Talk:Abortion/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions about Abortion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

→

Incidence Photo - Buddhists

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

This is a photo that already is on the Religion and abortion page. It is a photo of a religious ceremony and is only loosely related to the section. It is described in a way that is anti-abortion and links to a a religious article. Both the text and the article promote an anti-abortion view that their should be funerals for these fetuses. Of the photos on the page, anti-abortion photos already have +2 advantage. For these reasons, I think it violates WP:NPOV to add this photo.--Pro-Lick 23:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Until such time as a religion and abortion sub-section exists (and, granted, that might be a while, because no one is interested in paying the to-do agenda any mind, and I'm sick of taking it on single-handedly), do you have a better suggestion for where to put it? As for "anti-abortion photos," I honestly don't understand your rationale. This isn't a contest; it isn't we pro-choicers versus them pro-lifers. We're not keeping score. -Severa ?? | !!! 23:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I already answered your question about a better idea. Keep it on the religion and abortion page. Why reproduce it here if you don't even have consensus on a section you wish to add (but don't wish to put in the work for) where it might fit? That adds no consensus for adding the photo to the list of reasons why it should be removed.--Pro-Lick 00:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The photo is appropriate with a neutral prose description. --WikiCats 05:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Another thing to consider, this article has been tagged for not having a worldwide view point. While this is only a small step, including information from other cultures (while possibly overlapping with religion) also helps broaden the international depth of the article. I believe this photo is significant in that it helps towards eventually removing the worldview tag. I also don't see how this cultural practice is anti-abortion, seeing as how it clearly does not prohibit abortion. Do a google search on it sometime. --Andrew c 15:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The religious magazine article it links to describes it as something imposed upon the women, associates it with infanticide, and uses typical anti-abortion propaganda language like "souls of their babies" and "children". It cites an article called Ill effects of abortion: Terrible harms are caused by the souls of aborted embryos to their own families. The religion and abortion article section it links to: Mizuko kuyo ... lit. "water-child memorial service". Child is neutral? Later, soul of the fetus, believed to protect children, and associating it with infanticide. It's only NPOV in terms of describing how the religion views it (and I'm not even sure of that, it may be just a small sect of Buddhists that are receiving undue weight relative to the majority). I think what this shows is that the world view tag is being employed as a distraction to insert POV, which means the NPOV tag will return shortly regardless of whether the world view is satisfied or not. Maybe it's just a lack of work ethic in seeking out international photos that actually provide incidence-related information.--Pro-Lick 17:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection?

Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Why is this article suddenly protected? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably thought that Severa and I were about to get into an edit war over the photo.--Pro-Lick 01:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the basis for protecting this article? There was not consensus to change the opening. ____G_o_o_d____ 09:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

patsw seemed to be against the new opening proposal, but I could never really figure out his objections (I think it had to do with the d-word). You objected to one word in the proposal (nonviable). And AnnH reluctently accepted this version as a compromise. Everyone else that gave imput seemed to aprove it. It is not unanimous, but it is a majority. As I said, this version is at least more accurate than the previous version, so I felt that there was nothing wrong with having an almost unanimous version sit on the front page, as opposed to the problematic version that was previously there. Besides, now that it is out in the open, more editors will be able to contribute to it to make it even better.--Andrew c 15:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that it is very appropriate that the page is protected, and yet continues to be edited under that protection....protection should not be selective. Let's hash out any problems, so we can get back to working the article. DonaNobisPacem 16:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am amazed that anyone would continue to edit the article while it is supposedly frozen. Simply amazed. One thing I have noticed at wikipedia is that taking advantage of one's admin status to edit a page is considered extremely bad behavior. ____G_o_o_d____ 18:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

1) The article shouldn't be protected in the first place. An admin unfamiliar with this article had a hair-trigger response. It should be unprotected immediately.

2) Do you have anything to say about the content of these changes? In specific, do you deny that they are the result of consensus? If not, then you're just complaining for the sake of complaining. Alienus 18:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just added an unprotect request. Hopefully, they'll honor it and things will go back to normal. Alienus 18:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the protection is apparently because of that photo of the Buddhist ritual. Can we get some more editors to comment, and determine what the consensus is? Severa, Pro-Lick and others have commented in the section above. Myself, I can see both sides. Having the first picture in the article being a ceremony honoring the souls of the stillborn and the aborted could come across as prejucicial. On the other hand, we don't have any other images near the top, and this one does contribute to a more global perspective. Comments?

If we're working towards consensus here, there's a lot less reason for protection. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Poll: adopt the new opening paragraph or not?

Poll is here.

Please give your input. ____G_o_o_d____

Medically speaking

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Medically speaking, what exactly does "termination" mean? patsw 02:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It means ending. Abortion ends a gestation. Alienus 02:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Patsw, I'm in favor of a simpler word such as, ending or stopping or ceasing. I prefer simplicity provided it doesn't undermine accuracy.--Pro-Lick 03:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

From the The Concise Oxford English Dictionary: "terminate→ v. 1. bring to an end. • end (a pregnancy) before term by artificial means." And from the OED itself: "termination e. The ending of pregnancy before term by artificial means; an induced abortion." While we are at the OED, let's see what it says under abortion: "In Med. abortion is limited to a delivery so premature that the offspring cannot live, i.e. in the case of the human fɶtus before the sixth month." If we are going to quote a medical definition, I see no problem in using the terminology that is very commonly used medically. Terminate is not a euphamism. It is a proper term used very often in medical literature, and abortion definitions. We can dumb it down and take out the so-called euphamisms in the "common" definition (which is exactly what we did in my proposal).--Andrew c 03:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The Concise Oxford English Dictionary appears to define "termination" to include induced delivery, c-section, etc. which ends a pregnancy by artificial means with a live birth.

The question I raise is whether the appearance of "termination" as being identified with "death of an embryo or fetus" as a euphemism is the end product of a 40 or 50 years of POV pushing that some want to ratify here as "neutral", and the neutral "death of an embryo or fetus" has somehow become POV pushing. patsw 03:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Where are we passing this off as neutral? By saying that the medical community technically defines a word in a certain manner, we are expressively stating a POV, and clearly saying who holds the POV. I fail to see the problem. There are TWO definitions from TWO POVs. The neutral aspect is that we are not playing favorites and saying which one is right or better. We are saying what the definitions are, and the context in which they are used. Why are you acting like we are covering up your POV? The new proposal clearly states the death of an embryo or fetus. What is the problem here? --Andrew c 04:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Patsw, this is why I made it a point a relatively long time ago to put together a list of commonly referencable definitions for the group (that, anybody could and still can add to). (The Oxford def has not been added yet.) Talk:Abortion/Archive_18#Medical, Reliable, & Reputable Sources WP:RS will show you that your assumption about euphemisms has no factual base. I.e., not verifiable. See the 1911 and 1913 definitions provided in the list.--Pro-Lick 15:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A thought about the consensus process

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Alien and Prolific, just a note regarding "requirements such as verifiability and neutrality are not subject to vote or consensus". That was also my impression when I studied the policies some time ago. My belief in the concept was based on that assumption. However, I was wrong. I had not figured in the true importance attached to consensus on Wikipedia. I have since reached the conclusion that the consensus process is assumed to safeguard policy. And I do not like it one bit. Because in practice it means that consensus trumps policy. (I'd like to be proven wrong in this respect but I don't expect I will.) AvB ÷ talk 10:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As I understand it, policy is formulated by the Wikipedians and by its nature is based on POV and OR, instead of verifiability. That means voting. But until that changes article content policy, the article content policy trumps all. The problem is getting that enforced when you have an article dominated by a POV that has no interest in verfiability or neutrality. That's probably why the consensus article makes it a point to highlight that as a problem. In practical terms, it means that an completely inaccurate article can exist for a very long time if it gets enough people behind it.--Pro-Lick 15:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is about enforcement. But I think you are optimistic when you say that "the article content policy trumps all". I think it should, but it doesn't. The point made over and over again on WikiEN-L and in policy discussions is clear enough. The historical chain leading from "how can editors create a neutral encyclopedia", via NPOV (original formulation)... WP:NOR... WP:V... WP:CITE... WP:RS... Undue weight... and the Jimbo quote at Undue weight... always ends in: Consensus. The endpoint is consensus. Now I do acknowledge the importance of consensus. But I think the endpoint should be police, if the real world is anything to go by. Not to control the majority of generally law-abiding folks. But to keep the jerks from controlling content. And to keep the discussion sweet and simple; empower good editors to make progress without having to waste time. That's what I would like admins to do. To see to it that policy is being followed. But I'm afraid the main focus is on enabling editors to reach consensus. Even ArbComm will not engage in content disputes. AvB ÷ talk 16:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

In the end, there are no rules, just our interpretations of them. Consider the case where a dozen conservative Christian zealots act in concert to sway the consensus. If they decide to interpret WP:NPOV to allow this article to begin with "Abortion is the murder of an innocent pre-born infant", then that's what NPOV is, by definition. If this is seen by some as an example of a cabal trying to WP:OWN the article, the cabal can decide that this is not the case, and that's that. If people complain, the cabal can brand them uncivil vandals who edit against consensus and get them banned. If you think this is absurd, take a look at Circumcision, which is owned exclusively by pro-circ zealots who do all of these things.

The solution is to recognize that not all votes are created equal because not all voters are. When someone has a track record of ignorance or bias, their view on the matter should be discounted accordingly. Yes, the Pope is an expert on Roman Catholic doctrine, but he's also incapable of neutrality, so his vote (even if ex cathedra) is less valuable than my own. Anyone with a basic education can be qualified to fix a typo, but you need to know a good deal about a range of topics, from biology to social policy, to meaningfully contribute to this article. A combination of competence and impartiality should translate to increased influence over content. As it stands, it does not. In reality, there is such a thing as objectivity, and the adversarial system of mob rule that we have here isn't a particularly effective way of achieving it. Alienus 22:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Worse yet: Consider the case where a half dozen communist liberals act in concert to sway the consensus! ____G_o_o_d____

Ehh?

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

"NY Times can not be biased"? that article is specifically from the POV of a person who is apparently attempting to associate a nation where anti-abortion laws are not very well regulated with the pro-life movement in order to draw a conclusion that a nation led by a pro-life agenda will apparently "do bad" so to speak, am I missing something in that link? I don't understand how it isn't biased. Homestarmy 17:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I read it as an example of a government that enforces pro-life policies as most pro-life people would like it enforced. No abortions, and report and criminalize people that have any possible involvement with abortions. Am I missing something? Is that not what pro-life is driving for?--Pro-Lick 00:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Im not very politically involved in the pro-life thing so I can't tell you exactly what the "official" U.S. pro-life movement would have as an outline for a "pro-life state", I would imagine some sort of social welfare system might be implemented but I dunno, I think there's something about conservatives not liking that kind of thing, im not sure. But look at the kind of links down there in that section, you've got statistics, abortion laws, a medical analysis thing, and then....an opinion essay, reflecting on the apparent flaws of a particular countries abortion laws and how it is impacting their society. It doesn't look consistant, even if the "bias" argument I propose doesn't hold. Homestarmy 01:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The part about it belonging in the bias section is probably true. I'm not arguing it's a peer reviewed historical study. But at least it's not an Washtington Times or LA times article. I'll move to pro-choice section if not already.--Pro-Lick 03:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Could someone say what is wrong with my copy edit of the intro, rather than just reverting? [1] I didn't make any substantive change, but (a) the word "miscarriage" is colloquial, and we should use the correct term, which is spontaneous abortion; (b) of course human abortion gets the most attention by humans in human newspapers, so it's a bizarre point to make; and (c) there's no difference between the ethics and the morality of it, so I deleted morality (or you could delete ethics, but there's no need for the repetition). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Slim. I'm happy to have "areas of the world" changed to "parts of the world". I also agree the the bit about human abortion getting the most attention is a bizarre point to make, and would be quite happy to leave it out (or simply to say that this article focuses on human abortion). The problem is that there has been a long discussion about the word "death", with most editors feeling that it is an essential part of the definition. There have been attempts to remove that word, or to add utterly inappropriate qualifiers,[2] and there has been some edit warring. A few people argue that "death" is POV, as it implies that the fetus is human; others have argued that it doesn't imply that at all (a dog can die, a cell can die, bacteria can die). In my view, the POV is what the thing is that dies (a baby? a human being? a piece of tissue? a blob? a clump of cells? an unwanted growth on a woman's womb?), but that it dies is simply a fact, though an unpleasant one.

We have discussed this at length on this page, and the arguments have been made that removing "death" and changing it to "expulsion" or "removal" fails to distinguish abortion from childbirth — even if it's premature childbirth. After multiple proposals and votes and much edit warring, there does seem to be a general agreement that "death" should be in the first paragraph. The question now is to whether or not it should be in the first sentence (which would be my preference). I feel we should have "death", and "expulsion or removal", but to have the latter without the former is leaving out an essential part of what an abortion is. If there's no death, then it isn't actually an abortion, but a live birth, or a failed abortion. AnnH ♫ 09:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My only problem with it is the deletion of miscarriage. Either it or spontaneous abortion should be in parantheses because spontaneous... is not a well known term. I like the other changes. Don't forget to add a vote on #Poll:_Opening_paragraph. I'd prefer to keep your present form, even without miscarriage, but there's likely to be a tradeoff.--Pro-Lick 09:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to be discussing the first paragraph, could you please move to the appropriate talk subpage here: talk subpage. Thanks!--Andrew c 14:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree about "death" needing to be there, because clearly something that is alive is undergoing a procedure to stop it from being alive (that, indeed, is the point) so it would be obtuse to leave that out. But I don't understand why someone keeps restoring the bizarre mass media point, because it makes Wikipedia look silly. Do some readers erroneously believe that mouse abortions get more coverage on ABC News than human ones, and therefore it's really important for Wikipedia to correct that false impression immediately in the intro? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No, in shame I'll say that I think that got left in because we were all so preoccupied with the death issue that nobody thought of taking it out. Thanks for that. ;-) AnnH ♫ 19:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No worries, Ann. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking for the poll? Want to discuss the first paragraph?

Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

The recent discussion and poll concerning the first paragraph has been moved to the appropriate talk subpage: Talk:Abortion/First paragraph. I encourage anyone who would like to participate in this discussion to join us there. Specifically, I invite the people who rejected our first proposal to join in on the process. It is frustrating to work with a large group of individuals on improving this article, only to be shot down be editors who didn't bother to work towards consensus on the talk subpage. So please, hopefully this next round will produce a version that everyone can compromise and agree upon!--Andrew c 15:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE stop edit warring the first paragraph. I have restored the longstanding stable version from months ago. I noticed some edits (namely Dominick) changed what the medical definition considered abortion. YOU CANNOT put words into a sources mouth. This is unacceptable. Please talk any changes out on the talk subpage. --Andrew c 16:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly want to get involved in the politics of this page, but the intro, whatever it says, has to be meaningful and intelligent. Problems with the one that was there (point a is still there): (a) The termination of a pregnancy isn't "associated with" the death of an embryo, as though the termination and the death are often seen at the same time but no one can work out why. The termination causes the death; (b) abortions don't occur spontaneously "in the form of a miscarriage" (as opposed to in some other form?): a spontaneous abortion is what non-medical people call a miscarriage. It's like saying a patella comes in the form of a kneecap; and (c) the biology and mass-media point is silly; what is the purpose of it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I more than agree this version is problematic. Take it to the talk subpage and see if you can get anyone to agree to change it. This is the longstanding, stable version of the first paragraph that received consensus months and months ago. Let's try to avoid edit warring. It is going to take another such consensus to change it. Good luck! --Andrew c 00:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in the controversial aspects of it, but it has to be accurate. A miscarriage is the colloquial term for a spontaneous abortion. One doesn't happen "in the form of" the other. One doesn't happen "as" the other. They are two names for the same event. And the mammalian point was reinserted. Could someone explain what it means over and above stating the obvious? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This time the sentance on mammalian pregnancies was different - it was pointing out that this article focuses on human pregnancy. What's the problem in stating this? We all agree the previous sentance was odd.

On the point of miscarriage - the sentance you proposed was something along the lines of:

Abortions can occur spontaneously, in which case they are called spontaneous abortions.

Which to me sounds nearly as silly as the mass media comment. I think miscarriage and spontaneous abortion are synonyms, with pubmed returning 25,785 results for the former, and the latter 13,491. The medical community seems to use both, whereas colloquial usage strongly favours miscarriage.

I also notice that miscarriage has never moved from this name, and has not been discussed. While that could partly be down to not recieving enough traffic, it does suggest this is not an obvious wrong word to use.

Nevertheless, please take a look at the bottom of Talk:Abortion/First paragraph where we are for the last time trying to sort it out, your comments on these points, even copied and pasted, would be very welcome. |→ Spaully°τ 10:12, 13 April 2006 (GMT)

The only reason my first edit ended up with the sentence: "Abortions can occur spontaneously, in which case they are called spontaneous abortions" is that I was trying to change as little as possible about the sentence, because this seems to be a twitchy page, and so I kept the first part of the sentence that was there. It's hard to get any kind of good writing established with this high degree of suspicion and sensitivity, but yes, I take your point and apologize for not rewriting the whole sentence.

The mammalian point is too strange. People don't come here expecting to find an article on rabbit abortions. We don't add to the intro of conflict that all species engage in it, but it's the human variety we're writing about today, and it's human conflict that tends to get covered by the mass media. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand your care in making changes, although still am not sure about whether 'spontaneous abortion' or 'miscarriage' would be more correct. Fair enough on the mammalian pregnancy point, I suppose it is just slightly odd! |→ Spaully°τ 23:47, 13 April 2006 (GMT)

If my memory serves me correctly, the text, "All mammalian pregnancies can be aborted; however, this article focuses on the abortion of human pregnancy" was born of a conflict in which a user was determined to change "fetus" to "human being." His reasoning, a strawmen which conflated genetics with personhood, went something like, "Well, if it isn't human, what is it? A cat?" I don't look forward to having to go through that process again. -Severa | !!! 01:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Keeping track of prior consensus precedents and the logic behind them is not always easy. As with court precedent, sometime the precedents lead to things we never anticipated. In this case, it probably is legitimate to note the focus on human abortion. But simply mentioning that fact will make abortion supporters cringe. So we get the oddball sentence about mammalian pregnancies - which is later pointed out as somehow too weird for the article - which leads back to the fact that there does need to be some mention that the article focuses on people. The good thing about this is that all the debate drives home the realities that (1) the article does at times ignore wikipedia standards by backflipping and tiptoeing around the sensitivities of those who embrace abortion as a good thing for those who choose it, and that (2) any serious debate about abortion makes abortion supporters squirmy and defensive and reduces them to making undeniably false claims such as:

banning abortion is simply a matter of imposing religous beliefs,
the bible supports abortion,
most prolifers murder abortionists,
the fetus is morally equivalent to phlegm,
abortion is only (or even usually) done for health reasons,
abortionists are usually competent and respected by peers,
there is no abortion industry,
most women with unwanted pregnancies were using contraceptives at the time,
easy access to birth control will reduce abortion
abortion centers don't target the minority population,
abortion for a minor does not require less parental involvement than giving an aspirin,
prolifers are only interested in the fetus,
abortion is not a very common form of birth control,
abortion centers are often less regulated than veterinary clinics,
abortion centers usually report the sexual abuse of minor pregnant women by their adult rapists,
there are not 7 to 10 partial-birth abortions each day in the US,
there are not 50 late-term post-viabiity abortions each day in the US,
late term abortions are only done for serious health reasons,
most people would support most abortions,
millions of women died prior to 1973 due to illegal abortions,
abortion advocacy groups have pure motives,
abortion is usually a short and long term positive experience for women,
the gruesime photos pro-lifers have of abortions are all fakes,
abortion opponnents are mostly male, etc.)

____G_o_o_d____ 08:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the current intro is clear, concise, well-written, and a good compromise (after reading through the discussion page). Kudos to everyone who contributed to crafting it. Kaldari 19:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I don't get one thing. A medical textbook is copyrighted right? So if I list it as a source, do I violate any copyright? If I use it as a source of information for the article, do I violate the copyright? Even if I do not use the exact same formulation? Because there are more medical textbooks on the market .. I dont believe they sue each other for writing about the same things and all the writers once used a textbook to learn the facts they write about. ackoz 18:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it falls under fair use or something to cite textbooks, just as long as you don't quote a bunch of it or something I think, where "a bunch" would be like more than a couple paragraphs I suppose. Homestarmy 02:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you can quote small portions, verbatim, or else paraphrase what is written in your own words. -Severa | !!! 02:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

See fair use. I think Wikipedians should stay well within its limits though, since editors license all their contributions under the GFDL (e.g meaning material should be suitable for use in a for-profit context). AvB ÷ talk 09:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Kaldari's chart question

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

When you mention "viability" of the abortion methods in the chart, what exactly are you referring to? ____G_o_o_d____ 20:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine "practicability" in the sense of which methods can be or are used at specific durations in the pregnancy. Perhaps, this should be changed, due to the common understanding of "viability" as being synonymous with fetal survivability in the abortion lexicon. Great job on the chart, BTW, Kaldari! :-) -Severa | !!! 01:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, viable, as in "practicable". I'll change it if you think it's confusing. Would it be better if it just said "Induced Abortion Methods"? Any other suggestions? Kaldari 01:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't confused by it, but you could still change it, if you want. I'd recommend the chart title, "Practice of Induced Abortion Methods," and the image caption, "Gestational age may determine which abortion methods are practiced." I would also recommend introducing some kind of ruler along the bottom of the image, so to show the precise number of weeks, but if that's not feasible, it's great as it is! -Severa | !!! 01:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think the precise number of weeks is necessary since there seems to be little agreement on exactly when certain methods are appropriate anyway. I've tried to come up with something of a concensus average for each one. For example, I'd rather people get the impression that Dilation and curettage is practiced from the middle of the 1st trimester to the beginning of the 2nd trimester, rather than from the 6th week to the 15th week (as there's a lot of variation in practice). Kaldari 05:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the title per Severa's suggestion. If anyone has any other suggestions for improving the chart, let me know. Kaldari 05:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent sockpuppetry

Latest comment: 18 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Recent revert-warring from sockpuppet accounts using false edit summaries:

Revision as of 07:32, 15 April 2006 by BrushLimpcow. Edit summary: "correct some grammar errors."
Revision as of 15:24, 16 April 2006 by Ingralamb. Edit summary: "shorter, clearer, reduce slant."
Revision as of 16:04, 16 April 2006 by Ingralamb. Edit summary: "shorter, clearer, unslanted."
Revision as of 17:31, 17 April 2006 by O.P.Nuhss (a name no doubt called into Moe's Tavern by a crank-calling Bart Simpson). Edit summary: "help the writing."
Revision as of 20:26, 17 April 2006 by NColemam. Edit summary: "just refining to make accurate."
Revision as of 20:49, 17 April 2006 by NColemam. Edit summary: "slight adjustment."

Revision as of 01:09, 18 April 2006 by O.P.Nuhss. Edit summary: "provide citation."

-Severa | !!! 03:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

User:O.P.Nuhss reached 4 reverts, so I made a report. Any admin who wants to field it, cool. I'm sitting this round out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Further sockpuppetry on April 18, 2006:

Revision as of 16:36, 18 April 2006 by Donpediac. No edit summary.
Revision as of 16:48, 18 April 2006 by Donpediac. Edit summary: "discharge."
Revision as of 20:47, 18 April 2006 by DPG. No edit summary. DPG has made several other edits to this article and has also been making changes to Partial-birth abortion.

-Severa (!!!) 02:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:47, 19 April 2006 by M.E.Rhekt. Edit summary: "citations."

-Severa (!!!) 02:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do we apparently suspect Pro-Lick? :/ Homestarmy 02:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Characteristic edits to the opening paragraph, particularly the removal of "death," repeated 3RR violations, uncivil comments, juvenile usernames ("Oh, penis" and "Am Erect"), Pro-Lick's established history of using sockpuppets when his main account is under block. -Severa (!!!) 03:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a certain similarity; I suppose a checkuser would reveal all. I've just blocked User:M.E.Rhekt indefinitely, by the way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

When M.E.Rehkt said "20th cent" in that last edit summary, he was counting 10 edits removing the word death: five as NColemam, three as O.P.Nuhss, and two as M.E.Rehkt. I suspect DPG and Donpediac are someone different; DPG actually backed off the first sentence of Partial-birth abortion after being warned about 3RR. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

DPG made edits to mental health, adding the word, "doubtful," which Pro-Lick has inserted (along with synonyms, i.e., "dubious," "questionable") many times into some of the "Suggested effects" sub-sections. Let me hunt diffs. BTW, how, exactly, would I go about reporting repeated disruption by multiple, but probably associated, accounts? -Severa (!!!) 03:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, AN/I is a good place to get attention. I'm posting there now. If you want to request a checkuser, there's WP:RCU, and page protection is requested at WP:RFPP. Eventually, Pro-Lick could earn a listing at WP:LTA. Then there's always WP:WOTTA when you can't find the page you're looking for... -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Edits by Pro-Lick to "Suggested effects: Mental health" which stress or conclusively state connection is unproven, doubtful, dubious, questionable, etc, or changes of the title of "Suggested effects:"

-Severa (!!!) 03:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

sprotect

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

due to the probable sockpuppetry and editwarring from new users as outlined above, this page has been temporarily semi-protected. --He ah? 04:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)