Wikipedia

Talk:Abortion/Archive 33

< Talk:Abortion
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Paranormal Skeptic in topic RFC: Should we allow a discernible image of what will be aborted in a typical abortion?
Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35→Archive 40

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

Latest comment: 15 years ago199 comments48 people in discussion

This article does not show or describe what is aborted in an abortion. Should we allow a non-shock image of an abortus that has not been dismembered? Analogous images are in tonsillectomy. An image from Gray's Anatomy was rejected here. Then an image from the Wikipedia Graphic Lab was rejected here. So, there have been accusations of political censorship. Most recently, a simple undetailed drawing was rejected showing an embryo on the left, and a fetus on the right, at typical gestations when abortions are typical.[1] The article includes images of women, but not an image of a discernible abortus. This seems to be the first RFC on this question (links to previous similar discussions can be found at the FAQ at the top of this page).

Comments of involved parties

 
Above are drawings at typical gestations when abortion is induced in England. At left is an embryo 4 weeks after fertilization (i.e. 6 weeks LMP). At right is a fetus 4 weeks later. The selected abortion method depends chiefly on the size.
  • Yes. The image at right would be acceptable, for example. It is similar to images accepted in several other Wikipedia articles for years. Its lack of detail is advantageous so that people will not haggle about details. It contains a great deal of relevant information that would be useful to readers. The article is currently not NPOV because it completely lacks information about what is aborted. Readers cannot go to any other Wikipedia articles to find this information (because other articles do not explain the gestations at which abortion is typical), and even if other articles did provide that information, this is a summary article which appropriately provides summary information.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Ferrylodge made a rather non-neutral and otherwise dubious request for comment, but I'll add my comments anyway. I've objected to the image primarily on this ground: adding an image of a fetus is of limited relevance. Adding an image of a fetus doesn't add any more to the reader's knowledge than would a picture of a hospital bed, a pregnant woman, the same woman not pregnant, a typical OBY/GN or any number of slightly related images. Furthermore adding the image of a fetus makes an emotional appeal, which presents neutrality concerns. An analogous emotional appeal on the opposing viewpoint would be an image of a young woman (teenager) with the caption "a girl about to undergo an abortion." The emotional appeal in that example should be obvious - and is analogous to the emotional appeal in the fetus image, neither which are neutral.--Tznkai (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
A brief reply. Neutral facts often have emotional appeal, but that is no reason to exclude the neutral facts. This article already has some images of women, even though everyone already knows what a woman looks like. Most people also know what a bed looks like, and yet we have an image of a bed, not to mention a familiar image of a doctor. Many people have no idea what an abortus looks like. There is no exception to Wikipedia's no-censorship policy,[2] for things that some readers may find emotional.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Tznkai, I notice that you did not preface your comment with a clear statement in bold, saying yes or no, support or oppose. Perhaps this meant that you were keeping an open mind about it? I have recently edited a section of the article in response to your concerns, and I think the image would be very relevant there, now more than before. So I would like to ask you: is it still your position that the image is of insufficient relevance? Here are several itemized reasons why it seems extremely relevant to me: (1) it illustrates the rapidly changing size discussed in the corresponding text; (2) it gives the reader some clue about the difference between the technical terms "embryo" and "fetus" used in the corresponding text, so that the reader can choose which one to click on in order to get more info; (3) it gives the reader some description of what is aborted in a typical abortion, whereas the rest of this article does not (nor do the articles on fetus or embryo); (4) it is as toned down as much as humanly possible, and yet conveys considerable information, without getting into much detail that could raise questions about accuracy; (5) to the extent that it may have emotional impact regarding abortion, that suggests people would find the image relevant, and the image on the left (showing a tiny blob) balances any impact of the image on the right; and (6) it has no greater emotional impact or appeal than anything the reader would see by clicking on "fetus". If you still oppose this image, I would like to know how we might make it more acceptable for you, and why you disagree with each of these six points I’ve listed (and also why you think that WP:NOTCENSORED does not apply here, and whether you also oppose the images in the tonsillectomy article). If you support this image, please add to the numbered list I have just given, if possible. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I try to always keep a relatively open mind, so let me respond: 1. Rapidly changing size is interesting for the gestation, fetus and embryo articles Now, I believe you found a reference linking fetal size to miscarriage rates, so I can see where a single sentence or phrase (along the lines of, "after 10 weeks the embryo has become a fetus, X times as larger and is therefor at greatly reduced risk for pregnancy). 2. I can wiggle somewhat on explaining the fetus/embryo difference, but the majority of the explanation is taken up by different, more relevant articles. Illustrations on the other hand, are to be used sparingly, and I don't think its useful in this article. 3. We don't need to do that. There is no typical abortion, there is no typical abortion product. The most common abortion is a miscarriage, and it looks like menses, and abortions done before the second trimester also tend to look that way as I recall. We're not really going to add much to the reader with that kind of imagery. 4. See above. 5. Some readers may find it relevant, but it doesn't make it good writing and you can't "balance" appeals - a good article is not written by even amounts POV shlock from opposing sides, its written in a single unified neutral voice. That is difficult to happen, but that is my goal.6. Context, context, context - on Fetus you would rightly expect to find images of a fetus, on abortion, the image of a fetus is cruft at best, and an emotional appeal at worst. I do think some room can for compromise with ultrasound images - in the context of "pregnancy crisis" centers, pre abortion counseling, sex-selective infanticide, abortion frequency reduction, and I believe ultrasounds are used during some abortion procedures. I still maintain however that the picture of a fetus just because "its what is aborted" doesn't add enough to the article - certainly not more than it potentially takes away.--Tznkai (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Induced abortions are vastly more common during a particular period of pregnancy. See here. The proposed drawing illustrates that typical period. I have proposed an image for the section titled "induced abortion" so your comments about miscarriage do not seem pertinent, because miscarriages are not induced. That section on induced abortion mentions that the abortion technique changes as the size of the abortus changes (the footnoted source says: "As the fetus grows in size, however, the vacuum aspiration method becomes increasingly difficult to use”). The proposed image is extremely relevant to showing the change in size that determines the abortion technique, and is extremely relevant to giving the reader a hint of the difference between an “embryo” and “fetus”, so that the reader can decide which to click on for more info.
Neither this article nor any other Wikipedia article presently gives the slightest description of what is aborted in a typical induced abortion. You are effectively concealing information, and allowing only information about how innocuous abortion is ("safer than childbirth", no substantial risk of breast cancer, fetal pain, mental problems, et cetera). Excluding this image is a case study in censorship, contrary to the Wikipedia policy against censorship, and contrary to the Wikipedia policy to preserve information.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The tonsillectomy comparison is poor because it doesn't show a healthy pair of tonsils. Following that line of reason, we'd need to show anencephaly images to understand therapeutic abortion, because it is a condition that often is alleviated with the procedure which is the subject of this article (similar to how tonsillitis is related to the topic of tonsillectomy). I'd recommend not trying to say "hey we have images of a nature X in other articles, so we need to have them here". It stinks of OTHERCRAPEXISTS. At least try to focus on featured content if you must make comparisons... but I think it is best to focus solely on this article and not worry about what other articles are or are not showing.-Andrew c [talk] 03:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it's fairly clear from the caption of the image above-right that the abortus is not — or soon will not be — healthy. I admit that an unwanted embryo is different in many ways from a diseased tonsil, but there are also similarities. Anyway, your argument about OTHERCRAPEXISTS would be more compelling if you had identified the tonsillectomy article as crap. I think my argument is very compelling even putting the tonsils aside.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand your first sentence. How does altering a caption change what 3dpregnancy.com drew? Anyway, it sounds like we can agree to put the tonsillectomy article aside. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 14:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The first sentence means that when an embryo or fetus is aborted, it is obviously no longer healthy. Regarding tonsillectomy, I don't happen to believe that that article is crap. And I also don't know whether you think it is crap. Feel free to ignore it if you think it is crap.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The sentence in the summary above If the article can include images of women, why not an image of a discernible abortus? makes no sense. What images of women do we include? Do we show images of pregnant women specifically? Images of women undergoing abortion (or about to undergo abortion)? I don't understand the logic behind the sentence, so I am inquiring further.-Andrew c [talk] 14:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Andrew c, I believe that if you look at the images currently in the present article, you will see that more than one of those images includes a woman. And, there is much less reason to include an image of a woman in this article than an image of an abortus, because most everyone already knows what a woman looks like,, whereas many people are not aware of the information conveyed by the abortus images I have proposed. It seems perverse to educate readers about what they already know, but to deliberately omit information about what they do not know.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you specifically tell me what image is being used to illustrate what a "woman" looks like? I disagree with your characterization of how we currently use images in this article. If the article can include images of women, why not an image of a discernible abortus? still makes no sense to me.-Andrew c [talk] 02:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Tznkai has repeatedly stated that showing what an abortus looks like is no more relevant than showing what a woman looks like, or showing what a bed looks like, or showing what a doctor looks like. I find that assertion preposterous, since everyone knows what they look like, but few people have an accurate sense of what an abortus looks like. Yet, we somehow manage to include images of women, of a bed, of a doctor, and of lots of other things in this article, while assiduously avoiding giving the reader the slightest information about what an abortus looks like. You may view that as merely coincidence and happenstance. I view it as censorship, whitewashing, propaganda, and POV.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Question Where would we put an image of an embryo and/or fetus? What section of the article? Does this proposal also involve adding accompanying text which describes these stages in more detail?-Andrew c [talk] 14:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
This RFC is not about positioning the image. It is about whether it should be completely excluded from this article. It is about whether an article on Abortion as long and detailed as this one should protect hypersensitive readers from the emotional trauma of learning rudimentary facts about what is aborted. This proposal does not rule in or rule out accompanying text. There are several possible positions for this image, such as here. Ferrylodge (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
The image should be excluded unless there is a specific spot where it is useful in the article. The purpose of graphics on Wikipedia is to inform the reader in a manner better accomplished by images than by text. If there is no place where the image should go, it ought to be excluded. There is no place where an image of an oil derrick should go in this article, and thus we exclude images of oil derricks. Unless the person who wants to add the image has a specific place in mind, and placement of the image in that place will further the reader's understanding of abortion or an abortion-related topic which is prominent enough to warrant inclusion on the main article, the image should be excluded, just like any other image which isn't directly relevant. 24.201.116.45 (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
HERE.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, this is the first RFC related to this question. Links to previous discussions are in the FAQ at the top of this talk page. None of those discussions involved an image of more than one abortus, much less an image of two abortuses four weeks apart shown to scale.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • No. Inherently inflammatory; non-instructive. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    Per Wikipedia policy, “some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links where they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis or masturbation). Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness, but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, 'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.”[3]Ferrylodge (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    I am quite aware of Wikipedia policy, and your wikilawyering to twist it. It isn't informative. This is not the fetus article. Therefore, the ONLY reason to include it is to be inflammatory, hence it is against NPOV. Against policy. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    The only reason? How about that depicting what is removed (often graphically) on many other articles is not controversial at all and that no other medical article has had such images actively blocked? How about that a fetus/embryo is central to an abortion, the entire point of which is to remove the fetus/embryo? Why is it so POV to simply show what intended to be removed in this medical procedure as is done in many other articles? The image is informative, truthful, relevant, and neutral. Many pro-choice editors, including myself, have expressed support for its inclusion. -Neitherday (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    Oh, because the Tonsillectomy debate is similar to the Abortion debate? I think not. You cannot compare a diseased part of a human which is removed for health reasons with what is considered by many to be a human with a soul. Its not even remotely the same; your Red herring won't wash. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    Do you consider the image in childbirth a red herring too?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    This isn't about the abortion debate article, this is about the abortion article. The red herring is the claim that the image is POV. Wikipedia does not exclude factual information simply because those facts may be seen by some as supportive or detrimental to a POV. -Neitherday (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    Allow me to quote Jimbo here: "I will simply restate the obvious: imagery in articles is often one of the most attractive points for POV-pushing of all kinds, for a couple of reasons. (1) Images can have a strong emotional impact, thus making implicitly a point that would not be possible to make in the text. (2) Images are often "either/or" with no easy way to work for consensus. My own perspective is that many of our articles have needlessly graphic photos inserted either by POV-pushers or by people who are borderline trolling"[4] KillerChihuahua?!? 20:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    Jimbo was obviously not referring to the proposed image, because it is not a "graphic photo". Images can be very useful in articles, or there wouldn't be any. This Wikipedia article currently not only excludes all images of what is typically aborted, but also excludes all written description of what is typically aborted. As many other editors have pointed out below, this results in a severe NPOV and censorship problem. I very much doubt that this information would be excluded except for the fact that there is a controversy about this issue in society at large; that is why this article only says how harmless and beneficial abortion is ("safer than childbirth" et cetera). I believe that Jimbo Wales has acknowledged the possibility that this article is being used for "propaganda", including pro-choice propaganda.[5] Ferrylodge (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    Jimbo was speaking of images in general. He mentioned graphic images as part of his comments. If it is unclear to you that he is not speaking of any specific image or situation, I can explain further. That said, the point is simply that images can be used by POV pushers and often are; that Wikipedia is not censored is not a blanket justification for inclusion of images. If you cannot comprehend that, perhaps we need to discuss basic policy understanding before we discuss this particular situation. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
    If you can, it would be much appreciated if you would restrain yourself from gratuitously insulting other people's intelligence. I agree with you 100% that Wikipedia is not censored is not a blanket justification for inclusion of images. However, it is justification for inclusion of some images, no?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
    Images can be sometimes be used to push a POV, this is true. But this is far from the case here. A number of pro-choice/pro-abortion editors, including myself, have expressed support for the image. Those editors are clearly not pushing an anti-abortion POV. -Neitherday (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
    An image can tilt an articles balance towards one POV or another without direct intent of the editor. I am stating my opinion of including the image, not commenting on your or anyone else's beliefs or views. Your views, and mine, are quite irrelevant. I have commented on the content; please do not reply as though I had commented on you as an editor, nor on your views. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
    You have attributed the image to POV-pushing several times in this thread. POV-pushing is an action that bad-faith editors engage in to further an agenda, which means you have (perhaps unintentionally) been suggesting that editors are using this image to push their POV. My previous reply was to that. As to the image potentially "tilting" the article in one direction, I reiterate that Wikipedia is (or at least should not be) in the business of excluding relevant and factual information simply because it may be seen by some as support of or detrimental to a POV. -Neitherday (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
    (ec)Having an image of embryo/fetus outside the context of abortion is not comparable to other articles. It's like having a basic picture of blood cells on blood donation or a basic diagram of a tooth in tooth extraction. Giving that much elementary background information in an article dealing with a much more specific topic is not necessary. Images of fetuses and embryos within the context of abortion (or in situ) would make it on topic. People have pointed to the mastectomy article. All of those images can easily be identified with the subject of the article. I could view the images in isolation of that article and see how they clearly relate to the topic. The proposed image here would be more like having File:Breasts01.jpg on the mastectomy or breast feeding articles. These images, if examined outside the context of their respective articles, do not clearly relate to the topics under consideration. I cannot view File:Abortus.PNG and say "oh, it's illustrating abortion". -Andrew c [talk] 17:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's a featured article about a disaster. If you look at most of the images (without peeking at their captions) you would have no idea that the article is about a disaster.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Let's try to be civil, please. Directly quoting a policy without comment is hardly twisting it. I believe that this image (showing both an embryo and a fetus) is essential to NPOV. This article should say something about what is aborted in a typical induced abortion; the fetus article says nothing about that, and shows all kinds of fetuses that are aborted extremely rarely (e.g. a fetus at 8 months is almost never aborted). Are you saying that what is aborted is irrelevant to abortion? Additionally, if this article gives no hint about the difference between a fetus and embryo, the reader will not know which one to click on. This article already includes much info about how safe abortion is ("safer than childbirth", minimal risk of cancer, of mental problems, of fetal pain, et cetera), and discernible pictures are included of just about everything except the abortus. Thus, the article has a POV problem. A typical abortus is nowhere described, except to say that whatever it is feels no pain. Tons of other Wikipedia articles show things that are removed from the human body, and this article should not be an exception. See tonsillectomy, treatment of human head lice, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, blood donation, breastfeeding, mastectomy, dental extraction, childbirth. Also, this image would accompany text that says the abortion technique depends on the size of the abortus, and this image illustrates that size spectrum.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments of uninvolved parties

A link to Fetus provides some images, but a reader cannot discern which of those images show gestations for which abortion is typical. Also, Fetus provides no info about an embryo, nor describes gestations at which abortion of an embryo is typical. All of that info is contained in the small image at the start of this RFC, which also includes a size comparison. Informational content in that image also includes the fact that a typical aborted fetus at 8 weeks has a head, legs, arms, fingers, and eyes. Is there some reason to hide that info? Is there some reason why intelligent adults are better off not knowing that info? Those are simple facts. If some people get emotional about them, that's their problem. Are we supposed to only show the pleasant, uncontroversial, un-upsetting aspects of abortion? Why is it better for this article to imply that abortions only involve insignificant blobs that are not even worth the slightest brief description? I would think that people who are pro-choice would be interested in promoting informed choices, rather than ignorant choices.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with also linking Embryo. I did not raise most of the things brought up in your response; however, your response does suggest to me that this RFC is based on a specific agenda, not just information. --Scray (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a summary article. You are opposing the slightest summary in this article of what is aborted. My only agenda here is to put an end to that sort of censorship.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
And it seems that unless I agree with you, you'll call it "censorship". You have not provided an adequate argument for inclusion of the image proposed. That's my comment. --Scray (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
People disagree with me all the time at Wikipedia, but this is the only instance where I believe it's due to censorship. It's really difficult to imagine anything that could possibly be more relevant to this article than a brief description of an abortus that is aborted in an abortion.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
"...the only instance where I believe it's due to censorship." You have used that word a half-dozen times already on this page alone in the past few weeks, haven't you? --Scray (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have used that word plenty of times recently, all with reference to this one particular issue at this one particular article. And the shoe still fits. In this world, not all people make decisions like Mr. Spock; both society as a whole, and individual people, make many decisions based partly on emotion. If it were not for emotion, there would never be any sense of injustice, love, compassion, or outrage. Society would have no laws against animal cruelty or hate crimes, or a million other things. People would never get married based on affection, or give gifts out of generosity. If you want to stamp out any and all information from this article that may have an emotional impact, then you are doing something with little or no precedent at Wikipedia, and certainly without support in Wikipedia policies or guidelines. And it's not even-handed to remove all factual material that might make abortion objectionable to some people, while leaving in material that would make abortion more palatable to people. That's called censorship and propaganda, and I stand by that assertion. I hope you don't consider that a personal attack, but rather a statement of my honest opinion about this article. Imagine something with me: suppose that someday scientists conclusively discover and prove that human beings have no soul until the first Friday the Thirteenth after they are born, and everyone on Earth acknowledges the validity and certainty of that discovery. Even then, I would say that the proposed image would belong in this article, simply because it shows what is aborted. Lots of Wikipedia articles have images of body parts that are relevant to the surgery in question.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
TLDR - "Amplification is the vice of modern oratory" (Thomas Jefferson) --Scray (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
At the same time, Jefferson explained: "Speeches measured by the hour die by the hour."[6] I assumed that you could read 280 words in less than an hour.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes There is no disagreement as to whether the image is factual and it is obviously relevant. This image is not a shock image and effectively illustrates what is being aborted, which is unarguably a key aspect of an abortion. I can see no reason not to include it in this article other than the claim that it is non-neutral. However leaving notable, factual, and relevant components of an article because of the unease that some on one side of a debate may feel is far more non-neutral. -Neitherday (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Meh. If it can be fit in properly, and depending on the image itself, I don't see any particular issue with it. The proposed image, for instance, is okay (though it's fairly crappy looking). That's not to say that there's a pressing need to include it either. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Andrew c's Diagram Does that silouette still not show up on everyone's monitor? That abortus is the same shape as the proposed image in this section, and there's less argument on its relevance. If the prenatal is too small, we could enlarge it. -BaronGrackle (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't show up on my monitor. I proposed adding an enlargement that the Graphic Lab produced for us, but that proposal was rejected above. Additionally, the enlargement shows an embryo and does not show or compare it to a fetus (most abortions on this planet are fetal rather than embryonic); so, in the enlargement of Andrew c's image, there are no fingers, no legs joining the feet to the torso, et cetera. The image I've suggested at the top of this RFC is intentionally crappy looking; it lacks detail so that we do not get into arguments about detail, and lacks color so that it is as neutral and drab and uncuddly and unobjectionable as possible, yet it includes lots of info that is not in the enlargement of Andrew c's figure (which has already been rejected anyway). Some people may be able to click on Andrew c's image to enlarge it; I can't do that on my computer. In any event I believe that this article should have a discernible image of what is aborted, without any need to click anything.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
This is from an edit summary to the article by Ferrylodge: Putting more info into caption. There is an ongoing RFC about images at talk page. I oppose this new image without also including a discernible image of what is aborted. To my knowledge, this RfC had nothing to do with my image. This RfC did not mention my diagram until now. I'd like for those coming into this discussion to understand the context of this RfC. On FL's monitor, he apparently cannot see discernibly the embryo in the diagram File:Vacuum-aspiration (single).svg or can come up with half a dozen other excuses why this image alone doesn't meet his requirements for having images of what is aborted. Even though I have made 3 separate edits to my diagram to try and address FL's concerns, this hasn't been good enough. So instead of working further on my diagram, various proposals to include even more abortus imagery has been brought forward and rejected, and this RfC apparently filed to uncover the terrible "censorship" because there was no support from regular editors for any of FL's proposals. I'm not sure where any of this is going, but hopefully to a conclusion that all parties can live with. Carry on...-Andrew c [talk] 16:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Andrew c, I can see no embryo in your new image, on my monitor. And if I could, it would be so infinitessimally small as not to be discernible. I would think that you could see that the image at the top of this RFC is much more discernible. Are you disputing that? I have consistently and repeatedly stated at this talk page that I oppose Andrew c's new image without also including a discernible image of what is aborted, because his image exacerbates the problem with this article: it treats the abortus as insignificant and infinitessimal, and not worth describing in the least. And FWIW, I have never called your censorship of this article "terrible." I will provide you a list of other adjectives upon request.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

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

  • No due to caption. The image gives date since fertilization. This is not used in medicine. We use date since LMP. The fact the whoever wrote the caption used this gives me great feeling of POV. They are trying to make the embryo / fetus look as big as early as they can.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
No, that’s incorrect. The image on the right is based on one at 10 weeks’ gestational age, which is the same as 8 weeks from fertilization. The source image says: “PREGNANCY WEEK 10 (Counting from the first day of your last menstrual period).”[7] The image on the left is at 4 weeks from fertilization.[8] So, the fertilization ages in the caption are correct. The caption can easily be augmented to clarify this.
Obstetricians often find it convenient to measure “gestational age” from two weeks earlier than fertilization (i.e. from the first day of the last menstrual period), but embryologists typically measure age from fertilization. See Segen, J.C. The Dictionary of Modern Medicine, page 187: "obstetricians calculate gestational age; embryologists are more correct as they calculate the ovulation or fertilization age." Also see Dudek, Ronald et al. Embryology. Also see Drews, Ulrich. Color Atlas of Embryology.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I've clarified the caption. Incidentally, you can find a table of crown-rump lengths here.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I can see where a real photo of a fetus might be objectionable, but the illustration offered would appear to be as neutral as possible, and there shold be no valid objection to it at all. Collect (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments of uninvolved parties (2)

  • Follow external precedent. Do any other neutral texts about abortion aimed at the layperson include a picture or diagram of a fetus? I'm not talking about medical manuals, and certainly not about material published by those with an agenda. If other ostensibly neutral texts about abortion include a picture of a fetus, we should; if not, we shouldn't.--Father Goose (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Britannica has "amnion" with image at [9]. Clearly it feels such an image is not particularly political. Collect (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I would expect to see a picture of a fetus in an article about the amnion, which is the membrane that holds the fetus. An image of a fetus in that article isn't any more political than an image of a fetus in fetus would be.--Father Goose (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Just for kicks, I went through all 64 interwiki links, and two out of the 64 had imagery similar to this proposal: nl:Abortus and ur:اسقاط_(حمل). I also went through google books with the phrases like "encyclopedia abortion". The majority of books weren't illustrated, but I found [10] on the one hand, and [11]. I'm not sure why Britannica was brought up as "amnoion" is a completely different topic from "abortion", no? How does Britannica illustrate it's abortion articles? Good question Father Goose. -Andrew c [talk] 14:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The majority of the interwiki links are stubs and most have no illustrations at all. While put forth in good faith, 2 out of 64 is misleading as to what the ratio would be if more of the articles were fully developed. -Neitherday (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, because the Urdu article is fully developed and that stopped them from using images.... :) Mislead was not my intent. Comparison was.-Andrew c [talk] 16:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Father Goose, it is very very common for neutral and reliable sources to discuss abortion in conjunction with images of what is aborted. The question about what other neutral sources show was discussed way up above on this talk page. Some of the examples that were cited above are as follows: [12][13][14][15][16][17] User:Tznkai felt that at least some of these were not good examples, but I think they are all pretty good examples, and I can find lots more if you would like. Even if external sources censored images of what is aborted (which they do not), Wikipedia is supposed to be different.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The newspaper links you give are for the most part about a debate in Britain over where the cutoff for abortion should be set, in terms of weeks of gestation. Most of them are tabloids using attention-getting images to drum up the controversy and sell newspapers. The Time cover is similarly provocative -- and the copy of it you linked to is hosted on a pro-life blog, which does not improve its claim to neutrality. Thefreedictionary.com images are included in a "thesaurus" section on abortion, and frankly, I'm not sure why.
However, you did mention a single source that does seem to be neutral and potentially representative of the kind of information we should have in our article -- thesurgeryencyclopedia.com. Not surprisingly, their information seems to be oriented toward information about surgical procedures, and many pages contain fairly graphic illustrations of such surgeries (for instance, amputation). At the very least, that is a decent argument for including a diagram such as File:Vacuum-aspiration.svg in this article, and very strong argument for including such a diagram in vacuum aspiration.
Now, let's go to a survey of actual encyclopedias and comparable texts aimed at a general readership:
I won't claim I've made a complete survey -- but if one accepts the rationale that the above neutral texts are a reasonable guide for how we should present the subject neutrally, the answer so far would be Yes to a diagram of an abortion procedure in this article, No to a diagram of a fetus. I see nothing as yet to suggest that a diagram of a fetus belongs in abortion any more than a diagram of an abortion belongs in fetus. However, a diagram of an abortion does belong in abortion.--Father Goose (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Update: and Maybe to diagram(s) of pregnancy, with relative fetal sizes (see comments below).--Father Goose (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
That rational would also lead to the conclusion that no more than one image should be included in the article. It is impossible to judge whether or not an image should be included among the 10 others in this article based on what other sources use as a lone image. The comparison is apples and oranges. -Neitherday (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
As I said, I didn't make a definitive survey. But at the very least, it gives credence to including a diagram of an abortion procedure in this article (which we indeed recently added). Most of the sources listed above by ferrylodge that do include a picture of a fetus are periodicals focusing on sensationalizing the abortion debate, which I do not take to be a neutral form of coverage. But if a picture of a fetus were to be found in a article about abortion comparable to ours, that would give credence to including one here.
I should also address the picture on thefreedictionary.com in greater detail; take a look at their entry for vaporize, for instance, which contains a weird assembly of images: a cartoon; a picture of some form of gas processor; an advertisement for evaporated milk; and a picture of a Las Vegas casino. I don't believe that site can be used as a useful indicator of what images we should be presenting in our article.--Father Goose (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
A few quick comments. As has been noted, this Wikipedia article contains many images that are completely unlike anything else available in an online encyclopedia-type work. The same is true of images in many other Wikipedia articles (including this one). If we are to disregard newspapers (because they're apt to sensationalize), and only focus on online encyclopedia-type references, the choices are very limited. I'm not aware that it's even possible to do an image search in Google Books. Anyway, here are a couple more refs for you to munch on: [18][19]. I think the main focus here should be on whether the proposed image is verifiable, neutral, and informative.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
You're right that the choices are fairly limited in terms of online encyclopedia-type references. To delve more exhaustively into the question of "what pictures neutral sources on the subject of abortion use", we'd need to start looking through dead-tree books dealing more extensively with the subject.
However, the AllRefer example you just gave lends support to the argument for including a picture of a fetus in our article. If we were to follow their example, a picture of a fetus in the context of "pregnancy" could be considered. The three images File:Month_1.svg, File:Month_3.svg, and File:Month_5.svg from human pregnancy are potential candidates, though there remains the question of where in this article would be an appropriate place to put them (provided you could get them in the article at all).--Father Goose (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
And what about the UCLA example?[20]Ferrylodge (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
That's an article about "early miscarriage", which is not the primary topic of our article. Incidentally, both sources are copies of the A.D.A.M. database; here is a copy of the "Abortion - elective or therapeutic" ADAM article on UCLA's site, which is more nicely formatted than AllRefer, and here is a copy of the general "Abortion" article, which contains a diagram of a D&C.--Father Goose (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The UCLA image shows a fetus in an encyclopedia article about spontaneous abortion, so it seems relevant. We’ll never find the precise, exact thing currently proposed, with the exact same article title and exact same image. I assume you'll be advocating removal of this article's images of "French Periodical Pills" and the map titled "International status of abortion law"?  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
(responding to the last two links FL posted). The first image you pointed to is great. It isn't there to illustrate the variations in size that embryos and fetuses have at different stages, it is a diagram of the topic at hand, threatened abortion (in the miscarriage article). However, I'm not sure what your second link is. I mean, I'm not sure what I'm seeing, or what purpose that page serves. I see a headline "Abortion - Elective or Therapeutic", I see 5 links to "Top News stories" that have nothing to do with abortion, then I see the image "early weeks of pregnancy", then I see the 5 news stories links again; there is no text at all to contextualize anything that I'm seeing. So I don't really know what's going on with that image. What sort of web page is that, and where is the accompanying critical commentary, or encyclopedic text to accompany that image?-Andrew c [talk] 22:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
You can disregard the second link if you like, the first is better. I don't want to repeat myself, so I'll just say that no matter what examples I come up with, there will always be distinctions that can be made: "that's a newspaper instead of an encyclopedia" or "that encyclopedia article's title is different" or "that encyclopedia used the image for a somewhat different purpose." The point is: there is nothing unusual about reliable sources using images of an abortus.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

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

It is unclear from the images I've suggested whether they are in utero or not. No background or other environment is depicted. I would still like to know whether you would advocate removal of this article's images of "French Periodical Pills" and the map titled "International status of abortion law." As for what references I can use to persuade you, am I completely limited to encyclopedias, or not? I have already suggested an enlargement of Andrew c's in utero image, but that suggest of mine was rejected. I do not see why every single image of an abortus in this article has to clearly be before or during the abortion. Why not after, or leave it ambiguous as it is according to my suggestion?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
As I've been suggesting since the beginning of this thread, I feel we can look to how these other sources approach the subject as reasonable guidance for how this topic can be covered neutrally. Since the fetal images in these other sources are always explicitly in the womb, I would continue to suggest we emulate their approach instead of showing an isolated fetus. Expressing my own opinion for a minute, I think an image showing mother+fetus together would also help to straddle the... shall we say, "pro-woman"/"pro-fetus" divide. Such an image also has the advantage of giving an immediate sense of scale that is not present in an "isolated fetus" image.
I do not believe the neutrality of including the map or the historical advertisement is being questioned, so I do not feel the need to call upon other sources to try to answer a question that's not being asked.
As for what sources I consider worth using as a guide for our own coverage, I will continue to suggest that any source that provides neutral information about the general subject of elective abortion (and that is aimed at a general readership) is likely to qualify. So far, that has been encyclopedia articles and health guides.--Father Goose (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
We already have an image in the article that shows an infinitessimal embryo in utero, and I do not see how it straddles a divide to make that a uniform requirement for the article. It would be a simple matter for me to draw a circle around the embryo and a circle around the fetus in the image proposed, and connect the umbilical cords to each respective circle, without otherwise changing the image proposed. If that would make people happier then I'd be glad to do it, but I'm not sure that I see the need (and people then may object: "where's the placenta?" and "why should we omit the woman's head?" and "the caption is no longer accurate" etc etc). If drawing the two circles won't be acceptable for you, then maybe we'll have to visit the Library-of-the-Dead-Trees.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I guess all I can say at this point is that including close-up images of fetuses in this article is likely to remain controversial (and thus unimplemented) in perpetuity. If you're just enjoying arguing about it, then you can also go on doing so forever (until such time as the community finally and completely loses patience with you). If, on the other hand, you are realistic about the situation, you might consider lobbying for a set of images of mother+fetus as a compromise position. If that's wholly unacceptable to you, our abortion article will remain wholly unacceptable to you, and you should find something else to do than agitate against this impasse. In the meantime, I am simply one more person whose patience you have expended.--Father Goose (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I hope you will review the Wikipedia policy against censorship, and the Wikipedia policy to preserve information. There is no policy against including verifiable and relevant information merely because some editors find the information "controversial." If that were a legitimate criterion for including information, then a majority of Wikipedia editors would be entitled to exclude whatever information is causing controversy at a talk page. Incidentally, I enjoy nothing less than arguing with you about this. There is already a drawing in this article showing an infinitessimally small embryo in utero, and I have not heard any suggestion from you how we can improve on that.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • No - there's nowhere in the article for it to be reasonably put, hence it does not assist in illustrating the article. There's other problems: the caption seems misleading, because it fails to give the size (about an inch and a half) for the foetus on the right, instead giving a comparison to an unsized embryo. It's also an emotional appeal, which I don't think any of the images currently in the article are, which means that its inclusion would add a POV-slant to an article with currently reasonably-neutral images. I'm against having this article used for advocacy by either side. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I've just inserted the height into the caption. The height is about the same as the size on your monitor.
The article presently goes on at great length about how good and harmless abortion is. Entire sections are devoted to asserting that it probably does not cause breast cancer, or fetal pain, or mental health problems, and it may be "safer than childbirth". But you would apparently forbid the slightest indication of any facts that might inspire any reaction against abortion, even if the facts are facially neutral and obviously relevant. Where is the Wikipedia policy that says information that happens to have an emotional impact on some people ought to be selectively forbidden?
Additionally, people ought to learn what an appeal to emotion is: first and foremost, an appeal to emotion is a fallacy. In contrast, there is nothing false or even slightly misleading about the image at the top of this RFC. While some people might want to classify every fact that weighs against their POV as an "appeal to emotion", that does not make it so. The images here and here at Wikipedia may inspire some emotions in some people, but they are perfectly appropriate.
And why couldn't the image be reasonably put here? The only image now in this article of an abortus shows an infinitessimally small and barely discernible embryo. How small would we have to shrink the fetus image at the top of this RFC before it could be accepted into this article? Ferrylodge (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that your point was clear before this. I'm not sure why you thought that a three-paragraph response restating your position was necessary, simply because I disagreed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
My response indicated that I modified the caption to address a concern of yours, which you do not acknowledge. My response indicated a precise location where the image could be placed, because you said that no such place existed, but you have not referred at all to that precise location. My response pointed out that the article currently has much information to soothe the emotions of people concerned about abortion, but you have not acknowledged that fact, or acknowledged the existence of that information. My response wikilinked appeal to emotion, and described that it means a "fallacy", neither of which I had done anywhere else at this talk page. Et cetera, et cetera. If you would like to be nonresponsive to good faith efforts to address your concerns, that's your business, but please don't blame me.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Because there is no discussion related to the image in the point you suggest it, your typical range for when abortion happens is uncited, and it's clear that this image is simply part of a campaign for you to make the article push an anti-abortion viewpoint. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Please see WP:AGF. I am not "anti-abortion." I believe it should be completely legal to abort an embryo. Providing the most rudimentary facts about what is aborted does not "push" anything - but censoring it does. This article includes a graph showing when typical abortions occur,[21] and I'd be more than delighted to accordingly footnote the caption in the proposed image. Additionally, the point where I suggest the image be located is a general section about "induced abortion" which says: "The manner selected depends chiefly upon the gestational age of the embryo or fetus." The image shows why the manner varies: because the size of the abortus varies.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. Oppose proposed image/caption. Everyone's screen has a different pixel density. The way I set up a computer for my nearly-blind grandfather, your image whould show a fetus that was approximately one foot in height, yet state that it was "1.25 inches." I also echo all the comments about 'This is transparent POV pushing.' Hipocrite (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
In your view, would the slightest information in this article about the thing that is aborted be POV-pushing?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Have you stopped beating your wife? Mu. Hipocrite (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, then what info would you allow into this article about the thing that is aborted? Could we have a single sentence that merely says: "An 'embryo' becomes a 'fetus' about eight weeks after fertilization (i.e. 10 weeks LMP), when the major structures, shape, and organ systems of the newborn have formed"? Or is that too much?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments of uninvolved parties (3)

I agree with SheffieldSteel that the best way to prevent readers from becoming concerned that an abortus might be similar to a real person would be to hide what an abortus looks like. That way, readers will not become concerned, readers will not visit other Wikipedia articles to get more facts about an embryo/fetus, and readers will therefore be better equipped to make ignorant decisions. That is what will happen if this article only presents information about how beneficial and harmless abortion is, and how infinitessimally insignificant an abortus is. My notion of Wikipedia is to present relevant facts no matter what, and treat readers with enough respect to let them make up their minds based on those facts. As for the assertion that I have "basically the pro-life position on abortion", my personal beliefs are apparently unknown to SheffieldSteel, and vice versa, and they should be irrelevant here anyway.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Setting aside the question of whether this sort of sarcastic response is really appropriate in a request for comment, I think Ferrylodge has made his position quite clear enough. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I seriously do agree with you that the best way to prevent readers from becoming concerned that an abortus might be similar to a real person would be to hide what an abortus looks like. Secondly, please do not incorrectly state my personal positions and beliefs, and expect me to not defend myself from misrepresentation. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
So, while you object to me putting words in your mouth by saying your position is basically pro-life, in the same post you state for the second time that you agree with a statement of mine (that I have not in fact made). I remind you that this is a request for comment as opposed to an RfA or AfD discussion, where it might be expected for contributors' opinions to be challenged, and potentially disregarded by a closing admin or 'crat. I have to wonder what you hope to achieve with all this. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't hope to achieve much. The RFC will remain open for a good while longer, and hopefully I won't have any need to continue making so many comments. If the image is not accepted, we will at least have created a thorough record documenting the whole thing. If I mischaracterized anything you said, feel free to explain why you think so.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of the image: it is factual, informative, relevant and reasonably neutral (not shocking al least). I think inclusion of the image will improve the article Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes An image of the fetus at various stages of development, without being bloody, fairly helps present the issue. However, I would recommend that the sizes be listed in metric units in addition or in place of the English units, so that an international audience can better relate. Ngchen (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Done.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion. We have to make the distinction between presenting factual information through images, which may or may not have an emotional impact on readers, and attempting to manipulate our readers by using images to construct a narrative that favors one side of the argument. It should be ok to have a selective use of images that are not contrived to shock or overwhelm the reader's judgment. If the reader is influenced to oppose abortion simply after becoming apprised of what is actually involved, that is really none of our business. We aren't trying to push one point of view, but neither are we trying to stop people from taking another point of view. The idea is to let people find out information and make their own judgment. Fletcher (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Include images please. Wikipedia is not censored. Shock value or potential shock value of images should be ignored. As long as pictures are GFDL-comaptible content, verifiable and accurately described, no reason why potential abortus, foetuses, acts of abortion or post-abortus products should not be depicted in illustrated form on an article about Abortions. Not putting pictures in because a political group may misinterpret them is self-censorship and letting terrorists win.--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
You scored a para-Godwin on that one.--Father Goose (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Uh, from someone totally uninvolved who hasn't even seen the article, you are correct ZayZayEM that Wikipedia is not censored, but we are also not in the business of making people vomit their lunches because they stumble upon an image here. This isn't the same as some other controversies (like the Mohammed pics) because I think we can agree that gratuitously disgusting images transcend cultural/religious/abortions views. Use common sense. Joshdboz (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Err. What? By my informal count, we've got significant split in opinions, with about half of us saying that the image adds little to nothing of value, and the other half insisting that it adds significant value. We're nowhere near anything being clear yet.--Tznkai (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support it is factually valid thus it would be censorship to remove it. This is a catch 22: it will bias the article either way. Considering we cannot comply with WP:NPOV fully (you cannot in any article, as bias will still somehow exist), I suggest we apply WP:CENSOR. Computerjoe's talk 17:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    Saying that, attention should be paid to the caption. Computerjoe's talk 17:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    I notice that the article discusses "rape" and "incest." There are no illustrative images of those two events. Do you support adding graphical depictions of those to this article about Abortion? Hipocrite (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    Bit of a hyperbole? Compare the ratio of the number of abortions that involve rape/incest with the number that involve an embryo/fetus. -BaronGrackle (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    There are also no images of penises, which are involved in every abortion also. In fact, picures of penises have been removed from this article already, I'm certain, and even called "vandalism." Are you saying we should use our editorial decision making process to determine what should and should not go in this article? Hipocrite (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    It borders on the ridiculous to attempt to claim that penises are as related to abortion as fetuses/embryos. Abortion is a procedure to remove a fetus/embryo. Excluding an image of what is aborted is like excluding an image of tonsils on the tonsillectomy article. Those tonsils were inside someone who formed from a fertilized egg and the sperm that fertilized the egg probably went through a penis at some point, but a picture of a penis is far less relevant to the article than a picture of tonsils. -Neitherday (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
    You will not find me very many definitions of abortion that include the word "penis", as opposed to those that include fetus or embryo. But, we could go through this back and forth until you eventually come back with the statement the FAQ has: The Amputation article has no images of severed limbs. There. Makes much more sense, and it eliminates needless arguing. -BaronGrackle (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you for bringing this point in the FAQ up, as I believe the FAQ has it wrong. The amputation article has only one image, far fewer than are found here. If it were more fully illustrated, the situation would likely be different. For instance, if someone created a free image illustrating possible various amputation points for a limb or a non-photographic illustration of limbs with injuries that would require amputation, it would likely be accepted into the article. -Neitherday (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
But see Autotomy.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
See also tonsillectomy, castration, masectomy, gastrectomy. All depict what is being (or was) removed and usually graphically so. -Neitherday (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps my comment wasn't clear. Embryos and fetuses are clearly an extremely important aspect of this process, considering they are what's being removed. By the way, I have no strong opinion either way about abortion, but believe an encyclopaedia article shouldn't be censored for purposes of being politically sensitive. Computerjoe's talk 21:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    First off, I completely agree with your last sentence, but I don't see how it is applicable here. We have an image of an "abortus" already in the article, in the diagram of a specific abortion procedure. I believe that image is superior to the image proposed because it contextualizes the subject matter and is more holistic. Two images of "abortus" outside the context of the amniotic sac, outside the context of the uterus, outside the context of abortion doesn't seem particularly topical or helpful, and it seems like some individuals have been suggesting (or implying) that an average reader doesn't know what a fetus looks like so we need this specific image here for that purpose (as opposed to images of specific abortion procedures which include the "abortus" in situ).-Andrew c [talk] 22:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Abortion is a brief expulsion procedure. It is relevant to describe what happens before or after the procedure. This article has sections on breast cancer and mental problems which would only arise long afterward. Following an abortion, the embryo or fetus is separated from the woman, and that's just a fact, so alluding to it is fine. Your image is fine too, except that the abortus is very tiny, though perhaps enlargeable for people who have the software and the inclination to use it (it's still not enlargeable or even visible on my monitor). You rejected an enlargement,[22] that would have shown an abortus in the womb.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Golly me, I said those things? Oh noes... I guess that means I also said this...-Andrew c [talk] 23:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
No Andrew c, you're mistaken. Take a good look at your comment here, and notice the previous comment by me. I was not proposing any image that included B&W.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I think Reswobslc has added to this discussion.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments of uninvolved parties (4)

  • Strong oppose - our surgical procedure articles are not illustrated with "gruesome" pictures of the procedures themselves (there's a statement to be proved wrong by examples, so let me pre-empt with a qualification of "or should not show"), nor generally do articles go into the depths of details of surgical techniques (on basis not WP:NOT#MANUAL) - e.g. see nephrectomy, appendicectomy (where image only really indicates an external view to confirm the operative site as the abdomen area), colectomy, and for female-specific ops hysterectomy, oopherectomy and hysteroscopy (1898 image is so not what the modern procedure looks like it now seems Heath Robinsonish). Inclusion of images of the foetus as some independent free-floating object in the womb is, IMHO, POV pushing, per Informed_consent#Abortion. The foetus is not free-floating, it is enclosed in an amniotic sac and connected via the umbilical cord to a placenta that in turn is parasitic to the women (OK perhaps that could be phrased a little closer towards symbiosis on the basis that the eventual child passes on the mother's genes which is of course beneficial) and it has no possibility of being considered viable as a separate entity until at least 24 weeks. Patients no more expect to be shown pictures of gangrenous appendices or abdominal peritonitis prior to an appendicectomy, nor of close up images of blood transfusion intravenous line insertion by which we might suppose (unbecomingly) Jehovah's Witnesses to wish for in order to put people off open heart surgery. In essence this is a highly emotive topic (quite rightly so) where religious/moral/ethics viewpoints differ (over obviously very challenging issues) and inserting in sanitised images of cute foetuses would not be following a neutral position. David Ruben Talk 00:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Informed_consent#Abortion (which you cite) does not say anything about POV-pushing. Perhaps you mean that a Wikipedia article that tries to inform readers is POV-pushing, but I do not see the logic in that. You also cite WP:NOTMANUAL, but that Wikipedia policy would be more useful in banishing this how-to image from the present article, rather than banishing the image at the top of this RFC (which is not a how-to guide). You also say that Wikipedia does not have “surgical procedure articles … illustrated with ‘gruesome’ pictures of the procedures themselves,” but then you criticize the present proposed images as “sanitised images of cute foetuses.” To call the proposed image both "gruesome" and "cute" seems grossly contradictory. You characterize a fetus or embryo as a “parasite,” but parasites generally reproduce more quickly and in greater numbers than their hosts, and thus are generally a different kind of organism (i.e. a different species); many dictionaries explicitly say that the host is a different species.[23] So, I do not think we will come to any agreement here that a fetus is a “parasite,” but we can all certainly agree that a fetus does not become viable (able to survive a premature birth) until after more than five months’ gestation, and the proposed image does not in any way contradict that fact. The proposed image is not showing or implying an embryo surviving an abortion; it is instead showing an abortus. You have listed several different Wikipedia articles that do not show any removed body part, but most of the articles you have listed involve relatively obscure procedures that have no illustrations whatsoever (in stark contrast to this article), and that is true of nephrectomy, colectomy, and oopherectomy. I’m not sure why you mentioned hysteroscopy, since that is primarily an inspection procedure. Wikipedia has many articles about processes for removal of stuff from human beings, that show the stuff removed. For example, see tonsillectomy, treatment of human head lice, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, dental extraction, childbirth, blood donation, breastfeeding, and many more. The proposed image at the top of this RFC does not show a fetus as a “free-floating object in the womb”, because it does not show the womb at all; it instead simply shows an abortus.[24][25] The umbilical cord is clearly shown in the proposed image, and if people would like to learn more about its function they need only click on the link to “Fetus” in the caption.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
As seems typical of your style, you wikilawyer and attack the editor rather than discuss the issues. I clearly indicate that some points open to disagreement (?per Reductio ad absurdum), but your cross-comparing adjectives from different sentances & different points to see if consistency is just being silly and misses the general view/points that I was (trying to) discussing. Mattopaedia's points below are a far better (in presentation and logical approach) counterargument to what is just my stated humble opinions. Having opened a RfC, it should not be your role to be seemingly police through each opposing view - this is a comments section to a proposal you've already made. As for not 'RFC does not show a fetus as a “free-floating object in the womb”', I disagree, for while it is the object of primary concern to be removed in an abortion, it is not the complete removed matterial (for amniotic sac & placenta also of course removed too), nor is it the appearance of the fetus after removal by vacuum aspiration which is the commonest method of abortion used (at least here in the UK); or are we to restrict the image to the Abortion#Medical &/or Abortion#Spontaneous_abortion sections (or indeed into latter's main miscarriage article, which would seem heartless in compounding possible grief over such unfortunate event). David Ruben Talk 05:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
When accused of "POV-pushing" by you, I wanted to reply. And I think my reply included a lot of useful info and wikilinks that had not been mentioned thus far in this RFC.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Fair retort :-) On wider issue of procedure images, of the examples you give, interestingly the dental extraction does show the act itself in progress, yet child birth does not (has a just-delivered neonate), so perhaps no real clear cross-article consensus except general principles of per-article consensus & sense of self-editorial taste, as this RfC seeks.David Ruben Talk 12:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Both dental extraction and childbirth have images of what is removed, independent of the person from whom it is removed. The image proposed at the top of this RFC is no different. Same for tonsillectomy, treatment of human head lice, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, blood donation, breastfeeding, masectomy, et cetera. I do not know of any article at Wikipedia where editors have deliberately barred an accurate non-gruesome image of what is removed, and I find this extremely alarming.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Based on those examples, the comparative imagery here would be pictures of aborted fetuses. The image proposed at the top of this RFC IS different. An aborted fetus would be a resulting image of what is removed during an abortion and and a neonate would be a resulting image of what is removed during childbirth. Your proposal is more akin to proposing your image for the childbirth article, as it is an image before the actual procedure in question occurs. It is more like having this in the blood donation article, or this in the dental extraction article. These are background images that are sort of related to the topics, but aren't required for the basic understanding of the topic (as we have other articles dealing with those background topics). That said, I have to say that the topic of abortion is much different from those topics, in that it is the subject of much social and political controversy. Therefore, a straightfoward comparison between a controversial topic and a non-controversial topic fails. You image proposal, is more akin to proposing this image in the Steak article. In this case, a cutesy, cartoon cow relates to your cutsey, cartoon fetuses, on an article where we don't necessarily need to see what a living, healthy cow looks like to understand the topic (where animal rights activists might arguing profusely to the contrary). Or do we need to see healthy, cutesy cartoon images of animals in the animal slaughter article? I don't see any comparative article that we could point to for the purpose of saying "hey, this article includes a similar image in a similar fashion, therefore let's do so here". -Andrew c [talk] 21:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The proposed image does not contain "cutsey, cartoon fetuses." It comprises professional drawings in black and white, with detailed supporting references at the image page; similar drawings have been accepted for years in other Wikipedia articles such as Pregnancy and Fetus. The fetus image does not show a tail and gills because an actual fetus does not have a tail or gills. Putting aside your assertions about cutesy cartoons, this image is meant to show what is aborted, and it omits a bunch of separate body parts in order to avoid becoming a ghoulish shock image. Many abortions result in an intact abortus, so the fact that the proposed image shows an intact abortus does not mean it is unrealistic or cartoonish, and it does not mean it is unrepresntative of what is actually aborted in a typical induced abortion. It seems that you are willing to object to any image put forth here, from a Gray's Anatomy image, to an image produced by the Graphic Lab, to the present proposed image; the only alternative you have suggested (and indeed insisted upon over my objections) is an image that shows an embryo (not a fetus) that is infinitessimally small unless a reader clicks on it, and shows no comparison between a typical aborted embryo and fetus. And it is completely invisible on at least some monitors (including mine). The fact is, most induced abortions in this world involve a fetus and not an embryo, so only showing an embryo is misleading, and showing it only in an infinitessimally small size merely exacerbates the main problem with this article: i.e. this article tells the reader virtually nothing about what is aborted in a typical induced abortion. I can only conclude that you are happy with this current bias in this article, and are happy to censor any additional information that would describe what is aborted.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I feel like you are repeating yourself, not addressing anything specifically in my reply to you, but instead go on the offensive and attempt to put me on the spot (and personally attack me as a "censor")... I have nothing more to say at this juncture except to ask you to consider how you interact with other users (i.e. civility). -Andrew c [talk] 22:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Andrew c, you have over and over again accused me of advocating inclusion of a "cartoon" into this article. Unless I am mistaken, your main concern is how the eyes are drawn.[26] The eyes are precisely realistic. See here. This link is also at the image description page, so I do not understand why you are objecting to the depiction of the eyes.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, include the image provided it is agreed it is accurate. I am pro-abortion, just so folk know where I stand. --bodnotbod (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion . The subject at hand is emotive, and pretty much anyone who reads it has some opinion. I believe people with a pro-life position may support inclusion of the image because they perceive readers may attach some emotional value to the image, and that will ultimately result in some women deciding against having the procedure. I also believe people who are pro-choice may object to inclusion of the image, because they perceive some readers will attach emotional value to the image, and that will add further emotional burden to what is already a difficult and emotional decision for a woman to make. I believe they’re both right. I agree that a POV is supported if the picture is and isn’t included, so arguing along the lines of neutrality does not necessarily apply in this article. I believe it is more appropriate in this instance to argue for inclusion on the basis of non-censorship policy, although I do acknowledge that doing so will indeed add to a woman’s emotional burden in taking the decision to have an abortion, should she read the article. But that’s the truth of the situation – it is a difficult decision, and not one to be made flippantly. For the record, my position is pro-choice – I believe it is up to the woman involved, and I believe she should be able to make an informed decision. I imagine a woman may wonder what the foetus looks like, how big it is, etc, as part of taking this decision. As things currently stand, you can go look at fetus and get some idea of the size (although metric units would be nice!), features and activity of a foetus at various gestational stages. It doesn’t take much mental effort to join the dots and gain some appreciation that the foetus is not a blob, but it really does look like a little person, it moves and so-on. But, again, that’s the truth, as unpalatable as that may be. Some people may want to comment, “Well, if that’s your position, why not include a photograph of evacuated products of conception?” I say, very well, I’ll take a photo of one and upload it. Would you like foetal body fragments discernable or not? But it should also be included in the Evacuation_of_retained_products_of_conception article, as well as the dilation and curettage article – because, for the third time, that’s the truth, and we’re not about hiding it. Or are we? Yes, as a society we like to make taboo subjects like death, body parts and so on. That’s why there aren’t pictures of EPOC’s floating around wikipedia, just like there aren’t pictures of (whole human) bodies being dissected at autopsy, although there is some description of the procedure. I think we can stand at the thin edge of the wedge & put in a fairly sanitary diagram, without sliding down the slippery slope. Draw a line, stand by it, and put the diagram in. Have a lovely day! Mattopaedia (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, well-written articles should cover all aspects of the topic, see point 1.b in the featured article criteria, and "what is being aborted" is a relevant aspect. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments of uninvolved parties (5)

  • CommentThe image should also depict a full-grown fetus to see the difference in size. Those would look minuscule in comparison, you don't need to show the whole fetus, just make part of it appear on the border, so they can be compared, for example from this file File:40_weeks_pregnant.jpg. (I think it's 16 times bigger than the second fetus, from 1.25 inches to 20 inches?). I added that the final fetus at 38 weeks is 96 times larger than the first one. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
There are a couple problems with including in the image a 40-week fetus. First, the present image is aimed at a "typical abortus", whereas a 40-week abortus is extremely unusual. See here. Second, including the 40-week abortus would require us to immensely shrink the images of the typical abortus that we already have, although we could depict only a small part of the 40-week fetus but that would look kind of odd IMO. Please note that a 40-week fetus is pictured in the Fetus article that is already linked in the caption of the proposed image. The present caption is already very large, and I do not think we need to also provide the dimensions of a 40-week fetus, since people are roughly aware already of how big a newborn is.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Adding the size of a fully grown fetus puts in perspective the size of the abortus, me thinks. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
There was some discussion above about maybe including a common item in the image, such as a pencil, golf ball, coin, or ruler to emphasize size. What do you think of that idea?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
That would be very good. It would solve many of the complaints above about the apparent size of the abortus when you look at it on the screen. Archeologists and palentologists used to include a cigarrette box in the photographies of their discoveries, back when smoking was more popular, so people could see the size of the objects. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I inserted a pencil eraser for size comparison.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I strongly oppose the addition of the "eraser" for size comparison. The primary reason is that it is only useful to American viewers - that form of eraser or rubber is certainly not common in the UK and I would imagine not elsewhere. I had to look at the description to realise what it was - I assumed it was something related to abortion. As such I think it is misleading. I think the scale bar was unambiguous and informative, but if you do include an object it must be universally common. |→ Spaully₪† 11:14, 4 March 2009 (GMT)
Okay, I thought eraser caps were common wordwide. What scale bar are you referring to?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought in one of the previous versions or images there was a bar indicating length on the right of the image. Perhaps not, in which case I would suggest it would be a good way to impart some sense of size. |→ Spaully₪† 16:10, 4 March 2009 (GMT)
Done, thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
A US quarter is 25 mm in diameter -- making it useful for people in the US and worldwide. Collect (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how a US quarter is useful worldwide, many will be acquainted with them but by no means all. |→ Spaully₪† 22:33, 9 March 2009 (GMT)
Can you tell me a more universal measure than 25 mm? If you need it, "25 mm" coiuld be added to the fact of the quarter. Collect (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
A scale bar is unambiguous yes, but you seem to be suggesting adding an image of a coin for comparison and few people know a quarter is 25mm in diameter. I think having a coin and scale bar is unnecessary and still makes the image US-centric which is to be avoided if possible, especially in a non-US based article. |→ Spaully₪† 22:57, 9 March 2009 (GMT)
Spaully is right that a coin shouldn't be used for scale. See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) My country only uses Euros, "the size of a quarter" is meaningless for europeans. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - clearly a POV push; in the less contentious article miscarriage no such images are deemed necessary to see what was lost. Therefore, the inclusion can only be to push some point of view or another, because as far as the fetus is concerned abortion and miscarriage have the same result. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Images have to go first somewhere. The miscarriage article currently does not have any images at all, but I hope that will change. The probable reason is simple: this article gets a lot more visitors than the miscarriage article, so a lot more editorial effort has gone into this article. In February, this article got about 220,000 hits, whereas the miscarriage article got about 49,000 hits.[27][28] There are various other reasons too (e.g. the present image illustrates the need for different abortion techniques whereas there are no miscarriage techniques; the present image of typical abortuses illustrates the difference between an embryo and fetus whereas a typical miscarriage does not involve a fetus, et cetera).Ferrylodge (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
It's the contentiousness of the article that draws the visitors. When everyone is calm, as they seem to be at miscarriage, they seem to be fine without the images. There are other articles which could be populated with descriptive (or provocative) images which seem in bad taste (most tumor or skin condition articles, autopsy, and defacation come to mind quickly), but doing so doesn't seem right. WP is here to educate not to push a point of view or shock. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this is a shock image. It conveys a lot of info. BTW, both defecation and urination show emitted material.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support for inclusion of the image. I am pro-choice. The suggested image is informative, relevant and not-at-all cartoonish. I agree with neitherday, collect and bodnotbod above. - Hordaland (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Full disclosure: I'm hesitant to opine since I've had some major interaction with some of the disputants here, and don't want to be seen as "backing a friend", etc. (no one contacted me in conjunction with this request for comment, though). However, I would agree that the current File:Abortus.PNG makes sense to be included. As Hordaland notes, it is informative and relevant. I am currently opposed to adding any graphic/shock images of actual aborted fetus/embryos/babies/cells/whateverthekidsarecallingthemnowadays though. Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes - I don't understand the view that this image is inflammatory or an appeal to emotion. It's an undetailed, neutral depiction of the very thing the entire procedure of abortion is all about. If abortion is "the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus", and many people don't even knows what an embryo or fetus looks like, wouldn't an image like this be informative and useful for this article? I see no conflict between this image and keeping this article as clinical and unemotional as possible, and it gives me pause to see people objecting to a harmless (and useful) image like this. -kotra (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments of uninvolved parties (6)

  • Support any reasonable image, and I hope that the chosen image will also be added to Miscarriage. In fact, why not put this image on this page, under #Types of abortions#Spontaneous abortions? It's a fine illustration for that image-free section. (Also, Abortus redirects here, so using that word somewhere on the page would be appropriate.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
    Just thought I'd respond by mentioning that the image at the top of this RFC is directed at a typical induced abortion rather than a spontaneous abortion. A typical induced abortion occurs from 4 to 8 weeks after fertilization according to this graph, so that's why the two images are for those two gestations. Therefore, I think the image would probably work best in this section of the present article (where it would also illustrate the text saying that the technique depends on the size, and furthermore illustrating the terms "embryo" and "fetus" used in the text). If we reach a consensus, then I hope we can later consider inserting an appropriate image into the miscarriage article. On average, miscarriages typically occur quite a bit earlier than induced abortions.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Strong oppose: Obvious POV push, an attempt to arouse sentiments, when the whole idea is as absurd as including a picture of an arm or a leg in the amputation article. What will be aborted is a fetus. If readers want to know what a fetus looks like, they can go to fetus. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It is not an attempt to arouse sentiments. It is an attempt to inform readers about what is aborted during the 4-week window when induced abortions typically occur. Nothing like the image on the left is available at the fetus article, because it is not a fetus. People know what an arm looks like, so there is no need for an image of an arm in the amputation article. In contrast, most people have not the slightest idea about the size and shape of a typical induced abortus, and they cannot get that info from any other Wikipedia article. Excluding this info from this article is not just a POV push; it's blatant censorship.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Embryo or fetus. My bad. But the article is nearly 300 kb, more than half of which are taken up by images. Most people probably don't know what a spleen looks like, but if splenectomy were a long article with a lot of pictures illustrating various social and medical aspects of the process, then a picture of the product might best be reserved for the spleen article, which is where the reader might naturally be inclined to go if he encounters splenectomy but remains sufficiently interested in how a spleen appears. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

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

  • That is a very good point. If the choice is between including it or excluding it, I'd still go with excluding it. But if the choice is between including it or dragging this debate on even further, then I'd opt to include it and move on. Changing my opposition to "weak." Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • No-It already does. This article already includes a picture of an embryo/fetus, within the context of an abortion. If you look at the vacuum aspiration abortion image in the surgical section, it depicts a small fetus being surgically aborted. Since this picture is already included, why is it necessary to include yet another picture of an embryo/fetus outside of the context of abortion? Hasn't this picture simultaneously provided the reader with a depiction of what the abortion process is doing (or what the "abortus" looks like, a Ferrylodge puts in, in context of the abortion procedure)? With that in mind, I'll have to oppose adding yet another image of an embryo when one is already included in a way that is more clearly in the context of this article, unless someone can give a good reason why it calls for redundant inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Locke9k (talk • contribs) 14:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment, and I'll take a crack at giving the good reason you request. First, the image to which you refer shows an embryo rather than a fetus, although most induced abortions in this world are of a fetus rather than an embryo. Second, the image to which you refer is extremely tiny unless someone clicks on it, and on my monitor the embryo image is not visible at all. Third, Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook so there are doubts about whether the image you refer to will remain. See WP:NOTGUIDE. The image to which you refer therefore does not accomplish several things accomplished by the proposed image; the proposed image is discernible, the proposed image indicates how an embryo differs from a fetus so the reader can decide which link to click on for more info, the proposed image shows the rapidly changing size that necessitates different abortion techniques, and the proposed image shows a fetus whereas the image to which you refer does not. I don't see why we cannot have both images in this article, but if I had to pick one or the other it would be the proposed image.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support. It is ridiculous that an article like this does not have a clear image of what all this is about - the foetus that is being aborted. The proposed picture is as neutral as can be. It certainly isn't one of the truly shocking pictures of actual aborted foetuses that are available. Arguments that the image proposed might encourage an emotional response are themselves POV in seeking to keep hidden a key element of the core of the article and its controversial impact. The argument that there is no room for the picture - when there is plenty of room for pictures of banner-wavers and mayan demons, is ludicrous. The picture should have gone in long ago. Xandar 20:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. There should be at least one image of a fetus, as abortion is about the early ending of the gestation of fetuses. This is not breaching NPOV if the facts are presented and the reader is left to draw their own conclusions. The article may induce an emotional response, but that is unsurprising consider the subject matter. It seems like censorship to block the addition of a visual reminder that fetuses are involved in abortion. Wikipedia is not sanitised; we do not need to protect readers from medical images. I favour the addition of this image of a 10 wk therapeutic abortion, as it is a striking image and is very illustrative: [29]. Fences and windows (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, Fences and Windows. I just want to explain very briefly why the image at the top of the RFC is a black-and-white drawing instead of a color photo. Regarding B&W versus color, some editors found that B&W is more toned down and less graphic. Regarding drawings versus photos, it seemed that drawings would be less gruesome and graphic. The color photos are very useful for establishing the accuracy of drawings, but my impression is that more editors would object to them for inclusion in this article, because they are closer to being "shock" images.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Good work finding this image. I would support the addition of this image with a sense of scale added as I think it delivers exactly what is being discussed here. It clearly shows the abortus at a common gestational age and does not suffer from most of the problems of the proposed image. I do not see it as a shock image, however being in the medical field and as such desensitised to certain types of images I am willing to accept the majority opinion may be different. Any views? |→ Spaully₪† 16:48, 17 March 2009 (GMT)
Good point, Spaully. I am a biologist, so I have equally been exposed to medical images to an extent where most are not shocking. I found another image of a therapeutic abortion; please see mini-gallery below. Fences and windows (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Inclusion: I support the inclusion of this image as it seems to me to be non-inflammatory but relevant. DRJ (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes include:This looks like just showing the basic science aspect of what is being talked about. In that sense it is informative and valuable from whatever p.o.v. - skip sievert (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Would like to see a size comparison of not only embryos and fetuses, but embryos, fetuses, and newborn babies after 9 months in the womb. It seems the purpose of this image is to show the size difference between embryos and fetuses, but to me a key consideration is the size difference between fetuses and newborns. Ben Lunsford (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Most readers are already very familiar with the size of a fetus at 9 months, and such a fetus is very rarely aborted.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Not a fetus at 9 months, but an actual newborn baby. People are aware of the size, but not the relative size of a newborn versus what is commonly aborted... i.e., the rather incredible size difference between a typical unaborted day 0 baby and a typical aborted fetus. Ben Lunsford (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The size of a fetus at 9 months is typical for an actual newborn baby. The relevance of the proposed image is that it shows what's aborted at a typical point in gestation when abortions occur. Your suggested image would therefore be of marginal relevance. Plus, as you must realize, if such an image were shown to scale, then the embryo in the proposed image would not even be visible to the human eye.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Most other neutral sources do not include such images, and it doesn't add much useful information to the article, IMO. Would likely just be a source of endless contention. Kaldari (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Tally

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

Do we need "consensus" for inclusion of a relevant fact? I don't believe so. If wikipedia contained only "consensus" facts, images and views it would be half the current size. The picture should be included if it is from a verifiable source and breaks no WP policies. Censorship should not be part of the WP process. As wikipedia guidance states: "A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information." A majority of contributors believes the picture should be in the article. Even if a minority did, the picture should go in if it is significant, (it is), and if it breaches no important WP policy. It doesn't so far as I can see. Arguments that there is "no room" or that a foetus shouldn't appear do not signify. Xandar 12:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd say there appears, unfortunately, to be still some controversy about whether the image breaks WP policy. Most of the opposers feel that the image violates WP:NPOV in that it's an "appeal to emotion" or otherwise biased (which seems ridiculous to me, but that's what they say). I think this needs to be resolved first before we can include it. If a third of us think the image violates policy, that's not consensus enough for inclusion, in my opinion. -kotra (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Andrew c, I would think that after participating in Wikipedia for so long, and being an Administrator and all, you might know about WP:NPA. There are many epithets I could throw at you as well, and they would all be very accurate, but that is not the purpose of one of these article talk pages, is it?.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I counted again, and got 19/14/2. The first time, I only counted the top-level comments, not comments added further in. For example, the first time, I counted BaronGrackle and Father Goose as "neutral" due to their initial comments; I suppose they could be considered opposes due to their subsequent comments, so I've put them in the "oppose" camp this time. Also, the first time, I didn't count 24.201.116.45, because it was nestled in the middle of a thread. As for having one more support than your count, possibly it's because I counted Ali'i's comment as a support.
In any case, I still agree that merely counting votes is often a flawed measurement, and any decision should be based on reading the arguments thoroughly. I was just trying to gauge what the general ratio of support:opposition probably is, since the discussion is so long at this point. We agree, in any case, that there's no consensus for inclusion of the image at this point (although the later comments tended to be mostly in support, so it's possible that may change). -kotra (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Let's keep the RFC open until next weekend, and then draw conclusions. At this point, there seems to be a majority in favor of including the image, but not necessarily a consensus for inclusion. Some of the reasons pro and con have been addressed by only a few commenters, many different Wikipedia policies have been cited, and there seems to be consensus about some issues and not others regarding inclusion.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. -kotra (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)*Support For the reccord, though I cannot claim to be uninvolved, I'd like to throw my firm support behind the inclusion of the image. - Schrandit (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Support inclusion. An image helps inform the reader, which is the intent of an encylopedia. Whether the picture, and the reality of what is being aborted, has some inherent bias towards a political position is not a reason to exclude it. We should not be trying to obscure reality to achieve some arbitary level of NPOV. But are the photographs of fetuses below far more informative?YobMod 10:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As a point of order, this "tally" has been around for a month. In that time, we've come to a consensus and acted on it. We should have archived this !vote back then, but instead we let it sit here as an attractive nuisance that's going to accumulate votes from uninvolved people with political axes to grind until someone falsely declares a new consensus and starts an edit war over it. This is not a good idea. TruthIIPower (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change Just sayin'. - Schrandit (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This talk page is huge (reaching near 400). We either need to flat out archive this discussion, or perhaps start a subpage related to image discussions and move all image threads there (and direct future image discussions to the subpage, as we did years ago with the first paragraph stuff). I think attempting to "close" the discussion doesn't help because with the size of the talk page and the RfC already closed, this should just be archived. And whatever we do, we shouldn't discourage future editors from commenting on images (but let them know about previous discussions and the contentious nature, etc) -Andrew c [talk] 22:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose A photo would have veracity which this sketch does not. It is a subject that has been photographed after all, ie. it's not the Unabomber before he was caught. So a verified actual photograph, or nothing at all. Running tally 18 Approve/16 Oppose/2 OtherSwevel (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

So, you don't think that sketches are truthful, and only photos are truthful? Then I assume you will support deleting all of the non-photo images from this article.
The question at the top of this RFC is: "Should we allow a discernible image of what will be aborted in a typical abortion?" It seems to me that a discernible image would include a photograph, which you say you support, so your "oppose" doesn't make a lot of sense. Regarding the photo that you say you want, would a grisly photo of a dismembered fetus 4 months after conception be acceptable to you?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I feel this picture lends well to the article. It doesn't appear POV. This is an encyclopedia, not a brochure. It's not a post-abortive fetus, it's not a bloody baby, and it's not a mass of tissue sitting on a specimen tray. I think it works. And yes, I know this sounds a lot like "I like it". Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Angkordemon.jpg

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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

Per Wikipedia:Public domain: “In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world[1] is in the public domain.” Is there a dispute about whether 1150 is before 1923?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Further down on the same page It should also be noted that the exemption of reproduction photographs extends only to two-dimensional artwork in the U.S. A photograph of a three dimensional statue may acquire copyright protection even if the statue itself belongs to the public domain. Such rights derive from the creativity involved in the positioning of camera, lighting, and other variables., and more detailed Commons:Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag.-Andrew c [talk] 18:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The key word there is "may". Let's continue this discussion at File_talk:Angkordemon.jpg.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Latest comment: 15 years ago29 comments7 people in discussion

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

There can be no possible constructive result from this talk page section. I have archived it. Hipocrite (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
While I'm currently neutral on the necessity of defining terms, recontextualizing "newborn" is a too typical example of poor POV editing. Exercise restraint. - RoyBoy 04:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I was merely trying to track a cited reliable source. See The Columbia Encyclopedia (Sixth Edition). Retrieved 2007-03-05: "the fetal stage begins seven to eight weeks after fertilization of the egg, when the embryo assumes the basic shape of the newborn and all the organs are present." If you'd like to modify the language, I would have no objection.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Unborn is also incorrect technically, a closer approximation would be "pre-born" to bad we can't just make up terminology for this article.--Tznkai (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Columbia Encyclopedia does not use a term like "newborn" before the child is born. That Encyclopedia is saying that the transition from embryo to fetus marks the point at which the thingy has all the structure it will have after it is born. From that transition-point onward, the organs are all there, and its just a matter of growing and developing those organs.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

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

A sentence containing roughly that information may work in the 3rd paragraph of the "Spontaneous abortion" section. The risk of spontaneous abortion decreases sharply after the 10th week from the last menstrual period (... corresponding roughly with the beginning of the fetal period where the major structures.... have formed...) The previous placement I found problematic as it broke up the flow of two connected sentences, and was further explaining topics already introduced earlier in the article. Also, as others have noted, there were some wording issues, specifically "newborn", but that has been discussed above. I wasn't deleting the material because of it's subject matter, rather it's placement and phrasing. I don't appreciate accusations otherwise (and they don't lead to a productive, cooperative atmosphere). But enough... -Andrew c [talk] 21:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps if you had explained yourself more fully at the time, that might have helped some. I've proposed similar language before, and it's been rejected before, by the regular editors of this article. Would you be willing to put this into the 3d paragraph of the "Spontaneous abortion" section, or shall I? (Impressive sarcasm in your edit comment, by the way.)Ferrylodge (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Well, I went ahead and did it, and of course have been reverted without any further discussion at this talk page.[30] The edit summary says: "Rm 'This corresponds...' 1. novel synthesis, need a cite that says 'miscarriage risk declines sharply once ebryo becomes a fetus' two, explanation is extraneous and POV bait." Of course, this edit summary is utter nonsense. Anyone can see that we have a cite that says pregnancy loss is “virtually complete by the end of the embryonic period." See E. Jauniaux, et al. "Early pregnancy loss" in "Fetal medicine: basic science and clinical practice", page 835 (Churchill Livingstone 1999). I will ask the editor who reverted this: why won't you allow the slightest description in this article of the terms used (fetus, embryo), or the slightest description of what is aborted? And why can't you bring yourself to use the talk page before reverting an edit for which there was a talk page consensus? And when will you stop POV-pushing? JHC. This is supposed to be Wikipedia, not the Abortion Promotion Guide. Do you think this is some kind of game, where only certain people have to follow the rules, and others do not?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Making it personal is against policy by the by, so you might want to reign in the the accusatory tone. I'm not sure what talk page consensus it is you refer to, but you made an addition, it was reverted, now we discuss, preferably without any more political theater. The sentance that was deleted was a two parter. First, "This corresponds roughly to the point when an "embryo" becomes a "fetus" about eight weeks after fertilization (i.e. 10 weeks LMP)" emphasis added, shows that this is novel synthesis. Highlighting the relationship between spontaneous abortion and the transition stage between embryo and fetus will require its own citation - we can't synthesize our knowledge about the downturn in ZEF mortality and the definition of fetus, especially by refrencing a citation describing the definition of a fetus. Instead, you use a citation that states clearly exactly what is being said. The citation you provide above is left intact for a later sentance. The second half "by which time the major structures, shape, and organ systems characteristic of a human being have formed" is extraneous. It seems dubious that the only thing we feel the need to tell the reader about the transition from embryo and fetus is that abortion rates go down and that fetuses look more like human beings. The asthetic and functional similarity is extraneous information, and is POV bait.--Tznkai (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
If you would kindly read what is written above in this section, you'll see that Andrew c specifically recommended the language "corresponding roughly with the beginning of the fetal period where the major structures.... have formed." That's the talk page consensus I was referring to. And there was not the slightest hint of novel synthesis in Andrew c's suggestion. We already have a source in the article that says pregnancy loss is “virtually complete by the end of the embryonic period." See E. Jauniaux, et al. "Early pregnancy loss" in "Fetal medicine: basic science and clinical practice", page 835 (Churchill Livingstone 1999). You are POV-pushing.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Use that source for the statement on viability and the link at becoming fetus then. Actually, on second I'm looking at your source right now and it says something slightly different. Page 836 says that in a prospective study of 232 women with positive urinary pregnancy tests and no antecedent history of vaginal bleeding, pregnancy loss was virtually complete by the end of the embryonic period." Which translates to miscarriages are very common. Going to chew on this a bit, see if there is a better quote in this source that illustrates the pregnancy loss problem.--Tznkai (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Moved the citation and associated sentence to earlier in the topic to illustrate the rather significant loss rate, although I'm concerned that we've giving mixed messages about how common pregnancy loss is.--Tznkai (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

This reference was properly relied upon by me, and by others. We should all strive here to edit this article harmoniously and in conformity with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, without trying to steamroll the article. When a term like "embryo" or "fetus" is used, there is nothing wrong with explaining what makes those two terms different, and dictionaries tell us that the difference is that this transition marks the time when all organs are in place, and the shape is substantially determined. From your edits and comments, you seem to be opposed to including any hint of that definition, or any similar information about an abortus. IMO, that renders this article highly POV. The article has lengthy sections on why abortion is beneficial and/or harmless, but virtually no information about the abortus. I do not want to make this article my life's work, and I am sure that you and like-minded editors will mold this article as you see fit. But please consider that WP:NPOV is supposed to be more than a goal: it is a minimal requirement, especially at controversial articles like this one.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just read what you've written here a few times, and I still have no idea what your actual objection is - and if talk page consensus is you and Andrew c, that isn't much of a barrier to prevent bold editing.--Tznkai (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Leaving aside incorrect edit summaries, lack of prior talk page discussion, and reversion of a consensus edit without discussion, I find these consecutive edits of yours problematic for two main reasons.
First, a “fetus” is defined differently from an “embryo” and you removed the explanation of this difference. Maybe I didn't do it perfectly (see comment by Tropaeolum majus), but there's no reason to categorically reject the notion that the definitional difference between these two technical terms is worth explaining briefly. It seems that you completely removed this material from the article because you do not want this article to say one single word describing the abortus, unless it soothes the emotions of people who obtain abortions (e.g. the abortus feels no pain). I continue to find this attitude a 100% NPOV violation, and I continue to be very frustrated by it.
Second, before you edited, this article contained the following understandable and well-sourced sentence: “The loss rate between 8.5 weeks LMP and birth is about two percent; pregnancy loss is ‘virtually complete by the end of the embryonic period.’” It was neutral, verifiable, and understandable. Instead, you wrote, “Some pregnancy losses are ‘ignored as conceptions,’ one study of 232 pregnant women showed ‘virtually complete [pregancy loss] by the end of the embryonic period’ with a pregnancy loss rate of only 2 precent after 8.5 weeks after the last menstrual period.” This latter sentence is extremely difficult to understand. Looking at the phrase “ignored as conceptions” in context within the cited source, it apparently means that some pregnancy losses were not recognized as conceptions, but taking this phrase out of context makes the reader wonder if it means that the women thought they were conceptions and therefore ignored them. And tagging on the latter part of the sentence about pregnancy loss being complete by the end of the embryonic period gives the incorrect impression that that fact is significant because it supports or confirms the statement that some preganncy losses are “ignored as conceptions” (which is hard to understand anyway).Ferrylodge (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The embryo fetus definition issue, as always, can be taken care of by wiki-links. Readers are more than capable of clicking a link and finding information they are curious about, and with wikilinks, its instantaneous. The sentance "pregnancy loss is virtually complete by the end of the embryonic period" actually isn't clear at all, what it implies is that pregnancy loss is a process, a proccess that is mostly complete by the embryonic period. I don't like the "ignored as conceptions" verbage myself, but its the wording of the original source, so I stuck with it.--Tznkai (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
No, if you think wikilinks are sufficient, then you may as well get rid of the sections about lack of fetal pain, breast cancer, and mental health problems, and instead just link to the sub-articles. You have made it very clear that you think information about the abortus "appeals to emotions" and so it's hard to take at face value that you would like people to click on the "fetus" link so that they can have their emotions appealed to. By not suggesting anything interesting about what a fetus is or what the word means, you simply encourage people to skip over it. Likewise, you kept the phrase "pregnancy loss is virtually complete by the end of the embryonic period" that you say is unclear, and merely made it more unclear by tagging it at the end of an incomprehensible sentence. Basically, I find that your edits have had the effect of obfuscating (intentionally or not) everything that they changed.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Context, context, context. Information on the fetus can, and is, in this article. Find me a (single and unified) citation that says "A fetus, unlike an embryo has a recognizable heart and other organs. This explains the increase in viability." Find me a citation that says "the fetuses' asthetic features are more human like, which is thought to be related to its viability." I can define woman, I can define human being, I can define doctor - all of which are of dubious relevance. This article once had a section on abortion terminology, discussing use of fetus, embryo, unborn, child, and so on - and it was removed due to strong objections to the style, objections I now agree with. It is a writing problem, and my objections on it have nothing to do with my personal thoughts on abortion, of which you know nothing, but my understanding of what good writing is. Good writing, depends on understanding context.--02:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I really, really wish you would stop comparing a definition or image of "fetus" to a definition or image of "woman" or "doctor". Those are exceedingly poor examples, because everyone knows what a woman looks like and how the word is defined; everyone knows what a doctor looks like and how that word is defined. Your arguments would be much more persuasive if you would follow that generous advice I'm giving. <sarcasm>If the distinction between an embryo and a fetus is not relevant to this article, then stop using those two terms. That way you can be absolutely sure that no one will click on "fetus" to have their emotions appealed to. How about "conceptus" (I know that the word "unborn baby" or "pre-born baby" is forbidden in this article)?</sarcasm> Seriously, can you please work with me to get a word in edgewise into this article that will describe what is aborted in a typical abortion? Is that so much to ask? Please? A typical abortion in developed countries occurs between 4 and 8 weeks after fertilization. So, we could say that a typical abortion in developed countries occurs before an embryo becomes a fetus, at 8 weeks after fertilization, and thus occurs before the organs are formed and the thing has the characteristic shape of a human being. Can we do that, please? The easiest way would be to just insert the image from the RFC; you must know that it's a perfectly reasonable image, and it really does impart a huge amount of information.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I can equally assert everyone knows what a fetus or embryo looks like to - or at least could with a simple click. Describing a fetus is the job of another article, similarly, we don't have to explain gestation, growth, or sex - most of which the audience will not know very well (how much do people REALLY know about sex anyway?) And no, we can't do that thing you want, because I think its bad writing and POV bait. To flip it around "occurs before the organs are formed and the thing has the characteristic shape of an alien" which is equally true. Absurd, no? I really do, genuinely and totally, devoid of any agenda, disagree with you.--Tznkai (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
You honestly believe that it would be bad writing to briefly mention to the reader that the words we use incessantly ("embryo" and "fetus") have distinct meanings, and say in a single sentence what that distinction is? And you truly believe that showing what a typical abortus looks like would be too emotional for readers to process properly? I disagree on both counts, devoid of any agenda. You simply cannot have a long and detailed article about abortion like this without describing the thing that is aborted. It's wrong. We don't even say which comes first: a fetus or an embryo, so how are readers supposed to pick which one they want to click on? And if they do click on one of them, those articles will not say anything about which embryos and which fetuses are typical subjects of abortion. That's why so many people (such as yourself) are running around shouting "ZEF, ZEF" when the "Z" is almost completely irrelevant to induced abortion. But readers of this article will never learn that, will they? I simply cannot accept that good writing requires us to portray an abortus as an infinitessimal non-entity devoid of any features that are worth noting, except imperviousness to the pain of abortion.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I never accused you of having an agenda (at least not that I recall, and if I have, I apologize), I've simply suggested you're incorrect, and I don't think its the job of this article to define the difference between embryos and fetuses unless and until its relevant - which we are almost at. I have no problem believing that the fetuses more defined organs are linked to its viability - but I'm not a reliable source - neither at you. All we need is a source, and that piece of information can go in.--Tznkai (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Apology accepted,[31] and I hope you will get a chance to reply to my comment here.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't seen the question in all the traffic, I'll get to it later tonight.--Tznkai (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I've posted at the NPOV Noticeboard.[32]Ferrylodge (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Archiving Discussions

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hipocrite, please reread the above discussion. It is discussing the article, the language the article uses, and what should be included in the article. Please do not prematurely archive this again. Further, if and when this is archived, there is no reason to hide/collapse it. -Neitherday (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC) I would also like to add that your archiving has done nothing to stop the current discussion (it went on even in the archived state), it only served to hide it (or part of it) under a collapse. -Neitherday (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Vacuum Aspiration Image

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

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

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

Image hypothetical

Latest comment: 15 years ago19 comments9 people in discussion

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

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

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

If we did include an image of a deformed abortus (which would be WP:Undue weight because it's very atypical), an ultrasound or x-ray would probably not be a good substitute for a medically accurate drawing, given that ultrasounds and x-rays are usually fuzzy. The suggested image at the top of the RFC (of a normal embryo alongside a normal fetus) is very very relevant. It shows what is aborted in a typical induced abortion, rather than an atypical induced abortion. It also illustrates the change in size that necessitates different abortion techniques. And it gives the reader a hint of the difference between a fetus and embryo, so that the reader can decide which link to click on for more info.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The number of abortions done because of deformities is low, true, but they still occur. So long as there is no effort or effect of portraying that its more significant than it is, there isn't an undue weight problem. The caption could be easily amended: Fetus with spinal deformity on left, healthy fetus on the right "Ultrasound technology allows prospective parents and their doctors view the fetus while it is still developing in utero. Approximately 8% of abortions are because of concerns about fetal abnormalities" With two good ultrasounds showing comparison. I'd like to get a picture of an ultrasound into the article in general, its an important piece of technology that has changed the abortion equation significantly - certainly a contributing factor to sex selective abortion for example. --Tznkai (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I have no objection to including an ultrasound, especially a 3D ultrasound which is much more accurate than the old-fashioned kind. A 4D ultrasound would be evn better. But none of that should be a substitute for a non-fuzzy drawing, IMO.
It is not correct that approximately 8% of abortions are because of concerns about fetal abnormalities. If you look carefully at the "8%" figure in the blockquoted text above, they're saying that only 8% of the already miniscule number of women who reported were actually advised by a physician.
In short, we can discuss including additional images in this article that are ultrasounds, perhaps even ultrasounds of an extremely atypical deformed fetus, but that would be no substitute for a discernible drawing of what is typically aborted in an induced abortion. I frankly do not understand how anyone could think that the former would be more relevant here than the latter. Including the former and not the latter would indeed be undue weight, IMO, by giving readers the impression that deformities are more typical than they actually are. A decent compromise could be to include the image at the top of the RFC, plus an ultrasound of a deformed abortus somewhere else in the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Tznkai, some questions, if you don’t mind....Is this RfC the last step in content dispute resolution? Do we let it go 30 days and then close? If the RfC were hypothetically to not change by the time it is closed, what then? And, do you also find pics of the removed material in the following articles to be irrelevant: tonsillectomy, treatment of human head lice, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, blood donation, breastfeeding, mastectomy, dental extraction, childbirth? I include "head lice" since one editor has compared the abortus to a parasite, and I include "childbirth" because another editor has compared the abortus to a being with a soul. Also, if you don't mind, would you please explain why it is okay for this article to provide wikilinks to "embyo" and "fetus" without giving the reader any idea of the difference so they will at least know which one to click on? Also, would you accept a compromise that would allow the image at the top of the RFC, while allowing an ultrasound of an image of an abortus having a birth defect?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Here's an ultrasound of an ectopic pregnancy. However, termination of an ectopic pregnancy is not always called an "abortion." Therefore, this ultrasound of an anencephalic fetus might be better for this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the ultrasounds above. They're too blurry and show nothing useful as far as I can see. A clearer ultrasound is this one. But I would be just as happy with the line drawing originally discussed, or a photo.
Here is another image from Wikimedia commons. And here is a second one. Xandar 13:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
This is going to get confusing conversation without some clear reference labels, so here is a gallery:
  •  
    (A) Ectopic
  •  
    (B) 20 weeks
  •  
    (C) Foetus in womb
  •  
    (D) Baby foetus
  •  
    (E) Ferrylodge's Abortus image
If consensus moving towards inclusion of an image (per Andrew's assessment of where debate going), then I agree with Xandar that ultarsound image (A) so indistinct as to be meaningless. Whilst (B) at 20 weeks is clearly more developed than the "typical what is aborted" which is most commonly around 8-12 weeks gestation, (C) looks similarly so (or is that an illusion of image size being enlarged), and (D) looks close to being viable ? Of all the images I've so far seen discussed, (E) looks the best (in that I can see something unlike the ultrasound scan and has a size indication). However for (D E) the caption (as given a while back in thread higher up this page) would be best (IMHO) describing by gestation rather than fertilisation age (given that is what in UK we typically refer to) and statement of x6 size difference not helpful (relative increase from 4 to 6 weeks gestation will be even higher, and from 2 to 4 weeks gestation some silly number (1 cell to many)). David Ruben Talk 15:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Bold proposal: these fetus images and diagrams discussed above do not depict the subject of the article as well as images of actual fetuses post-abortion. There are two such images with appropriate licenses on WikiCommons.
  •  
    (F) Spontaneous abortion at 6 weeks gestational age.
  •  
    (G) Therapeutic abortion at 10 weeks due to cervical cancer.
I propose that we should include these two images, as they seem to me to be the best illustration for this article, and they are not unnecessarily provocative. Indeed, it is probably in their favour that neither depicts an elective abortion, which is where the main controversy in this debate lies. Fences and windows (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
If we are to have images, I prefer your proposal over FL's. The reason why is because they aren't entirely isolated from their surroundings and the focus isn't entirely on the embryo/fetus, as more products of conception are depicted. Furthermore, as photographs, they are not those silly, cartoonish 3D renderings from a expected mother advocacy site. They show more detail, are higher resolution (i.e. not thumbnails) and in color, which adds a significant degree of visual information. There is the issue of scale, but adding a ruler to each image could address that, or a montage with the images resized (the hand is a little problematic in the 2nd image, but a closer crop or using the other flickr user's image may help that). Another issue is that, especially with the second image, it may give the false illusion that typical elective abortion procedures result in an intact sac and fetus, but perhaps a well written caption could help. Anyway, I'm sorry no one has commented on this.-Andrew c [talk] 13:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. They are the best suggestions I have seen so far. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Haunting. I skipped past them the first time because I didn't realize they were photographs - F in particular. Thinking about it another way, it'd be a shame not use such excellent images. I have a concern about G: is that an abortion in lieu of a hysterectomy? before one? A hysterectomy/abortion? The english translation was lacking, I just want to know what we're talking about.--Tznkai (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Captions

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

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

The schism between those who use LMP versus those who use gestational age is at least as much between obstetricians and embryologists as between Europeans and Americans. See Segen, J.C. The Dictionary of Modern Medicine, page 187: "obstetricians calculate gestational age; embryologists are more correct as they calculate the ovulation or fertilization age." I agree with you regarding the “6 times taller”. We can certainly delete that (e.g. becuase it’s already shown in the image to scale).Ferrylodge (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

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

(undent)I think those are good suggestions:

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

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

David Ruben, in view of the changes to the caption, do you remain strongly opposed to including an image that shows what is typically aborted in an induced abortion?Ferrylodge (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm still personally don't think article needs any image, but I think AndrewC somewhere way up above concluded the RfC shown a weak consensus for image addition. That currently seeming the case, yes your image/caption the best of options shown. The problem with the photographs located by Fences and windows are that whilst the first (F) is dissected, preserved and photographed with great skill, it is not what most people see looking at what is aborted (which frankly is just blood of various degrees of liquid flow to clots, and with a larger lump that often is described by patients as a "large clot" - the cut-away internal view is not what is generally seen) and (G) has surrounding placenta dissected away and is not what would be seen either (both images have very good descriptions of their circumstances). So truely stunning as F & G are as histological preparations, I (weakly) still would tend favor your image (E) comparing the embryo & fetus and with a size scale. But as AndrewC noted, the RfC does not seem to have concluded which image to use. I guess the two pink images at top of #Revised image section are not current candidates - but might be useful at this stage for other editors to just clarify image preference (but not re-debate whether or not to have an image at all) Davidruben 03:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

There is no such thing as a "typical abortus" or a typical abortion. For one thing, the statistics we're using are meaningless for a world wide article.--Tznkai (talk) 04:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Abortion Debate section

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Big Suggestion

Latest comment: 15 years ago86 comments9 people in discussion

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

Oppose. Your first obstacle would be to come up with a reliable source for such a definition; while some reliable sources might refer to a fetus as a baby, I don't know of any reliable sources that refer to an embryo as a baby. Also, there are some abortions that are illegal, yet still called "abortions". Additionally, some abortions accidentally result in birth of a live infant that soon dies outside the womb/uterus. And, a spontaneous abortion could hardly be characterized as a "killing".Ferrylodge (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. Clear POV; fetuses are not babies. Fences and windows (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
More opposition here, as per Ferrylodge. If you find a reliable, unbiased source with such a definition, then it can be considered; I highly doubt that could be found, though. -kotra (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Use of the word "baby" is strongly opposed by pro-abortionists. Is that a valid reason for not using it anywhere in the article? It is standard non-scientific English usage. Xandar 10:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I've never met a "pro-abortionist," just people who think it shouldn't be illegal. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
"Abortionists" are people who perform abortions (though that is not among the terms contained in this Wikipedia article). So, I suppose a "pro-abortionist" is someone who supports abortionists. The term "pro-abortion" is used occasionally by reliable sources like the BBC.[33] I don't think Xandar was suggesting that this Wikipedia article should use the term, nor am I.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I was just commenting on the rather biased name to give to one side of the debate. I don't think that such rhetoric is conducive to the kind of discourse we want to cultivate here. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Yup, it's probably best to go with how people self-identify (i.e. pro-choice and pro-life instead of anti-abortion and pro-abortion). Although a term with "abortion" in it certainly is more descriptive of the subject of this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Personally I use "pro-abortion" because that is the older name (before "pro-choice" was invented,) and "pro choice" is pretty meaningless without further definition. However for the article WP rules would predicate use of self-identifying terms. Xandar 02:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
It would seem to me that the term "pro-abortion" is misleading, because many supporters of the pro-choice view are anti-abortion. Myself, for example. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
GTBacchus, would it be acceptable to you if this article would include a discernible image of what is aborted in a typical abortion?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I would add that it's also acceptable to me if it does not include such an image, as long as it's somehow clear that a relevant image is one click away. People who want to see it should be able to see it via Wikipedia. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
As things stand now, no other Wikipedia article shows or describes what is aborted in a typical induced abortion. For example, the fetus and embryo articles include lots of images, but there's no indication there of which images are typical of an induced abortion.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
<-- Yeah, I would be happy if this article made it clear enough where to look. For example, if we said "a typical therapeutic (or whatever kind of) abortion is performed at gestational age [n weeks]; see fetus for more details on that period of gestation." Something like that could work, I guess, as long as it's clear in the fetus article what an n-week fetus looks like. We shouldn't confound people who are trying to see it. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Then you get into the problem that a typical induced abortion occurs near the embryo/fetus dividing line, so a reader would really have to memorize the gestations here in this article, and then go look at two separate articles, not just one. I think the key thing here is that this is a summary article, so it's okay to summarize relevant info here. Some of the info may give a woman pause before getting an abortion (e.g. the image we're discussing), while some of the info may remove a woman's concerns before getting an abortion (e.g. multiple sections of the present article that assure us there won't be breast cancer or mental problems or fetal pain, et cetera). As a matter of NPOV, we should be careful to not provide only the latter category of info here, and make readers go hunting for the rest in other articles, IMO.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I tend to think that we're clever and creative advanced primates who can solve the problems you bring up, if we really decide that's what we want to do. One solution might be to have some kind of "click here to see images of such-and-such" link. Isn't that how they handled autofellatio, or something?... Ah, no. Apparently not anymore. This case is certainly different from that one. What would you think of images on a clearly linked subpage? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that we're clever and creative primates, and I think the clever and creative thing to do here is to simply do what they do at autofellatio: include the image. The only problems I've identified are with not including the image here in this article, not with including it. Of course, WP:IDL is not a real problem, right?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Obtaining consensus can be a real problem. If it's possible to obtain consensus for a clear one-click link, but not for an inline illustration, would that be an improvement over the current situation? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
A hide and show option might be acceptable, but it's kind of silly because nothing in the proposed image is vivid or graphic or gruesome. If we were to go look carefully at the comments in the RFC, and look only at the comments that discuss censorship, I think we might find a clear consensus that what's going on here is censorship.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I've looked through much of that RFC, and I see no consensus there. If you have to hunt for it, it's not a consensus. (I define consensus in the strictest manner - it's an ideal.) I think we could get a clearer picture if we ask explicitly what people think of a hide/show image. I agree that it's silly, but I'm not willing to foist my notions of silliness on the world at large. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
How about an NPOV tag on this article? I strongly feel that it is being censored, and that it has a huge bias in favor of information that favors a "pro-choice" view.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Go for it. However, if it's taken down, it's back to the talk page. I understand that you strongly feel it's a censored, pro-choice article, but no amount of being right obviates the necessity of obtaining consensus. That's not a rule, it's a reality, and none of us can change it. Progress tends to come by very small degrees. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting doing the NPOV tag right away. I think we ought to leave the RFC open until next weekend, and even then a hide-show option would be preferable to a POV tag. But I'm not sure you're correct about removal of the POV tag. "the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved….if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."Ferrylodge (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
What you quote is fine, as far as it goes, and written from the wisdom of experience. I don't think that contradicts what I said earlier, which is that if it's taken down, we'll end up dealing with it here on the talk page. Ultimately, the only thing that works is what you can make work. Nobody made that rule, and you can't negate it by quoting, editing, or authoring a "policy" page. I take a very pragmatic approach to Wikipedia.

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

My reasoning was not that the word "baby" is opposed by any particular group of people. My reasoning is that abortion, a medical procedure, should be defined in medical terms like "infant", "fetus", "embryo", or "pregnancy", not non-medical terms like "baby". This isn't simple:Abortion (which apparently could use simpler language, so perhaps the definition could be suggested there). -kotra (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes. But the term "fetus" is not defined in general language, and really should be for the sake of non-expert readers who may have little idea what a fetus is. The online Encyclopedia Britannica for example, has no problems with using the word "baby". See here Xandar 02:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
According to fetus, "A fetus is a developing mammal or other viviparous vertebrate, after the embryonic stage and before birth." Seems well defined. Also, an abortion is not simply "killing"; abortion is a word that applies to the cessation of any pregnancy (obviously other than live birth), including a miscarriage. Fences and windows (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
But we're talking about a Human foetus - and we need an explanation, in English rather than Latin, on the page. Xandar 00:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Generally, medical jargon should be explained. See Wikipedia:Jargon. One way to explain what a fetus is, and how it differs from an embryo, would be to include the image at the top of the RFC above.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Concerning Britannica's usage of "baby", I believe it is referring to the post-pregnancy infant: "A therapeutic abortion is the interruption of a pregnancy before the 20th week of gestation because it endangers the mother’s life or health or because the baby presumably would not be normal." As in, when it became a baby (via birth), it would presumably not be normal. This may be my own understanding of the word coloring my interpretation, though. -kotra (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this a reasonable proposition?

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

No. I don't think that this article should include any image of a dismembered abortus, because such an image includes no information that is not included in an intact image. Maybe there's a place at Wikimedia Commons for those shock images, but not here in this article, IMO. I have no problem with forcing readers to go elsewhere for such images. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, "images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." Keeping dismembered fetus images out of this article does not make this article less informative, relevant, or accurate.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Whoa. Who ever said "dismembered"? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
That's what's at the propaganda sites.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, but I didn't ask whether we should host the same pictures they do. I asked whether we should force readers to go to a propaganda site for a picture of an aborted fetus. I'm being very literal here. Wikimedia commons could be an option, as you suggest. So might infinitely many other options. You can't have a brainstorm without a little wind. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Brainstorms and wind are fine.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that seems reasonable. I think the images suggested by Fences and Windows above might be a good way to do this. The question is, on which article? |→ Spaully₪† 19:56, 24 March 2009 (GMT)
Spaully, a large number of editors have okayed the image at the top of the RFC. If the photos mentioned by Fences and Windows are not accepted into this article, would you oppose including the image at the top of the RFC instead? By the way, one of the images mentioned by Fences and Windows is already in the miscarriage and embryo articles.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer to keep this section on the reasonable proposition put forward by GTBacchus. I am undecided on the RFC image as yet and would prefer to pursue what I feel is a more ideal outcome before deciding on it. |→ Spaully₪† 21:22, 24 March 2009 (GMT)

We've built a box!

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

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

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

For a photograph of an abortus, sure, something like this could be useful. For an inoffensive drawing like File:Abortus.PNG, it seems totally unnecessary. -kotra (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree it's totally unnecessary, but it would be better than nothing.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
To clarify my stance: it's utterly ridiculous that we'd need something like this for such an inoffensive image, but if it's the only way the image can be included, then I would support it. I'll leave that determination to others. -kotra (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
That image is 1. Not at all offensive. 2. Not really a good illustration for the article. I sourced two good illustrative images (see above), one of a therapeutic abortion and one of a spontaneous abortion (already included on Miscarriage); can we stop beating around the bush and discuss whether those images are suitable for inclusion, with or without an expandable box? Thanks. Fences and windows (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
On a second look, that image with the comparison of sizes and caption is OK. It is approx. actual size? Fences and windows (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I inserted your pic of a therapeutic abortion into the fetus article yesterday. Regarding the image in the hide-and-show box, it will have a different size depending on what monitor you're using, but the relative sizes are accurate, and the scale bar is also accurate. See crown rump length.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Where in the article does this image go? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

During the RFC, this section was indicated as the appropriate destination. The top of the article is another option.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I see. My first guess was the "Incidence of induced abortion" section, but that one's already pretty full of images. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm bothered by this: the image is labeled "Abortus image", but does the reader know what the word "Abortus" means? I mean, I speak Latin, but I'm not sure everyone does, y'know? I don't see a convenient place in that section to define the word, but it seems it should be made clear, somewhere near the image. Alternatively, is there different text we could put in place of "Abortus image"? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
How about "Image of What is Aborted"?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I dunno; I'm gonna sleep on it. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Skip the box. Don't use that caption, we're not going to pussy foot around it. If the image is included, it should be labeled exactly what it is "diagram of fetus at X weeks development." Did we establish some sort of consensus while I was away on what image to include when?--Tznkai (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The box is silly, IMO. I have seen no consensus, Tzn. Last I saw a breakdown it was split in approximate thirds, clearly not consensus, and I have seen no substantive discussion since. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The toggle box was an attempt to meet you halfway. But if the image can be included without the toggle box, I agree that would be preferable. If so, no caption is needed at the top of the image (only below).Ferrylodge (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate its an attempt at a compromise, but it doesn't address my concern which was, to repeat, the contextualization problem. If someone can establish with proper context a place for a fetus image, I'll be satisfied. I'm considering a significant reorganization, and I'm more than willing to write with the specific purpose of finding a place where feti pictures can be put into the main article with the proper context (one example, a pro-life rally with signs, preferably tasteful ones. Another, an image out of a medical manual discussing abortions in the methodology section). I don't see a consensus yet, although I do accept that I am in the minority, so I will attempt to accommodate.--Tznkai (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not recall that you have addressed why putting it in this section would be imperfect. That section already uses the terms "embryo" and "fetus" and the image gives readers a clue as to the difference (thus giving the reader some idea of which to click on for further info). That section also discusses that the abortion method is selected based on size, which the image illustrates. That section is also devoted to induced abortions, and the image shows what is removed in a typical induced abortion.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
A lot of things are involved in an induced abortion - and we don't have pictures of any of them without good reason. You think that a fetus being the thing that is aborted is a good reason to have it in the article - I think its a good reason to have a wiki-link to fetus. We have been over that multiple times, and it remains the basic argument. I am however, more than willing to have a fetus image for a specific purpose, such as the ones I suggested above, instead of the general purpose that you have posited.--Tznkai (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
You have not addressed the fact that this article says nothing about the difference between an "embryo" and a "fetus" and thus a reader will have no way to choose which link to click on. The proposed image shows the difference, and that is as specific a purpose as can be. The proposed image also shows why there is more than one abortion method for a typical abortion: because the size changes so much.
Tznkai, can we use some imagination here in this discussion, please? Suppose that what a typical induced abortion actually aborts is exactly identical with an adult human being in shape but not size. Would that not be worth showing to a reader, who otherwise might think that a typical abortus is a blob of a few hundred cells? The only thing that people are trying to do here is provide info to readers, some of whom might find that info very relevant. Let the readers decide.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) You're begging the question. There is nothing preventing the reader from clicking both links, or clicking pregnancy, all of which show the images in full. The reader can choose, and will choose, to follow their curiosity. Did you find a citation that supports "there is more than one abortion method for a typical abortion: because the size changes so much." If that is the issue, then I can see the relevance - but then it has nothing to do with a "typical abortion" or "typical abortus."--Tznkai (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding size, see footnote 9 of the article.
Regarding the links for embryo and fetus, sure, a reader interested in a human being three months after fertilization can indeed click on embryo, and then find that he should go instead to the fetus article. But that seems rather inconvenient. And no matter whether the reader ends up at the fetus article or the embryo article, the reader will have no clue which of the images presented there correspond to what is typically aborted versus what is rarely aborted in an induced abortion. We should make this information accessible rather than inaccessible. Is there some reason why it should be inaccessible?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Ehh. Thats a bad citation, and requires a novel synthesis for the point its supporting, but I think thats a problem that can be solved by a bit of research in depth. I have a friend who knows someone who wrote a textbook or two. So, if I understand correctly, the reasoning here is:
  • The method of abortion varies drastically based on size
  • There is a period of rapid growth over the course of several weeks.
  • Specifically in the period between embryo at 4 weeks and fetus at 8, there is a size difference that has a major effect on abortion methodology.
  • That size difference should be illustrated visually.
that about right?--Tznkai (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
The citation is: Menikoff, Jerry. Law and Bioethics, page 78 (Georgetown University Press 2001): "As the fetus grows in size, however, the vacuum aspiration method becomes increasingly difficult to use." Seems like a good citation to me.
Anyway, are you trying to summarize only one of the arguments for including the image, or all of the arguments for doing so? If the latter, you have missed quite a bit. If the former, no, I do not think you have captured the idea. There is rapid growth at many stages of pregnancy. The proposed image shows only the rapid growth during the period when induced abortion is typical. Yuor summary missed the typicality aspect.Ferrylodge (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no typical abortion - not the way you use the term anyway. If there was a typical abortion, it would not occur between two images. I have, and suggest you do as well, discarded out of hand the "typical abortion" justification because it doesn't make sense. We could go into extensive detail on it, but even if it did make any sense on face, it would immediately fall apart because of the lack of incidence data world wide. The UK in 2004 is not a representative sample. Add to that real problems about implying that regional and demographic factors are somehow unimportant in considering what the average or typical abortion is. Any time we look at a particular chunk of the world, we can draw useful data on a human made incidence. This region, this people, this culture, produces these factors, which puts the average abortion at X weeks. Trying to tie something that variable to an abstraction on a biological process is foolhardy. Examining soley it as a medical phenomena allows us to speak generically and abstractly with success - that is, by illustrating the growth period, which effects medical decisions in handling a typical (meaning without abnormal complications, flaws, or sudden random growth spurts) pregnancy, we make a point about how those medical (the actual procedure of abortion) decisions is constrained.
Showing a period of rapid growth is only useful if it is immediately relevant - not abstractly relevant. The F and G images we are discussing have obvious immediate relevancy. If we follow the reasoning I bullet pointed above, we've established context and immediate relevance and you get your image.--Tznkai (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if I'm now limited to extremely brief responses in order to avoid being banned.[34] On the assumption that I am, I'll just say this: the present article includes a whole section about the incidence of abortion by gestational age. There are points in pregnancy when abortion is rarely induced, and points where it is very common. To deny this distinction is not something that I understand, and a large majority of editors in the RFC agreed that this article should provide more info about what is typically aborted in an induced abortion.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Your Arbcom implemented indefinite editing restrictions for Abortion article require a non-involved admin. Tzn and I are involved, so you're perfectly safe from us, no matter what you paste or say here. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe you've actually addressed a thinig I just brought up, not the least of which is this is an easy compromise that allows your preferred image if you answer some basic concerns I have and find a better citation that goes something like "The difference in size between an embryo and fetus makes methods X Y and Z preferable to methods Q and P." If that is true (and I don't doubt that it very well may be) It should be easy to find a citation for it.--Tznkai (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
You have repeatedly said that there is no such thing as a typical abortion. That is incorrect. If 90% of induced abortions occur within a narrow period of pregnancy, then induced abortions in that narrow period are typical, and the others are atypical. This seems very obvious. If you think I am not addressing your comments, please be assured that I have felt similarly about your responses for quite awhile.
Moreover, you seem to be discussing the possible availability of further reliable sources. I'm all ears.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I am still perplexed that you have not responded my nearly explicit offer to drop my opposition to you image if very simple concerns are addressed.--Tznkai (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I said I'm all ears. You said you have a friend who maybe can provide you with some reliable sources that will allow inclusion of the image. That's great. Please proceed.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Typical is not the same as Common, or Majority. I suspect we may have an instance of confusion regarding terminology. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

My concerns:

  • The so called typical (or common, or majority) abortion is both meaningless on face and a red herring, and should be dropped from the image caption.
  • A reasonable logic for including the image comparing fetus at 8 and embryo at 4 goes as follows. P1. The method of abortion varies based on size of the fetus/embryo P2. There is a period of rapid growth over the course of several weeks, specifically in the period between embryo at 4 weeks and fetus at 8 P3. This particular period of growth effects the choice of methodology and P4 That difference is best illustrated visually. C Ergo, the image should be included.
    • We need a citation that supports P3 specifically, p1, p2, are conceded and sourced P4 I disagree with, but only weakly
  • Presenting the fetus/embryo illustration without context as I have described or something similarly objective and immediately relevant damages the article.

That make any sense to anyone?--Tznkai (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see if your friend provides the citation you seek. Regarding your assertion that the so-called typical (or common, or majority) abortion is both meaningless and a red herring, no, that does not make any sense to me. There are some gestations at which induced abortion is very rare, and other gestations at which it is very common; this is explained in the article text. I see no reason not to illustrate it too. As the article stands, some readers will think that it's very common for induced abortions to remove a mere clump of a few hundred cells, while other readers will think that it's very common for induced abortions to remove a human being that is over a foot long. Neither of those things is true.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, you can help find the citation to. I'm offering a particular compromise, and I am unperturbed by the idea that a reader will somehow have the inability to cross-reference incident statistics gestational age.--00:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I have a hard time with the idea that "typical abortion" is meaningless. Naturally there are different kinds, but if one happens a lot more often, then what's inaccurate about calling it typical? The typical American is white, identifies as Christian, and lives within 50 miles of their birthplace. Are there other kinds? Of course. Does that make the "typical" example meaningless? I don't think so. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
An abortion isn't a demographic, its an act. When we refer to medical acts, we're more likely to say a "typical abortion" is safe, done in a medical establishment, causes no complications, and is surgical. A "typical abortion" ends with the fetus dead and disposed. An atypical abortion is one that causes complications, or ends with a fetus that lives for any length of time, or is forced upon the patient, or is, just like it is atypical for liposuction to end in stroke. "Typical abortion" doesn't have meaning within the context that Ferrylodge submitted it in.
In addition when we look for the most common abortions, we run into some problems. What is a common abortion in the confines of Vatican City? Illegal, or non-existent. The common abortion in India? Spain? Brazil? Canada? UK? France? Russia? Botswana? Incidence and thus the so called "typical abortion" will very significantly based on what context we ask the question. If we look at averages, the typical American family is what, 3.5 members and 1.5 pets? Heres one: what meaning does the "typical Christian" have? What the hell kind of image would we put there? Lest I be misinterpreted, I am not being sarcastic, but suggesting as a matter of good writing, worrying about the "typical" anything is not going to help us with deciding on an image of a fetus - while focusing on objective medical criteria will.--Tznkai (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see what the difference between a demographic and an act has to do with it, but I do see your more general point. The distribution of abortions world-wide, across different societies, jurisdictions, etc, is too complicated to summarize with any single "typical" example. That makes sense. I think there are plenty of demographics that are equally resistant to simple characterization. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I probably overstated the case on demographics, but you've got the core of what I was getting at.--Tznkai (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I've tried to address concerns by tweaking the caption a bit, so now it says: "Above are drawings at typical gestations when abortion is induced." Captions usually don't have to be incredibly precise, but I can see that it might help to say "typical gestations" instead of "typical abortus." Is that better Tznkai?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Uh... I appreciate the effort, but I think you missed the point - or perhaps I'm misunderstanding the new edit. Either way, I think we're going to get a lot more done focusing on finding a support for the notion that the size change in the embryo/fetus 4/8 LMP division is significant.--Tznkai (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've tried again: "typical gestations when abortion is induced in England." Hard to get more specific and accurate than that. I feel it is extremely important to give readers an idea of what induced abortion typically involves. We can pursue your line of inquiry as well, but the main point of the RFC was to show readers what is typical.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
And you missed the point, again and quite frankly, there is nothing typical about either of the diagrams, or them put together they are cartoonish, neither in utero or biowaste, nor in a tube (which are the three places a fetus will be in the course of the most frequent occurrences of abortion. I really don't think showing a typical fetus at the period of gestation that abortions commonly occur at, for that purpose is appropriate. That seems more to be what you're getting at and I've yet to find a neutral reference source that does so. If you really want to illustrate whats involved in a typical surgical abortion in the first trimester this admittedly biased source (registration required) has a low quality black and white image that gives you an idea of whats involved in the context its usually examined: a petri dish. If we're really going for an accurate representation of what "induced abortion typically involves" by all means, lets throw up a diagram of the decision making process ( a good idea), a visual representing patient preparation, one representing diagnosis and charting gestational age, an example of a transvaginal ultrasound at 4weeks, 8 weeks, a diagram of sectional cutterage or evacuation (maybe both), and then postabortion examination of uterine aspirate, which is by the way done in a petri dish.
I actually quite like the idea and may try to rustle up the images anyway - but that isn't the compromise you were looking for I assume. So, as a separate and expedient manner, if we are going to show an image of which the stated purpose was (in part) to illustrate the size differentiation between fetus and embryo, can we at least explicitly justify that differentiation as medically relevant?--Tznkai (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Please see WP:NOTMANUAL. This Wikipedia article is not a medical text, and abortion has many aspects beyond what would be relevant to a medical technician. While pro-choice groups prefer to portray abortion as merely a clinical matter no different from any other medical procedure, this article should not exclusively adopt that POV, lest this article become (or remain) a propaganda piece. We are writing for lay people, not medical professionals, and we are writing about a personal moral issue as much as a technical medical issue. I already provided reliable sources in the RFC showing fetal images that are included in reliable sources about abortion, not that such sources are necessary to justify inclusion of images in Wikipedia (e.g. see Virgin Killer and auto-fellatio). You still oppose inclusion of the image at the top of the RFC, despite many efforts to reach compromise. I don't expect that will change, and I believe you are being unreasonable. You can link to all the pro-life sites you want, but inclusion of factual information should not be barred at Wikipedia merely because similar material may be included at a pro-life site. Plenty of the material in this article right now can be found at pro-choice sites, which is just fine if the info is factual and not undue weight.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. We are NOT writing about a personal moral issue. The moment we do that, we seek to convince, rather than to inform. We can mention the social controversy. We can mention that there are people with serious personal moral issues about it. We mention that there has been much ink spilled over the ethics and morality of abortion. We can cover the controversy involving so called conscience rights of doctors and pharmacists - we can do a lot of things, but the moment we as writers look at this as a "moral issue" instead of a medical and social phenomena, we invite our biases to color our editing. We are not here to preach, and if we cannot find a neutral and objective justification for the inclusion of an image, we are risk preaching to the audience that "abortion is wrong because these things look and are human." The Virgin Killer image is an excellent example of a lack of preaching - the image is presented in context as an object of controversy. Auto-fellatio shows an example of the article itself, not a picture of a mouth, of a penis, of semen, or a tongue, or any other ancillary images. This isn't about censorship - and fine, you disagree, but I would take it kindly if you would accept that I'm unconvinced, and that it is a dead avenue for convincing me.
I am saying, and I believe I have made the point now conclusively, that if you want to show whats involved in a "typical abortion" that your image doesn't fit that criteria. It does fit another criteria, that you seem to be using, and I gave an example of the effect that it has, and I believe that the non-neutral effect is self-evident. It may also fit a third criteria, that of illustrating a medical - and thus objective - reality. I remain perplexed why you are unwilling to simply produce a citation that describes the medical reality that justifies this image especially since I have explicitly told you what it is I am looking for. I have bolded the comments I think are most productive here because I am concerned you are missing them. All we need is one citation backing up a medical fact, and I do not have any objections to the inclusion of the image.--Tznkai (talk) 21:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
First, you indicated that you have a lead to find the kind of reference you're looking for (you said at this talk page, "I think thats a problem that can be solved by a bit of research in depth. I have a friend who knows someone who wrote a textbook or two."). Second, during the RFC, you asked for reliable sources that use images, and I spent considerable time and energy finding lots of photos, but none of them turned out to be satisfactory for you, so in this instance I'm happy to let you take a stab at researching this before I do. Third, I think there are plenty of valid reasons for including the image aside from whether it illustrates the need for different abortion techniques, and I do not have any confidence that this image precisely depicts the exact gestations at which different techniques become necessary.
I'll add this.... If people would find it interesting and relevant what is aborted at the typical gestations when abortion occurs, then we should show them. We're talking about scientifically verifiable, accurate information, and you seem to be saying that Wikipedia cannot include it anywhere. I will stop trying to convince you, but I would simply note that you have not given any reason why such an image is improper at tonsillectomy, treatment of human head lice, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, blood donation, breastfeeding, mastectomy, dental extraction, childbirth. This Wikipedia article has a history section, and various other sections that are not strictly for medical professionals, and so I don't understand why you require a medical justification for including this image. I continue to believe that you are engaged in censorship, by the way. You seem to be barring biologically accurate information for no good reason.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have much time, but I'll stop in to say that I don't find the justification for the image to be particularly compelling. The construction of the "typical abortion" is particularly problematic, as such a thing doesn't exist (do we get to include spontaneous abortions? Should I be lobbying for the inclusion of an 8-cell embryo?) How, exactly, does the image improve the article? Nandesuka (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nandesuka. There's a huge RFC above that explains everyone's views at considerable length. Check it out if you have time. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation 76

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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

Could you please be more specific to what citation you are referring? The current article's #76 is a "dead link" citation to the World Health Organization. Is that what you are talking about?-Andrew c [talk] 16:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I have updated that link. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Still not sure to what the original objection was referring... -Andrew c [talk] 00:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral tag

Latest comment: 15 years ago50 comments6 people in discussion

I'm decided to add a POV tag per lengthy talk discussion. Neutrality is clearly disputed. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Be specific, and make a concise, accurate, and substantial report how we can all see this article is reasonably of disputed neutrality to the point we are telling our readers it is unreliable.--Tznkai (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Uh, per talk? Picture challenges, weasel wording, etc...Is this really an argument? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Where is there any mention of weasel word issues on this talk page? How on earth does a long discussion regarding one image proposal mean there are NPOV issues in the article? Can you please be more specific. "This article is not neutral because...." Tagging the whole article based on one image proposal seems a bit extreme. In your opinion, we added that one image would all the neutrality issues of the article go away? If so, then I believe the matter is too trivial to give the whole article a neutrality warning. If not, then you need to start listing specific neutrality issues you have and what we can do to fix it. Because as of right now, I have no idea why you think the article is not neutral, and therefore I have no way of knowing how to fix it, so your tag is entirely pointless. How about this, why not be bold and try fixing the problems yourself instead of tagging and running.-Andrew c [talk] 05:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
We've tried that. Discussion has demonstrated a CLEAR POV challenge and it is well-documented. Neutrality tag will hopefully attract more users to talk to fix this article, as you apparently would like. that too is disputed. ;D Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Specifics are not a suggestion, they are a requirement. Start listing.--Tznkai (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Lol and lol. Are you denying that the neutrality isn't being disputed? Seriously? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I am asserting that neutrality is not being disputed in the way that the tag implies or requires. Whining by any number editors doesn't qualify. Specific listed problems with the article's content that seriously compromise its neutrality by as an objective standard as possible is what we are looking for, not a bald face assertion that an article is not neutral because you say so.--Tznkai (talk)13:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Perhaps I missed something, but where is the POV tag "explained thoroughly"? Wikifan12345, since you don't seem to be willing to state why you think the article is not neutral, could you at least clue us in on what would you do to make the article less POV? I looked through your two links. The first one is linked to the whole RfC. As Kotra put it, the majority of opposers felt the proposal was POV. Only Ferrylodge specifically said the article was POV, while two commenters mentioned a catch-22 situation where leaving the image in would create POV, while leaving it out would be another POV. I'm not sure what is so funny about this (lols). Perhaps you can reply by stating clearly how you could fix the neutrality of the article. You mentioned weasel words, and that isn't explained anywhere on the talk page. What did you mean by that? I want to take your concerns seriously, and I want to improve the article, but you need to give us more to go on, so we can help fix it! -Andrew c [talk] 14:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wikifan12345 that the neutrality of this article has been (and continues to be) frequently disputed, as the talk page shows above. Not surprising considering the contentious nature of the subject matter. Anyway, I'd rather work on getting a toggle box inserted right now, instead of a POV tag.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, specifics And you've got an outstanding objection or two on the togglebox.--Tznkai (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Inclusion of the image is a major one of the specifics.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
So your opinion is that the entire neutrality of the article is compromised by the lack of an image? Remember, these tags aren't for us, they're for readers. An NPOV tag is a warning to the reader "Don't trust any of the information on this page." --Tznkai (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hypothetically speaking, if a minority of editors insist on excluding the image, even if it is hidden in a toggle box, then I would think a POV tag would be most appropriate, at least in the section where the image was intended to be placed. Not necessarily at the top of the article, though that might be appropriate too. Of course, this should not hold true every time an image is excluded, but only where there are extensively discussed POV concerns. But this is all hypothetical at this point, it seems.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
To keep things focused, I think we should consider this matter settled pending Wikifan12345's response.-Andrew c [talk] 18:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Settled which way, Andrew c?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

POV section-by-section?

I'm just reading through the article, and looking for POV issues. I'm through the intro and the first two sections: Types of abortion, and Abortion methods. So far, it seems pretty neutral to me. Would those who claim that the article has POV issues agree that those sections are ok? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I think that those sections (especially the subsection titled "Induced abortion") ought to include some description of what is aborted in a typical induced abortion (such as the image proposed in the RFC). Unfortunately, I don't have time this evening to go through those sections in detail, to point out other issues.
The following sentence in the section on “Types of abortion” does seem very poorly written and confusing, if not POV: “Some pregnancy losses are ‘ignored as conceptions,’ one study of 232 pregnant women showed ‘virtually complete [pregancy loss] by the end of the embryonic period’ with a pregnancy loss rate of only 2 percent after 8.5 weeks after the last menstrual period.” The stuff after the semicolon should be split off and put at the beginning of the next paragraph, and the stuff before the semicolon is unrelated and/or difficult to understand.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a bad sentence. Since issues came up right away, let's slow down. How's the intro, neutrality-wise? That's a good section to have neutral. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
In the very first sentence we mention the PLACE where ALL abortions take place, the uterus, but there is not a single description (by means of an image) anywhere to be found in the article (ignore the uterus in the vacuum aspiration diagram because it isn't as detailed as my preferred 3Duterus.com image). Many people have no idea what a uterus looks like. This article ought to include some description of where a typical induced abortion takes place inside a woman (opps... I mean "female"... no wait... that's not right, "gravida") by means of an image like this. Ergo, the whole entire article needs to be slapped with a NPOV tag! Don't even suggest to me that someone could click on the uterus wikilink and find that information, because that is censorship.-Andrew c [talk] 01:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really interested in dealing with ridicule and sarcasm here. Maybe some other time. Goodnight.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, seriously. You do yourself injustice to descend to this, Andrew. Take a break or something. Ugh. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
His tone isn't fantastic, but it isn't near the worse we've seen and his point is salient.--Tznkai (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Not to my mind. I very much disagree, and I'm a fairly reasonable person, more than half the time, I think. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Its a reducio-ad-absurdum (I think thats the right spelling) using the same reasoning but with different terms to illustrate the problem with the reasoning. I'm fairly sure there was a snipe at me in there as well - and I take the point. That point is salient, and appears to have been said in good faith. --Tznkai (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Emphasis on absurdum. So many BLPs at Wikipedia have photos at the top right of the article's subject. Why do those photos so often show the face? Why not the rear end, or the foot?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. I've studied logic a bit. I've got one degree in philosophy, and another one in math. I've worked with reductio ad absurdum, and Senator, that's no reductio ad absurdum.

If I want to know what a uterus looks like, I'll look up uterus. If I want to know what a removed uterus looks like, I'll look up hysterectomy. If I want to know what a fetus looks like in utero, I'll look up fetus. If I want to know what a fetus looks like when it's been removed in an induced abortion, I'll look up abortion. Doesn't that seem reasonable? -GTBacchus(talk) 13:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, sir, FL's pet image is nothing of the sort of which you speak. Are you making a new image proposal? And more to the point. Are you, sir, personally arguing the article is not neutral (and thus deserves a NPOV tag) due to a lack of a post-abortion fetus image?-Andrew c [talk] 13:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not making a proposal at all. I'm saying that I think it makes sense to have an image of what is typically aborted, whether or sketch or a photo I don't care, and I think the comparison to requesting a picture of a uterus was not an example of reductio ad absurdum, but instead a fallacy, in particular, a false comparison.

I haven't decided whether I think the article is neutral. What I'm trying to do here is to get a more detailed picture of precisely what Ferrylodge sees as non-neutral about the article, so I can either agree that the article should be tagged, or else disagree. If I could get that information from Ferrylodge without someone cutting in to make fun of his concerns, that would be really cool. Maybe we'll have to take the conversation elsewhere, for that to happen. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally would prefer it occur on this talk page, for obvious reasons - perhaps if you start a new section for that specific purpose, and make a similar statement/request at the beginning? I for one would be happy to respect a request to not edit a section while you and Ferrylodge discuss his concerns, until you are perfectly satisfied you understand them thoroughly. Who knows, we may all learn something. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
A new section for that specific purpose... so... kind of like this one, but further down the page? Sure I'm game. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
When FL said "Anyway, I'd rather work on getting a toggle box inserted right now, instead of a POV tag" I was happy to let this issue rest for another day. If you want to get more information out of FL when he seems reluctant to do that, go right ahead. I won't butt in further with your efforts. Or maybe we could all give it a rest and focus on specific image related proposals, instead of vaguely (and abstractly) discussing neutrality. -Andrew c [talk] 16:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, my effort in this section - the reason for which I started it - was to discuss neutrality not abstractly, but in terms of specific details in the current article. Hence the idea of working through it section-by-section. That doesn't sound very abstract to me. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I think Andrew's critique demonstrates the invalidity of Ferrylodge's argument, and it seems GTBacchus has made an argument against Ferrylodge's proposed image as well. I believe, but I am not certain, that the majority of induced abortions occur early, and by surgical means, with the end result being a very small and vaguely humanoid organism being dead and then sucked through a tube and presumably discarded as biowaste. I'm really not sure where to go there to get an accurate image that does more service than violence to the reader (other than I suppose, obtaining an actual photograph of an abortion in progress)
As I said before, I can see easily taking photos of a pro-life rally where they have their own photos of aborted feti, as that gives an at a glance understanding of the deep social controversy - but I don't really see a way clear to speak with the article's neutral voice and present a dead fetus to the audience, and to resume the main point, I'm not sure how this is significantly compromising the article's neutrality by any measure.--Tznkai (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I like the sound of the pro-life rally, where you can see the pictures they use. Ferrylodge, do you like that idea? Andrew, how about you? What do people think of that suggestion? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Tznkai has made a "nearly explicit offer to drop my opposition to your image if very simple concerns are addressed." If those concerns can be addressed, then I don't see any need to have photos of a pro-life sign.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. What are the concerns? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather not be in the position of interpreting or speaking for Tznkai, so I'll just quote: "I think thats a problem that can be solved by a bit of research in depth. I have a friend who knows someone who wrote a textbook or two."Ferrylodge (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
That's not "the concerns" Ferrylodge, that's Tzn talking about one, unspecified in your quote, concern, singular. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, KC, do know more? I'm trying to learn here, so I'm all ears... -GTBacchus(talk) 17:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not clear on what Ferrylodge was referencing in his original assertion. He said "Tznkai has made a "nearly explicit offer to drop my opposition to your image if very simple concerns are addressed." and I have not seen that; I think we should wait until Tzn confirms or clarifies, as its quite possible Ferrylodge misunderstood Tzn, or Tzn's comment was about something else, or poorly phrased. I merely made a comment regarding the quote Ferrylodge pasted, which doesn't even come close to listing "these concerns". Perhaps FL is confused. Perhaps he pasted the wrong quote. I wish I could help more. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
[35]Ferrylodge (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I meant the dif where Tzn listed his concerns, and the quote you pasted as well as the dif you pasted don't have that. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I have merely quoted Tznkai. Feel free to quote Tznkai some more, if you like.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Ooh, can I quote Tznkai, too?! Where... is Tznkai? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I was off having a meal. I'll restate clearer what my concerns are over here.--Tznkai (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
(<--- unindent)I hope it was delicious. :) I'm off shopping; see you after. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(<-----unindent) This creates weight issues. We don't want to group the whole pro-life movement in with the gory image lot. There are many pro-life groups that refuse to use such imagery for multiple reasons. Right now, in the abortion debate section, we have to comparable images of rallies for each movement's side of the debate. Are you suggesting we add another pro-life movement rally image or replace our existing one? If we do the former, then would we need to add a pro-choice movement image? If we do the latter, do we risk making the pro-life movement seem like they are all into gory signs? Perhaps there could be an image at a massive pro-life rally that has a plethora of signage, including gory and non-gory images? That may be the best way to approach that. But then, I still think that sort of image would only work in the debate section. And I doubt that it would satisfy the desire to have images of what is aborted higher up in the article. Interesting proposal, GTB.-Andrew c [talk] 16:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think of it as a proposal, so much as a conversation in which we're thinking aloud as a group. Asking "Are you suggesting we add another pro-life movement rally image or replace our existing one?" implies a lot more thought than I've given it. I'm asking about the general acceptability of an image of pro-life people holding pictures of aborted fetuses. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
There are some definite pitfalls, and if we can find a wide angle shot of the whole gamut of tactful to fanatical pro-life signage, that would be great. There are but extant pro life rallies using imagery of feti that are not gory or shocking in anyway - I'm not sure what their prevalence is, but I would wager high enough that we wouldn't risk a massive weight skew. A good caption should neutralize any neutrality concerns, the hardest part will be finding the or taking the photograph.
I was at a county fair in a small town in the Midwest U.S, and if I had had a camera, I'd have taken a photograph of exactly what I'm describing.--Tznkai (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Terminology change

Latest comment: 15 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion

I'm planning on changing most instances of "pregnant woman" with the medical term "gravida." Outside of the social controversy sections, the article understands abortion as a medical phenomena, so medical terminology is appropriate. In addition, and more of my concern, gravida refers to any pregnant female, and abortions are sometimes performed on pregnant girls - which is one of the issues I'd like to eventually address (parental consent laws, trauma, informed consent, access, and so on.)--Tznkai (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I remember running across an article discussing the use of abortion as selective within animal husbandry. Anyone know what that is called?--Tznkai (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I oppose that change. See WP:Jargon. Try "pregnant female." Also, please ease up on suggestions that other editors are "whining". Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
The jargon is explained in the first instance, thus fulfilling the style guideline.--Tznkai (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's a matter of fulfilling a style guideline per se. I think we should look behind the guideline, and ask whether we're giving readers a more or less informative experience. Will every reader read the entire article, start to finish? I like the idea of readers learning the word "gravida", but I wouldn't want to use it to the exclusion of other terms, even if its defined the first time.

Also, I agree that the word "whine" has no place in any discussion here. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Whinge. Unspecific assertion provoking pathos but without strict appeal to reason. However you would like me to say it, my point is, salient complaints matter, generalized expressions of displeasure do not.--Tznkai (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
"However I would like you to say it" is not the point. The point is that it's not helpful, no matter how you say it. You're obviously frustrated, and I should probably just go away. I apologize for trying to understand the dispute and possibly contribute to its resolution. Thanks for the memories. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Stick around, I doubt there is a thing I have said or done that should chase you off, and I'm certainly not trying to. I understand your point, but I disagree - I think dismissing whining as whining is appropriate, and discussing relevant complaints only is helpful. You may disagree, and I may well be convinced.--Tznkai (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I want to leave because I'm not remotely in a mood to hear people treating each other with less than dignity and respect. I don't care how much Ferrylodge annoys you, if you're rude to him, that's going to annoy me, and make me not want to collaborate with you. I know this is a difficult article, but I'm actually happy to work here and get away from a poisonous situation somewhere else. I see that won't work, so I'll just go to bed instead. Watching people disrespect each other is just kind of turning my stomach tonight. Thanks for understanding.

I'll probably be back, because I kind of actually care (damn it to hell), and I think Ferrylodge has got a very good point. Every one of my pro-choice friends I've asked, including two who've had abortions of their own, agree that the encyclopedia article on abortion really ought to have a picture of an "abortus," or whatever you want to call it. My friends are pretty liberal, and I'm still trying to find one who thinks the picture is a bad idea. But no, Ferrylodge is totally unreasonable. I don't buy it. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Believe it, or not , I actually take your criticism of my tone and attitude seriously - but you are putting words into my mouth, and I assure you, my positions have everything to do with my (somewhat idiosyncratic) minimalist standards on writing, and little to do with my supposed biases or my feelings on Ferrylodge. I don't recall asserting that Ferrylodge is being totally unreasonable.--Tznkai (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I apologize for putting words in your mouth. That's clearly not polite. I, truly and soberly, do think I should probably leave it for the night. Tomorrow is already here for more than half the planet. Perhaps I'll see you there. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Per WP:MTAA, "If an article is written in a highly technical manner, but the material permits a more accessible explanation, then editors are strongly encouraged to rewrite it." Why not just say "pregnant female"?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think gravida is overly medical and should be avoided on grounds of unnecessary jargon. Some definitions would have it that any female capable of being pregnant is a woman anyway, and I don't think people are misled that no young women become pregnant though its use. "Pregnant female" sounds a little ridiculous unless used to refer to a multitude of species (which may be the case in places). So I feel it should continue to be "pregnant woman". |→ Spaully₪† 17:57, 2 April 2009 (GMT)
IAWTC.-Andrew c [talk] 19:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)I did. And the same reason that an article about airplane wings refers to ailerons as ailerons instead of "hinged control surfaces" except for the first time. Its the correct and unambiguous terminology. Also "Put the most accessible parts of the article up front. It's perfectly fine for later sections to be highly technical, if necessary. Those who are not interested in details will simply stop reading at some point, which is why the material they are interested in needs to come first. Linked sections of the article should ideally start out at about the same technical level, so that if the first, accessible paragraph of an article links to a section in the middle of the article, the linked section should also start out accessible." Gravida isn't even highly technical. --Tznkai (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Spaully, not sure if you're aware but recently a nine year old girl underwent a high profile abortion in Brazil. I'm not sure what in the business in the world we would have saying she was a "pregnant woman" (for example). Pregnancy doesn't make you a woman, societal standards might. Pregnant female is preferable by far.--Tznkai (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Definition #2 of "woman" on answers.com is broad enough to include all of womankind. Woman has multiple meanings, and I don't believe that our use of "pregnant woman" is so precise that it will mislead our readers into thinking we are excluding pregnant girls.-Andrew c [talk] 19:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Is the dispute now between "gravida", "pregnant woman" and "pregnant female"? I have to say I think it would be good to have "gravida" in the article but agree that using it exclusively is a bit technical, or "jargon" like. Regarding "female"; sorry but as opposed to what? Pregnant males? We've had that discussion, I'd prefer not to wade through it again. OTOH, Tzn has an excellent point regarding "woman", however one must be beyond a certain stage of puberty to become pregnant, so perhaps that can be resolved as this is more a physical, and less a societal, characteristic in the context of this article? KillerChihuahua?!? 13:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any particular amount invested into the vocab change. I think the case for the use of "gravida" is stronger in the explicitly medical sections of the article which are technical by nature, and at the very least the term should be introduced early on because of its common use in medical and technical literature. I just don't like "pregnant woman" when describing the amorphous, generic and hypothetical pregnant human being undergoing an abortion.--Tznkai (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
If we're using foetus and not baby, I suppose gravida instead of pregnant woman is logical. Xandar 00:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The relationship between those terms is not at all the same. A fetus lives inside the womb, a baby lives outside whereas the others are equivalent. "Unborn baby" is unacceptable due to inaccuracy and its clear association with pro-life groups and literature. |→ Spaully₪† 21:10, 5 April 2009 (GMT)
Is it worth giving an explanation on the top level article (this one) of how the term "unborn" is used and associated with pro-life? The term shows up once, under abortion law. Since good writing is written for the little green men on mars (that is, people without cultural context and pre knowledge), should we address the term? If so, where? We used to have an "abortion terminology" section, but I think I removed it during a rewrite because of how cumbersome it was.--Tznkai (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
That might be useful though not essential. If anywhere it should probably go in the Abortion debate section, as introducing it elsewhere might be seen as biased. It is mentioned in the Abortion debate#Terminology and Pro-life#Term controversy articles; this was the best I found: Pro-life advocates tend to use terms such as "unborn baby," "unborn child," or "pre-born child",[37][38] while some pro-choice advocates insist on scientific terminology. Reference 37 is a good source for this. |→ Spaully₪† 22:16, 5 April 2009 (GMT)

Picture

Latest comment: 15 years ago99 comments14 people in discussion

Is the foetus picture still not in the article? The best thing would be to put it in with no more fuss, and have done with. I don't really like the pop-up box though. Xandar 00:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

See my comments in the box section about expediting that.--Tznkai (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been bold, and added two images to the section Types of abortion. They illustrate a spontaneous abortion and a therapeutic abortion. I have added them because I believe that they very well illustrate that section of the article, that they are not shock images, and that addition improves the article. Fences and windows (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I missed that there has now been some discussion of these images above in the talk page. Fences and windows (talk) 21:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I think they fit well, at least we have some progress (for now)! Thanks, |→ Spaully₪† 21:50, 5 April 2009 (GMT)
I've removed one picture, the one of the therapeutic abortion, as I'm still unclear of exactly what happened. I'll repeat my query here for convenience. Is this a therapeutic abortion in the course of a hysterectomy, as a byproduct of one, a therapeutic abortion in lieu of a hysterectomy, in preparation or what? I'm confused as to what exactly happened, and would like to make sure we've got it right. I've invited someone who has contact with the original picture taker to participate here.--Tznkai (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like they performed the hysterectomy with the fetus still in the womb which would explain how the membranes are fully intact. The abortus pictured was probably removed from the womb during or after the procedure. So this is not a typical therapeutic abortion and the abortus would rarely look like this, but because of this it is very informative. |→ Spaully₪† 22:01, 5 April 2009 (GMT)
Does it qualify as an abortion then? I mean, obviously it was a procedure that terminated a pregnancy, so I guess it would qualify, but it definitely isn't typical. If we can get a confirmation on what you just said, and adjust the caption to reflect it, I can see the value of the image.--Tznkai (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The pregnant woman was diagnosed with early-stage cervical carcinoma, so the decision was made that she needed a hysterectomy, which inevitably involved aborting the fetus. It is unusual but not exceptional. I can see how it is not typical of induced abortion, which may need to be reflected in the caption. Fences and windows (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure myself, but I want to open up the discussion. Does this create any sort of serious weight problem - that is, does showing an atypical abortion (intact fetus and sac) significantly skew the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article? (For your own sake, don't do a google image search for a typical abortion to compare it against - but it is very different)--Tznkai (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The drawings in the RFC also showed an intact abortus, rather than one dismembered or obviously injured. Not showing a dismembered or obviously injured abortus could be criticized as skewing the article toward the pro-choice side, because it removes the gruesome reality, but nevertheless showing an intact fetus is worthwhile, even including the sac. Readers can use their imaginations to visualize the dismemberment; no need to show it explicitly. The photo shows an unusual method of induced abortion, but it also shows a very typical gestation at which abortion is induced, and so it is very informative. I'd prefer the drawing because it shows more detail (e.g. legs) but this photo may work as a compromise.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

<undent> Whilst admiring the sample preparation & photography of that image, it is misleading for showing as far larger than a 6week gestation would be, this RFC discussion been very good natured (given the wide diversity of real-world viewpoints), so I'll propose here (vs just changing directly) that we switch to image E per #Image hypothetical discussion thread (above) - agree or disagree ? David Ruben Talk 00:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I have serious issues with image E, many of which have been hashed out repeatedly between Ferrylodge and I in the "we've built a box" section above.--Tznkai (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
David Ruben do you have any problem with Image (G)? Tznkai and other editors seem open to it. In any event, in answer to your question, I would agree with switching to image E.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I fail to understand Tznkai issues with image E. Technically difficult to do surgical abortion before 6 if not 7 weeks for target that bit too small and risk (I was taught) of leaving something behind of importance (ie the embryo, especially a twin embryo), 10 weeks is also quite typical (being for those who take a couple weeks after a missed period to get pregnancy test done and make a decision, then time to see GP, be referred, seen in clinic, etc) - sure fails to show spontaneous miscarriages before 6 weeks (but not issue that G addresses either) nor of miscariages seen a little later which often are blighted ovums in which there is no fetus & possibly never was (image of a blood clot or placental material just not very informative). Finally I appreciate later abortions are carried out, but are the minority.
The drop-down box for E, whilst technically neatly coded, is skirting the issue - consensus for an image, so image there should be - else might as well just opt for an external link to an image off wikipedia.
As for G, just does not strike me as being an abortion, in as much as it was probably obtained by dissection of the already removed womb of the unfortunate women. Indeed certainly not what is passed by a spontaneous miscrriage at 10 weeks. I would prefer F to G, except for the issue of absence of scale marker for F (I'm tempted to render it as likely real size per some 50-pixels of  , per sizing seen on File:Tubal pregnancy, gross pathology 01ee049 lores.jpg image of a ectopic pregnancy of 6 weeks, but that propbably so small as to get unnoticed in the article all).
But to reiterate, as consensus seems for inclusion of an image in principle (still not my POV), E still my preference for balance of images of realistic sizing, side view helps minimise the "cute stairing at reader" and hence prochoice charge of whether image trying to be a POV push. Diagram form also gives licence to not worry re issues of whether or not to include placental, amniotoc sac, backdrop of full uterus size etc. Is nicely "bland" in as much as a monotone outline that does not unduely draw attention to itself. My 2nd choice is F and G I would reject for this article. David Ruben Talk 02:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll try making my objections a little more understandable. Illustrating the size difference between embryo and fetus is making a POV point I'm afraid: look! It looks more human, it IS more human. Leaving a an image of "this is what a typical fetus looks like during 30% of abortions, and what an embryo looks like for 20% of them" is crufty, possibly pov, because it doesn't prove a particular point. Unlike, say, tonsillectomy, an abortion is usually done for reasons that have nothing to do with the health of the fetus. Tonsillectomies are performed because of diseased tonsils. This is a problem that can be sidestepped if there is an appeal to an objective fact (this difference in size is medically relevant) that deserves illustration. Until that fact is established, I object to E on relevance and cruft grounds.--Tznkai (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Does it make any difference that a majority of editors disagree with you? This article should contain some slight information about what is aborted, per the RFC and common sense. No other Wikipedia article describes what is aborted at typical gestations when abortion occurs.

Will there forever be a ban in this article on all factual and facially neutral information (both images and text) that a minority of editors construe as suggesting an abortus is more than a clump of cells? That omission is an extreme POV violation, and it's likewise POV to only depict an embryo and not a fetus (most abortions in the world involve a fetus rather than an embryo).

Head lice are not diseased, but that doesn’t prevent an image at treatment of human head lice. Kidney stones are not diseased, but we show them at extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Donated blood is not diseased, but we show it at blood donation. Breast milk is not diseased, but we show it at breastfeeding. Newborns are not diseased, but we show them at childbirth.

The proposed drawing (E) merely presents basic information that would be presented in an image of an embryo or fetus being dismembered, and no one has suggested that the latter would be irrelevant. Excluding relevant information is censorship, and it slants the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You are calling a view which declares your desired image additions to be "censorship". This is failing to AGF, and inaccurate. As you seem to have missed the message, I will paste Jimbo's comments on images and POV pushers: "I will simply restate the obvious: imagery in articles is often one of the most attractive points for POV-pushing of all kinds, for a couple of reasons. (1) Images can have a strong emotional impact, thus making implicitly a point that would not be possible to make in the text. (2) Images are often "either/or" with no easy way to work for consensus. My own perspective is that many of our articles have needlessly graphic photos inserted either by POV-pushers or by people who are borderline trolling"[36] I am wondering, Ferrylodge, whether you realize that you are tendentiously arguing for inclusion of an emotionally charged image, you are meeting considerable resistance, regardless of your claims of majority, and you are therefore meeting quite handily Jimbo's definition of a troll or a POV pusher, or possibly both. Your accusation of those who disagree with you of censorship is clear trolling. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Jimbo was not referring to the drawing proposed in the RFC, which is not a "graphic photo". Additionally, he has acknowledged the possibility that this article is being used for "propaganda", including pro-choice propaganda.[37]
Regarding WP:NOTCENSORED, people can violate that policy in good faith without even realizing it. I sincerely believe that that's what's happening here. All information is forbidden that gives any description of the thing that is aborted.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It's hardly censorship to exclude an image that is heavily used by one side of a debate for it's sensational and prejudicial nature. No doubt Pro-Life folks would love to see their signature image used in Wikipedia's Abortion article, but the NPOV policy says that sort of advocacy is not allowed. Odd nature (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The image that I've suggested (and that a majority of many editors endorsed in the RFC above) is very different from anything I've ever seen any protestor carry around. In any event, the mere fact that some protestor has cited a fact does not make the fact taboo at Wikipedia, AFAIK.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

POV tags and picture wars

The nonsense that just happened on the article page here here and here is I am afraid a taste of what is to come if we continue to focus on this picture nonsense. Part of the reason I've insisted on specificity and tightly relevant imagery is because of the amount of trouble these things cause. We have spent the majority of the past month or two I believe, focusing on a handful of images, and we will be fighting over the neutrality of this article. What I suggest then, is we all stick in a pin in it for now - but if that can't happen, I would prefer we each commit to working on all the rest of the article at the same time as well. Time consuming but necessary projects include a citation audit, and a neutrality audit, other graphics, and a possible article reorganization. I would really rather not waste my time shuffling between implied adherence to amorphous pro-choice and pro-life POVs that a fetus somehow implies.--Tznkai (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

To put my frustration in perspective. I made a major rewrite of this article in I think the beginning of 2006, and we established a significant compromise on no images reduced POV influenced external links, neutralized most if not all of the text, moved away the back and forth between pro-life and pro choice positions to their appropriate articles, cleaned up sloppy and inconsistent terminology, and I believe, managed to keep the POV tag off the article for the vast majority of around three years. This meant that Wikipedia was telling the vast majority of the audience who isn't here to fight a culture war that "this article is not a hack peice by any one side, and you can trust the information enough to inform you." We have taken out the rhetoric of reproductive rights and murder, we've added the boring but important information that both sides refuse to deign to discuss. We have served the subject and the public well. Please, we must not throw that away on a collective myopic obsession with a single image. I accept that it is important to some - but I cannot imagine it being important enough to derail the article as a whole.--Tznkai (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The reversions by User:Wikicrat are annoying. The implication that one must be a Conservapedia editor to want to include an image of a fetus post-abortion is insulting. The intent is to illustrate the article, not to derail anything. Clearly I underestimated the way that partisan beliefs can cloud thinking on this issue. Fences and windows (talk) 15:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I sympathize with Wikicrat's removal of the embryo photo. I have said all along that this article should present non-graphic, black-and-white drawings instead of vivid color photos, to keep it as toned-down and encyclopedic as possible.
Controversy about this image issue is no reason for polite and unilateral surrender by the majority of editors who believe the black-and-white drawing is highly relevant to this article. An embryo/fetus is a primary ingredient of an abortion, and the only reason we are suggesting an intact image is because showing one being torn apart would be too gruesome, and the proposed image allows people to imagine what the actual dismemberment looks like.
Having no image of what is aborted is a huge POV problem. Also, having only an image of an embryo is extremely misleading, because most abortions in the world involve a fetus rather than an embryo.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Reading the recent posts, I think Image G is the ideal one to use - since it shows the foetus at the stage of development that therapeutic abortions take place. Especially with people wanting scaling down of image F to life size, G becomes the obvious choice. Saying "the image looks too human, and therefore is POV" as some seem to be arguing, is attempting to turn the position on its head. NOT using the accurate image because you think it looks too "human" is the POV. When dealing with abortion, we HAVE to use the available knowledge and illustrations which are not too shocking and offensive. The image being discussed is informative, adds to understanding, and fit the bill. Therefore there is no valid reason for failing to include it. Nor is saying "I liked the article as it was, when I wrote it." The fact is that if we are censoring TRUE information, we are not following core WP policy. Xandar 19:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Having an image of what is aborted would almost certainly be a POV problem. Not having one avoids the POV problem. There is no need for an embryo, the word is linked. You are stating your personal opinion, highly colored by your bias, as though it were uncontroversial fact. It surprises me that you are insulted that your view is being compared to a Conservapedia view: I find the comparison apt. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Uh, KC? you're replying to Ferrylodge about a comment Fences and Windows made.--Tznkai (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I was replying to both, as well as general comments on the whole topic, sorry if I was unclear. Fences and Windows said "The implication that one must be a Conservapedia editor to want to include an image of a fetus post-abortion is insulting."[38] and Ferrylodge said "Having no image of what is aborted is a huge POV problem."[39] KillerChihuahua?!? 20:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Killer Chihuahua, You are misunderstanding Wikipedia NPOV policy. Banning information to "avoid" annoying a POV faction is strongly COUNTER to WP:NPOV, since it is suppressing important information at the behest of one point of view. The picture needs to be in. Xandar 20:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I assure you, I am not "banning information". I am quite familiar with the NPOV policy and its nuances. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be advocating banning a picture in order to avoid a dispute with people who oppose its inclusion for POV reasons. This contravenes NPOV which states: the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV". Xandar 20:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
You are in error. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
How am I in error? I have quoted the policy. It is quite clear. Xandar 20:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
You are in error about what I am "advocating". KillerChihuahua?!? 20:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
So, what exactly ARE you advocating? Xandar 20:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Good grief. Obviously the image of an aborted fetus is inherently strongly Pro-Life and therefore advancing the Pro-Life viewpoint in this article. Does anyone not know why anti-abortion protesters carry posters of aborted fetuses in front of clinics? What Ferrylodge and Xandar want is no different than adding a crime scene photo of the body of Dr. Barnett Slepian to the Pro-life article. And per an arbcom ruling Ferrylodge is subject to an indefinite editing restriction at this article, and he's certainly being disruptive and inappropriate with his incessant POV suggestions, arguing and failing to AGF. I think the community has about reached it's limit for his thumbing his nose at the arbcom and the rules. It's time to recognize POV for what it is and shut this circus down and get back to productive editing. Odd nature (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
How is an image of the central subject matter of the article "inherently strongly pro-Life? It is simply a factual image, and trying to remove or ban such a central and natural image is what is POV. For all your bluster, the majority of editors on this page are in favour of an image, and that is what is needed by WP policy. Kindly see the article Vivisection. The image there is far more shocking than anything proposed for this article, and yes anti-vivisection groups do use such images on their publicity. If an image is true and representative, the fact that a group uses such images is not an excuse for their banning. Xandar 20:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Images of aborted fetuses is a hallmark of the Pro-Life movement. Even their Facebook app links to images of aborted fetuses. Please. Odd nature (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not suggesting anything different from what a majority of many editors endorsed in the RFC above. We are not advocating any image remotely similar to what pro-life or pro-choice demonstrators carry around.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It's no different that the images used by the Pro-Life movement, an aborted fetus. Give me a break, we're not stupid here. Odd nature (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Xandar, what precisely did you have in mind when you were talking about anti-vivisection groups? And, Ferrylodge as I've pointed out to you already, your type of imagery is in fact used by pro-life groups (yes yes, that doesn't necessarily definitively and so on and so forth). Can we all collectively stop pretending that this is an issue where the editors on one side of the issue are Evil and the editors on the other are all that is good and holy? I'd like to think this is a place where there is legitimate disagreement.--Tznkai (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I've already mentioned that people can violate WP:NOTCENSORED in good faith without even realizing it, and I sincerely believe that that's what's happening here. I have not called you Evil, Tznkai. But I still have much difficulty comprehending how a very experienced editor such as yourself, who is obviously an extraordinarily great asset to Wikipedia, disregards not just a majority of editors in a huge RFC, but also seems unaware of how skewed this article will be if it continues to exclude all information about what is aborted in a typical induced abortion. Frankly, it boggles my mind. And, no, I do not recall ever seeing any pro-life group carrying around a black-and white drawing of an intact uninjured fetus at less than 10 weeks after fertilization. If they did, it still doesn't seem very relevant here.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:NOTCENSORED does not itself give carte blanche to add whatever we want without any restrictions, for from the same policy comes section of WP:INDISCRIMINATE - i.e. not all that is factually correct, verifiable and neutal information needs be included for the sake of it - that is editorial judgement. So whilst WP:NOTCENSORED warns that '"being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content', that is neither absolute (hence use word "generally") and applies if that is the sole arguement given for non-inclusion. In the issue at hand, imagary is seen as a POV issue by prolife and prochoice groups (one feels advising on reality of situation the other that this is done to cause emotional distress) - our difficulty is that unlike text which can be toned down or phrased to give both view points, addition of an image is an all or nothing feature. Now I (personally) agree with the arguements raised by those arguing for non-inclusion of an image (and for openess it should be obvious that personally I'm prochoice), but for those very reasons I think the line drawing is therefore more toned down than the live photos. Indeed I look at the 6week size and personally think "is that all" (given that far greater volume of material is removed at such a termination, what with all the placenta, amniotic sac, and blood from rest of uterus upon suctioning), and I feel rather similar about the 10 week fetus for its realised potential is no more than the tadpole it somewhat resembles (yes I know prolife look at the future potential and so see the glass as half full vs half empty, and as a continuum that has no fixed humanity start-point) - so personally the line drawing leaves me feeling underwhelmed. Final point to recall is that the RfC was only weakly in favour by views expressed, and AndrewC et al were cautious in how they concluded the closure of that thread (see #Tally and the gauging of consensus or lack of) - certianly not a 66%/33% margin - and the failure now to agree on an image, I suspect de facto, indicates that there is not agreement on inclusion.
This seems an impass that we are not going to resolve at the current time. The solution, IMHO, is to ignore it for now, take other aspects of the article we can confidently expect to get universal agreement for improvements (eg better & more recent statistics and from wider range of countries) and so foster a period of stability and mutual respect for positive collaboration. Once article then matured and improved further, perhaps with the article in its then structure, this image issue can be revisited ? David Ruben Talk 23:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Including the image would have mooted a few other problems that now arise. For example, per WP:Jargon, this article should contain some slight explanation of the terms "embryo" and "fetus", e.g. so that a reader will have some clue about which one to click on for more info. The image would have taken care of that. There is also the problem of the NPOV tag, which the image would have mooted.
Regarding WP:NOTCENSORED, imagine if I proposed an image that shows the actual damage and destruction done to a typical 8-week fetus. This would clearly be very relevant, and the only ground for exclusion would be offensiveness. The censorship policy only allows exclusion of such an image if another less offensive presentation can provide basically the same information. The image proposed in the RFC would provide that less offensive presentation, by giving readers enough info to imagine what a destroyed abortus is like. By rejecting the image proposed in the RFC, we would be losing our justification for excluding a much more grisly image. So, David, I do not see how to avoid the conclusion that we are in the process of violating Wikipedia's censorship policy. Banning all information from this article about what is aborted in an induced abortion is censorship, plain and simple, because no editor including Tznkai has asserted that all such information is irrelevant to this article.
Dropping this matter will not foster mutual respect. Only frustation, disappointment, and a deep sense that Wikipedia guidelines and policies do not apply at this article. Whitewashing the article is not a recipe for congenial editing.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) And again you are citing notcensored, in effect claiming those who disagree with the image inclusion are censoring. Every troll and POV pusher I've ever seen screams "censorship" when they don't get their way. You do not have consensus to include this. You are tendentiously arguing anyway, and accusing those who disagree, most (if not all) of whom are respected, experienced editors, of censorship. Again, you fail to AGF. Again, you argue tendentiously, repeating yourself ad nauseum. Your POV pushing, trolling, accusations of censorship and time wasting are not helpful. I'm in agreement with Odd Nature; you're rapidly becoming disruptive. You introduced the topic; there has been discussion and more discussion and a 3rdO and there is no consensus to include at all. What is this, editing by attrition? You seem to think that if you repeat yourself enough eventually you'll get your way. You have not convinced; you have offered no rationale which bears weight; your accusations of censorship insult other editors rather than persuading them. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding: I'm not after "mutual respect" if it means being bullied and insulted into something, which is what you are doing, Ferrylodge. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is over. The image will not be included. Try to be graceful.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you dropping it, then? Your previous post gave me no reason to think so; indeed, you were rather insulting about the very idea of dropping it. If you are dropping it, well and good, but don't lecture me about being graceful about you finally ending this chapter of your crusade to push this on this article against opposition, for what, the third time in as many years? I should do a history search and see how often you bring this dead horse up again. You always find a few people who agree, and some who fence sit, and then you claim "a majority" or "consensus for inclusion" - as you did earlier today[40] - and now finally you are ceasing after how many bytes of this tendentious, hostile, insulting, argumentative trolling and baiting, and you have the nerve to lecture me to be "graceful"? You have some nerve. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Let it rest, please. This was the first and only RFC on the issue, and a majority supported inclusion. Now it's over.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
If only you had let it rest we would have been done with this three years ago! Have you dropped it or not, its a simple question which you have not answered. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
As David Ruben said, "This seems an impasse that we are not going to resolve at the current time. The solution, IMHO, is to ignore it for now, take other aspects of the article we can confidently expect to get universal agreement for improvements (eg better & more recent statistics and from wider range of countries) and so foster a period of stability.... Once article then matured and improved further, perhaps with the article in its then structure, this image issue can be revisited...."Ferrylodge (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
So are you dropping it for now? KillerChihuahua?!? 00:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I think my comments above are very clear.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you're avoiding the question. You haven't answered yes or no; its a yes or no question. Its like pulling teeth to get a simple yes or no out of you. All you've said above is that "the discussion is over" which is not your call to make. We have yet to hear from other editors, who may not be done with this discussion. You can hardly declare it closed by fiat; you're not the arbiter of this page. So no, your comments are not clear at all, and you have still not answered my question. I don't think you are stupid or dense; so I'm beginning to think you're trolling me or being perverse in your avoidance of a straight answer. Enough of this - I'm done with this silly game you're playing. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It should be extremely obvious from my comments above that I am dropping the proposed drawing for now. This was the first and only RFC on the issue, and a majority supported inclusion. Now it's over.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey KC - be nice and don't hound :-) He's made his current view quite clear, and all credit to him after what has been a lengthy process for an unarguably important issue for the article development to have considered, so your last couple posts therefore uncalled for. I see very positive other issues being discussed in threads below, so everyone chill out at this point and have a tea break, please :-) David Ruben Talk 02:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
No worries - now that he's finally answered (albeit with a snide insinuation) I am done. I would have been done the first time, if he'd bothered to answer my question. Hounding is bothering people after they've answered you - not trying to get a clear answer out of someone who is avoiding doing so. I have not hounded anyone. Kudos for the pun, though. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Try to AGF. This comment from KillerChihuahua is telling: "It surprises me that you are insulted that your view is being compared to a Conservapedia view: I find the comparison apt". In fact I think Conservapedia is a huge joke and I'm pro-choice. I'm one of those "secular progressives" Bill O'Reilly hates. Your assumption that anyone wanting to including an image of a fetus after a therapeutic abortion must have a "pro-life" bias is wrong. The image illustrates the article. It isn't offensive or a shock image, and even if it could be considered as such, Wikipedia is not censored and you're censoring it. I think medical images always improve medical articles. Fences and windows (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
(ri)Try to read AGF: when one editor's actions have exhausted any reasonable assumption of good faith, the dictum is irrelevant. In fact, this is one of the few cases where Wiki mirrors real life.
So, is the intent of placing the pic in the article medical, or ideological? In other words, does it primarily serve a propaganda purpose? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 20:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I've "exhausted any reasonable asumption of good faith", have I? Don't Wikilawyer me. Can't you believe that not all pro-choice people think exactly how you do? That image of a fetus serves no propanganda purpose - if anything, the pro-lifers have suggested it is POV as it is too sanitised as it's an intact fetus! It's just an example of the appearance of a fetus after a therapeutic abortion. It has no shock value. You can disagree with me, but stop assuming the worst. I came to this via the RFC. I saw that the discussion over Ferrylodge's image was stalling and I'd sourced two ideal images but they weren't being discussed, so I decided to be bold to kickstart discussion. Two last comments. 1. KillerChihuahua earlier said of the images I found that "I agree. They are the best suggestions I have seen so far"; I guess he forgot that. 2. I earlier responded to the (disingenuous) suggestion of defining abortion as "legal killing of baby humans" (splutter) with "Oppose. Clear POV; fetuses are not babies". Not really the response of a pro-lifer. Fences and windows (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Guys, could you both kindly stop arguing, or at least take it outside? I have some interesting writing we can all be working on below instead of... whatever it is you're doing here.--Tznkai (talk) 01:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure thing. I am buttoning my lips on images. Fences and windows (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of late-term aborted fetuses are to pro-choicers as Jesus on a stick is to Christians. It's not neutral, it's not relevant, and it doesn't belong. TruthIIPower (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an image of "Jesus in piss". Additionally, a "late-term abortion" is usually considered to occur in the third trimester, whereas the drawings that were considered in the RFC were first-trimester only, and the photo now shown in this article is in the first third of the first trimester. Even if a drawing of late-term abortion were being proposed here, readers don't need to be protected from the facts.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I was going to stay quiet, but... neither of the images were late-term aborted fetuses. Both were first trimester, as Ferrylodge says. Can we stick to actual facts, please? And of course a picture of a fetus post-abortion is relevant to a page on abortion. How could it possibly not be? Fences and windows (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in edit-warring, so I've put up an NPOV template that I found elsewhere. The first picture belongs in the repetoire of "pro-life" shock pictures, while the second is truly bizarre, as it equates abortion with demonic attacks. The amount of unresolved debate above shows that I am not the first to notice this problem. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"equates abortion with demonic attacks. " Why yes, yes it does. Probably reflective of the fact that the originating culture thought that way.--Tznkai (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
And this is relevant how? This article is not about primitive superstitions regarding abortion. It's about the reality of abortion, which is demonized enough as it is without literal demons. The usual way, though, is by showing off aborted fetuses and try for an emotional "argument" that bypasses reason, and that's precisely what this shock photo is about. What possible constructive value do either of these images have that can compensate for their overwhelming bias? TruthIIPower (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Last month we had an argument that the bas-relief was inherently pro-choice, because it shows abortion as an aged always practiced historical phenomena. Personally, I am not sympathetic to any argument. Its historical information. Its historical information placed in a historical context, under a section labeled "history." Its an image printed in the Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, volume 33, page 234 (2007) (Thanks to ferrylodge for tracking it down) It is history, and (properly done) history's only bias is that it reflects the originating bias, not our own. If we insist that its an emotional argument we are actually imparting our own biases onto them, not the other way around.--Tznkai (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Tznkai. Dr. Malcolm Potts was very kind to donate the image to Wikimedia Commons this month. Additionally, I support the neutrality tag atop the article, for reasons already explained.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Before I comment about the demon, do you plan to address the matter of the fetus shock picture or do you concede that it is inappropriate? TruthIIPower (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I object to the idea that it's a shock picture. Calling it that seems to suggest that you know the motivations of those originating and posting the picture, which seems to be quite a claim of telepathy. This is a contentious page, but the regulars here have learned (in varying degrees) that characterizing the other side in inflammatory language, while it might a great strategy in public rhetoric (Limbaugh, Colbert), sucks when you're trying to write an encyclopedia.

You can work collaboratively, or you can impugn people's motives. Make a choice. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly never claimed to read minds, but I do know how to read a newspaper, or even surf the web. That's how I know that images just like the one in this article are used routinely by "pro-life" advocates to try to win through emotionalizing the issue. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Human_Embryo_-_Approximately_6_weeks_estimated_gestational_age.jpg, and then compare it to a site like http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Abortion%20is%20Murder/abortion_is_murder.htm. The similarity here is not a product of my imagination. Whatever the motives of the editors who inserted the picture are, it constitutes a shock image and is therefore inappropriate, both for reasons of general policy and neutrality. 03:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, if you like. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone here still supporting the inclusion of the aborted fetus photo? TruthIIPower (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that issue died. Naturally, not everyone was happy, but it is what it is. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
That's precisely the issue: it is what is is, so it doesn't belong here. TruthIIPower (talk) 03:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Thank you. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
It is not a shock image. It is, all things considered, quite tasteful. There is a rather significant lack of similarity in the images linked above. Either way, I'm getting tired of this war. I've got a bucket full of sources in my e-mail. I'll be working on the additions in my userspace when i'll get time, I'll notify all of you when I start.--Tznkai (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Since Tznaki has walked away from this, is there anyone left who actually thinks either of these images is appropriate and is able to explain why? TruthIIPower (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Tznkai that it is not a shock image and, all things considered, quite tasteful. However, if you want to put a neutrality tag in the section where the image is located, I would support that too. My preference would be to have black-and-white drawings rather than color photos, in order to overcome the accusation about "shock images", and to show what an aborted fetus looks like rather than skewing the article by only showing an embryo. But the present photo is better then nothing, so please leave it be, as other editors have requested. It would be amusing (if it were not so sad) that so many editors get all worked up about censorship when they like an image, but forget about censorship when they don't like an image.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
What tag do I use for neutrality inside a section instead of the entire article? TruthIIPower (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to be perfectly clear, I support the tag because the section does not show a spontaneous abortion of a fetus. It only shows an abortion of an embryo, and this skews the article. Most abortions in the world involve a fetus, not an embryo. The present image is better than nothing, but it is not enough. It's true that pro-life groups have used images of what is aborted, as have several state governments. But that's no reason to exclude factual and informative info from Wikipedia. Pro-life groups also use words like "and" and "the" a lot, but that's no reason to exclude those words from Wikipedia. This Wikipedia article has several cites to the Guttmacher organization, which is pro-choice, whereas the image that you object to is not from any pro-life group or person. It's just a factual picture.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The risk of spontaneous abortion dramatically drops at the beginning of the fetal stage. I'm not sure where you'd get such an image of a spontaneous abortion of a fetus, and how relevant it would be to that section, given weight consideration.-Andrew c [talk] 04:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Without a fetus image anywhere in this article, the embryo image skews the article. This could best be fixed by including a fetus image in this or another section. That's why I support the POV tag.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the delayed response, but I still haven't figured out how to search for messages in talk pages other than my own. The argument you're making is, to be quite frank, hard to take seriously. The issue was never that pro-lifers happen to use something, therefore we can't allow it, but rather that shock pictures of "murdered unborn babies" are a common and significant element of their propaganda. If this article were about fetuses or embryos in and of themselves, then a medical and neutral picture would be fine. As it stands, we link to both fetus and embryo, so it's not as if anyone is going to be left scratching their heads, wondering what we're talking about. Ultimately, this sort of picture serves no neutral purpose; it only furthers the pro-life propaganda agenda. If you disagree, feel free to explain how depriving the article of such photos would harm it. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not relevant what factual information is used by whom. What's relevant is whether this article ought to give readers an idea of what is aborted. The image in question shows what's aborted in a spontaneous abortion, so its relevance is undeniable, IMO. Anyway, I'd prefer not to be in the position of defending this image right now. I think the POV tag is appropriate for the reasons I described above.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I do not support a POV tag on the bas relief photo, only on the embryo photo.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
TruthIIPower: adding NPOV tag seems inappropriate to me - the text of those sections is not in dispute, image addition is part of (long) RfC discussion for which weak positive support (but not a clear overall consensus). I've removed the tags and will follow WP:1RR, but I strongly suggest no current editor simply reverts (but see if any newcomer to this discussion deems there to be a problem). Ferrylodge, it does matter "what factual information is used by whom", for articles need balances (with lowercase "b") - both WP:Weight of real world opinions (ie NPOV issues), as well as editorial good copyediting judgement (which is not same as censorship). Consider: adding large swayths of discussion that say christian belief is that non-believers wont be saved upon death (which is factually true) is none the less totally inappropriate to be added to say an article on Hinduism - that Christians would deem it factual and relevant is undeniable, that Hinduism article should include such details would be totally wrong... arguing for images on such basis seems a straw man argument.
The issues to be addressed (in levels of logical absolutes) seem to me as follows, which lead to a proposal:
  • is the article incomprehensible without an image (no)
  • is it the poorer for lack of an image (debatable, and IMHO no, but others will disagree). Links of fetus and embryo go to articles with relevant images - examples: anal fissure does not need any image as links to anus and Heart transplantation does not show in full detail the structure of the heart
  • is display or absence of images in teh real-world seen as POV pushing or of censoring the truth (IMHO yes, by both viewpoints)
  • is there a "neutral" image either side finds acceptable (debatable as arguement is as much over "any image" inclusion, as over "what type of image")
  • given we can't please all of the people all of the time, is it conceivable that some very bland, unexciting, non-gory image might be seen as not POV pushing by those with prochoice stance (consider would they object to a line drawing of the back of a fetus showing no face and so not seeking any emotional-tugging ? leaving aside whether prolife stance would consider that too divorced from "the reality" - I merely probe here whether prochoice could accept any image at all)
  • if prochoice concerns mean than in preceeding point such a bland image of their choosing not objectionable, then some half-way image might be acceptble.
The proposal I would suggest would be along lines of how we allow each side to be termed according to their own preferences (i.e. prochoice and prolife)... so prolife "need understand what is involved" leads to there being inclusion of an image, but choice of image left to what prochoice finds acceptable. Neither side would be entirely happy with this, but each gets major desire (prolife that there be an image, prochoice that image not a "shock image" seen to be playing upon emotions). David Ruben Talk 04:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I get the Hindu-Christian comparison. Maybe an easier analogy would be the Arctic Shrinkage article. Up at the top is an image showing recent dramatic decrease in Arctic ice. Such images are used by environmentalists to urge action on global warming (ditto images that show loss of glaciers). The images are factual, so whether they're used by advocates on one side or the other should not (and does not) stop Wikipedia from using them.
Re. your suggestion about how to choose an image for this article, totally leaving choice of an image to "pro-choice" people without any say from anyone else does not seem right. I'm not pro-choice or pro-life, so I'd presumably have no say at all. If pro-choice people choose an image that shows an embryo 5 days after fertilization, that would not be fair or illustrative of induced abortion, which usuaully involves a fetus and not an embryo.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's prefereable to include a picture of an aborted fetus. I think F (which looks like the one currently included) and G are both fine. The FAQ about images of Mohammed from that Talk page elucidates very sound reasoning for the policy there - reasoning which I think is applicable here. The goal of the Wikipedia article is to inform the reader. Depictions of Mohammed are informative of how he is perceived, and it's not a successful counterargument that the depictions are blasphemous and non-photographic. The photo Piss Christ is included despite blasphemy objections because the photo informs readers. Similarly, a photo of an aborted fetus informs readers, so I think that trumps political objections. So what are valid objections? (1) If a photo is altered (e.g. photoshopped, color changed, etc.) then it shouldn't be included. (2) The photo(s) should be representative. So if there's only one fetus photo, it depict the most common method and most common timeframe/gestation/age based on any available statistics. So, for example, the histogram in the article shows that most abortions occur in the first trimester and by means of curettage. A photo depicted that would be most informative because it would be displayed a typical case rather than something cherrypicked for dramatic effect either way. --JamesAM (talk) 05:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that the editors who recently commented support the shock picture, but the overall input from editors goes against it. I don't see any reason to prefer recent comments, and I don't see any arguments here that haven't already been disputed and refuted. This is just an unrepresentative snapshot of views. TruthIIPower (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion was closed and the conclusion was reached to keep the picture in the article. It was you, an editor who recently commendted, who opened this discussion up again. Clearly, we live in the now. I don't see a reason to close the discussion but I think there is a consensus to keep the picture. I think it should stay, it is a factual representation of what is being aborted that is not particularly slanted one way or the other. - Schrandit (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Well... there was a proposal to add one specific image tied to the RfC. There seemed to be majority support for that image, and an even broader openness to the idea of an image, but serious concerns were raised about the specific proposal, and a consensus was never raised (plus some editors raised concerns about shock images and photos vs. the proposed illustration). Towards the end, one editor proposed some alternative images, but most commentors missed that proposal, and it took a couple weeks before anyone commented. Three editors supported the images, with no opposes, so someone was bold and added the images to the article. One of the images was almost immediately removed. The other has been in the article since with some discussion (that went off topic fast). Maybe we should remove the image while there are still outstanding concerns?-Andrew c [talk] 14:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I tried that. My attempt was reverted. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not a shock image. This is also not the time to have a fight over censorship or not censorship. We have here a huge collection of red herrings. The issues are:

For the POV tag

  • does the presence, or absence of the photograph significantly compromise the nuetrality of the article to make it unreliable. The fact that there are people arguing both ways suggests to me otherwise see m:the wrong version.

In general:

  • Remember, the burden is on inclusion of any sort of material
  • Is the photograph acceptable on our image usage policies (free content)
  • Does the photograph add encyclopedic value to the article past the threshold where it deserves inclusion (Articles are not indiscriminate collections of all useful things, there is a threshold)
  • Does the photograph do violence to the reader?
  • Does the photograph's inclusion alter the factual or neutral balance of the article?
  • Overall, does the photograph, on balance improve the article more that it damages it?

Can we please confine ourselves to these and similar points?--Tznkai (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point for me. The photo alters the neutral balance of the article and harms it more than it improves it. Whatever minor informational value is offered by a photo of a fetus is outweighed by the nod towards pro-life propaganda use of fetus shock images. If the reader forgot what a fetus looks like, they can click the link. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
TIIP, would you find this image preferable?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
It's less horrible. I still don't think it belongs. TruthIIPower (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the key issue here is context. In pregnancy, there are plenty of images of fetuses and embryos, and yet they're entirely appropriate and neutral. The word "pregnancy" is hotlinked in the very first sentence of this article, so anyone who wants to learn more about it -- and see those images -- has an easy way to get there. That first sentence also links to fetus and embryo, both of which have many images. In fact, the picture we're arguing about is found in the latter article.

However, moving any of those images here changes everything, especially if it's a photograph of a dead embryo or fetus, like the ones that anti-choice propaganda is filled with. In the new context, such images only harm neutrality. TruthIIPower (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Reducing the information content of an article in order to prevent accidental bias is not in the interest of an encylopedia. No-one says the image is not a true depiction nor informative, only that it has some special meaning to some US groups. I am pro-abortion, but don't see why this means i should be pro-"pretending that an fetus is not related to abortion" or is NPOV. Seeing how non-human looking a feuts of typical abortion growth is is certainly informative to both sides of the debate and is in no way "shocking"YobMod 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

New sections

Latest comment: 15 years ago29 comments5 people in discussion

I have a some of new sections to consider adding to the article, conveniently separated into subsections. Feel free to add more. All of my additions are under the concept that this article treats its subject as a phenomena, an act, instead of a concept or construct. --Tznkai (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent article here covers a consequence of China's one-child limit; couples have been selectively aborting girls, and now the gender gap is so large that some authorities are concerned about subsequent violence. The article specifically does not say rape, btw. This could be useful in Selective abortion or violence. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ethical issues in abortion/bio-ethical concerns/Medical ethics and abortion

Abortion I believe we can all agree, encounters a number of ethical concerns that have been written about at length. I'd like a survey of the most written about ethical concerns from a practitioner, patient, and societal standpoint, but without going in depth. Would go in the "social issues" section, and try to steer away from the political points. Bioethical journals (medical), ethics journals (philosphy) and popular magazines would probably work as sources.--Tznkai (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Good idea for a section.Xandar 20:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, there's already a main article to summarize and link to: Ethical aspects of abortion. Odd nature (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
That artilce isn't in great shape imo.--Tznkai (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Then that's an argument to clean up and improve that article, yes? KillerChihuahua?!? 23:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
True enough. Anyone here consider themselves an expert on this topic?--Tznkai (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I found this article on Buddhist ethics: [41]. Fences and windows (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we want to mention clinic bombings and demonstrator vs demonstrator violence? The implied thesis is that abortion causes enough controversy to inspire violence. Possibly cover homicide involving a fetus (beatings of pregnant women/girls/teens to force an abortion) Possibly also mention abortion inspired criminal behavior in general - obtaining illegal abortions.--Tznkai (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea is good, however the proposed section title is a problem. Many people consider abortion itself to be violence. Therefore the title would appear to say "Violence related violence." Additionally it could be viewed as a POV statement that abortion does not involve violence. Perhaps something like Violent responses might be better. Xandar 20:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Violent responses has issues; it ignores violence related to abortion such as forced abortion (violence to the pregnant woman) and "responses" gives a causal relationship which is often inaccurate. I see no issues with Tzns' suggested title; I am open to other ideas, but reject "violent responses". KillerChihuahua?!? 20:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I see your point Xandar, but I'm not sure how to title it more neutrally. I imagine however, that to a pro-life pov abortion is not synonymous with violence, but is a particular type of murder, or a particular type of violence. Any other ideas?--Tznkai (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Abortion related violence still seems to imply that abortion is non-violent and that the only violence comes from abortion opponents and others. Additional violence or Other violence would probably not please KC. How about Related instances of violence? Xandar 20:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it does. Crime-related violence. Drug related violence. I mean sure, no one says "murder related violence" but I think you're reading a bit to much into it. NPOV doesn't require us to word every sentence and phrase in such a way that no one may infer what we do not mean to imply. How about "Abortion associated violence?" --Tznkai (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I like that a lot better. Xandar 22:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
There's already a main article to summarize and link to: Anti-abortion_violence. No reason to not use the same name it does. Odd nature (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Nay, I want to cover far more than that does. There is such thing as "pro- abortion" violence. Consentual assault ( a concept that boggles the mind, granted) forced abortions, so on and so forth. There is a lot of ugly ground to cover here.--Tznkai (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Good thinking, though. You can have two mains to link to - see also This and That. We don't have an article on Forced abortion but perhaps this approach is worth looking at. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. Ok, a non conclusive list.
  • Forced abortions
  • Clinic bombings and assorted vandalism
  • abortion provider murders and assaults
  • consensual assaults on pregnant women, feticide, manslaughter, or homicide of fetus as a result of unlawful act on pregnant a woman.
  • Demonstrator vs demonstrator violence or any violent protests?
What am I missing?--Tznkai (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
How about women assaulted/murdered for refusing to have abortions? Xandar 22:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm unaware of any cases of that - but it sounds like that would be tightly related to forced abortions.--Tznkai (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
There is an existing page on Feticide. Fences and windows (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Also see the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the 2004 US law. Fences and windows (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure this fits in this section, but there is a controversial suggestion that legal abortion reduces crime levels. See Legalized abortion and crime effect. Fences and windows (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for finding these. I think crimes with the fetus as victim definitely fall in this category, not so much about the abortion and crime rate thing.--Tznkai (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Deciding the abortion method

This one I think is important, and poorly covered. Kudos to Ferrylodge for bringing up the topic. I'm trying to get my hands on a free copy of a genuine top notch medical textbook on the topic that should help here.--Tznkai (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, this would be useful. Xandar 20:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Grimes DA. The choice of second trimester abortion method: evolution, evidence and ethics. Reprod Health Matters. 2008 May;16(31 Suppl):183-8.
Wen J, Cai QY, Deng F, Li YP. Manual versus electric vacuum aspiration for first-trimester abortion: a systematic review. BJOG. 2008 Jan;115(1):5-13.
Lie ML, Robson SC, May CR. Experiences of abortion: a narrative review of qualitative studies. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008 Jul 17;8:150. "Home TOP [termination of pregnancy] using mifepristone appears attractive to women who are concerned about professionals' negative attitudes and lack of privacy in formal healthcare settings but also leads to concerns about management and safety".
Rossi AC, D'Addario V. Umbilical cord occlusion for selective feticide in complicated monochorionic twins: a systematic review of literature. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Feb;200(2):123-9
Gallo MF, Cahill S, Castleman L, Mitchell EM. A systematic review of more than one dose of misoprostol after mifepristone for abortion up to 10 weeks of gestation. Contraception. 2006 Jul;74(1):36-41.
Kulier R, Gülmezoglu AM, Hofmeyr GJ, Cheng LN, Campana A. Medical methods for first trimester abortion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(2):CD002855.
Say L, Kulier R, Gülmezoglu M, Campana A. Medical versus surgical methods for first trimester termination of pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Jan 25;(1):CD003037.
Lohr PA, Hayes JL, Gemzell-Danielsson K. Surgical versus medical methods for second trimester induced abortion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Jan 23;(1):CD006714.
Dodd JM, Crowther CA. Misoprostol versus cervagem for the induction of labour to terminate pregnancy in the second and third trimester: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006 Mar 1;125(1):3-8.
Kahn JG, Becker BJ, MacIsaa L, Amory JK, Neuhaus J, Olkin I, Creinin MD. The efficacy of medical abortion: a meta-analysis. Contraception. 2000 Jan;61(1):29-40.
Moreno-Ruiz NL, Borgatta L, Yanow S, Kapp N, Wiebe ER, Winikoff B. Alternatives to mifepristone for early medical abortion. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007 Mar;96(3):212-8.
Fences and windows (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Jargon

Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

Per WP:Jargon and WP:Make technical articles accessible, I’d like to insert the following sentence after the first sentence of the article: “An embryo is the stage of development that lasts about two months from fertilization (i.e. conception). By the two-month point, the major organs and limbs are formed, and the fetal stage begins.”Ferrylodge (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

With you up to "major organs". I'll the lead something a little more subtle in a moment.--Tznkai (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I've made a very bland explanation of fetus and embryo. Since the lead doesn't introduce the specificity to human beings (and it shouldn't, since abortion occurs in many mammals) I can't use the date. Is there a zoologist handy who can give me a functional defintion of Fetus and embryo in all mammals?--Tznkai (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
If I'm remembering correctly from college, it's when the organs are fully differentiated, and when the gills become lungs. That was in the late 1980's though, and in a more general bio class. --SB_Johnny | talk 22:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The "gills" thing suggests to me the def is out the date, back when we thought fetuses were temporarily amphibians --Tznkai (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems to me that the proposed emendation is likely not offered to make the article clearer, but done for ideological reasons. Of course, that could merely be my take based on previous interactions with FL. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 16:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Or your take could be based on your own ideological reasons. Either way, it's irrelevant what the motivations for proposed edits are. The question is whether the edits are beneficial to an article that conforms with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this needs an introduction such as that, especially not at the top of the lead section. Both terms are linked so can be followed if not understood, and this article is not a parent article of either so there is no need to introduce them. If this article was to stand alone then I would support this inclusion somewhere else, but given the links I don't think it is necessary. |→ Spaully₪† 17:33, 7 April 2009 (GMT)
Agreed. The inclusion does not in any way make the article better as it sounds too much like a platform plank of le droit. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 17:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Tznkai has given a slight explanation which improves the article.[42]Ferrylodge (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
And now it's even more of an alleged run-on. We fix run-ons by making them longer? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 18:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It is indeed, but we're working on it.--Tznkai (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
OK; progress is always good.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 20:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Other mammals

Latest comment: 15 years ago20 comments7 people in discussion

The lead includes this sentence: "Within animal husbandry abortions can be used on mammalian livestock for the health of pregnant animals or for breeding purposes." However, this does not seem to summarize anything later in the article, and is uncited, so maybe the sentence should be removed or moved to lower in the article?

More generally, I'm not crazy about giving barnyard animals and women equal coverage here (my main concern being for the latter rather than the former, of course). Our article about pregnancy, for example, is about humans. IMO, animals should at most get a mention toward the end of this article, and perhaps belong in a separate article altogether.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Weren't you banned from this article? I guess not. As the article is not entiled "Human Abortion" it should cover all aspects. Rather than delete, you could be useful and find a ref. BTW, we too are animals -- not some species ordained to hold a higher place. If the pregnancy article only deals with humans, it needs to be fixed to include all mammals, at the very least. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 18:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we are animals, but I would not classify female humans as subjects of "animal husbandry". Anyway, if no reference is provided, I plan to move the quoted sentence further down in the article, and slap a "cn" tag on it. Even if a reference is provided, the lead should not be discussing things that aren't mentioned in the main body of the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the article needs to adjusted to include all uses of abortion. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 18:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
That's certainly an option, and is not inconsistent with the edit I've proposed.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't opposing per se, just offering a suggestion. Of course, this article represents a real hot-point in the US at least and will likely never be objective, but we can try. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 19:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Tl;dr - abortion occurs and can be ( and sometimes is) induced on all mammals This article focuses on humans, because thats the way people think about it. If I can find where the article on livestock abortion is (it has a particular term, I've read it once already) I will wikilink it. If you force me to cite that abortion is used in livestock, I will, but I would think at this point its obvious enough - and probably take it rather poorly. I feel like we've been over this already.--Tznkai (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Whether a reference is provided or not, the lead should not be discussing things that aren't mentioned in the main body of the article, so I plan to move the sentence down to the main body of the article. Any problem with that? And a "cn" tag doesn't force anyone to do anything, right?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, because you have it completely backwards, the first paragraph of the lead is serving a disambiguation function. It is defining what abortion is and then narrowing in on what the topic is.--Tznkai (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's proper to discuss something in the lead that is not mentioned in the body of the article. So, I started a new section.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) we should at least mention spontaneous abortion in livestock as well- Brucellosis, Rift Valley fever, Bluetongue disease, Neospora caninum and other diseases, parasites and plant ingestion are all causes. In cattle brucellosis is also known as "contagious abortion." In pregnant livestock infected with RVF there is the abortion of virtually 100% of fetuses. (This from Wikipedia's articles.) This should be treated here briefly under the Spontaneous abortion section and in more detail in that article, which is even more human-focused than this one, and is at the vulgar title and not the medical, as well. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Did you see this?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, its very brief, though, and I'm not sure that it wouldn't be better to have it organized differently. As it is, there is no logical place to link to Spontaneous abortion as regards animals, and there is actually less information on the Miscarriage article concerning this than there is here:
  • abortion article: Spontaneous abortion occurs in various animals. For example, in sheep, it may be caused by crowding through doors, or chasing by dogs.[119] In cows, abortion may be caused by contagious disease, such as Brucellosis or Campylobacter, but can often be controlled by vaccination.[120] Abortion may also be induced in animals, in the context of animal husbandry. For example, abortion may be induced in mares that have been mated improperly, or that have been purchased by owners who did not realize the mares were pregnant, or that are pregnant with twin foals.[121]
  • Miscarriage article: Miscarriage occurs in various animals. For example, in sheep, it may be caused by crowding through doors, or chasing by dogs.[43] In cows, miscarriage (i.e. spontaneous abortion) may be caused by contagious disease, such as Brucellosis or Campylobacter, but can often be controlled by vaccination.[44]
Surely we can do better than that? Ingestion of poisonous plants isn't even mentioned. Parasites, not mentioned. Only two diseases mentioned. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
It's just a beginning. Feel free to augment. And we can split off to another article once there's enough in the miscarriage article.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Renamed per WP:MEDMOS#Diseases/disorders/syndromes guideline which suggests inclusion as "In other animals" section at the bottom of article (yes I know the section will largely apply to mammals, but I can conveive of say birds loosing eggs prematurely, snakes that give birth to live young etc so stick with general consistant section title per the WP:MEDMOS). In general articles are assumed to refer primarily to humans (NPOV does not extend to my cat having equal space to her species), hence myocardial infarction or asthma will primarily mention us. If there is a separate article on Abortion (animals) (or whatever it is named), then we can also have a {{otheruses4}} disambiguation hatnote at the top of the article.David Ruben Talk 01:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Uhm. Isn't abortion linked to pregnancy linked to mammals? And the use of abortion with livestock is actually a known phenomena with its own interesting but never discussed bioethical concerns (lets try that one at a PETA conference and see how many heads we can explode) with a short article written on the subject somewhere on wiki, if I can just find it.--Tznkai (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
We should direct readers to Miscarriage#In_other_animals for spontaneous abortions, with only a short summary here. I added a link to List of diseases that may cause miscarriage in the miscarriage article. The issue of fetal resorption in mice is probably worth including there: [43], and male-induced spontaneous abortion in voles. Therapeutic or elective abortions should be expanded here. I wonder if any animals themselves induce abortion, by actively ingesting abortifacients or by injury to a pregnant animal? Chimpanzees kill cheetah cubs; I wonder if they also target pregnant females? Fences and windows (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I've found some sources. Male Langur monkeys may attack females following male takeover, causing miscarriage: [44]. Feticide due to male harassment or forced copulation has also been found in equids, e.g. [45][46][47], but see [48]. On this topic, should we add a link to Infanticide in the see also section? There's already mention on it in the text regarding sex-selective abortion, but not generally. Fences and windows (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Good work! You'll want to fork most of that research over to the miscarriage article. As for Infanticide, in the see also section, thats generally turned into a POV war trap. I don't think its closely enough related from a neutral perspective. Maybe once the abortion related violence section is written, the subject will get better mention.--Tznkai (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Abortion also happens due to infection in sheep, actually, if I recall the period I was planning on being a vet right. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Definition of miscarriage

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Someone, correctly, placed a FACT tag on our definition of miscarriage at before 20 weeks. Unfortunatley this shows national variation - 20 weeks in the US it seems, 24 weeks in the UK, 20 weeks or <400g in Australia. The WHO seems to have <24 weeks or <500g but the source quoted by others for this info has no mention of the definition and I am unable to find one. (Supposed source [49]). I will change this to reflect this but don't want to add 5 refs for a minor point, it needs expanding in the relevant article. |→ Spaully₪† 22:15, 7 April 2009 (GMT)

Support, suggest including the word "approximately" leave it at that for this article. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to default to WHO standard, note in the footnote that there are regional differences.--Tznkai (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The relevant article has a whole section about it titled Miscarriage#Terminology, including a large graphic, so I'm not sure it need expanding in the relevant article. The most pertinent part says: "A fetus that dies while in the uterus after about the 20-24th week of pregnancy is termed a 'stillbirth'; the precise gestational age definition varies by country. Premature births or stillbirths are not generally considered miscarriages, though usage of the terms and causes of these events may overlap." Giving a range (20-24) seems appropriate.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Done. "approximately 22nd week". With WHO definition and link to relevant part of miscarriage article in ref. |→ Spaully₪† 22:47, 7 April 2009 (GMT)
I think it is better to be explicit about the fact that the definition varies in the text rather than just the footnote. It's just that lots of people quote from Wikipedia without any caveats or looking at sources. What about "Spontaneous abortion (also known as miscarriage) is the expulsion of an embryo or fetus due to accidental trauma or natural causes before approximately the 22nd week of gestation; the precise gestational age definition varies by country."? Fences and windows (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure.--Tznkai (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Chart of opinion

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Please put a chart like this in the "Public opinion" section: http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/abortion_legal.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.65.79 (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea.  . I'm going to put it into Societal attitudes towards abortion. Fences and windows (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Stuff like that is in Abortion_in_the_United_States#Public_opinion.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
It does says who was polled in the file description. Fences and windows (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Yup, thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

"Legal murder"

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Someone with an obvious ax to grind created [50]. I think it merits a speedy delete, but I don't know how to do that. Would someone else please do the honors? TruthIIPower (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted! Alas, only admins can do deletion, but I took the liberty of changing the target from here to Justifiable homicide (which is I think a more likely to be the article being searched for with a term like "legal murder"). Best wishes, --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I've protected it. - RoyBoy 06:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph: unborn offspring, embryo/fetus

Latest comment: 15 years ago50 comments7 people in discussion

What are everyone's concerns with the first paragraph in regards to describing the conceptus. RoyBoy, Ferrylodge, TruthIIPower, Tznkai, and now myself have all made changes to the lead, but there hasn't been any discussion. We have multiple archives and subpages dealing with how to phrase the first paragraph... anyway, I think if we state what we find problematic with the lead and what we would like to change about the lead, we can see where the common ground is and move forward to a new consensus. -Andrew c [talk] 18:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should start, my last revert mainly dealt with Ferrylodge's add in sentence In humans, the offspring in the uterus is called an embryo for about two months after fertilization, and thereafter is called a fetus. This is a little confusing because, in that revision, it is the sentence that introduced the terms emrbyo/fetus, yet only says those terms are used in humans. I believe the point was to explain when an embryo becomes a fetus in humans, but it doesn't exactly read like that. On top of that, I don't think that the difference between embryos and humans is one of the most defining and important aspects of the topic "abortion". It's trivia or background information at best. Perhaps it could go in a footnote for those who don't want to click the wikilinks?-Andrew c [talk] 18:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Right now, the terms "embryo" and "fetus" are used in the lead sentence, without giving the readers any idea what the difference is, or giving them any way to decide which one to click on for more info. Tznkai inserted a slight bit of definition here. That was reverted by Royboy here, and he said: "too many Or's, makes already complex sentence that much worse." I rewrote it, but was reverted here by Andrew c, who said: "rv, per Roy. why not discuss major changes to the lead first. it makes it sound like the terms embryo/fetus are unique to humans. at best, this could go in a footnote, but I think wikilinks are enough." The bit about reverting per Royboy is kind of mystifying, because his edit and rationale were very different (i.e. Andrew c did not remove the word "or" or reduce sentence complexity).
I don't think it's trivial to give readers some clue about what the words mean that we're using. Multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines urge that we do so. See WP:Jargon and WP:Make technical articles accessible. Abortion is a wrenching decision for many women because they know the facts about what it is they're aborting. If our goal here is to make it a more casual decision, then I agree we should omit all information about what is aborted, but really that's not our job is it?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Our job is neither to make it casual nor wrenching. That is between them, their doctor, and whatever God, Gods, or principles they hold dear. We provide encyclopedic information here, little else.--Tznkai (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Can we discuss specific changes to the lead? You believe the words fetus and embryo are jargon and need further explanation. Does everyone agree with that? If so, how do we go about explaining the jargon. Was Tznkai's version sufficient? could we reduce the number of "or"s in that version, thereby addressing Roy's concerns, and then have something that we can all agree upon? The difference between Tznkai's version and Roy's version is basically the phrase "in the earlier stage of gestation" attached to embryo. Adding that onto an already complex sentence was problematic to Roy. Is there another solution that can add that information without making the sentence more complex? -Andrew c [talk] 19:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Here's the Tznkai version: "An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of a fetus (called an embryo in the earlier stage of gestation) from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death."
Here's a possible new version: "An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of an offspring, resulting in or caused by its death. The offspring is called an embryo in the earlier stage of gestation (which lasts two months in humans), and then a fetus in the subsequent stage."
Ferrylodge (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
It really breaks the flow, and I think offspring is the wrong word here. The original sentence is a horrendous run - on however, and the original author should be throttled for it. Oh wait, that was me. In all seriousness, it is a clunky, clunky sentence.--Tznkai (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to try and redeem yourself with a better version.  :-) And note that the word "fetus" is Latin for "offspring."Ferrylodge (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the 2nd new sentence breaks the flow. How about putting it in a footnote? Or do we really need to relay that information in the lead? Perhaps we could discuss it in another section, like the pregnancy article. -Andrew c [talk] 21:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd prefer a modified Tznkai version: "An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the exit from the uterus of a fetus (or embryo in the earlier stage of gestation), resulting in or caused by its death." This sentence structure is better, because it no longer has any connotation that the uterus has died, and occurrence of the word "or" is not excessive. The sentence is still clunky, but better.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it has the problem of ambiguity. Is it only an embryo in the earlier stage of gestation (i.e. a 1-20 day old embryo?) The word "called" fixed that problem in Tznkai's version. Part of me (yeah a bad part) feels like "AKA" would work, but I know it is terrible usage :) -Andrew c [talk] 02:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not correct to say that a fetus is "called" an embryo during the first two months. The fetal stage comes after the embryonic stage. It's also not correct that a fetus is "also known as" an embryo during the first two months. Again, the fetal stage is after the embryonic stage. Try this: "An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the exit from the uterus of a fetus (or instead an embryo during the earlier stage of gestation), resulting in or caused by its death."Ferrylodge (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
How about "An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of the fetus (or, in early stages, embryo) from the uterus, resuling in or caused by its death." TruthIIPower (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
That would be an improvement, IMO.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Yuk - multiple problems, largely by trying to do too much in the one sentance.

  1. Choice of "termination" as 5th word is confusing, is it a verb mean "ending" and so includes both spontaneous loss (aka miscarriage) as well as deliberate discontinuation, or imply the noun of "termination proceedure" which excludes spontaneous loss, or indeed imply noun of "termination process" which includes both ?
  2. Leadin can distinuish between spontaneous and willful loss in another sentance. So trying to cover both with "removal or expulsion" can wait for another sentance. Also these two words do not neatly distinguish spontaneous from induced loss: "expulsion" covers both spontaneous miscarriage as well as the use of chemical abortifants, but "removal" really only covers surgical procedures.
  3. Finally "the fetus" implies just the one, but abortion would apply to loss of one out of a twin/triple/quad pregnancy; indeed can have an abortion in such multiple pregnancy and yet the woman remains pregnant. i.e. we should use phrasing of "a fetus" instead.

Can I suggest therefore: "An abortion is the loss in early pregnancy of an embryo, or later of a fetus, either caused by its death or resulting in its demise."

PS as a medic I personally find the second clause redundant and covered by the 2nd sentance, i.e. "An abortion is the loss in early pregnancy of an embryo or later of a fetus." suffices for me, for equally "loss of a limb after an accident" reads as a full-on dramatic tarumatic amputation. But I accept that the wider readership needs the second clause to prevent any implication that the word "loss" on its own is being too euphamistic - and this is not prochoice/prolife POV issue for prochoice concern for gravity of deliberate abortions is just as valid as concerns by all that the phrase is being too oblique to the very real distress following a spontaneous miscarriage. David Ruben Talk 22:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good, except it may leave people wondering what the difference is between "death" and "demise". How about: "An abortion is the loss of an embryo in early pregnancy, or loss of a fetus later in pregnancy, either caused by or resulting in its death." The word "loss" is already kind of euphemistic, so I don't think we need another new euphemism too (i.e. "demise").Ferrylodge (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Deconstructing for a moment, the peices of information I wrote in and felt were important were 1. The fetus is dead. 2. The abortion refers to the pregnancy terminating in, well, failure. 3. Abortions either cause fetal death, or are caused by it. 4. If we could, I'd avoid using the term embryo at all, but its not accurate. Maybe discard via footnote?--Tznkai (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I would not think that the word "embryo" should be discarded in footnote so that the word "fetus" is used instead. The two words mean two different things, and should not be used interchangeably, unless we want to thoroughly confuse people.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I looked it up and it turns out that fetus is broad enough to be accurate even when applied to an embryo. From dictionary.com: "(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation." This, if anything, errs on the side of making it sound as if abortions were usually of non-embryos, but I can live with that if we correct it in the lede. TruthIIPower (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The abbreviation "esp." stands for "especially". So, using the word "fetus" to apply also to embryos is not the usual usage of the word. Also, beware the word "womb" that you just quoted; using it even in parentheses has gotten people into big trouble here at Wikipedia.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)

Let me toss out my suggestion, then explain the thinking behind it:

"An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy prior to term by the removal or expulsion of the nonviable fetus or embryo."

1) We want to emphasize that pregnancies are what get aborted. We also want to leave room for spontaneous and induced abortions.

2) What makes it an abortion is that it's being ended before it has run its course, and that this ending is unsuccussful in terms of live issue. The key term is "viable". If you remove a viable fetus, it's an assisted birth. If you remove a nonviable one, you are necessarily killing it, which makes the process an abortion.

3) Depending on timing, either the fetus or embryo is expelled after it dies or it dies as part of the process of expulsion. There is no procedure in which a nonviable embryo or fetus is removed intact and left to die. Even the most extreme (and extremely rare) late-term abortions starts with a saline injection or the equivalent.

4) It is awkward to speak of abortion "resulting in or being caused by" this death, partially because the phrase is trying too hard to show causality, but mostly because it's long and odd. All we really need to get across is the distinction between an abortion and, say, a c-section on a viable fetus. The above does this successfully.

5) Long phrases to explain the difference between a fetus and embryo are out of place here, while putting a slash between them is just awkward. We can be brief and clear, instead.

Comments? TruthIIPower (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I like it, and I follow you, but the problem is it doesn't address the rare but extant situations where there was a viable fetus that was then aborted. That is, a fetus that COULD have survived, but was killed. I think there is something with selective reduction here too. This is good thinking though.--Tznkai (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
What makes a fetus (or embryo) nonviable is simply that it cannot be removed without dying. It cannot live on its own; it is effectively an obligate parasite, though I'm sure that notion will offend some people. If it was possible to terminate a pregnancy without killing the embryo or fetus, then this might be a significant difference. In other words, calling a fetus nonviable is a statement about its current status, not whether further development would render it viable. If this is truly unclear, then perhaps we need to toss in another adjective. TruthIIPower (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
There's also a problem with saying a "nonviable embryo", given that all embryos are nonviable. And a short phrase (not a long one) would suffice to give the reader a clue as to the difference between embryo and fetus (or an explanation could go later in the lead).Ferrylodge (talk) 03:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I do recognize this distinction, although it's really more a result of current technological limitations than anything inherent in the definitions of the words. However, while we should definitely make it clear early in the article, I don't think it absolutely has to be in the first sentence. TruthIIPower (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you GTBacchus for helping me. I'm glad you or you guys are trying to remain and stay neutral but I feel that only using the words fetus or embryo or other words like that on the Abortion page is biased because, in my opinion anyway, these words seem to favor pro-choicers. For me who so happens to be pro-life I feel insulted and offended that these words that mean "it" or "thing" is unfair and unbalanced so at least lets make the page more fair by not only using fetus or embryo but also unborn child. Thank You. I hope you at least understand. You may still not agree with me but at least try or attempt to understand where I come from and why I feel that only using fetus or embryo is not neutral. Thanks again. --Rcatholic (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I presume by your signature that you're a Roman Catholic, so I'm going to make a couple stabs in the dark here. You believe that Jesus is the Son of God, Christ the Savior. You probably equate the death penalty to murder.
Now, if I were to refer to Jesus somewhere as a "Jewish preacher who was born sometime 4BCE" wouldn't that still be a neutral claim, even though it in a sense, denies His divinity? Likewise, if I refer to capital punishment as "Lawful killing by the state" that is offensive to many beliefs, but is empirically true and neutral. It is lawful, regardless of whether it should be or not.
My point in all that, is that the so called unborn is definitively a fetus. It may or not be "unborn" and scientific, medical, and other reference literature do not refer to it as the unborn. Calling it the unborn definitively makes a moral, and thus non-neutral claim, calling it a fetus does not. The fact that pro-choicers share vocabulary with neutral texts doesn't make vocab any less neutral.--Tznkai (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
That all having been said, I'll bring it up again. Is there a neutral way to refer to the concept of the "unborn" in this article?--Tznkai (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the neutral way is medical terminology. The term "unborn" is desperately deceptive, as it rounds the fetus up to a newborn, much as "undeceased" would deceptively round you and me up to corpses. In both cases, the goal would be to change something's moral status by equating it with something it currently isn't. And in the case of the fetus, it may well never go from "unborn" to "undeceased", instead skipping the middle step and going directly to "deceased", so this is even less honest.
While we're talking about honest terminology, how about "mother"? One of the things that impressed me about this article is that it did not make the sloppy language error of equating pregnancy with motherhood. Sure, a pregnancy can indeed lead to motherhood, but that's just another example of rounding up dishonestly. The whole point of an abortion is that having one prevents the woman from becoming a mother (or becoming the mother to another child, if she has one already). This particular naming issue is turning into a conflict on Religion and abortion. TruthIIPower (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
"Life of the mother" is a known colloquialism and its quickly become fairly accepted terminology, even in a lot of pro choice circles. I don't think its an issue of dishonestly, because I think the term "the mother" in this context doesn't have the same emotional cache as "unborn". The fact is, no good vocabulary exists except possibly the rather sterile "gravida", we just muck around as best we can.--Tznkai (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
And "unborn baby" is also a known colloqialism, and yet we also avoid it because it's just not neutral. The words "mother" and "baby" are highly emotional. TruthIIPower (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The word "abortion" is also highly emotional.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
No, "baby-killing" is emotional. "Abortion" is just the most neutral and accurate technical term. The round-up terms of "mother" and "baby" are neither neutral nor accurate, so they do not belong here or in any other abortion-related article. TruthIIPower (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent)As Tznkai said, the phrase "life of the mother" is a well-known colloquialism that remains accepted terminology, even among pro choice advocates. The Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion uses the word "mother" 43 times with reference to a pregnant woman, and that's just in the majority opinion.

Additionally, dictionaries and other reference books often use the word "mother" prenatally, e.g.:
MedicineNet.com (defining placenta as a "temporary organ joining the mother and fetus");
American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary (placenta permits "metabolic interchage between fetus and mother", and also defining quickening as "signs of fetal life felt by the mother");
Encyclopedia Britannica Concise ("nutrients and oxygen in the mother's blood pass across the placenta to the fetus");
On-Line Medical Dictionary, Department of Medical Oncology, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne ("movement of foetus in the womb perceived by the mother");
Medilexicon (defining quickening as "signs of life felt by the mother as a result of fetal movements");
Wordnet, Princeton University ("mother first feels the movements of the fetus");
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary ("motion of a fetus in the uterus felt by the mother").

The idea that perfectly normal English words should be banned from this article because they've somehow become contaminated by being used on one side or the other of a political controversy seems misguided to me. Same goes for images.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

People do all sorts of things, but they're not obligated to follow WP:NPOV. We are. TruthIIPower (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
That's right, we should follow WP:NPOV, and that means we should not automatically delete every fact, every word, and every image that happens to have been used by one side in a political debate.
Susan Faludi, in her book "The Undeclared War Against American Women" (1991) said: "The antiabortion iconography in the last decade featured the fetus but never the mother." Note that the very pro-choice Faludi uses the term "mother", whereas removing it from this article would give the deliberate impression that motherhood does not begin until birth or later. Biologists know better. And this Wikipedia abortion article still includes information and iconography about the mother, and even about the embryo, but not about the fetus.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
You are not addressing my argument. TruthIIPower (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'll have time later this weekend to visit Religion and abortion to see more detail of your arguments. I was only replying here to what you said here.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The pregnant woman is allowed to round up because it is her choice that will make it become true. In fact, motherhood does not begin at fertilization, else we'd consider many, many more women to be mothers, particularly since the majority of fertilizations do not produce babies. TruthIIPower (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
We can discuss this further at Religion and abortion if you would like. The word "mother" (with reference to a pregnant woman) has already been cleansed from the present article (along with various other words and images), and I don't feel like arguing right now to reinsert it.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Alright, we will do what we did earlier: appeal to outside neutral reference sources, and simultaneously reliable sources. Ferrylodge has found a number of neutral sources that use the term "life of the mother" in a casual and fairly neutral context. What else do we have?--Tznkai (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd really rather discuss this in just one place at a time, so come join us on Religion and abortion. TruthIIPower (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"Fetus" and "embryo"? Hm. Um, I still don't get it. I still don't understand how "fetus" or "embryo" are neutral then again what I may find neutral others may not. I don't think "fetus" nor "embryo" are neutral but many, many, many other people do. I think the words "fetus" and "embryo" are highly emotional and rude and offensive and insulting. For me abortion is just as equal to "baby-killing". I feel almost like I not only believe but know that a women automatically becomes a mother at the moment of conception not after the baby comes out of the mother's womb. For me people are born as soon as they are starting to be created by God and that happens in the mother's womb. I find that calling a baby a fetus or an embryo is just ugly. I think the words "fetus" and "embryo" are definitively moral, and thus non-neutral. I think calling a "fetus" or an "embryo" baby is highly accurate and more honest than "fetus" or "embryo". Besides science has proven that what's located in the mother's womb is a human being. If science is neutral than why can't we use it? I think the words fetus and embryo are issues of dishonesty. Now just because I find the abortion page to be slightly or a little off doesn't mean I can't live without the term baby being used on the Abortion article because I can. All I have to do is change the words "fetus" or "embryo" to child or baby in my mind of course. I know my beliefs and I know what I know and I'm proud of it. Just because I find a FEW mess-ups doesn't mean I'm wrong. Just because a few people don't agree with me doesn't make them wrong either. Thanks you guys and I'm deeply sorry if I offended or insulted anybody. We all have our own beliefs and our own knowledge and without out them this world would just be plane out boring. Have a nice day. --Rcatholic (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It has been my experience that neutral terminology, precisely because of its unwillingness to to bow to the views of partisans, is quite likely to be found offensive by some. I can live with that. TruthIIPower (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
We should never support scientific terms that are best replaced with emotional terms that lack any logical cachet. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 19:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Is that what you meant to say? We should never support scientific terms?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
It was sarcasm. I must remember to tag it as such. <end sarcasm> &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 19:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Even as sarcasm, it seems to be faulty syntax. Is the word "terms" the subject or the object in the sentence?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, a typo. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 19:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Vacuum aspiration by Ferrylodge

Latest comment: 15 years ago22 comments4 people in discussion
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have reinstated the vacuum aspiration image as the consensus, established at great length, is to have it in the article. Just because there is a new argument over policy is not a reason to remove it given the previous lengthy discussion. Please elaborate on your reasoning.

I don't think this is overly like a manual. It does not give enough information to perform the procedure and it doesn't aim to. But I will look at your argument if you posit one. |→ Spaully₪† 20:57, 26 April 2009 (GMT)

I don't have any strong feelings to either direction about this image, but it looks like the context here is tit-for-tat. I removed what I consider a shock image of an aborted embryo, which is what led to this image being removed. TruthIIPower (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to [this edit] by ferrylodge not your removal. Sorry for the confusion. Though I do have some reservations about your removal but being one of the main advocates for it I will leave it to others to discuss inclusion or not. Thanks |→ Spaully₪† 21:12, 26 April 2009 (GMT)
Tit-for-tat is sometimes confused with balance. No one disputes that balance is critical to NPOV. The removal by TruthIIPower is indeed what triggered my edit, but by no means the only thing.
Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook, and the image that I removed looks like it came from one. As best I recall, no one ever addressed why WP:NOTMANUAL is inapplicable here. Therefore, I feel like the reversion of my edit was premature.
In addition to WP:NOTMANUAL, there is WP:Undue weight. We are now back to this article portraying what is aborted as an infinitessimal speck that dies without pain. That's it. This is a highly misleading presentation of what abortion is and what abortion does.
We use the words "embryo" and "fetus" without giving the reader any idea of how they differ, so the reader will not have any clue about which one to click on. Even if they do click on either term, they will not see any indication of which embryos and fetuses are typical of the gestations when abortion typically occurs.
We have assiduously removed all terminology from this article that might give the reader any clue that what is aborted is more than a featureless speck, completely deleting commonly used terms that both readers and medical professionals are familiar with. We detail how abortion affects the mother gravida, how it does not harm her, et cetera, but omit any description of what dies. The article remains very slanted, and the image I removed exacerbated the slant.
The main argument for maintaining the present structure of the article seems to be that facts and images like the ones I suggest are used by pro-life groups. First of all, as I stated above without response, Wikipedia uses all kinds of factual info even though it may be cited by one side or another in a political debate, such as the photo at the top of Arctic shrinkage. Secondly, the present article is full of info that is not only used by pro-choice organizations, but actually cites directly to them (e.g. Guttmacher), which is perfectly fine.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Dude, the first sentence says that an embryo or fetus dies. What are you talking about? TruthIIPower (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Why not quote the part that is confusing you? I agree that the first sentence of the article says that an embryo or fetus dies. We may as well say that a w3rtfckjehbfg dies, if we don't give the reader any indication of what it means.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand TruthIIPower's comment now, and my initial reaction is that Ferrylodges' edit contravenes WP:POINT. If you think the other image should be in then change that, don't remove an image with 100kb worth of discussion. Will reply with specifics in a bit. |→ Spaully₪† 21:34, 26 April 2009 (GMT)
WP:Point has nothing to do with it. If an article includes a balance of information, and part of the balance is removed, there's nothing at all wrong with restoring the balance by removing the other part too. And as I said, I recall zero prior discussion of WP:NOTMANUAL with regard to the image I removed. If I had wanted to remove everything in this article that I consider biassed, a lot more would have been involved than a single image that violates WP:NOTMANUAL.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Having read WP:POINT, I think Spaully might be correct, but we can't be sure. I'll let administators decide that one. In the meantime, the argument about "w3rtfckjehbfg" is weak because w3rtfckjehbfg doesn't go anywhere, but embryo and fetus both do. TruthIIPower (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Woman goes someplace too. But obviously that does not mean we should edit the present article to mention "woman" once and then say nothing more about how abortion affects or involves women. It also seems relevant that people see and know much more about women (from everyday experience) than they do about an aborted fetus.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
In fact, both embryos and fetuses are mentioned again later in the article, so it does not seem that you have any sort of point here. TruthIIPower (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
"Mentioned" is not the same as "mentioned adequately."Ferrylodge (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
What does this have to do with hiding the drawing of a vacuum aspiration? Are you holding that picture hostage to further mentions? TruthIIPower (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The new part of your discussion refers to WP:NOTMANUAL and so far you have only suggested the image looks like it came from a textbook. This is probably because it is based on images from textbooks. However the fact it resembles such an image is not reason to exclude it, there are countless examples of images on WP as good as or better than textbook illustrations, just head over to WP:FP. What matters is how it is used, and here it is as a purely factual illustration of one stage of the procedure, exactly what and encyclopedia is about. Given the consensus to include the image the onus is on you to tell us why notmanual applies here.
The rest of your post seems to regurgitate everything that has been discussed over the past months and I'm not going to be drawn into rehashing it. If you think the removal of the fetus photo unbalanced the article tell us why that should be reinstated. |→ Spaully₪† 22:03, 26 April 2009 (GMT)
Per WP:NOTMANUAL, Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. This diagram is obviously textbook material, and it is in fact straight out of a textbook.Jones, R. E. and Lopez, K. H. Human Reproductive Biology. p. 425. Please remove the image pending outcome of this discussion. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Textbooks and annotated texts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects Wikibooks and Wikisource. Other kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.
The full quotation. I have addressed your argument above, but to reiterate. This image illustrates a stage in performing an abortion - a fact. It does not teach how to perform one and is not detailed enough to do so. It is clearly there to inform not instruct. |→ Spaully₪† 22:31, 26 April 2009 (GMT)
The image is from a textbook. That's what it looks like, and indeed I've shown you the exact textbook from which it was copied. But if you would rather not acknowledge that it's a textbook image, and would rather reinsert the image while this discussion is ongoing, then that's your call, I guess. Anyway, I've got other stuff to do this evening, so adios for now.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you serious? Have you read any of the science related FA? There are tons of articles that contains textbook level text and images, i.e. 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · ·, Acetic acid, Exosome complex, Coeliac disease, Multiple sclerosis, and even Tooth development which contains this File:Tooth Section.svg textbook-esque image. I don't believe this. An image of an abortion is now not appropriate for the abortion article (despite certain people requesting an image of an abortion for years). -Andrew c [talk] 23:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
No, I haven't seen those articles. Don't worry, Andrew c, it appears that your image of the speck-embryo will remain, whereas the photographic image that people could actually see was deleted today. So, it appears that everything went your way. None of Wikipedia's millions of articles will give readers any clue as to the features of a typical abortus. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Ferrylodge, that can't possibly be true. The image that I removed from here is still where it belongs: in embryo. Please stick to the facts if you want us to take your arguments seriously. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
As you must realize, the embryo article conatins numerous images, and does not indicate which of them are and are not indicative of a typical gestation when abortion is induced. But now that you mention it, since the most elementary information about abortion is forbidden in the present article, maybe it would be a good idea to put it somewhere else, even though no one will ever find it.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
At this point, I'm going to remind you to assume good faith and leave it at that. Your credibility is on the line here. Don't throw it all away for nothing. TruthIIPower (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we can end the discussion now?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I looked at WP:NOTMANUAL and can't see how it applies. Is Ferrylodge concerned that someone might see that illustration and immediately buy a handheld vacuum cleaner so that they can perform abortions? I don't get it. If anything, you'd think that everyone would agree that showing how a common form of abortion is performed would be relevent and informative. TruthIIPower (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and I should add that vacuum aspiration is used for early abortions, which are the most common by far, and that these involve an embryo, not a fetus, as such. Any illustration of late-term abortions would raise the issue of bias, precisely because they're so rare and used out of desperation. TruthIIPower (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
You guys do realise that the real issue here is that FL has an anti-abortion POV and that he prefers the incorrect term baby over embryo and/or fetus. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 15:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Please don't make stuff up.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion/Archive_33&oldid=1142435158"