the list of country articles about abortion.Ferrylodge 00:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Abortion by country was already linked in the article under "See also." -Severa (!!!) 00:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the changed link for "Abortion by country" in the template. I have also modified the headings.Ferrylodge 00:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Article concerns

Abortion is the greatest evil in the world, this article is way too pro-choice. Quaker24 01:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Quaker24, I've found that the best way to proceed is to suggest specific changes. It would be helpful if you would do that too. I'd support any reasonable changes you suggest.Ferrylodge 02:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is written from neutral point of view, and, as such, this article is not intended (and cannot be used) to promote any particular perspective on abortion, be it pro-life, pro-choice, or anything in between. Ferrylodge is correct in that it would be a lot more helpful to point out specific issues you find with the article. We can attempt to address specific issues, but, if you're suggesting that the article be written to reflect a specific point of view, I'm sorry, but that's not what Misplaced Pages is about. -Severa (!!!) 02:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, the absolute and irrefutable proof that this article is way too pro-choice is that there is STILL no medical image of an abortion procedure or even abortion instruments. 84.146.248.233 18:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should at least be a prominent link to photos. Note that at the page for fetus there is a huge photo.

As far as this abortion page is concerned, I think there should also be some description of abortion as an industry. Like other industries, there is a certain amount of money involved, there are a certain number of people who rely upon it for their livelihood, there is a certain amount of government funding, et cetera. That stuff should be in here.

Conversely, I think a lot of the technical medical jargon and detail can usefully be moved to a page specific to that subject.Ferrylodge 19:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• GA-Class Abortion articles
• Unknown-importance Abortion articles
• WikiProject Abortion articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Undated GA templates
• Good articles without topic parameter