Misplaced Pages

Talk:Abortion and mental health

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MastCell (talk | contribs) at 22:53, 28 March 2008 (→Let's pause, take a few breaths, and figure out how to proceed from here: c). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:53, 28 March 2008 by MastCell (talk | contribs) (→Let's pause, take a few breaths, and figure out how to proceed from here: c)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Abortion and mental health article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
WikiProject iconAbortion Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 This is not a forum for general discussion of abortion.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to the suggestions on how to improve the content of this article.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Misplaced Pages:Etiquette.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Abortion and mental health article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Archiving icon
Archives
Index

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.

Coleman Review as Undisputedly Reliable Secondary Source

Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, the view that a source is a reliable secondary source only if does not include an analyis of data, interviews, or other material not generally available to others, then clearly Coleman's review "The psychology of abortion: A review and suggestions for future research" published in the peer reviewed journal Psychology and Health (April 2005, 20(2):237-271.) clearly qualifies as a reliable source for this article. Unfortunately, it is not available free online, but that hardly disqualifies it.

Previously I posted one of her summary statements after deleting her in line APA citations. Here is the same quote (cut and pasted from a PDF copy of the article) including all her citations to show that she is doing exactly what we are trying to do, giving a well cited summary of the literature:

  • Abortion tends to bring relief and a reduction in women’s perceptions of stress(Adler, 1975). However, there is relative consensus among scholars in the field that at least 10-20% of women who have had an abortion suffer from serious negative psychological complications (Adler et al., 1990; Lewis, 1997; Major and Cozzarelli, 1992; Zolese and Blacker, 1992). With over 1.3 million abortions performed annually in the U.S. (Alan Guttmacher Institute, 2000), using the more conservative 10% figure would result in 130,000 new cases of women experiencing related psychological problems each year. Among those who are adversely affected, many stress-related symptoms have been identified, including anxiety (Franco, Tamburrino, Campbell, Pentz & Jurs, 1989; Moseley, Follongstad, Harley & Heckel, 1981; Niswander, Singer & Singer, 1972), depression (Coleman & Nelson, 1998; Cougle, Reardon & Coleman, 2003; Gould, 1980; Moseley et al., 1981; Reardon & Cougle, 2002a, 2002b; Thorp, Hartmann & Shadigian, 2003), sleep disturbances (Barnard, 1990; Gould, 1980), substance use/abuse (Coleman, Reardon, Rue & Cougle, 2002b; Drower & Nash, 1978; Reardon & Ney, 2000; Yamaguchi & Kandel, 1987), and increased risk of suicide (Gissler, Kauppila, Merilainen, Toukomaa & Hemminki, 1997; Reardon et al., 2002). A few recent studies have further identified relations between maternal history of abortion and problematic parenting (Benedict, White & Cornely, 1985; Coleman, Reardon & Cougle, 2002; Ney, Fung & Wickett, 1993).

Another paragraph of interest to this article

  • Numerous studies have now identified many of the demographic, individual, relationship, and situational characteristics that place women at risk for psychological disturbance in the aftermath of abortion. The available data specifically indicate that women are more prone to post-abortion psychological problems when they have any of the following characteristics: (1) low self-efficacy for coping with the abortion (Major et al., 1990), (2) low self-esteem (Cozzarelli, Karrasch, Sumer & Major, 1994), (3) external locus of control (Cozzarelli, 1993), (4) difficulty with the decision (Bracken, 1978; Osofsky & Osofsky, 1972), (5) when there is emotional investment in the pregnancy (Lyndon, Dunkel-Schetter, Cohan & Pierce, 1996; Remennick & Segal, 2001), (6) perceptions of one’s partner, family members, or friends as non-supportive (Major et al., 1990; Major & Cozzarelli, 1992), (7) timing during adolescence, being unmarried, or poor (Adler, 1975; Bracken, Hachamovitch & Grossman, 1974; Campbell, Franco & Jurs, 1988; Franz & Reardon, 1992; Osofsky & Osofsky, 1972), (8) pre-existing emotional problems or unresolved traumatization (Speckhard & Rue, 1992), (9) a poor or insecure attachment relationship with one’s mother or a childhood history of separation from one’s mother for a year or more before age 16 (Cozzarelli et al., 1998; Kitamura et al., 1998; Payne, Kravitz, Notman & Anderson, 1976), (10) involvement in violent relationships (Allanson & Astbury, 2001; Russo & Denious, 2001), (11) traditional sex-role orientations (Gold, Berger & Anders, 1979), and (12) conservative views of abortion and/or religious affiliation (Bogen, 1974; Osofsky & Osofsky, 1972; Soderberg, Janzon & Slosberg, 1998). Further, adjustment problems have been documented to be more common when a pregnancy is initially intended (Ashton, 1980; Friedman, Greenspan & Mittelman, 1974; Lazarus, 1985; Major et al., 1985; Miller, 1992), abortion occurs during the second trimester (Anthanasiou, Oppel, Michelson, Unger & Yager, 1973), and when women are involved in unstable partner relationships (Llewellyn & Pytches, 1988; Soderberg et al., 1998). Finally, feelings of being forced into abortion by one’s partner, others, or by life circumstances, increase the risk for negative post-abortion outcomes (Friedman et al., 1974)

As you can see, Coleman gives multiple cites to independent studies that have verified that each symptom is significanly associated with abortion. I could cut and past her bibliography if you like, as that is probably not subject to copyright. For the sake of readability, I believe the citations can be omitted when used in our article.--Strider12 (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


It looks like the APA panel is skeptical of her results:

HINOJOSA: In emails, two prominent independent scientists, on a panel that is reviewing the scientific literature for the American Psychological Association told us the studies have "inadequate or inappropriate" controls and don't adequately control "for women's mental health prior to the pregnancy and abortion."</ref> A panel convened by the APA has written that the studies by Coleman, and her co-authors have "inadequate or inappropriate" controls and don't adequately control "for women's mental health prior to the pregnancy and abortion."

And methods of the Reardon and Coleman studies have been refuted by Russo and Schmeige several times.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
But it doesn't matter in the least whether the APA panel is skeptical or whether studies have been refuted. It is not our job to determine the truth and present just that one side. It is our job to present what is verifiable from reliable sources (as defined by Misplaced Pages - not the layman's definition of reliable) and to present all significant viewpoints. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
And it would only be responsible of us to temper any discussion of Coleman with the academic criticism of her methods we've gotten from verifiable sources. Which leads to a bigger question: there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of studies worldwide about abortion and mental health. Who is to say that Coleman, and her co-authors Reardon and Rue, should be included but not Major, Russo, Adler, etc., etc., etc., (whom the APA considers more credible)? Should we include everyone? In the past, it was discussed that we'd only include major organizations - hence the inclusion of the APA task force and Koop. How many studies are we going to support in this article? And if not all of them, should we not include the most prominent meta data studies as we have been doing?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
There are not nearly as many studies as you imagine. Koop's review of 250 studies included mostly studies regarding physical complications. My guess is that there are under a hundred that are regularly cited by researchers in the field (indicating that they are considerd important enough to cite) and at most another couple hundred secondary studies. Also, given that priority is normally given to the newer studies with larger populations and better methodolgy, you can now shrink the pool of "important" studies to a few dozen.--Strider12 (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Coleman's review is a reasonable source. Although in the first few sentences quoted by Strider12 I can identify at least one major and obvious fallacy (a 10-20% prevalence of depression, which is the baseline rate in for women of childbearing age, suddenly becomes 130,000 abortion-related cases of depression? Nope!) my opinion is of course neither here nor there with regard to using it as a source. In the interest of context and WP:WEIGHT we should not give the impression that hers is the last word - for instance, we should probably indicate that her research has been dismissed as methodologically flawed by the American Psychological Association's panel, among others. MastCell  01:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, no one is claiming Coleman has the last word. Also, MastCell is wrong regarding her OR interpretation of Coleman's brief summary quote. In context of her citations, these are rates above the baseline. It would be VERY wrong however to insert or infer that the APA panel has dismissed Coleman, especially not in general. Have they issued their report? I don't think so. In any event, EVERY study has methodological flaws. Which brings up the problem of how this article constantly tries to point out flaws in studies showing negative results but not the flaws in the two studies that do not report negative results. For example, Russo's study showing no lowering in self-esteem, there was only 40% of the reported abortion rate, meaning 60% of the women had concealed a history of abortion, which would likely bias the results.--Strider12 (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Intro & PAS Section

Here is a link to changes I made to the intro and PAS sections which help to put them into a more NPOV form. The previous PAS barely even touched on the real definition of it and the studies examining this proposed link. My edits were immediately reverted...naturally. But it is clear that present intro is slanted and contains lots of peacock and weasel words. I'd appreciate comments from editors.--Strider12 (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)--

Consensus Statements

I added the following summary statements from excellent peer reviewed secondary sources reviewing the literature as both demonstrate that the consensus of experts recognize that SOME women experience significant negative reactions, with Wilmoth identifying the key issues needing clarification and Coleman listing specific symptoms that have been repeatedly and independently identifeed in the literature. I'm posting here on discussion page since these tend to get blanked in violation of ArbCom rulings against the deletion of reliable and verifiable information.

Gregory Wilmoth

In 1992, the Journal of Social Issues dedicated an entire issue to research relating to the psychological effects of elective abortion. In an overview of the contributors papers the editor, Dr. Gregory Wilmoth, concluded: "There is now virtually no disagreement among researchers that some women experience negative psychological reactions postabortion. Wilmoth goes on to describe four issues of interest: (1) identifying the prevalence of negative reactions, (2) identifying the severity of negative reactions, (3) defining what level of negative reactions constitutes a public health problem, and (4) classification of severe reactions.


Priscilla Coleman

In a 2005 review of the literature on abortion and mental health, Bowling Green Universisty professor Priscilla Coleman, a research psychologists with many peer reviewed studies in this field, wrote:

"here is relative consensus among scholars in the field that at least 10-20% of women who have had an abortion suffer from serious negative psychological complications.... Among those who are adversely affected, many stress-related symptoms have been identified, including anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, substance use/abuse, and increased risk of suicide. A few recent studies have further identified relations between maternal history of abortion and problematic parenting."

--Strider12 (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the merits or flaws of this content. I'm just going to ask, didn't you try to add the exact same thing a couple weeks ago? (see the archives) And did I miss the conversation here on talk where you got consensus for these changes? You need to work with editors. If someone has a problem with one of your proposals, discuss it and try to reach a compromise. It isn't appropriate to just wait a couple weeks and then add the exact same controversial content without discussion. What you are doing is a form of slow edit warring, and is disruptive.-Andrew c  14:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
No, disruption according to ArbCom it is the removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style. It is the deletion of material that is causing disruption. The most aggressive deleter is IronAliceAngel who deletes within hours of posting. Replacing reliable and pertinent material is appropriate and even necessary to allow other editors to comment.--Strider12 (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
How about all of you stop arguing about who is more wrong than whom and start actually discussing changes to the article? Kuronue | Talk 08:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I think most people are more wrong than me. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:27, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Auto Archive

I see an autoarchive has been set for every 14 days. If it is possible to change the timeframe, I'd suggest archiving every 30 days so new editors can more easily see a month's worth of discussion.--Strider12 (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

They generally will, except in cases where a months' worth of discussions gets too long. A minimum of 3 threads will always be kept on the page. The minimum threads left can be changed, and I'd recommend changing that value rather than the number of days, due to how long this page tends to get. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:02, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've tried to change it to 30 days, and 6 threads. I'm not sure that I did it right. If I messed it up, will someone please fix it? Thanks. NCdave (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Intro

The first three sentences of the current intro bias the article from the get go.

The relationship between abortion and mental health has been an area of political controversy, but of little scientific controversy.A number of studies have concluded that abortion is associated with no more psychological risk than carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. A smaller number of studies have reported a statistical correlation between abortion and negative psychological effects, though no studies have found a causal relationship.

As MastCell also noted earlier in discussion, the idea that this is of "little scientific controversy" is simply false. See the journal articles disputing this issue. See also

The claim that a "smaller number of studies" is also simply untrue. Also, while it would require more changes, strictly speaking studies don't conclude anything. A "study" refers to a collection of facts and a study may show this or that, but it does not conclude this or that. "Researchers" make conclusions from their studies. Therefore it would be more accurate to say a number of researches conclude this and a others conclude that. But back to the main point, defining that most or a few conclude this or that is unwarranted unless one goes with the many consensus statements acknowlding that "some women have negative reactions" but there is uncertainty regarding how many. All that aside I believe this section should be revised to read:

The relationship between abortion and mental health is a controvesial issue. A number of studies have concluded that abortion is associated with no more psychological risk than carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. Other studies have reported a statistical correlation between abortion and negative psychological effects, though no studies have proven a causal relationship.

I would also add as one of the cites for the first sentence Warren Throckmorton. "Abortion and mental health." Washington Times. January 21, 2005. Archived. Reprinted here which discusses the scientific controversy, especially in the wake of the Fergusson longitudimal study. --Strider12 (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the proposed rewrite looks OK, except that I would change the first sentence to read: "The relationship between abortion and mental health is a topic of political and scientific controversy." I think we may as well make clear from the get-go that this is an area where politics and science are closely intertwined. I'd also wikilink association (statistics) to "statistical correlation". I don't know that we need more than 4 cites to demonstrate that the issue is controversial - in fact, we could probably remove at least one of the four cites in the first sentence (probably the Mooney one) and be just fine. MastCell  22:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to disagree again. The idea that abortion causes negative mental health is a political controversy, not a scientific one. Reardon, Coleman, etc. and their claims that abortion causes negative mental health are on the fringe, they are definitely the minority. Therefore, "of little scientific controversy" is clear and accurate. This claim is backed up by the APA, Koop, Major, Russo, Adler, and all the other prominent scientists in the field. If anything, the first sentence should be changed to say, "The causal relationship between abortion and mental health has been an area of political controversy, but of little scientific controversy."--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that Reardon et al. are in the minority in arguing that abortion is associated with excess mental health risk; however, that doesn't mean that there's little or no controversy. Even studies which find no excess risk for abortion generally conclude that more and better evidence would be helpful. I think we should guard against the false impression that the two views are equally supported by evidence and expert opinion - they're not - but we should also guard against minimizing the minority view and casting this as a settled issue (along the lines of HIV causing AIDS or secondhand smoke causing cancer), because I don't think that level of certainty exists in the sources. MastCell  23:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The level of certainty is not there - that is absolutely true. Science is purposefully cautious when it comes to certainty and therefore precious little is certain in Science. There is a quote by Adler that says to be 100% certain about abortion not causing poor mental health is impossible because it would require a study that asks women to get pregnant, have an abortion, then get pregnant again and have a child (which is obviously unethical). She goes on to say, with the best of her estimation and others' estimations, it is clear that abortion causes no threat to mental health for the vast majority of women. Women who react poorly generally have poor mental health before the abortion, and bringing a child to term can result in the same poor mental health.
Therefore, we cannot confuse "certainty" with "controversy." If we were to state there is a scientific controversy (where there is none), we would be making Reardon's case for him. There is a great series of speeches by Chris Mooney where he describes the label of "controversy" is used by Reardon, Brind, and a whole bunch of other folks to insert POV and and distort science. Here are some links:
--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Gregory Wilmoth

The inclusion of Wilmoth is problematic. The only reference I can find to his commentary comes from a David Reardon article. I have trouble trusting Reardon's summarization of Wilmouth which is copied word-for-word in our article: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0978/is_1_26/ai_60794297

I believe that Wilmouth should be removed until we can find a reliable link to the source.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As you've pointed out, the Wilmouth article is easily checked at any medical library. I have a copy and the quote is accurate and reflects the context. Moreover, I don't see what you think he says that is controversial. Both the APA 1990 article and Stotland have agreed that some women have negative reactions. His view also accords with Coleman's. The questions of interest, as he points out, revolve around how common and severe negative reactions are. Even if you have not had a chance to pull the paper, why do you consider these common sense points suspicious? Also, the peer reviewed paper you cited by Reardon above is a reliable source and has been peer reviewed, which includes his review of the Wilmouth article. In that he is reviewing Wilmouth and other articles, it is seen a reliable secondary source, even accordin to MastCell's definition. --Strider12 (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms of the missing Reardon

An oddity has crept into this article. In previous months editors agreed to "purge"--their own word choice--any peer reviewed article associated with Reardon (including ones in which he was only a contributing author.) There was no justification for this other than he is pro-life and has stated the political view that the harm abortion does to women may alter the political landscape.

In any event, even though Reardon's peer reviewed studies, analyses and views are now purged we now have two sections regarding comments from Scmiege and Major criticizing two of Reardon's studies. It reads very oddly in that readers obviously are left wondering what did Reardon find that they are criticizing.--Strider12 (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Your first paragraph deserves no response as it's a repetition of endless, circular, and misrepresentative accusations. Your second paragraph raises a good point. MastCell  04:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Reardon is the director of a pro-life organization, and thus is not a neutral scientist doing scientific studies, instead doing studies in an effort to secure more funding for his organization by "proving" its aims correct. However, you have successfully buried this information 5 archives back by filling them with your incessant whining. Let it go. If you care about this article you'll work on improving it and moving forward, not rehashing old arguments to no purpose. Kuronue | Talk 05:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't been involved much with this article, and don't want to be. But I would like to urge editors to refrain from incivility. Accusing each other of "incessant whining" and "endless, circular, misrepresentative accusations" is not conducive to everyone getting along with each other and improving the article. The affiliations of scientists should not automatically discredit their work. For example, in the fetal pain article and the fetus article, authors are cited despite their well-documented ties to abortion clinics and pro-choice activism. Please try to be more tolerant and cooperative. Abortion is a very divisive subject, so I hope everyone will resist getting sucked into that divisiveness.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Your intervention might be more effective if it came at some point during the preceding 5 months of relentlessly tendentious editing and accusations, rather than after two admittedly snippy responses to it. But nonetheless your point is well taken. MastCell  08:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Opinion vs Opinions / Rebuttals / Affiliations & Guilt by Association

We need to approach all experts and their opinions in the same way. The differences in the Stotland and Coleman's sections, for example, are striking in that Coleman's opinions are immediately undermined. Stotland's section, however, has repeatedly had blanked out references to her involvement in pro-choice activist groups and her later admissions that abortion causes mental health problems and her own commentaries admission that at least 11% of women have problems, etc.

As I see it, there are two routes.

First, simply state each parties opinions and findings without any effort to identify them as pro-life, pro-choice, or presenting an immediate rebuttal of their opinions or views. By this I mean that we don't add material like the three last paragraphs to the Coleman section, and certainly not tangential complaints against the studies not described (by Reardon) in sections under Schmiege and Major.

Alternatively, we go with the pattern presented with the current Coleman section and we follow each expert's opinion with relevent material about criticicms of the expert's views, biases, studies, etc.

I could go either way. I think the second alternative frankly makes for difficult reading and is so obviously contentious. Also, my fear is that those who want the liberty to show criticisms raised against Coleman and Reardon will not allow the criticisms agaisnt the views of STotland, Major, Russo and others raised by Coleman and Reardon and their like to be included.

Comments please. Should we start stripping out rebuttals and affiliation information or are we going to open the door for including the same material for ALL parties?--Strider12 (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Majority View Is Now that Abortion Has Mental Health Risks

According to the official new position statement of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, it is now the acknowledged majority view of British psychiatrists that abortion may contribute to mental health problems in women. It appears that the research of Coleman, Reardon, Rue, Soderberg, Gissler, Fergusson, and others has been convincing after all.

I've long thought that we should at least lay to rest Stotlands 17 year old, out of date claim that there is "no evidence" of a link between abortion and mental health problems. In the NOW interview, she actually complains about the "stack" of new studies now offering evidence of a link. It was an embarrasing overstatement then, and is really irrelvent now. It's like OJ's lawyers saying there is no evidence he committed murder. They (like Stotland) may be fully entitled to say the evidence is insufficient, but to say there is no evidence is absurd.--Strider12 (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't yet realized that this isn't the forum for arguing your personal beliefs, then I fear it may be too late. The Royal College of Psychiatrists report is obviously germane and needs to be worked in, though I don't think it says what you think it says. Your heading says "Majority View Is Now That Abortion Has Mental Health Risks." In your comment, you say the "acknowledged majority view" is that it "may contribute to mental health problems". Those are actually very different statements; the first is flatly incorrect, the second more accurate. It might be worth re-reading the actual statement, which is a preliminary statement that the issue is not fully resolved, that evidence exists on both "sides", and that a systematic review is now due. Interestingly, the APA seems to have reached a similar conclusion as it is currently in the midst of just such a systematic review. MastCell  18:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The point is that the Times is clearly as reliable as your favorite article (Bazelon's magazine article) on which you rest your claim that the majority view is that there is no connection between abortion and mental health problems. The Times article interprets the report in the context of testimony and reports and prior interviews with parties involved in the review and debate and it clearly states there has been a reversal of views. Using your standards regarding Baezlon, Mooney, and NOW, the Times article is the most current, reliable, secondary source regarding what constitute the accepted majority view. If you want to shift standards now, that's fine but we should do so across the board, and stop "crowning" any view as the majority view since clearly all the major people involved agree that SOME women have negative problems and that there is not enough solid evidence on which to base any definitive answer...much less a majority view. But until you agree to chuck your claims of what the majority view is, it is clear that the TIMES article is a counterweight to bloated claims that there are no pscyhological risks associated with abortion.--Strider12 (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I specifically object to the removal of the AndrewC's workup of the following:
According to The Times, the Royal College warned that "women may be at risk of mental health breakdowns if they have abortions" and that "women should not be allowed to have an abortion until they are counselled on the possible risk to their mental health."
Given all of the "contextual" intepretations from non peer reviewed sources like Baezlon, Mooney, NOW, etc, in this article, the blanking of The Times characterization of the RCP report is totally unwarranted.--Strider12 (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Your confrontational tone is exactly the problem ("chuck my claims", "counterweight" to my "bloated claims", etc). The Bazelon article is not my "favorite article on which I rest my claims"; it's one of the better reliable secondary sources covering the topic. I understand you are deeply invested in a particular side of this subject; I am not, and I'm happy to go where the sources lead, so please leave the gamesmanship behind. The Times article is a good secondary source, as is the Daily Mail article covering the same report, and as is the report itself. You describe any change to your preferred wording and sourcing as "vandalism", "purging", or (in the most charitable terms) "unwarranted blanking", which makes it nearly impossible to edit collaboratively with you. MastCell  19:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
What's the problem here now? Do we need to go over the difference between "has mental health risks" and "may contribute to mental health problems", or am I misreading the argument at this point? Kuronue | Talk 02:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Royal College of Psychiatrists

First of all, there is too much verbatim copying of text. The first paragraph is almost entirely direct quotes from the Times (without quote marks). Can we do a better job of paraphrasing to avoid possible copyvio. Also, I'm not sure we need to go into such detail about Emma Beck, nor do we need to quote the suicide note. Finally, I am a little concerned about the Times reporting. We have access to the RCP's statement here, yet there is no mention of the word "mental breakdown", and not allowing women to have abortions until they are warned of mental health risks. I think this statement IS important, and should go in the article, but I'm not sure the manner in which it is currently presented is appropriate. -Andrew c  14:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to reworking as long as it doesn't water down the summary of the RCP's position as reported by the TIMES. I did not vary the wording much because I did not want to be accused of misrepresenting the TIMES or RCP. Also, I stuck to the TIMES text because MastCell has consistently insisted (though I disagree) that we should not look at the original document but only news reports of it. I did not put in quote marks because I did not want to confuse readers regarding quoting what the TIMES reported rather than quoting what the RCP stated. As you correctly noted, their wording is not the same. I think the TIMES linking the position statement to the Beck controversy (apparantly a big news item there) is notable and should be included.--Strider12 (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Either you're intentionally misrepresenting my position or you have not understood it despite 5 months of circular discussion. I have never insisted that we ignore "original documents"; I have drawn a distinction between editorial manipulation of primary sources and the use of reliable secondary sources, because this has been an ongoing issue. Both the RCP report and the Times article are secondary sources, and both are appropriate as references. The RCP statement is relatively cautious and preliminary - it notes that evidence exists on both sides, that the issue is unresolved, and that a formal systematic review (like that currently being conducted by the APA) is due. The Times article takes this and runs with it, though the Times is certainly a good enough source to be included. It will be interesting to see how other media outlets spin the report, since I'm sure it will attract signficant coverage. Content-wise, I think Andrew c's edit looks good at this point. We should either move it to the bottom and maintain chronological order, or we should leave it at the top and re-order the rest of the section chronologically. I favor the former, but either is OK. MastCell  18:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I never thought I'd say this, but the Daily Mail actually did a slightly better job covering the report. MastCell  18:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that there were some public testimony preceding the College's report which I must assume was used by the Times reporter as background and context for interpreting the statement.--Strider12 (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, though the Daily Mail seemed to spin it a bit differently than the Times: "Updated guidance from the RCP points out that there is still no evidence that abortion causes mental health problems, and they stopped short of saying that women should always be refused abortions if they have mental health problems. The college rejects claims by the pro-life lobby that abortion causes mental health problems, saying: 'The specific issue of whether or not induced abortion has harmful effects on women's mental health remains to be fully resolved.'" MastCell  22:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the majority view?

I'm curious as to what editors now think is the majority view - not what you may want it to be but what you think it is?

  1. The data is inconclusive and there should continue to be more research.
  2. There is evidence of a harmful relationship between abortion and mental health.
  3. There is no evidence of a harmful relationship.
  4. There is a positive relationship.

Next question: which of these are a significant minority, which if any is a fringe view?

(If I am not clear, I mean the views of researchers as published in reliable sources, not what is the majority view of us editors.)

I won't answer myself because I haven't read the literature as most of you have. But it does seem to me that the answer to these questions should shape the coverage in the article. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wilmoth and Coleman's statements are good reflections of the majority view. Careful reading of ALL peer reviewed sources (ignoring the newspaper articles like those from Bazelong and Mooney which all involve selective reporting and spin), reveals that no one actually denies that some some women have serious mental health problems that are either caused, aggravated or triggered by abortion. (For example, statements like "most women do not suffer significant mental illness after an abortion" really admit that a minority of women do, and perhaps even the majority experience negative feelings, just not illness.) As noted in the APA 1990 review, individual case studides clearly demonstrate that abortion can cause mental illness where none was previously. But the data also shows that women with prior mental illness are more likely to have negative reactions post-aboriton. Can that explain most of the effects seen in statistical analyses? Even if it does, abortion is clearly a MARKER for higher rates of mental illness, but what proportion, if any, is attributable to abortion alone is unknown. Also, there is a striking lack of evidence of the expected benefits of abortion. Women who have abortions do not have as good of mental health as women who do not have abortions, whether compared to women who have not been pregnant or to women who have carried to term. There are over two dozen studies linking abortion to higher rates of substance abuse, many controlling for prior history of substance use, wantedness, etc. Probably ten or more linking abortion to higher rates of suicide. Four or five linking it to PTSD. Today there are a good number of record based studies (which are free of selection bias) which demonstrate the persistence of these links and of course Fergusson's prospective longitudinal study offers the most controlled study to date.Strider12 (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
There really is no serious dispute of the fact that some women suffer adverse (and sometimes devastating) psychological problems following abortion. Some in the abortion industry, and some abortion advocates, dispute that fact, but the anecdotal evidence is conclusive. The real dispute is over the prevalence of such problems. Are we talking about 1% of cases, or 50%? The problem is severe enough that there are hundreds (probably thousands) of counseling programs in the United States to help women who are struggling from the psychological aftereffects of abortion. (I can personally relate several examples that have touched my life.)
The universal perception of people involved in those programs is that the problem is very, very widespread. But that doesn't really say very much about the prevalence, from a public health standpoint. With more than 1 million elective abortions per year in the USA, if only 1% resulted in significant psychological problems later, that would mean 10,000 cases per year, which is enough to give the impression that the problem is very common. NCdave (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sbowers, this has been a topic of discussion several times. The best answers to your questions are found in the New York Times and Washington Monthly articles - as well as the APA and Surgeon General positions. Please also be aware that the Royal College of Psychiatrists did not conduct a study, and a minority of the people in that college are asking for more studies. The Royal College of Physicians maintains that abortion does not cause poor mental health.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The only way we'll ever cover this topic satisfactorily is if we attribute views to their sources accurately and with the least spin possible, though I'm currently a bit despairing of the feasability of this. Here's what I'm seeing:
  • American Psychological Association - the major professional organization of psychologists in the U.S. - has a 1990 position statement/paper/panel finding that "distress is generally greatest before the abortion and that the incidence of severe negative responses is low." The APA is in the process of producing an updated position statement which should be released sometime this year.
  • The American Psychiatric Association, the major professional organization of psychiatrists in the U.S., has not taken an official position so far as I am aware, beyond a refusal to recognize "post-abortion syndrome" as a real condition in the DSM.
  • The Royal College of Psychiatrists, the major professional organization of psychiatrists in the U.K., has historically found that abortion is no riskier (and possibly safer) from a mental-health standpoint than carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. In response to recent controversy in the U.K., the RCP has issued an updated statement indicating that research on the issue is inconclusive, with some studies finding an association and others failing to find one. They are in the process (according to the statement) of undertaking a formal systematic review of the medical literature, similar to what the APA is currently working on.
  • The former U.S. Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, issued his report in the late 1980's which we've beaten to death. The Surgeon General's office has not addressed the topic since.
  • Review articles exist on both sides; the most prominent (in terms of impact/journal quality) probably being Grimes' review in Annals of Internal Medicine in 2004 or so. Other reviews include those by Coleman and Stotland.
  • Primary journal studies are numerous and reach conflicting conclusions. Most notably, a letter to the BMJ by David Reardon et al. analyzed the NLSY database and found an association between abortion and mental health risks. The same database was analyzed by another group in the BMJ a few years later, using more detailed coding, and the association Reardon had reported disappeared with the more detailed and precise approach to data handling.
  • Dedicated major press coverage of the issue includes the New York Times Magazine piece and the PBS piece.
  • No reputable medical or scientific source that I am aware of has reported a causal relationship; the argument on the scientific side has been on the level of whether a real statistical association exists, or whether such associations can be explained by confounding factors such as pre-existing psychiatric disease and other risk factors.
  • Predictably, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and Guttmacher, which advocate for abortion rights, have summaries suggesting that there is no link. Numerous pro-life organizations have summaries suggesting that a link does exist.
That would be my summary of the sources. I think the most accurate and brief summary of the state of knowledge on the topic is: This is a controversial issue which is not completely settled; there are studies both finding and failing to find any link between abortion and mental health problems. The controversy, medically speaking, revolves around associations rather than causation at this point. The major professional organizations which have analyzed the existing data have concluded that no link is present - however, these summaries are relatively dated, and updated systematic reviews incorporating newer data are underway by both the APA and RCP. The issue has been targeted by a segment of the pro-life community as a means of raising doubts about the safety of abortion and thus restricting access to abortion either legally or by means of raising concern in the public mind on the issue (I think this last item is sourceable to mainstream, pro-choice, and pro-life sources). That would be my summary of what the sources have to say. MastCell  18:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Again, I have to take issue with your use of the word "controversy" to explain the difference between proving causation and finding correlations. We need to be more careful what we label a "scientific controversy." Researchers are agreed that there is a correlation between abortion and poor mental health, but no one other than Reardon and Colemen et al are claiming a causal relationship. And the fact remains that the vast majority of women who have an abortion are perfectly fine. (It is the case that millions of women get abortions every year, and historically speaking we do not see a surge in poor mental health as a result). This is why APA and the Surgeon General do not see "controversy" associated with abortion. And I have yet to see any commentary that talks about the "scientific controversy"; however, discussion of "political controversy" with regards to abortion and mental health is quote common (e.g. Psychological implications of abortion — highly charged and rife with misleading research by Brenda Major).
Simply because there are questions left to be answered, we are not yet in the realm of "scientific controversy." I'm reminded here of the "evolution controversy" - wherein certain U.S. school boards have triedto require that science teachers "teach the controversy" regarding Intelligent Design vs. Evolution:
Evolution isn't 100% proved (it is a scientific theory), but we cannot therefore conclude there evolution is a "scientific controversy" refuted by Intelligent Design. Just like we have Reardon and Coleman making the claim that abortion causes poor mental health, there are biologists and physicists who claim ID exists. In both cases, these scientists (and engineer in Reardon's case) are on the fringe. In both cases, "teaching the scientific controversy" is inappropriate given the evidence.
The more appropriate way for us to handle the article is to talk about the political controversy, the questions that are still left to be unanswered about abortion and mental health, and then wait for the APA review which should come out soon. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

MastCell's list of sources is biased toward those sources (mostly very dated) which suggest that there is no abortion mental health link...but even all these sources, if carefully read, admit that there are at least some number of women (perhaps a very small percentage) who have significant post-abortion problems. See APA 1990 admission and identification of groups at risk. What I most object to is her continued listing of the David Grimes article as a "review" which it is not. See archives for a copy of the letter to the journal pointing this out and Grimes admission that it is not a review in nay meaningful sense. See Grime's article here. It does not review any of the studies on abortion and mental health, it only cites the APA 1990 review article, repeats and cites Stotland's 1992 COMMENTARY which asserts the "myth" statement and finallyy cites one other rarely cited article that compares women who abort via surgery to women who abort medically --- which means it gives no information about comparing women who have had abortions to other women. Very selective. A totally useless "review." Even Stotland's commentary has more merit. But then again, Stotland's commentary actually admits there is evidence of post-abortion problems, she just spins the argument away from specifically the abortion TRAUMA proposal.

I've previously listed many other views and consensus statements including those of Fogel, Coleman, Wilmoth, Fergusson, Rue, Reardon, and Soderberg that should be represented.

Sbower may be interested in my invitation to discuss Two kinds of evidence defining WEIGHT as I believe opinions and facts are two different things, and both bear on the issue of WEIGHT. Contrary to Iron Alice Angel's recommendations, I would put NO weight into the Baezlon and Mooney articles which are clearly advocacy journalism and do not represent in any way a systematic review of expert opinions. Two or three experts do no make a consensus. --Strider12 (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I find this line of argumentation completely unhelpful. Yes - we get it, you don't like certain sources, including Grimes' review, and you're willing to engage in misrepresentation of sources to push your viewpoint. I'm trying to draw a distinction between studies on the topic (of which there are dozens you could, and have, cherry-picked) and meta-sources which reflect analysis and synthesis of the evidence by reputable bodies. Do you want to help? MastCell  16:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody know who the group is that stands in front of courthouses with red tape over their mouths. I remember they have a list of thousands of women who say having an abortion affected their mental stability. Saksjn (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Clean up OR and inferences

I removed the following:

Coleman was also criticized in an article titled "Is there a Post-Abortion Syndrome" in the New York Times. In the article, Nancy Russo, a psychology researcher at Arizona State University, and "veteran abortion researcher," says that Coleman's analysis typically has methodological flaws. Once these flaws are corrected, there are no higher rates of mental illness among women who have had abortions. Russo said, "Science eventually corrects itself, but it takes a while."

The fact that she has been cricized -- mostly by linking her to Reardon who has been criticized--is mostly irrelvent. But more importantly, Russo does not discuss Coleman's studies nor her review article (which is what we are citing) and Russo's statement (exaggerated) does not address any of the studies done by Coleman, only the one BMJ depression study done by Reardon and Cougle...and conceals that she put women who had abortions into both groups in order to dilute the effects! In any case, the source does not support the statement and this is a transparent attempt to undermine Coleman's review of the literarure with ad hominem attacks that don't even address her statement. I need to check the NOW transcript, but I'm pretty sure the same applies since the APA report was in 1990, BEFORE Reardon or Coleman even published any studies.--Strider12 (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you try to make a distinction between the argument that the source itself is not directly critical of Coleman (a fair point), and the fact that you do not agree with the source's criticisms (less relevant)? That would assist in addressing this. MastCell  18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The source can be used in a general statement of opinion elsewhere in the article, and already has been. But to continually reuse the same source, stretching it out of its own context, to undermine each opinion crical of abortion is out of place and unwarrented.
Also, while I don't mind giving some context to each expert's political views on abortion, I'd prefer to see this be a minimal amount. The lengthy material added regarding Coleman linking her to pro-life groups and inserting edits asserting "the real experts all disagree with her" -- particularly when exaggerated and imprecise, is very problematic. We need to be even handed. See Opinion vs Opinions / Rebuttals / Affiliations & Guilt by Association above. For example, currently unmentioned in this article is the fact that Stotland is a pro-choice activist as both a member and board member of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health (PRCH). Russo and Major are also involved in pro-choice advocacy, and as you know, Russo has even stated that pro-choice views come first and the "evidence doesn't matter."
If we are going to allow material indicating the biases of Coleman, we need to do the same for Stotland, Russo, Major, Schmiege and others too. Personally, I'd rather not go there. Such material would never be allowed in a peer reviewed review article. But if we allow such material which is essentially intended to accuse Coleman, Reardon and others of a pro-life bias, then we need to all agree that I and others should be allowed to insert the same kind of material regarding Stotland, Russo, Major etc. It makes "uglier" reading but at least it would underscore how the politicization of this issue extends on both sides.--Strider12 (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Where has Russo stated that "the evidence doesn't matter"? Source please? I can't speak to Coleman, because I know very little about her. David Reardon is clearly viewed by many reliable sources as an advocate first and a researcher second (or at least, equally prominent in these two roles). It's utterly misleading to compare Reardon, who runs a lobbying organization and puts legislation on the state ballot to restrict access to abortion on the basis of studies he himself has conducted, and someone like Stotland. That's false equivalence, and it's obvious from the differing treatment these people are given in reliable secondary sources. MastCell  16:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Russo's statements, see here. That Reardon is viewed by PRO-CHOICE reporters and researchers as biased does not mean he is in fact biased. Contrary to the views of pro-choice leaning sources, post-abortion ministry leaders view him as one of the only unbiased researchers who is exposing the truth about what they have experienced.
Don't any of the scientists involved in global warming research lobby for laws and regulations to reduce global warming? The Elliot Institute is not a lobbying organization. It is a 501(c)3. That he is personally involved with a lobbying organization in Missouri is hardly different than the fact that Stotland has personally lobbied the US Congress and served as an expert witness against informed consent laws etc. And Russo's APA is an active pro-choice lobbying group, as she herself insists it should be. See here. The "differing treatment" you refer to from the "reliable secondary sources" you cite is entirely explainable by the fact that sources have a pro-choice bias that holds up Stotland and Russo as experts while dismissing Reardon. Secondary sources with a pro-life bias do exactly the opposite. You are bringing POV and OR to the article by segregating Reardon from other researchers simply because he is more politically active. I don't mind that you cite sources accusing him of putting politics ahead of science, provided you cite inline that this is the opinion of the reporter or researcher making the claim. But it is not a FACT that he puts politics before science. He would probably argue the opposite, that it is his science that informs his politics.--Strider12 (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Your links don't support your claims; in particular, the Russo link says absolutely nothing like your claim that "the evidence doesn't matter". The APA is not a "pro-choice lobbying organization". Stotland did not "lobby Congress"; she testified on behalf of the APA. I realize you make no distinction between the New York Times and Boston Globe on one hand and the Human Life Quarterly Review on the other, but Misplaced Pages actually does not see these as equivalent sources. MastCell  18:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
She told the Toledo Blade: "As far as I'm concerned, whether or not an abortion creates psychological difficulties is not relevant..." which is much like "the evidence doesn't matter." It is reported that she did originally tell Throckmorton "it doesn't matter what the evidence says" but then requested to have the statement qualified to "to pro-choice advocates, mental health effects are not relevant to the legal context of arguments to restrict access to abortion." "Not relevant" is much akin to "doesn't matter." All that aside, Russo is not politically neutral and has repeatedly said she is pro-choice. There is no reason to believe she is any more politically neutral than Reardon. Ditto with Stotland, who is board of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, an abortion advocacy group. And the APA does have a political position on abortion and does lobby that position in legislatures and in amicus briefs. I'm just asking that we stop pretending that one side is neutral while the other side is always biased.--Strider12 (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Project Rachel

The Roman Catholic Church has a dedicated ministry to people (mainly women) suffering the aftereffects of abortion, called Project Rachel. The Project Rachel web site says:

"Project Rachel operates as a network of professional counselors and priests, all trained to provide one-on-one spiritual and psychological care for those who are suffering because of an abortion. Although most dioceses use the name Project Rachel, some programs are named differently. In addition to individualized counseling, some programs include support groups and retreats. Founded in 1984 by Victoria Thorn in Milwaukee, today Project Rachel programs can be found in 140 Catholic dioceses in the United States, as well as in dioceses in other countries..."

This article needs a section on Project Rachel (and perhaps other, similar ministries, sponsored by Protestants). NCdave (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The article should probably note the existence of "post-abortion counseling" provided by pro-life groups, though to do so we should use independent, reliable secondary sources. The New York Times Magazine article addresses this to some extent and could be cited in such a section. MastCell  18:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I've added a brief section, and used that article as one of the references. But note that primary sources, such as the web site of an organization, is an acceptable source for information about the organization, itself, so I've used the info from the Project Rachel web site. NCdave (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Project Rachel" is mentioned already on the Crisis Pregnancy Center page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It should also include references to a number of post-abortion counseling programs which are from a pro-choice perspective, and also online resources like that from www.afterabortion.com (not .org, which is Elliot Institute) Afterabortion.com is definitely not from a pro-life perspective.--Strider12 (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Remind me again why we should be lowering the bar and using multiple partisan sources rather than independent, reliable secondary sources? This is an encyclopedia, after all. MastCell  16:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

1987-1990 APA Task Force Review

This section says,

In response to Surgeon General Koop's review of available data, the American Psychological Association Division on Population and Environmental Psychology prepared and presented their own summary of the literature and recommendations for Koop's report. After Koop refused to issue their findings, division members published a synthesis of their own findings in which they concluded that "The weight of the evidence does not pose a psychological hazard for most women."

Note that the quote doesn't even make sense.

The reference given is Adler, et al. Unfortunately, the full text of that article does not seem to be available online without paying a fee. I googled for fragments of the garbled quote, and the closest thing I found was a quote on a Planned Parenthood site:

The American Psychological Association assembled an expert panel to review the evidence of psychological risks of abortion. This panel concluded "the weight of the evidence from scientific studies indicates that legal abortion of an unwanted pregnancy in the first trimester does not pose a psychological hazard for most women (Beckman, 1998).

But that is a different paper, published two years too early. Or else PP cited the wrong source. (Note: the closing quote is missing on the PP web site.)

Can someone who has access to the 1990 Adler article please check what that quote is supposed to be, and fix it? NCdave (talk) 11:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

On p. 41 of the cited Science article, bottom left of the page, the full sentence being quoted reads: "Although there may be sensations of regret, sadness, or guilt, the weight of the evidence from scientific studies indicates that legal abortion of an unwanted pregnancy in the first trimester does not pose a psychological hazard for most women." Feel free to insert this, or I can do it. MastCell  18:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've inserted an abbreviated version: "the weight of the evidence... in the first trimester does not pose a psychological hazard for most women." NCdave (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've inserted the entire sentence.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I preferred the shorter one, but if you like the whole thing I won't argue. That is one of your edits which I merged into the 04:45 20 March 2008 version, which is based mostly on Andrew's 14:18 19 March 2008 version. NCdave (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


Somehow the APA's admission that some women have problems has gotten deleted. Specifically they state "Case studies have established that some women experience severe distress or psychopathology after abortion" but "severe negative reactions are infrequent in the immediate and short-term aftermath, particularly for first-trimester abortions. Women who are terminating pregnancies that are wanted and personally meaningful, who lack support from their partner or parents for the abortion, or who have more conflicting feelings or are less sure of their decision before hand may be a relatively higher risk for negative consequences."
This is very important in that it shows that the APA is not denying that abortion EVER causes mental health problems, but rather that the problems appear to be relatively rare and most likely to occur in subgroups of women (which ironically, make up a very large percentage of women having abortions.)--Strider12 (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

I've just warned IronAngelAlice about her numerous reverts within the last 24 hours. Hopefully that will stop the current edit war.

In that hope, I am putting together what I hope will be a good starting point for constructive work on this article. It is based on Andrew's last version (14:18 19 March 2008), but also incorporates portions of 22:52 18 March 2008 (by MastCell), all of 19:50 19 March 2008 (by NCdave), all of 19:53 19 March 2008 (by IronAngelAlice), all of 21:38 19 March 2008 (by IronAngelAlice), portions of 22:03 19 March 2008 (by IronAngelAlice), and all of 22:32 19 March 2008 (by IronAngelAlice).

Some of those are minor edits, and some are substantial. Basically, I tried to incorporate all the NPOV edits which I could identify subsequent to Andrew's version, with a bias toward inclusion rather than deletion. To the result I added a bit of lost work which MastCell had done earlier.

The "bias toward inclusion" is intended so that we can have a reasonable starting point for discussion. If there are things which someone thinks should not be included, can we please discuss them here on the Talk page, rather than just unilaterally deleting them?

Also, there's one more probably-good edit by Alice that I've not yet incorporated, only because it got to be too hard to look at in my edit window: 17:19 19 March 2008

Thanks in advance to everyone, for your cooperation. NCdave (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever NCdave. Whanever I do something that you disagree with, you accuse me of "edit warring" or 3R. I'm just getting in the habit of ignoring you.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are we reporting a statistically insignificant result?

The article currently says (rather prominently):

"Another study in 1992 found that having one abortion was positively associated with higher global self-esteem, particularly feelings of self-worth, capableness, and not feeling one is a failure, but that this positive association was not significant after controlling for childbearing and resource variables."

If the study found no statistically significant correlation, then it is obviously incorrect to state a conclusion based on that non-existent correlation.

Can we all agree that that sentence needs to go? NCdave (talk) 06:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've tried to correct it in the past.--Strider12 (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
No, this should stay because the abstract clearly says:

The relationship of abortion to women's well-being in the context of childbearing experiences and coping resources is examined over a span of 8 yrs using a national sample of 5,295 US women. No evidence of widespread post-abortion trauma was found. Having 1 abortion was positively associated with higher global self-esteem, particularly feelings of self-worth, capableness, and not feeling one is a failure. When childbearing and resource variables were controlled, neither having 1 abortion nor having repeat abortions had an independent relationship to well-being, suggesting that the relationship of abortion to well-being reflects abortion's role in controlling fertility and its relationship to coping resources. When childbearing and abortion variables were controlled, women's well-being was separately and positively related to employment, income, and education, but negatively related to total number of children.

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
yes, but it then says "When childbearing and resource variables were controlled, neither having 1 abortion nor having repeat abortions had an independent relationship to well-being", which also needs to be reflected. Kuronue | Talk 03:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Yup, definitely. MastCell  18:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurone, and then the author goes on to say, "suggesting that the relationship of abortion to well-being reflects abortion's role in controlling fertility and its relationship to coping resources"

Here are the main points that from the abstract that should be reflected:

  • No evidence of wide-spread post-abortion trauma was found
  • Having 1 abortion was associated with higher global self-esteem
  • Women's well-being is positively related to employment, education, and income, but negatively related to the number of children she has

In short:

  • Results showed that having more resources and fewer children, two entities are not separable, results in higher global self esteem
  • Abortion plays a part in controlling the number of children in a family, and thus plays a part in a woman's global-self esteem

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fringe view?

Does this view qualify as a fringe view? In my brief involvement with the topic, I have not seen any other mention that abortion has a positive effect on mental health. And even this mention apparently is statistically insignificant.

I'm pretty sure that I already know what answer NCdave, Strider12, and IronAngelAlice will give. I'm more interested in hearing from other editors. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There is some data (e.g. PMID 2620716) that teenagers who have an abortion have better educational or socioeconomic outcomes that teens who carry a pregnancy to term. The other reference for positive effects of abortion actually says that abortion itself is not independently related to well-being, but is a marker for greater resources and coping skills, which are in turn associated with better psychological well-being. There is not much support for the idea of direct, significant positive effects of abortion, except perhaps in the setting of teenage pregnancy with regard to educational/socioeconomic outcomes, so we should probably retitle and refocus the section accordingly. MastCell  21:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful when deleting material

When deleting material, please check to see if there is a named reference (<ref name=xxx>) in the material. If there is, before you delete, please find any other references with that name and copy the ref data to the other ref(s). Right now there is a bad citation that needs fixing because the ref data was deleted. What I often do to avoid this problem is to repeat the data in all other refs with the same name. That is redundant but allows deleting any one ref without messing up other refs. Thanks. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops. The bad citation wasn't what I thought. It was a misspelling of the name. My request stands but it wasn't the problem this time. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Unwarranted Blanking of Material

I don't know who deleted the information on the Royal College of Psychiatrists' report and the Times summary of it, but this is clearly disruptive blanking relevant information. Similarly, deleting the views of Fogel -- who is certainly as qualified if not much more qualified as Stotland -- is also unwarranted. Instead of deleting material, editors should seek to find relevant material they can ADD.--Strider12 (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The material wasn't deleted. It was moved and the heading renamed. Now we have two identical sections. See Abortion and mental health#Calls for more research. We should discuss where this content should go, and how we should title it. But we shouldn't have the same content in the article twice. I believe the move was done in good faith, so there is no need to throw around accusations of disruptive editing. -Andrew c  17:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, these things can be more productively addressed if we can refrain from labeling every edit with which we personally disagree as "clearly disruptive blanking". MastCell  18:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

← Now to the content issues: I've tightened up the RCP section a bit. I can live with either title ("Royal College of Psychiatrists" vs. "Call for more research"), as both are accurate. We should either leave it as a separate section at the bottom, or completely re-order the subsections in chronological order with the RCP at the top. Also:

  • The Fogel quote is taken from a 1989 piece in the Style section of the Washington Post. This is well below the threshold for other subsections, which generally deal with major position statements or literature reviews. Also, I am unable to verify the context of this source, and previous experience leads me to believe it would be wise to verify that this source is being presented accurately should we decide to incorporate it. The only online references to this article I can find come from partisan/pro-life websites, particularly David Reardon's, from which our text appears to have been largely lifted.
  • The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons is not a particularly good source. Besides being a partisan political advocacy group, its track record on scientific matters is poor at best. Since we have better sources for the RCP section, I've removed the AAPS sourcing.
  • Stotland's case report, again, falls well below the standard we're applying for other subsections in terms of notability. Additionally, it is being misrepresented as some sort of "epiphany" about the harms of abortion - a gloss fairly common in pro-life sources, oddly enough - when review of the full text of the article makes clear it is nothing of the sort. In any case, my preference would be not to include it, as case reports and anecdotal evidence are well below the threshold of other sources we're using - but if it is to be included, it needs to be accurately represented. MastCell  18:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
These proposed standards of what is "notable" are awfully fluid and are regularly being used to blank material that supports the view that abortion is linked to mental health rpoblems.
Regarding Fogel, it is in the Washington Post--which is certainly as credible as the New York Times MAGAZINE. Who says it is the "Styles" section? In fact it was a syndicated column addressing the Koop letter and Fogel's views. Moreover, Fogel is certainly as qualified, indeed far more qualified, to have an expert opinion on the subject as Stotland. If you want to cut Fogel, then let's cut Stotland too. She has no studies published on the subject, only her own advocacy pieces..as she is an activist with pro-choice groups. Holding out Stotland while cutting Fogel is just another attempt to hide the FACT that even many (perhaps most) pro-choice experts don't agree with efforts to dismiss the real psychological significance of abortion.
In the same vein, cuting Stotland's subsequent commentary only serves to try to push her hard line comments from 1990 as if they represent the MAJORITY view which should determine the WEIGHT of this article. It is not Stotland's commentary alone that is signficant, it is Stotland herself. She is the one being presented as an expert. Her subsequent commentary on a case she dealt with is CLEARLY relevant in representing her opinions on the matter, and her evolution of opinion...unless the "standard" for inclusion is that the source must not undermine the view that "abortion trauma is a myth."
Also while I don't know anything about the AAPS source or material, I consider MastCell's pontificating description of the groups as a "partisan political advocacy group, its track record on scientific matters is poor at best" to be an opinion, not a fact. The same can and should be said regarding the APA which adopted a pro-choice political advocacy position in 1969 and has been charged by Fergusson, a pro-choice atheist, of misrepresenting the literature on abortion and mental health...but oh, I forgot, his longitudinal, prospective study...the best methodological study to date...has been purged from this article because it is not notable or reliable enough for some editors. In short, we should stop making up flimsy excuses for cutting relieable material just because we don't like what it says. So if we are going to cut AAPS statements, shouldn't we cut the APA's using the same standards. Or did I get confused again...is the standard to give preferential treatment to sources that don't undermine the view that abortion trauma is a myth?
Finally, I would note that repeatedly cutting verifiable material does not demonstrate a good faith effort to collaborate. Try ADDING material instead of cutting it as suggested in the ArbCom ruling on disruptive editing.--Strider12 (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Your post is marked by factual distortions and rhetorical excess, which makes it unproductive to respond in depth. If PubMed is to be believed, Fogel has published zero studies on anything relating to abortion. Stotland has been publishing on psychological aspects of women's reproductive health, including abortion, since 1982 and is the president of the American Psychological Association. This is a false equivalence, and you seem to want to "trade" me Fogel for Stotland, which is ridiculous on any number of levels, most importantly that this isn't a game of chess. I respectfully decline to be lectured on good faith collaboration by you. If you're really interested in why AAPS is a poor source of scientific opinion, take a look at their journal - don't look on PubMed, though, because it's not indexed by PubMed. I recommend starting with the recent articles denying that HIV causes AIDS (), or that gay men are promiscuous disease carriers whose life expectancy is "20 years shorter" than straight men unless they can be "converted" to heterosexuality (). Pretty mainstream stuff. MastCell  07:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not arguing for or against AAPS just noting that your standards for inclusion and exclusion appear to be very flexibly applied to suit your editorial preferences.
Expert opinion does not depend on research alone. As mentioned, Stotland has published lots of advocacy papers in peer reviewed journals (commentaries for example) but no research. The only case study she has published on actually dealing with an abortion patient you have continued to delete. Fogel is a psychiatrist who has worked with and counseled women before and after abortions....that HE HIMSELF performed. His opinion was deemed notable by the Washington Post. Your efforts to blank his views from this article are unjustified. Just because Stotland plays politics, both in the abortion field and within the APA and has risen to the level of president, doesn't mean that her opinion is any more important than that of Fogel, who has personally done 20,000 abortions and spoken to at least 20,000 women regarding their abortions. Strider12 (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
20,000 abortions? That's quite a few, especially for a psychiatrist. Your opinion of Stotland, and of my editing, has been repeatedly expressed and is noted. How about focusing on content and sources, rather than minimizing them and focusing on me instead, as you do above? A short quote from a 1989 Washington Post article is simply not anywhere near the level of the other sources we've highlighted, and it does not make sense to give it a standalone section. In any case, your track record is such that I would like a bit more context and verification of this source - which I can find quoted briefly only on a handful of pro-life websites - before incorporating it. Exceptional claims require clear verification - and the claim that a psychiatrist has performed over 20,000 abortions, among other claims, is a bit exceptional. MastCell  21:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
If the Fogel quote is included in this article, a link should be provided. Such as this one.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A reliable source for deleted statement

A statement was deleted with the summary, "deleted until better, more reliable source can be found". Well, here is a very RS: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article615150.ece. I'm not reinserting the statement myself because I don't think it matters one way or the other whether the statement is included.

Question: the Times article mentions a recent New Zealand study, which is not in our article. Can someone identify it and provided a citation so that we can read it and decide whether to include it? Sbowers3 (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You found it with the Times article cited. It is the Fergusson study. I replaced into the article material on the Fergusson study which was in the article for several months but got deleted in a major cut back of material.--Strider12 (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
One glitch: the material you added has a bad citation: the last reference has a ref named "APA08" but there is no such ref in the article. Could you please insert the missing ref data? Sbowers3 (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The Throckmorton piece in the Washington Times does not have a URL. Can you find it online? I was not able to find it via Google. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
APA08 referenced another article by Throckmorton: http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=204 , it was published in various places but I don't think it was in the Washington Times. The other article was in the Washington Times but went into their paid archives five to six months ago. An identical copy is here Strider12 (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

United States Surgeon General

I would like to delete the final paragraph of this section. It is entirely a political and not a scientific statement. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It is political; on the other hand, the issue is a largely political one. At the very least, it's an area where politics and science overlap quite heavily, so notable incidents or allegations of politicization of the science would seem to me to be appropriate for inclusion. Just my 2 cents. MastCell  21:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The politicization issue is of course another difficult issue to balance. Was Koop playing politics with the issue or was Weiss? How much of this charge countercharge should be in the article is difficult to determine. I'm comfortable with cutting it because I think this subsection should be limited to Koop's opinions, not his critics opinions, which should be given in their own sections. The APA statement and Fogel's statements being two such counter opinions.--Strider12 (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Separating critical sources from the targets of their criticism results in a fractured and difficult-to-read article. Direct criticism should be handled directly. In the end, it's up to the reader to decide whether Koop, Weiss, or both were playing politics. It would be quite odd, not to mention misleading, to describe Koop's report but not a susbsequent Congressional inquiry which charged him with suppressing his actual findings in the name of political expediency. We're citing New Scientist here - it's not like we're quoting the NARAL website. Whether one believes Weiss' charges or not, they seem relevant to the issue of Koop's report. MastCell  21:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ordering of subsections

Is there a deliberate order to the dozen sections? It's not in chronological or reverse chronological order. I think we might present the best narrative if we ordered them chronologically since often one paper refers to results of an earlier paper. I also considered reverse chronological to put the most recent first but that would often result in sections referring to sections lower down.

If nobody objects I will reorder them chronologically. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In connection with Andrew c's thoughts below I have created Talk:Abortion and mental health/Chronological mostly to help myself think about a possible rewrite. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Article is poor

Misplaced Pages is a free, online encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is not a list of studies and quotations from studies. This article should be an encyclopedia article, not a list of journal articles. Because of the continuing issues with these sources, back in early January the article was revamped, with the idea of starting from the ground up and writing an encyclopedia entry, as opposed to listing and quoting various primary sources. So what progress has been made towards that end? Almost no progress. We now have another bloated section that extensively lists and quotes journal articles. The prose is very poor, the overall article flow does not exist, there is no sense of organization (not even chronological), etc. The idea of wikipedia is not to open up pubmed, and then write a summary of a study and add some quotes. That simply does not make an encyclopedia article. We need to use more prose, less quotes, we need more contexualization, we need a much better structuring. Perhaps the studies section could be used as sourcing to write such a section, but as it stands, it has no place in a wikipedia entry (if we are going by our MoS and what makes FAs). Seriously, who honestly thinks we have gone in the right direction since January 10th? What can we do to make this article on the path to being good? It seems like there has been too much infighting over what sources to mention and what to exclude that no one has given any thought to actual article structure and flow. -Andrew c  12:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts. I wasn't here back then so I didn't even think of it except, as I said above, that it doesn't appear to be in any kind of order. I had some other nitpicking thoughts about the overall structure that I was going to bring up later but you seem to be suggesting a thorough gutting and rebuilding. I was thinking "inside the box" even though it is often good to think "outside the box". Sbowers3 (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
How can we write an article when we can't even agree on what belongs in the article? I thought we were still on the phase where we decide what belongs in it. Kuronue | Talk 20:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree entirely with Andrew c's comments about the current direction and status of the article, but I'm despairing of being able to address them in the current atmosphere. I do welcome the involvement of more editors, like Andrew, Sbowers, and Kuronue, since part of the problem has been a somewhat obsessive focus on certain unproductive aspects of the article-building process. One approach from here might be to compile a list of reliable, independent secondary sources upon which the article could be based. These would include major media coverage, summaries of the issue by major professional organizations, and perhaps major literature review articles. As a supplement, we could compile a handful of prominent partisan secondary sources - for example, Planned Parenthood, Guttmacher, or the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice on the pro-choice side and comparably prominent organizations on the pro-life side - to discuss how these participants in the abortion debate frame the issue. Primary sources - and by that I mean specific journal articles and studies - would fill in the blanks and provide supporting detail in the context of these secondary sources, rather than forming the basis of the article as they do now. This is my understanding of how Misplaced Pages articles are meant to be constructed. MastCell  21:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
As Andrew c suggests let's think about article structure and flow. Can we first agree that we should not lead the reader to a conclusion that the relationship between abortion and mental health is negative, neutral, or positive? Whatever opinion each of us may have, there are reliable sources with contrary opinions. As a beginning reader in this area I'm not even sure that there is a majority view; there may be three significant minority views (neutral, negative, and inconclusive).
I've come up with only two ways to structure the article. I like having more options so maybe other editors can suggest alternatives. One way, which I do not like, is to have a section on each of the views. That will lead to controversy about the order of the views and the weight to assign to each one. It's also hard to cleanly separate the views because some sources can be both neutral and inconclusive, or even (conceivably) negative for some women and positive for other women. And it is probably appropriate to say something about the reaction from other scientists to a particular paper. So the "negative" section would end up with "anti-negative" comments, and so on.
The structure that I think can work is a chronological history of scientific thought about the subject. That structure lends itself to a narrative in prose rather than a list of unrelated papers. And it naturally introduces some context in the flow of paper, reaction, next paper. Well, that's the best I've come up with. I'll be interested to hear the reactions of other editors. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to reiterate, I think we need to be very careful about relying on primary sources/original papers. There is a strong drive to present the primary literature and then "summarize" its meaning for the reader. The entire structure of the article at present violates WP:SYN, and to make matters worse, the "summaries" are being produced by editors with a deep-seated investment in a specific POV. We have reliable secondary-source summaries of scientific thought on the matter, from Koop (in the 1980's), the APA, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the RCP among others. The APA and RCP are in the process of updating their reviews, which will make these sources even stronger. Please - the only way this article will ever progress out of its current state of POV-laden disaster zone is if we base it on reliable secondary sources rather than editorial summaries and spinning of the primary literature. MastCell  06:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I see Koop, APA, and RCP in the article. I don't see the ACOG. Can you provide a reference? Sbowers3 (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Part of the reason for including so many opinions is because there are so many opinions from experts who reflect these opinion in the context of peer reviewed studies in which they BOTH reflect on previously published research and analyze new data. Plus, the new research and data is tending AWAY from what for many months were considered the "majority" view defined by key sources: the 1990 views profferd by the APA panel and Stotland's 1992 commentary.
For several months this article went through an upheaval that eliminated material which did not concord with those two, very dated, "key sources." I became involved after these edits had so seriously tilted this article toward the unsustainable view point that there is a clear consenus that there are no significant problems associated with abortion. I therefore tried to present a number of the dozens of authoratative sources indicating that the 1990 and 1992 views no longer define the "majority" opinion.
In fact, this is not a settled area of science or politics, therefore it clealy defies easy reduction to a 200 or even 2000 word summary. Therefore, I have previously proposed and continue to think that this article should be about BOTH the science and controversy and that it would be beneficial to organize the bulk of the material in a semi-structured history of the controversy, starting before Koop, with Rue's proposal for PAS, Koop's letter, the APA letter, Fogel, Stotland, Wilmoth, Russo's NLSY study, Reardon's studies, Brenda Major, Fergusson, etc. This would show the ebb and flow of the controversy and also the major figures involved in the research and debate. I'd suggest not being strictly time sequential, however, but would summarize each person's or organizations contributions under one listing for that person or organization. In covering the controversy, I'd suggest less of the detailed point/counterpoint in each section and suggest that we simply allow each parties views to be put forward with minimal point counterpoint and trust that their views will be balanced by the whole ebb and flow of the various key party's views.
In my view, "encyclopedic" does not necessarily mean brief. As you know, some entries of Encyclopedia Brittanica can be verrry long. There is no compelling reason not be thorough in reporting significant views and research on both sides of this issue.Strider12 (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
We ought to keep in mind that there is no deadline. The article is better if it sticks to what sources have said rather than trying to get ahead of the curve by "updating" the old APA opinion with a bunch of new literature. The APA is coming out with a new statement soon, as is the RCP. These will account for new literature, including Fergusson et al. and Reardon, which will help us clarify who thinks what and where the weight of expert opinion lies. It is certainly not a settled area of science or politics, but that doesn't mean the article has to be a mess. We can briefly and accurately summarize the positions of various key players - experts in the field, as well as advocacy organizations - with very little fuss if we decide to focus on that rather than playing up whichever primary studies coincide with our viewpoints. MastCell  19:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Facts are facts. Experts whose expertise is established by peer review and published in verifiable reliable sources offer us valuable material that qualifies for inclusion. Including new material from reliable sources is always justified. There is no Misplaced Pages policy that suggests we should wait on certain groups such as the APA and use only the sources and opinions reflected by that group.
What you continue to confuse is primary sources (lab notes, for example) versus primary studies (meaning important peer reviewed studies) which are reliable secondary sources because these PUBLISHED, PEER REVIEWED studies are no longer just primary sources (raw data and lab notes) they are offer peer reviewed analyses and interpretations.--Strider12 (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I have explained, ad nauseum, why I consider that your use of primary journal studies to advance your position and undermine that of reliable secondary sources violates WP:SYN et al. Since you continue reinserting the same edits every few days with no attempt to address these concerns (beyond capitalizing the words PEER REVIEW) or to seek dispute resolution, I have nothing to add at present. MastCell  20:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Just because your explain your views ad nauseum does not make them universally accepted. Your explanations are not supported by Misplaced Pages policy nor have I seen other editors embracing your rules for excluding peer reviewed studies that you don't like. Please show GF in respecting the well sourced contributions of other editors. Also, please don't delete material across multiple sections of the article in one fell swoop where your explanation refrences just a single section as this tends to conceal the full extent of your deletions.--Strider12 (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Um... in response to a request for comment, a bunch of uninvolved editors showed up and basically unanimously thought that you were being disruptive, pushing a POV in violation of policy, and so forth. The fact that you've succeeded in wearing down or driving off these editors should not be taken as positive reinforcement. MastCell  21:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Orderly edits

1. Please do not delete a series of several edits in one fell swoop. Doing so deprives multiple editors the chance to review, improve on and comment on the edits.

2. Please respect that it is disruptive to delete reliable, verifiable information that is presented in an NPOV fashion. If you believe it is unnecessary material, please discuss and develop a CONSENSUS for removal of the material. The presumption should favor inclusion rather than exclusion. It is not necessary to gain permission of all editors to include reliable material. GF editing however suggests that we should leave material in until we have developed a well reasoned consensus for removing it. Presumptively deleting well source material is not only disruptive and shows lack of GF toward the contributing editor, it also deprives other editors the chance to review and to build on the contributed material.--Strider12 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You have yet again reinserted edits which are clearly disputed, making zero attempt to actually address the dispute but simply reinserting them again and again every few days, as if the dispute will magically vanish. That is disruptive. Now you've mixed a few potentially useful edits in with those and accused me for reverting them all. If you want to make progress, then don't try to slip your disputed edits in among a flurry of others. Right now you appear to be trying to game the system by doing so; additionally, you again offer zero constructive arguments or attempts to address the underlying content issue, instead relying on an old wikilawyering of an ArbCom decision. I again decline to be lectured on "good-faith editing" by an account with your history, though I would point out that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. If you want to talk about good faith, try addressing my concerns instead of hoping I'll miss your edits or get tired after you reinsert them for the 9th time. MastCell  21:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:BRD. It is great to make bold edits. However, if an editor in good faith reverts your edit, it is NEVER appropriate to re-insert the controversial material. If you wait a week between adding it, it is still not ok. You have been slow edit warring for a long time, and there hasn't been nearly enough talk page discussion. If there are concerns about your edits, you need to come to talk and discuss them. Here is an idea: instead of trying to re-add the material, make a proposal about what you want to include, and go into detail on why you think we should include it. This should start a discussion. If there is consensus (or silent consensus) for your proposal, then you can add the content to the article. Regardless how you interpret policy, it is never ok to edit war to try to force controversial new material into an article (which you have been doing on a slow scale in the past, and which you have done multiple times today).-Andrew c  21:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Some disturbing tendencies are on display here. As a matter of Misplaced Pages policy, Strider12 must recognize that he does not WP:OWN the article and cannot insist that editors follow a specific protocol such as making their changes piecemeal. Insistence on doing so could be seen as disruptive. Also, he has misstated the burden of proof: policy is crystal clear that the person who wishes to add or reinsert material must be prepared to justify its neutrality and verifiability (see e.g., here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's pause, take a few breaths, and figure out how to proceed from here

Today's editing must be very frustrating for everybody. As of this minute, the article is back where it was at the start of the day after a bunch of edits and a bunch of reverts. It's a waste of time for everybody, it's raising some tempers, it's heading in the direction of one or more editors leaving voluntarily or involuntarily, and it's not making the article any better. This article is going to get a major reorg - I don't know yet just how it will change but it is necessary so it's going to happen - so any changes made now before we figure out the reorg will have little bearing on the eventual article.

It would be far more productive to try to figure out the shape of the final article, than to edit war over this article. Does anyone think the article is anywhere near good? Does anyone think that throwing in a few more sections will make it better?

Making big changes quickly either by lots of editing or by reverting will do nothing except add fuel to the fire. We're going to have to move slowly and preferably by advance notice.

A few thoughts:

  • There is no hurry. The tortoise is going to win the race and the rabbit may end up as stew. (How's that for a metaphor?)
  • There are other editors. Whatever side you are on, there are other editors on your side. Let someone else share the load.
  • It will be much more effective to propose a change here, wait, then perhaps go ahead.

I don't think this article needs to be edit-protected but it might be helpful to treat it that way. No change unless it is first proposed here, then make the edit only when there is some consensus.

One of today's edits actually has some consensus, I think, but was reverted because it was in the middle of other, more controversial edits. I proposed about a week ago to reorder the sections chronologically. Nobody objected so I plan to make that change. And when I do, I will do it one section at a time, to make it easy for other editors to see what changed. I hope that other editors will also make small changes instead of big changes so that the rest of us can easily understand the changes and so if it is necessary to revert, we can revert only the bad and not have to revert good changes along with the bad.

If we're going to work on this article - and it makes more sense to work on the structure of a replacement article - let's do it slowly and avoid doing things that we know from past experience will only irritate other editors.

(This is not one of my favorite posts. I don't want to sound like a know-it-all or sound hopelessly naive, or end with a feeling that it's all hopeless but someone had to say something and this is the best I could come up with.) Sbowers3 (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt to calm the waters and move forward productively. Reordering the sections chronologically would be fine. I have reached the conclusion, after 6 months, that the most productive use of my time as regards this article is to directly address specific behavioral issues. I'll be happy to comment on constructive proposals but I don't see editing it directly until those issues are definitively addressed. MastCell  22:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Wilmoth G. Abortion, Public Health Policy, and Informed Consent Legislation. J Social Issues, 48(3):1-17 (1992).
  2. Coleman PK, et al. The Psychology of Abortion: A Review and Suggestions for Future Research. Psychology & Health 2005; 20(2):237-271. quote from page 230 paragraph 1
  3. Cite error: The named reference RCP1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. Is There a Post-Abortion Syndrome? NY Times
  5. Adler NE, David HP, Major BN, Roth SH, Russo NF, Wyatt GE. "Psychological responses after abortion." Science, April 1990, 248: 41-44.
Categories: