Talk:Abortion and mental health/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Sidebar

I've just noticed that our link in the side bar reads "Mental Health Issues" - that seems to support my rather recommended proposal of moving the (now tiny stub of an) article to "Mental Health Issues regarding Abortion" or something similar and leaving Post-Abortion Syndrome as one section in a larger article. Thoughts? Kuronue | Talk 01:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd support that, no problem. Phyesalis (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

So would I. There doesn't seem to be that much to say about PAS specifically, while there's much more to say about mental after-effects of abortion in general. I think this should satisfy Strider too, as she's been trying to lean this article that way. My only concern is a move like that might land us back where we were with the revert-warring... but fear of that shouldn't stop us from making the move to a better title. We'll worry about wars later, if/when it happens. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:22, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

We just moved PAS to mental health effects of abortion. For that reason, I think there should be other external links that are not PAS-specific. Also, what happens to the interwiki links? миражinred (speak, my child...) 01:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

If you mean the links from other articles to Post-abortion syndrome, they're automatically redirected to the new article name (try clicking that link). Equazcion •✗/C • 02:40, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Oh no. I meant to say that since the title of this article is no longer post-abortion syndrome, I wasn't sure if it should continue to be linked to the German and the Portuguese Wikpedia. миражinred (speak, my child...) 02:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I just want to note that back in September (see here) I proposed renaming the article to Abortion and mental health and expanding the article to not focus only on PAS. I'm glad to see that path now finally pursued, and I still think my proposed name is better ;P-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think that can be another possible name for the article. миражinred (speak, my child...) 03:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I remember the suggestion being brought up many times, and happily weighed in my support every time, only to see it get utterly ignored in favor of the next big "POV" crisis. I debated Abortion and Mental Health as a title for a while but then decided it seemed somehow less.. direct. Mental health effects of abortion tells how it's linked; Abortion and mental health seems to indicate, to me, things like how many "crazy" people have abortions. Kuronue | Talk 03:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, "abortion and mental health" implies that the article deals in what causes people to make the decision to have an abortion. As for your previous suggested moves, I wasn't around for those, but you should've just taken the initiative, like user:Saranghae honey did :) Good ideas can be enacted without much discussion, long as they really are good ideas. The worst that can happen is someone reverts you, but you still wouldn't have broken any rules. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:46, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Woah! "Mental health effects of abortion" overtly implies that abortion has an effect on mental health. Our sources say otherwise. The title should say either "Abortion and Mental Health" or "Controversial Claims on Mental Health and Abortion." Also, until we can come up with a better name, I think we should change the article back to "Post-Abortion Syndrome," since that is what the article is about!! --IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Holy cow! The first paragraph is just empirically wrong!--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Holy cow! Then change it. As for the title: There are sources that say there are definitely never any psychological effects of abortion? This is just an article that discusses mental health as it relates to abortion, and I don't think anyone disputes the notion that abortion is related to mental health, in some way. I don't think the current title implies that there are definitely always effects, or whether those effects are bad, good, or neutral. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:32, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on how the first paragraph is incorrect? миражinred (speak, my child...) 04:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Time out

Let's get something straight. This article is no longer about presenting various negative effects and then proving or disproving a causal relationship between those effects and abortion. The article has changed. It's now about simply presenting all the possible effects of abortion on mental health. The controversy over PAS is now just a small part in a little subsection. Nothing needs to have been proved. Controversy is no longer the focus here. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:38, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

This article is no longer about post-abortion syndrome anymore. The article is about abortion and mental health, positive and negative. миражinred (speak, my child...) 04:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

First, and I mean this literally, that is a ridiculous premise. You simply can't list all the "possible" effects of abortion and mental health. Your list would be a mile long - every feeling that any woman ever had after receiving an abortion would merit a description. Before we make radical changes to this article, we have to think seriously about what is possible and what is responsible.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In other words, the PAS article was in response to a very real controversy. Making this article about "Abortion and Mental Health" is opening a can of worms we aren't ready to deal with. Also, we still need to have a PAS article (not only a paragraph), just as there is an "abortion and breast cancer" article. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The possible effects are backed by numerous studies. миражinred (speak, my child...) 04:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. We're not listing everything anyone has ever claimed. We're just listing possibilities shown from studies. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:42, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Which studies? There are 4895247589 studies, and 24895828357 doctors with opinions on those studies. We simply can't be a mental health resource here. But we can respond to controversies and controversial topics about abortion.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

In the words of the creationists, Wikipedia also is not a place solely to "teach the controversy." I like the current draft as it is. It lists the possible positive and negative effects and the confounding factors that can influence mental health after abortion. It seems neutral to me. миражinred (speak, my child...) 04:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need an article on PAS? We had one and it was a stub. Abortion and mental health isn't a can of worms; PAS was the can of worms, and we've closed it by cutting it down. This article is about presenting the discussion rather than proving one side over the other. It's a much lighter subject. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:46, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. The very title of post-abortion syndrome invited disruptive edit warring that did little to improve the article. What happened after users argued about which studies should be included? They were chopped down into a stub. By changing the title, I believe we were able to keep the content without the edit wars. миражinred (speak, my child...) 04:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I've been dealing with this article for ages, and the mental health effects on abortion for far longer than that. One of the studies being cited now deals with abortion in the 30 minutes prior to having received one. Another study had only 14 participants - which makes it's sampling statistically insignificant. Plus, many of the studies are preliminary. Having a long list makes it seem as though these conditions are real, permanent, and one can suffer from all of them. This is not responsible of us. Please do not change this article until there is consensus.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not about what's true. It's what can be verified. миражinred (speak, my child...) 04:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I can "verify" just about anything. Your comment doesn't make sense.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Medication literature lists possible side-effects that often include death and impotence, yet people don't consider that irresponsible; they know it's just a list of possibilities and they still end up taking the medication. However I do agree that the list isn't really necessary, and a summary prose is fine. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:57, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I ran out of my 3RR so I won't stop you. However, I want to note that User:Equazcion, User:Kuronue, User:Andrew c and I had an agreement about moving the article to cover a lighter subject. миражinred (speak, my child...) 04:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The title needs to be changed

The title need to be changed to "Mental Health and Abortion." The current title is unacceptable.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, why? миражinred (speak, my child...) 04:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"Mental health effects of abortion" overtly implies that abortion has an effect on mental health. Our sources say otherwise. The title should say either "Abortion and Mental Health" or "Controversial Claims on Mental Health and Abortion."--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. And the sources "don't say otherwise." Whether you go to Planned Parenthood or David Reardon's website, it will say that abortion has some psychological effects such as depression and anxiety just to a different extent. миражinred (speak, my child...) 05:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The Planned Parenthood sources do not say "abortion" causes clinical depression. What the majority of longitudinal studies say is that abortion has no effect on mental health - in the sense that women may experience short-lived sadness, but there is no overall change in one's mental health that is caused by abortion.

On the other hand, the David Reardon website certainly wants to make the case that abortion causes a change in a woman's mental health. The argument you are making is a pro-life one.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(5 ec's, and the argument you are making is a pro-choice one -- you've reworded the lead in a slanted way.) This isn't an issue of whether or not the title needs to be changed but on what this article should be about. If it's to present the possible mental health effects of abortion, the current title is fine. IronAngel evidently would like the article to be about something else entirely. If anyone else feels this way, please speak up. Also, this lead paragraph doesn't sound nearly as neutral is the previous version, and I think you're the only one who had a problem with it. For the current purpose of the article, barring another title change, the other lead was better so I'm reverting that. Just a heads-up. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:07, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

You can't discredit me because you think I am pro-life. миражinred (speak, my child...) 05:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, hey, hey... let's try to focus on content and not any editor's POV. Everybody has a POV, and as long as we adhere to policy, that shouldn't be a problem. To be fair, Alice started this sub-section to discuss the title. I think it merits discussion. I also have to agree that the general position is that abortion has no implicit effect on mental health. While there are certainly a wide range of understandable emotional responses to abortion, these do not necessarily constitute an effect on mental health. I support the change to "Abortion and Mental Health" because the current title does expressly imply that abortion has an effect. Using "and" seems much more preferable as it has almost no POV. I believe Andrew has also expressed support for this title. Phyesalis (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this is just ignorance on my part, but what exactly is the difference between an "emotional response" and a "mental effect"? That seems like a very thin line to me, if any line exists at all. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:21, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

The article's title isn't "Mental effects of abortion" but "Mental health effects" - for example, your pet dies, you feel sad, feeling sad isn't a mental health effect because sad isn't a state of good or bad health, it's an emotional response. Now if you became chronically depressed, then it would have effected your mental health and might require some kind of mental health attention (therapy or medication). It's kind of like the difference between weather and climate. Phyesalis (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I'm for "abortion and mental health" then. Although it doesn't sound perfect to me, I don't have anything better in mind. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:55, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I like "abortion and mental health" as well. MastCell ^Talk 21:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

I'm don't think not assuming anyone participating in this discussion at this time is pro-life. What I'm suggesting is that you are making Reardon's case for him, instead of looking at the metadata and evidence from reliable sources such as the APA and the American Surgeon General.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to stop using your perceptions of people's political views as an excuse to act against consensus and edit war, Alice. You need to continue discussing here. You, and you alone, are causing us to fall into the old pattern. You need to stop, right now. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:01, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

You are missing my point entirely. There is no "old pattern." Please explain why you think your paragraph is more accurate, while mine - which cites the APA and the American Surgeon General is not. Also, it seems as though KillerChihuahua and Phyesalis are in partial or full agreement with me - so I am not alone.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The old pattern is the edit warring. You're acting as Strider did, only for the other side now. Your paragraph focuses on stating the positive and neutral effects first, and then that the negative effects haven't been proven to actually be effects. Have the positive and neutral ones been proven to be causally related? Why not just say all effects aren't proven, and that we're just stating the possibilities? If you want to provide sources, you may, it can only help. That doesn't mean the entire lead needs to be changed. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:43, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Please do not compare me to Strider. I was always civil and respectful of her. Not only I, but several other editors worked hard to take out the original research, and misrepresentation of the facts that Strider tirelessly worked to put into the article (please read the archives). I have to continue to disagree with your lead because it misrepresents data and (unintentionally) verges on the political debate instead of the medical one. The APA and the Surgeon General are strong indications that your lead is simply not correct, and that it contains some (completely unintentional) original research and editorializing.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 17:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, have the positive and neutral effects been proven to be causally related? Your lead separates the two types of effects as if one has been proven more than the other. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:57, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Are we disagreeing over the lead or the title? As for the title, I now support moving the article to "abortion and mental health." However, I strongly prefer Equazcion's lead which had a consensus. миражinred (speak, my child...) 18:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

We're disagreeing over the lead now, apparently. I've changed it once again, basically blanking it and simply stating that nothing has thus far been proved. I hope that can suffice. Alice, if you feel there's something inaccurate about this new version, please state here what the inaccuracies are and we'll all try to correct them. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:21, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Also did the move to "abortion and mental health" as there didn't seem to be any objection to that anymore. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:34, 19 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

There has been some great work done on this article. I think a round of applause for all involved is in order. We took a fairly contentious article to a consensually agreed upon stub, to a broader perspective article in a very short period of time. A number of editors were bold, and the discussion has remained civil. I'd like to suggest that we take a step back and discuss the handling of the lead, as well as what else we might like to include in the article.

Personally, I think it would be good to discuss issues related to pre-abortion counseling. And I have some issues with the wording of the opening paragraph that I think we should hash out. "It is currently unknown" - sounds like there's equally weighted evidence for and against a distinct causal relationship - while the majority of evidence suggest neutral or positive effects in women without pre-existing confounding conditions and that of those who do have confounding effects, the percentage of those who experience long-term negative mental health effects is relatively small. Perhaps if we could get a few lines about what people like and dislike about the lead, we could focus on some key issues holistically? Phyesalis (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to expansion as long as it doesn't turn into another revert war. I suggest we work on a draft copy of the lead here on the talk page or on a separate sub-page. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:00, 20 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Good idea. Phyesalis (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we keep the Surgeon General information and the APA information in the lead that was deleted early today. These seem to be significant statements by significant Governmental and Academic institutions.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the "suggestion". Equazcion •✗/C • 05:44, 20 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I'm finding it difficult to remain civil here. There are certain times on Wikipedia when I really wish it was okay to call someone a moron. I've never felt that more than I do now. I'm unwatching this page, and I hope you can all find a way to deal with this on your own. Enjoy. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:47, 20 Jan 2008 (UTC)

After doing so much work to improve the page, it's sad to hear that you will not be contributing anymore. I think we need more discussion before making any more bold edits. миражinred (speak, my child...) 05:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I like User:Phyesalis's suggestions and I agree with her comments. However, it seems like IronAngelAlice's edits are slanting too much to the other side. It just seems like too much "slap in the face" to readers to assert one POV and not letting the facts speak for itself. The article already says that PAS is not recognized by major associations, that it is heavily criticized, and mentions the positive and the neutral feelings observed after abortion. Isn't this enough? миражinred (speak, my child...) 05:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That's funny, Equazcion, I feel the same way. Particularly since (comparatively) you are an interloper to this subject. What I and MastCell have found especially vexing about this topic is the notion that truth and accuracy are dependent upon the notion of "balance." This leads to original research and editorializing. When editing this topic and the David Reardon page, MastCell came upon a great article by Chris Mooney. The article is linked to from the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view page. The external link is here: http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2004/6/mooney-science.asp I hope you do check it out. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the phrase of the day is "User talk pages" (and to be fair, I'm not on any high horse, I'm as prone to getting tangled up as the next good faith editor - I just happen to have come in on the end of this particular dance). I have to agree with the point about truth and balance, particularly when backed up by R and V sources. The point about needing more discussion before making the same changes again is also a good point - which is why I suggest we take it to the mock-up per E above. What if we try to stick to the WP:BRD cycle and agree that we won't revert back to something, only revert forward (that is to change B, not back to A unless by consensus, but to a new edit C) and that these kind of evolving edits on the mock-up are to be taken as GF edits?

Actually, that is what I suggest we do after we all step back for a day. I think things are just a bit too tense right now. Phyesalis (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Structure for History of Debate & Evidence

We were previously stubbing this down to just PAS and suddenly it is back to a clumsy cut-and-paste of discredited materials from previous versions with virtually no recognition of the fact that MOST experts agree that there are negative mental health effects associated with and arising from abortion. Even sadness is a mental health effect. THe controversy is over if, when and how often the mental health effects are so serious that they should be called a mental illness. See Wilmouth's summary:

In 1992, the Journal of Social Issues dedicated an entire issue to research relating to the psychological effects of elective abortion. In an overview of the contributors papers the editor, Dr. Gregory Wilmoth, concluded: "There is now virtually no disagreement among researchers that some women experience negative psychological reactions postabortion. Instead the disagreement concerns the following: (1) The prevalence of women who have these experiences . . . , (2) The severity of these negative reactions . . . , (3) The definition of what severity of negative reactions constitutes a public health or mental health problem . . . , [and] (4) The classification of severe reactions . . . "

The whole intro is now propaganda, and misleading, and simply wrong. It is simply not true that "the American Psychological Association (APA) and Surgeon General of the United States have claimed that abortion does not cause changes in mental health." Koop said there was insufficient data from which to draw conclusions....fare different than does "not cause changes in mental health." Even the APA does not make such an absurd claim. The 1990 Adler article instead acknowledges that abortion has very significant emotional effects but concludes that for the MAJORITY of women it is tolerated well, which implicitliy reflects the admission that for a minority of women it is not tolerated well.

I think the intro should simply outline that this is an issue of controversy, then give a history of major events in the controversy, followed by a summary of major symptoms associated with abortion and the related studies. This structure will make it easy for editors to add new material in an appropriate place.--Strider12 (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What This Article Is About

This article, as redefined by the moves I and several others have enacted recently, is no longer "OMG abortion doesn't have any effect on people how dare you say it does" (extreme pro-choice) versus "OMG STFU PAS!!!" (extreme pro-life). It's also not about listing all the potential effects of abortion upon mental health, as stated above. It's about listing all the notable, verifiable potential effects abortion has upon mental health, by citing them to various studies, and explaining them a little so that people can learn about them. That said, I expect every statement in this article to be sourced. If we source everything and include everything that's notable there shouldn't BE an accusation of bias - it should simply report what group X has found in study Y and so forth. When studies contradict, simply write "group X has found that Y, but group Z has found Q" and leave it be. And for chirssakes, stop strawmaning people based on their supposed political affiliations and AGF! Kuronue | Talk 18:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Thank you. I think we should go back to the version as it was last night and continue with our hard-won decision to move forward civilly and harmoniously by working from a communal mock-up. I've reverted the page once today, and in a bid for harmony, I'm not going to revert it again (today). Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitely like yesterday's version better. I'm getting fed up also and considering unwatching this page. миражinred (speak, my child...) 19:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

NO! Please, I think this is getting out of hand. We lost E yesterday. I think if we can't move forward on this, quickly, we should consider some form of formal intervention. Phyesalis (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kuronue that NPOV can be easily achieved by simply requiring appropriate cites to support statements and generally respecting people's contributions instead of just deleting them. I also agree with the places Kuronue indicated cites are needed. Obviously, I think the new structure is more straight forward and informative because it avoids mixing sources which has freqeuntly turned into original research and synthesis.--Strider12 (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. While I supported the move, looking at the article right now as opposed to when it was entitled "post-abortion syndrome", there's been a major drop in quality. From the introduction on, it's less readable, more opaque, and even downright wrong and misleading (no negative effects have been demonstrated because of the difficulty of studying them? Really?) It's been filled with weasel words and the actual WP:WEIGHT of views has been obscured. We've gone back to having editors select their favorite studies from the primary literature. The ridiculous WP:OR spin and misrepresentation of Fergusson's article has made a triumphant return. We're back to the argument that anything published in a journal should be regurgitated, devoid of secondary-source context (more "purging" accusations") Hopefully this is just a temporary growing pain, but I'll be honest: I'm not sure a good article can be written so long as Strider12 is active and her behavior remains unimproved. MastCell ^Talk 20:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you MastCell, and tried hard to stop the topic change. New editors to this topic had no idea what they were getting us all into. Indeed, they had very little knowledge about topic.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have posted on her talk to see if we can discuss what are clearly editor issues, there. It seems there's a pretty good consensus here as to what the article is about and what is neutral. Anyone up for reverting it back and getting it protected while we work this out? --Phyesalis (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree to that.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well said, MastCell. миражinred (speak, my child...) 01:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The new lead "Research upon the relationship between abortion and mental health indicates that abortion is usually associated with positive or neutral effects on mental health" is not supported, and is more POV pushing. Am I reading MastCell above as suggesting that the Fergusson study should be blanked? It's the best study available!

The use of peer reviewed studies is recommended by Wikipedia policy. The warnings against the use of primary sources refers to first hand accounts, like eye witness reports, and recommends the use of reliable "secondary sources" such as a scholar's peer reviewed study of primary sources. In this case, the raw data examined by Fergusson is the primary source and anyone trying to publish material from the raw data would engaging in original research. But Fergusson is analyzing a copious amount of data, interpreting it within the framework of other data and studies, and his peer reviewed paper is definitely a reliable source and "secondary" in that it is not the raw data of an eyewitness acount, a court record, etc. It is a notable, verifiable, intepretation of primary data by a scholar whose work has been peer reviewed and accepted as reliable.

Furthermore, I too am tired of people arguing that THEY alone know where the WEIGHT of this article belongs, especially when they ignore all the studies and reviews I have identified and insist that the 1990 Adler (APA) review and 1992 Stotland's commentary--because they are referenced by Bazelon and Mooney--are the sole determiners of weight. These very date references are not made more relevent just because biased reporters continue to mention them while ignoring Fergusson and other experts.--Strider12 (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC) --Strider12 (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fergusson: best available study according to whom? What reliable source calls it the best available study (besides Strider12)? Why feature it over the dozens of other studies which reach conclusions less Strider-friendly? As to WP:WEIGHT, the consensus view is documented by secondary sources including the relevant expert bodies (American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association), the DSM-IV, review articles from top-tier medical journals, and mainstream-media pieces from the New York Times Magazine and PBS. Please stop dragging us in circles by claiming it's "only" this or that source supporting the consensus. MastCell ^Talk 05:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here is a source where Fergusson asserts (rightly) that this is the best study done to date. It is best, as you well know, because it is a prospective study that has many pre-preganncy measures, and it has virtually no drop out. It is exactly the type of study Koop recommended would need to be done. It still has many limitations in that it was not designed to study specifically abortion and mental health but is a general study of the population, so some data that would be good to have is not there...at least yet, as Fergusson has stated his intention to ask women additional questions to probe deeper. The fact that this is the best study is also underscored by the fact that after it was published the APA pulled their abortion/mental health web page due to Fergusson's criticisms and set up the Task Force. Clearly this study is far better than any of the half dozen conducted by Russo and Majors. But again, instead of just allowing the evidence to speak for itself, you engage in or defend, the blanking of key studies. Please stop ignoring my evidence that the consensus is not what you say it is. All the sources listed above have as much weight...and arguably more, than a 16 year old commentary and an 18 year old APA position paper. The fact that mainstream media still rely on these old standbys proves only what the consensus is among pro-choice journalists, it tells us nothing about the consensus of experts doing research in the field.--Strider12 (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Fergusson stated that his own study is "probably the best", which is understandable. I feel the same way about the work I publish. Do you have a source for your frequent claim that the APA site was pulled "in response to Fergusson's study"? In any case, if his study is solid enough to overturn the consensus view, then that will all be clear when the APA issues its new summary of the evidence. Which we will incorporate here. Until then, I don't see much new or relevatory sourcing; just the same old editorial posturing. MastCell ^Talk 19:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Weight Should Not Be An Excuse to Blank Verifiable Material

A frequently raised excuse for blanking material has been that inclusion of material supporting a veiw that abortion has mental health effects runs counter to the WEIGHT of expert opinion. My arguments now archived, that this is a distorted view of the WEIGHT, have not been argued and no one has produced new evidence that this claim rests on more than the 1990 Adler (APA) review and 1992 Stotland's commentary. Just because these old sources are repeatedly cited, most recently by Grimes, Bazelon, and Moody, doesn't mean they really reflect the WEIGHT of evidence nor the weight of expert opinions, and all the sources I have cited to the contrary are repeatedly being cut simply because they demonstrate that this deniers view does not define the WEIGHT of evidence or opinion.

What I find especially disingenuous about the WEIGHT argument is that it's not like we are dealing with a flat-earth theory for which supporters cannot cite a single peer-reviewed study. We are talking about an issue that is a hotly contested academic issue with lots of peer reviewed studies and experts to draw on. Insisting that one side has the WEIGHT is ridiculous and just an excuse to censor material and opinions from the other side. We should simply allow and encourage the use of as many peer reviewed sources as editors wish to bring to the table, instead of sifting them to fit one POV.--Strider12 (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is a fundamental, inalterable policy on Wikipedia. Views are detailed in the context of, and in proportion to, their representation among experts in the field. Insisting that the conflicting "sides" are equally supported in the view of experts in the field is ludicrous, and easily disproven with the sources cited. You fixate on peer review as a means of making an end-run around this fundamental policy and giving extra weight to your POV. You also fixate on the idea that once something is published in a peer-reviewed journal it can never be removed or contextualized. It's just not going to fly on Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 05:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ir is also uncontested that you are relying on two expert opinions (1) APA 1990 Adler, and (2) Stotland which are old cites that just get repeated by advocacy journalists like Bazelone and Mooney, and are elevating these sources to the Gospel of WEIGHT. You don't just ignore that I have previously put forward many other sources and experts, a partial list below, you actively work to purge them from the article so as to disguise the FACT that the WEIGHT is not as you say it is.

• Thorp JM, Hartmann KE, Shadigian E. Long-Term Physical and Psychological Health Consequences of Induced Abortion: Review of the Evidence. Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey 2003, 58(1):67-79. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strider12 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Elizabeth Ring-Cassidy, Ian Gentles. Womens's Health After Abortion. 2002
• Coleman, P. K., Reardon, D. C., Strahan, T., & Cougle, J. (2005). The psychology of abortion: A review and suggestions for future research. Psychology and Health, 20, 237-271. (Coleman is the most published researcher in the field of abortion and mental health)
• Coleman PK. Induced Abortion and Increased Risk of Substance Abuse: A Review of the Evidence, Current Women’s Health Reviews, 2005, 1, 21-34.
• Coleman, PK. The Uniquely Destructive Psychological Experience of Elective Abortion: Comparisons with Other Forms of Perinatal Loss and Delivery of an Unintended Pregnancy, Association for Interdisciplinary Research in Values and Social Change. Vol. 17, No. 6 Fall 2004
• Thomas Strahan, Detrimental Effects of Abortion: An Annotated Bibliography With Commentary. 2001
• E. Joanne Anegelo. Psychiatric Sequelae of Abortion: The Many Faces of Post-Abortion Grief Linacre Quarterly, 59:69-80, May, 1992
• Theresa Burke. Forbidden Grief. 2002.
• Candace Du Puy,Dana Dovitch The Healing Choice: Your Guide to Emotional Recovery After an Abortion

and additional pro-choice advocates such as Fogel, Wilmouth, Soderberg, Fergusson, Zimmerman and many others who believe abortion should be readily available but also insist that it has significant mental health risks.

WEIGHT should not be dictated by one or two editors, it should be allowed to be SHOWN by the INCLUSION of evidence and expert opinions. If my recommended policy were followed, it would be evident in an article on the earth that there are NO peer reviewed studies supporting a flat earth argument, so the standard applies. Also, you are misrepresenting the distinction between primary sources and secondary sources. Peer Reviewed articles of the type we are talking about are SECONDARY SOURCES which analyze, intepret, and synthesize primary sources (like the NLSY data set) and that anlaysis is what it peer reviewed for reliability. This is why these sources are Most FAvored by Wikipedia policy. More below.--Strider12 (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Integration of lede content, removal of uncited content

The lede was a poor repetition of the material given in the first few sections. It actually repeated certain sections word-for-word, which greatly impedes the readability of the article. I integrated the content which was not duplicated into the article, and replaced the lede with a single, neutral sentence. The article is short enough that the sections can speak for themselves. If we want to rebuild the lede I suggest we do it at Talk rather than having all those changes "go live".

Also, I removed a good deal of content that was unsourced, both from the promote-PAS and debunk-PAS sides. In an article on a topic as heated as abortion, we really need to be certain we follow WP:V to the letter. Photouploaded (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the first paragraph is not the way to proceed. We do need to have a lead paragraph. Let's work on taking out any repetition, but keep the gist of the paragraph. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary

I just want to point out that in this edit summary, I did not intend to state that no negative effects can possibly exist, ever, at all. I have not interviewed every single person who has ever had an abortion; I cannot say. My intention was to illustrate that this so-called syndrome, since it is not recognized by any major medical body as legitimate, should not be categorized in such a way that the article indicates that this "syndrome" is considered a "negative effect". With the lack of evidence for this "syndrome", it is best to leave the discussion of the concept under its own self-titled header. Photouploaded (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the article looks better having a heading to cover the 'opposite' opinion, but taking account of what you say, I've put 'alleged' in the heading. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Editing Policy to Avoid Edit Warring

Much of the edit warring over this article revolves around disagreements over editing policy and the argument about what sources should be allowed and how WEIGHT is to be determined. I would ask editors to discuss, refine, and agree to a policy that properly interprets Wikipedia policy.

1. I agree the scope of the article on abortion and mental health (and/or "post-abortion syndrome) is regarding both the controversy of this issue and the evidence for or against the idea that abortion has negative mental health consequences.

2. I agree that WEIGHT is composed of two elements: facts and expert opinion. From this it follows that facts should never be deleted because the conflict with the opinions of some experts. Secondly, the opinions of a few experts should not be treated as the "Gospel of WEIGHT" for the purpose of excluding the opinion of experts who disagree.

3. I agree with Wikipedia policy that:

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

4: I agree that peer reviewed studies are "reliable secondary sources" in that they provide a synthesis and analyses of "primary sources" (including raw data and eyewitness accounts), and as the methods and analyses have been reviewed determined to be reliable by academic peers they should be accepted as reliable sources by Wikipedia editors.

5. For the reasons explained above, I agree that all peer reviewed material shall always be treated as verifiable material and that while entries relating to peer reviewed studies may be edited for accuracy, they should not be deleted since they represent the facts which shall help to demonstrate the where the WEIGHT of evidence lies.

6. I agree that in general, for the sake of brevity and to avoid giving undue weight to any single source, it would be best for each source should be used and described only once.

7. I agree that any general conclusions, whether by an expert, team of experts, or from a media source, such as "Abortion trauma is a myth" shall always be attributed in the text (not just the footnote) to the party making the generalization.

8. I agree with Wikipedia policy that the authors of peer reviewed studies on abortion and mental health should be recognized as established experts in the field and that statements made by these experts may be quoted or accurately summarized in the article if approriately attributed to the expert in the text.

9. I agree with the commonly held view of Wikipedia editors that articles in the popular press should not be relied upon as sources of fact in preference to the peer reviewed studies themselves. Referance to articles in the popular press, however, should be allowed if properly identified as such in the text (not just the footnotes) in order to document the controversies surrounding this issue.

10. I agree that when I see an entry by another editor which seems to "cherry pick" only facts that seem to promote a POV that is not fully supported by the source, the solution is not to delete the contribution but rather to add additional material or clarifications from the source so as to accurately represent the source in a more balanced NPOV fashion.

I believe it would be very helpful if we could arrive at some objective standards for ensuring that the verifiable material and the contributions of editors will no longer be just constantly deleted. If you wish to discuss and help to edit this proposed policy, please do so at a page I have setup for that purpose: Proposed Editing Policy AgreementStrider12 (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors have already agreed upon community standards for editing set forth in our policies and guidelines. It is unreasonable to expect editors to agree to a Ten Commandments of Editing This Particular Article. Photouploaded (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is people aren't following PG policy and are deleting verifiable material. Regarding PAS section, we previously agreed to keep it short. That it describes the abortion-trauma allegation and is not recognized in DSM and is considered a political ploy. All the other material should go elsewhere...and most of it already is elsewhere. Redundant.--Strider12 (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the problem is that no amount of outside input can convince you that your understanding of policy is flawed. There is no policy against removing even verifiable material if it is irrelevant, misleadingly presented, or abused to further an original synthesis or provide undue weight. WP:V says as much in its opening: "Jointly, these policies (WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV) determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another." We don't need new policies for this page; we need for you to follow the existing ones. MastCell ^Talk 19:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Per Photouploaded, MastCell and anyone else, we're not going to create Wiki-specific rules and regulations for this article. Basically, Strider wants to get rid of undue weight provisions to make all reliable, unreliable and totally bogus references equal. Not going to happen. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I want to put a stop to ABUSES of the undue weight argument which are being used to delete reliable and verifiable sources, which by definition includes peer reviewed journal articles. Using a couple advocacy journalist's articles which claim what "most experts" say, citing just one or two experts as thier sources, is a pitful excuse to dismiss and discount scores of peer reviewed medical articles. If I try to add a source that is NOT from a peer reviewed article, then you may challenge that it is unreliable. But reliable sources, peer reviewed works, should not be blanked because they disagree with the assertions of Stotland's commentary, Bazelon's advocacy piece, or the general conclusions of an EIGHTEEN year old review article by APA members. It's that simple.--Strider12 (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother to correct your ridiculous minimization of the sourcing in the article, or point out that removing or rewriting material which violates WP:NPOV is hardly "blanking". I'll simply say that Wikipedia functions by consensus. You need to convince people that you're right. Granted, you have an uphill battle with me, because you started off here with blatant canvassing for partisan support, personal attacks, obvious misrepresentation of sources, endless bad faith accusations, and edit-warring, and I have serious questions about both inappropriate single-purpose agenda-driven advocacy and a real conflict of interest on your part. But new, uninvolved editors have come to this article, and you've generally failed to convince anyone with your endlessly repeated circular arguments and accusations of purging. While you were only just blocked for edit-warring, you've been violating the spirit of WP:3RR for far longer by staying just within 3 reverts/24 hours and trying to force changes which clearly lack any support from other editors. You've now fulfilled virtually all of the characteristics of problem editors; if you won't change your approach, then I'm pretty much done. MastCell ^Talk 18:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Eleventh suggestion

11. I agree with the guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.1 and the guidelines for avoiding tendentious editing which state "Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information." See [wp:tend]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strider12 (talk • contribs) 11:00, January 25, 2008

Sources

I'm going to be posting some sources so we can get some issues ironed out:

• Guttmacher --Phyesalis (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not add it as an external link to the list of pro-choice sources? It is a good summary of the deniers position by a major player in the debate...but it is one-sided, as one would expect from AGI since it has a clear abortion advocacy position, and should be identified as such. --Strider12 (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The intro paragraph is too short

Pysesalis, why are you making the intro paragraph so short? What is the purpose of that? It doesn't tell the reader much, and it's not good wiki form.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Did Phyesalis shorten it too? I was the one who summarized it. I did so because the intro paragraph was not a summary, but a repetition of material already included in the article. The Stotland quote was repeated word-for-word. I think it is worse Wiki form for readers to find themselves saying "wait, I read this paragraph already." Are there any changes you would like to see? Photouploaded (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Koop

The Koop section, this version, is a hodge podge of inferences again. Koop's letter did not use the word "miniscule." That word was used later at a hearing when he said the "public health effect" is probably "miniscule." Since he had already concluded that the studies were too poor to draw any conclusion about the public health effects of abortion, this was obviously just his gut feel, not a statement of fact, since he otherwise consistently said there were not enough facts on which to draw general conclusions.

Once again, even this section is being distorted for POV pushing. Here is a NPOV version that reflects the breadth of what Koop did, reported, and has asserted as his opinions:

In 1987 President Reagan directed U.S. Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop to issue a report on the health effects of abortion on women. Koop's staff subsequently began a review of over 250 studies pertaining to the physical and psychological impact of abortion. After reviewing the staff report, Koop wrote a letter to President Reagan in January of 1989 stating that he could not issue a conclusive report because the available "scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women." To address the inadequate research in the field, Koop recommended a $100 million dollar prospective study would be required to conclusively examine the mental health effects of abortion. In the letter Koop also stated the view that "In the minds of some [abortion opponents], it was a foregone conclusion that the negative health effects of abortion on women were so overwhelming that the evidence would force the reversal of Roe vs. Wade." He also noted that while the psychological effects of abortion had not been adequately studied "...doctors had long ago concluded that the physical results of abortion are not major health factors and required little additional study."

In subsequent testimony before a congressional committee regarding his review of the literature, Koop stated that while the scientific studies available at that time were not methodologically sound enough to draw unimpeachable conclusions, "There is no doubt about the fact that some people have severe psychological effects after abortion, but anecdotes do not make good scientific material." In yet a subsequent Congressional hearing, when Koop was pressed to address the question of whether his view of the inadequate studies he had reviewed indicated that abortion posed a public mental health threat, Koop stated that in his opinion it was "miniscule from a public-health perspective."^{cite needed}

Feel free to find a different source for a copy of his letter, but the cited source is accurate. While others may want to add additional details, any deletion of the facts above is just more POV pushing.--Strider12 (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

"Miniscule from a public health perspective" should be sourced to the New York Times Magazine article, where it's quoted. Also, Koop's comments should be preferentially sourced to independent, reliable secondary sources (e.g. this article from New Scientist, which covers Koop's letter in sufficient detail) rather than to a copy of his letter hosted at priestsforlife.org. MastCell ^Talk 18:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think readers should be given a link to read his actual letter, not just snippets. Unless another site can be found, I see no reason to not use the copy at priests for life as it does not include and propoganda from priests for life. I did find a copy of Koops testimony. Here is another source describing some of the background story regarding the Koop's staffs work and his letter, but I don't know where the details come from so am no recommending it as a source for the article. More of an FYI in the event someone want's to research. Some of this must be in a biography on Koop out there.--Strider12 (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Do Not Cause Disruption by Deleting Verifiable Information

There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.1 To quote advice from wp:TEND Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information.

Please do not cause disruption by deleting

• the Reactions Associated With Abortion which was included by consensus for many months and is carefully cited.
• the PTSD study of 155 abortion patients
• the summary of the Fergusson study
• the information reported in Stotland's article regarding the Lask study on which she relied.

If you feel any of these materials should be moved to another section, I am quite open to your recommendations. But any deletion is, according to ArbCom standards, disruption.--Strider12 (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted, per the many editors who disagree with your POV-pushing. Photouploaded (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The accusation of POV-pushing is unfounded as the material is "pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style." Most of it was previously included for many months before you began editing this article. Please do not act disruptively by deleting well sourced materials.--Strider12 (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As MastCell said, you fit into awfully many characteristics of tendentious editors. There was a previous agreement to put the bullet points into prose. Many of them are already mentioned in the PAS section. миражinred (speak, my child...) 03:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

03:18, 29 January 2008 Saranghae honey claims her deletion of four sections and dozens of reliable sources is justified by "an agreement to put them into prose." But much of what was deleted was in prose, and most of the deleted material has been excluded, not rewritten in prose. Besides, a list is less subject to errors in neutrality. Plus, the purported "agreement" was not agreed to by editors on the "other side of the aisle" therefore, if it even occurred, which I don't see in the discussion, it is nothing more than another gang-pushing effort which has the effect of replacing collaboration with POV-pushing. Including "many of them" in prose which dismisses them is not the same as presenting all of them in a neutral fashion.--Strider12 (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that I can only identify one editor on "the other side of the aisle". I also think you're off-base in repeatedly quoting the ArbCom decision; as the point of contention is that your edits are not neutral or appropriately sourced (for the conclusions you draw), they do not fall under the ArbCom decision. Removal of material (sourced or not) which violates WP:NOR and WP:NPOV is not disruptive; it's mandatory. MastCell ^Talk 04:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm too new to all this to understand fully, but it does appear to me that any effort made by Strider 12 to add information is immediately reverted by one of a small group of editors. As for Strider being identified as 'one' editor 'on the other side', I'm sure that silence by editors who continue to watch this page, should not be interpreted as an indication of agreement to Strider's contributions being reverted. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fish, do you have a specific suggestion with regards to the text of the page?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Fishiehelper. The immediate deletion of reliable, factual information is not only disruptive, it fails to give "occassional editors" a chance to examine and to build on the contributions.--Strider12 (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting things seems too much like censorship for my tastes. To borrow a creationist term, "teach the controversy" - if people say things that are wrong, they're still verifiable. But, on the other hand, don't mislead people by taking quotes out of context - from what i've seen people are cherry-picking quotes that go against the final conclusions and inserting them in, and that's also a no-no. Kuronue | Talk 22:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Strider12's contributions generally contain generous helpings of original synthesis and undue weight, though they also contain sources. They also require extensive hands-on verification because she has, historically, misrepresented the sources she cites. Then, when her edits are removed, she insists that she's being censored and people are disruptively deleting sourced content. This ignores the fact that sourcing is not the sole criteria for inclusion; WP:NOR and WP:NPOV are equally important. It also ignores the need to seek consensus instead of casting about for a sentence from policy or an ArbCom decision that can be mined and exploited. MastCell ^Talk 22:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not been engaging in OR and the question of undue weight is one on which we disagree as I have frequently noted that you give undue weight to just a few sources and continue to delete or support the deletion of scores of other sources.

Feel free to check all material, that should always be done. But we should also assume good faith, even toward those like myself who are critical of abortion because I have worked with so many women scarred by it. But it is unkind, misleading, and simply false to suggest that I have EVER misled or taken quotes out of context. That there is ADDITIONAL material in a source that you may want to add is fine, but it is unfair to accuse me of misrepresentations. For example, in your dispute over the David Grime's material you brought in, he did in fact admit that he did not do a psych review. He was merely citing Stotland's commentary. That he continues to hold the opinion that abortion is safe was not the issue, and I did not need to quote him on that. The issue was your false contention that his article contributed a new review of abortion and mental health. It did not, it simply cited an old COMMENTARY and an old review. Ditto with your complaints about my "cherry-picking" Stotland's article in which she describes treating a woman with a severe delayed emotional reaction to abortion. I never claimed Stotland no longer supported abortion, only that her own counseling position had resulted in a softening of her position that there is NO EVIDENCE for post-abortion reactions.

Also, I did not "cast about for a sentence from policy or an ArbCom decision that can be mined and exploited." The sentence is from a page YOU directed me to. You shouldn't object when I point out that your own interpretations of policy are wrong based on the very pages you refer me to.

Please stop misrepresenting me just because I have more sources than you do and you dislike what these sources report.--Strider12 (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You didn't fool anyone back then, and revising history now isn't going to work either. Responding to you further would be unproductive. If you address specific content-related points in a civil manner, I'll respond. Otherwise, I won't. It's no use arguing with someone with their fingers in their ears. MastCell ^Talk 23:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Negative effects of abortion

• Mastcell - Archive 2
• Mastcell - Arhive 3

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Because the following paragraph amounts to original research, cherry picking and undo weight with regards to the scientific consensus, I propose it be deleted:

No causal link between abortion and negative mental health effects has been established. Emotional and mental health problems may result because of the status of the woman's relationship, economic status or conservative views on abortion. These situations and abortion do correlate in some women with emotions such as guilt , anxiety, suicidal thoughts, depression, and anniversary reactions.

I think it's important to note that these correlations have been described, because, well, they have. At the same time, it should be absolutely clear to the reader that most authorities view them as explicable by pre-existing risk factors common to both the outcomes in question and unwanted pregnancy. And that this correlation (which is reported by some but not all authors) is not believed to represent causation, but to represent overlapping risk factors. The above paragraph could certainly be better written, but the studies and correlations do deserve mention. MastCell ^Talk 04:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly MastCell, that's why I added all the qualifiers. However, I think that including these studies does an injustice to the topic as a whole. It really does amount to cherry picking, as you have noted in the past. We need to find one secondary source that incorporates these negative effects and the pre-existing risk factors for negative effects. Until we can do that, I think that we should not include the paragraph.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 06:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That approach worries me - I think it is better to include sourced material with appropriate comment, than delete as you are suggesting. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the sources are preliminary studies, or at least not yet part of the whole of scientific literature. Hence the problem of Original Research, etc. For example, one study cited which was done in Portugal where abortion is illegal is hardly representative a global perspective of the scientific literature about guilt after an abortion. Also, the Swedish study actually says the opposite of what is implied in the sentence in our article. The large majority of women do have sex relatively soon after an abortion, and the purpose of the study was not to determine if women suffer from sexual disfunction after abortion.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

MastCell and Alice make a number of good points. Fishie, there's material that is appropriate and relevant and material that is not - somewhere on my laptop I have a study which asserts that pro-life people are by and large more religious and less educated and affluent than pro-choicers, and that these characteristics heavily influence their approaches and responses to abortion - should I include this peer-review study? Probably not. Just because it's out there, doesn't mean it belongs here. Perhaps you could offer some insight into why you think the material isn't OR? Hope this helps. -Phyesalis (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sarangae honey, do you have an opinion in all this? I just noticed the back and forth over the last few days and thought maybe we could all talk it out here? --Phyesalis (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish that the article would 1. keep the sentence that IronAngelAlice wants to delete. 2. and per MastCell's suggestion, add in a sentence that pre-existing factors can influence the severity of these effects. миражinred (speak, my child...) 20:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Phyesalis, the demographics study about pro-choicers and lifers sound really interesting and cool, but I'm not sure how that study can be incorporated into the article. It may be more appropriate to add them into pro-life and pro-choice articles itself. миражinred (speak, my child...) 20:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it laughable that there is so many editors think that they know more than peer reviewers....so much more that they can set aside rules against original research and declare that accurately cited, verifiable studies can be ignored because they are just "preliminary studies" or that "most authorities view them as explicable by pre-existing risk factors." These are broad assertions which are not supported by each of the studies, or many others, that could be cited.

A fact is a fact. It should not be deleted because it doesn't fit one's POV. These peer reviewed studies show these effects associated with abortion. Period. If studies show more religious women have more negative experiences, as Phyesalis notes, that is a fact that can and should be included if ANY editor wants to add it.

No consensus ever justifies excluding facts. Consensus is good for decisions regarding organization of an article and for clarifying wording in a NPOV fashion. But efforts to purge facts that go against a POV are never justified by a "consensus" and should never be described as a collaboration or conensus...it is just bullying. Every fact cited to a reliable source has its place. This is why the ArbCom finding, which MastCell called my attention to, is so important. Deleting facts from reliable sources is disruption, and such disruption should not be tolerated, much less advocated under false banners of consensus or OR claims that "I know better than the peer reviewers" who verified the reliability of the source.--Strider12 (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer reviewers decide what they think is appropriate for publication in a specific journal. Their mandate, goals, value judgements, and operating policies are very different from ours as Wikipedia editors. To say that something peer-reviewed inherently belongs on Wikipedia and cannot be questioned or removed if used in violation of WP:NPOV or WP:NOR is simply ludicrous. But feel free to keep forum-shopping. MastCell ^Talk 23:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What if we reworded it to say "No causal link between abortion and negative mental health effects has been established. The small percentage of negative emotional responses following an abortion are primarily the result of pre-existing mental health conditions as well as the status of the woman's relationship, economic status or conservative views on abortion. These factors may be exacerbated by an abortion resulting in feelings of guilt, anxiety, suicidal thoughts, depression, and anniversary reactions." This contextualizes it and emphasizes the pre-existing conditions. Thoughts? --Phyesalis (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. миражinred (speak, my child...) 00:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds too reasonable. :) No, I think it sounds fine. I might change "The small percentage of negative emotional responses following an abortion are primarily the result..." to "The statistical association reported by some researchers between abortion and negative psychological responses is primarily the result...", but that's me. MastCell ^Talk 00:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL! I'd be fine with that alteration. Alice, you were the one to first object to the wording, what do you think? --Phyesalis (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if I'm allowed to flip-flop, maybe the original wording is better. I could go with either one. MastCell ^Talk 03:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm going for it - I assume since there has been no argument against the change, it's fine. Going forward. --Phyesalis (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Stotland

I'm replacing the material regarding Stotland's commentary. To cherry pick her "no evidence" claim while excluding her own description of evidence that three groups of women do have negative reactions is POV pushing. Also, repeated deletions of her subsequent paper are also misrepresentative. If people want to ADD material from her, that is fine, but continued deletion of this reliable and verifiable information is DISRUPTION.

Also, Nada Stotland does not represent JAMA. It was a commentary. The heading should refer to Stotland, not JAMA

===Nada Stotland===

Psychiatrist Nada Stotland of the University of Chicago, current president of the American Psychiatric Association, argued in a 1992 commentary published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): "There is no evidence of an abortion-trauma syndrome.” She identified only three groups of women as being at risk: "Significant psychiatric illness following abortion occurs most commonly in women who were psychiatrically ill before pregnancy, in those who decided to undergo abortion under external pressure, and in those who underwent abortion in aversive circumstances, for example, abandonment. Lask attributed the adverse reaction in 11% of the subjects he studied to these factors."

In a subsequent 1998 paper, Stotland describes treating a patient who experienced a severe delayed reaction to a prior abortion following a a subsequent miscarriage. She reports discovering first-hand "the psychological complexities of induced abortion" and concludes that the failure to address these issues "leaves the person vulnerable to reminders and reenactments, to difficulties that may surface in life and in subsequent psychotherapy." Despite a woman's political or moral views of abortion, she writes, "abortion is experienced by that woman as both the mastery of a difficult life situation and as the loss of a potential life. There is the danger that the political, sociological context can overshadow a woman's authentic, multilayered emotional experience."

In 2003, Stotland wrote, "Currently, there are active attempts to convince the public and women considering abortion that abortion frequently has negative psychiatric consequences. This assertion is not borne out by the literature: the vast majority of women tolerate abortion without psychiatric sequelae." —--Strider12 (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

MastCell's disruptive deletion of the reliable material above is not acceptable. I am merely quoting Stotland herself. That makes OR impossible. I give Stotland's cite to Lask in the footnote so people know the study she is citing. Again, no OR, just Stotland's cite. Rather than reverting an entire section, it is better to make small changes if you see any lapse in NPOV. Otherwise, your deletion of verifiable material will appear to be disruptive.--Strider12 (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As has been discussed ad nauseum, you are misrepresenting Stotland's "epiphany", which was nothing of the sort. If you find my conduct disruptive, feel free to pursue whatever means of dispute resolution you prefer. MastCell ^Talk 23:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Instead of deleting the material, how would you suggest rewording the presentation of the material I have quoted in a fashion that does not "misrepresent Stotland's epiphany," as you put it. Let's work to include it in an NPOV fashion.--Strider12 (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling MastCell disruptive borders on a personal attack, as it is patently false. There's no need to be so antagonistic. We're trying to have a civil discussion and comments like that are not helping. I think Strider misunderstands the spirit of the ArbCom decision and the nature of WP:Weight. --Phyesalis (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.1. In Stotland's commentary she herself cites a study describing that 11% of women have significant emotional problems following abortion and lists three groups of women at higher risk. Deleting this quote is unwarranted. As is deleting other material from Stotland. The selected quotes are cherry-picked. I'm not trying to delete those offered by MastCell or others, I'm simply trying to add additional relevent and reliable information from the SAME authority.--Strider12 (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than continuing to lecture me on policy, please pursue whatever means of dispute resolution you see fit if you believe I'm being disruptive. That is why you're keeping an inappropriate userpage at User:Strider12/Disruption, right? Since I feel you fit the description of a tendentious editor to a T, your lectures are not having the presumably desired effect.

If you want to write that "Stotland identified three groups of women as being at risk for psychiatric problems after abortion: those who were psychiatrically ill before pregnancy, those who decided to undergo abortion under external pressure, and those who underwent abortion in aversive circumstances, for example, abandonment", then be my guest. I am absolutely opposed to your relentless quest to use PMID 9659865 as some sort of "epiphany" Stotland had. You have misrepresented this source (actually, a case report) quite badly in the past. If you feel that a case report is relevant and needs to be quoted here, I'd suggest picking something from Stotland's concluding paragraphs:

Antiabortion forces focus on the primacy, the sanctity, of the embryo's right to life and see the mother's subsequent emotional health as a reaction to providing or depriving it of that life. However the embryo may have been conceived, it is, as a human embryo, a creation that God needs its mother to protect.

Pro-choice forces focus on the choice rather than on the destruction of real or potential life. Termination of pregnancy is viewed as the least destructive alternative in a bad situation. Despite the rhetoric of the right-to-life movement, no one is actually "pro-abortion." Pro-choice movements stress the real-life vulnerability of women to unplanned and untenable conception and to unsafe abortions undergone out of desperation. They see the right to abortion as crucial to women's health and to the realization of our talents and dreams as equal (not identical) partners in society.

Whichever of these irreconcilable perspectives the reader, or a woman facing a choice about a pregnancy, subscribes to, an abortion is experienced by that woman as both the mastery of a difficult life situation and as the loss of a potential life. There is the danger that the political, sociological context can overshadow a woman's authentic, multilayered emotional experience. Had this patient's abortion occurred now, rather than nearly 20 years ago, she might have been faced with abortion protesters accusing her of murder rather than with peers who considered abortion a trivial event. As with any other significant life decision, the inability to acknowledge and share one or the other facet of that experience leaves the person vulnerable to reminders and reenactments, to difficulties that may surface in life and in subsequent psychotherapy.

This would have the advantage of accurately representing the source. MastCell ^Talk 22:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Suicide

The factors in the United States: http://www.factcheck.org/society/abortion_distortions.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronAngelAlice (talk • contribs) 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this a think tank? миражinred (speak, my child...) 00:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It's associated with the University of Pennsylvania.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

From the Guttmacher Institute: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/09/3/gpr090308.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronAngelAlice (talk • contribs) 01:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a study done in Washington State:

• http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/3/e669

Results of this study: "Our evaluation of reproductive risk factors among multigravid women showed no association between history of spontaneous or therapeutic abortion and risk for a suicide attempt." --IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Much, much better. миражinred (speak, my child...) 03:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that can be added into the neutral/positive effects of abortion section. миражinred (speak, my child...) 03:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite amazed at this - a reference to a study from Finland is deleted because it was just a study in Finland, but a study from a single state of the USA is somehow okay? Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Fish, please see the history on this. 1) The Finland study is pertinent to the "Suicide" page on Finnish language Wikipedia, and (2) The Washington State study has not been included (3) There is other evidence that suicidal incidences among American women does not increase after abortion, and (4) The population of Washington State is roughly the same as Finland.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we ought to include the Finnish study. However, I also think we need to take care not to misrepresent its findings. The authors themselves made clear that no absolutely no assertion of causality could be drawn in either direction, and that their findings could just as easily confirm that psychiatric problems predispose to abortion as they could suggest that abortion causes psychiatric problems. So long as we respect what the study actually says, I think it's a relevant source for this article. I think the Washington state study is also a relevant source. MastCell ^Talk 19:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that adding the study amounts to Original Research. The study was done in the context of Finland's extremely high suicide rate. It was not done as a scientific comment on abortion - as we are proposing that it is.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

One could certainly question the generalizability of the Finnish findings to the U.S. population, given the discrepancy in baseline suicide rates and prevalences of various risk factors. If this point has been raised in reliable sources (I think it has), then that could be briefly mentioned in the article. Still, while this is English-language Wikipedia, we do strive for a universal/worldwide approach and try to avoid Americocentrism. And the Finnish study is often cited in other work on the topic, suggesting that researchers have found it notable if nothing else. MastCell ^Talk 20:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Finland has a higher baseline suicide rate is totally irrelevant since the study drew conclusions about groups within that population. We can not infer from that study for the rest of the world any more than we can infer from a Washington State study for the rest of the world, but we can not merely dismiss it on the grounds that the study was only from Finland, or on the grounds that it was in Finnish. It is also irrelevant whether the study set out to comment on abortion or not - that it did in the end find strong correlation between induced abortion and risk of suicide is what matters. (Of course, 'correlation does not mean causation' as the study makes explicitly clear.) Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Why does it matter if Finland has a suicide rate. For starters, this is OR. Also, the study is comparing women who have had abortion to those who didn't and it would be nice to have some non-US studies included as our sources. миражinred (speak, my child...) 20:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Have either of you read the study? If you haven't, please give it a whirl. It was a kind of meta-analysis, in the form of a linkage study, of Finnish women. If we are going to include it, we have to put it in the context of what the study was supposed to understand - suicide in Finland. Also, we do include non-U.S. studies (just FYI).--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Yes I read it and you are correct - it does deal with suicide in Finland. It finds a correlation between induced abortion and a relatively higher rate of suicide in Finland. If the article we are discussing was 'Abortion and mental health in the USA', I could understand your objection to including a study from Finland about Finnish women, but we're not. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I second your opinion, Fishiehelper. миражinred (speak, my child...) 21:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Higher rates of suicide ATTEMPTS were also reported by Morgan. See Morgan, C. L., Evans, M., Peters, J. R, Currie, C., Mitchison, S., Gissler, M., Hemminki, E., Lonnqvist, J. (1997). Suicides after pregnancy. BMJ 314: 902-902. This study is especially interesting in that it found that prior to their pregnancies there was no significant difference in history of suicide attempts.

Elevated rates of suicidal behaviors were also found in the excellent longitudinal study of Fergusson (Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 47(1): 16-24, 2006.) after controlling for prior mental health history.

Also, when the same record based analysis used in Finland was applied to MediCal data from California, the elevated rate of suicide related to abortion was observed among low income American women. (See Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study of low income women. Southern Medical Journal, August 2002, 95(8):834-841.)

If you can find it, elevated rates of suicide ideation and attempts were also reported in the dissertation of B. Garfinkel, "Stress, Depression and Suicide: A Study of Adolescents in Minnesota," Responding to High Risk Youth, Minnesota Extension Service, University of Minnesota (1986).

In short, there are plenty of sources confirming the association between abortion and suicide, several of startling quality. There are also sources documenting individual cases via suicide notes and therapist notes, if you want I can provide some.--Strider12 (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Strider, your links are all re-hashes by various people of the Finland study, including a rehash be Reardon. They are not new studies in and of themselves.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know you were looking for only "new studies." What is wrong with using any peer reviewed study that is relevant? The Gissler and Reardon studies are all peer reviewed, relevent, secondary sources. Just because they include facts, analyses, and conclusions which do not support your POV does not mean they should be excluded.--Strider12 (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Washington study cited by IronAngelAlice: This study is much different in design. It does not look at suicide one year after all pregnancy outcomes, as was done in Finland and California. It looks at one year after delivery or fetal death (miscarriage). They did not have comprehensive data on abortion history and did not look at suicde rates the year after an abortion. They did attempt to gather partial information about abortion history, but it is likely that many women and their records did not report all abortions. Given privacy laws, it is certain that they did not have access to all the abortion history data they would have liked. And as I don't see in the report that they even state how many women in the sample they did identify as having had a history of abortion, it could have been a very disproportionately low number.

But more to the point, their analysis was limited to looking only to see if women who attempted suicide in the year following a DELIVERY may have been at higher risk if they also had a history of therapuetic abortion. Given the limited abortion data they had access to, they found that a hisotry of therapuetic abortion was not a risk factor for suicide in the year following a delivery. That really tells us nothing in regard to suicide rates the year following an abortion, which is what Gissler examined. It could mean, for example, that women with a history of abortion who succed in having a "replacement baby" are at much lower risk of suicide. But it tells us nothing about suicide risk in the year following an abortion. In short, it is a very different study and tells us different things. It does not contradict the Finland, Britain, or California studies.--Strider12 (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And now it all begins anew. Any study that's on Reardon's website or afterabortion.org, Strider is going to want to cite. This is getting ridiculous (again).--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

These studies may or may not be referenced on the Elliot Institute website. If they are, it is irrelevent. What is relevent is that they are published in peer reviewed journals, which by Wikipedia policy are reliable sources. Why do you object to the use of peer reviewed sources simply because they do not advance your POV?--Strider12 (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the referance to the Gissler study should simply report the basic finding without comment, thus: "A record based study of Finnish women found that in the year following a pregnancy outcome the rate of suicide following abortion was 34.7 per 100,000 compared to 5.9 per 100,000 for women who gave birth, 18.1 per 100,000 for women who had miscarriages, and 11.4 per 100,000 for women who had not been pregnant in the prior year." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strider12 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why it is impossible for you to be honest, Strider. The actual results and conclusions of the study are several paragraphs long, and they include pertinent information such as the context in which suicides generally occur in Finland in relation to those statistics. We get it, Strider - you think abortion is harmful and that any study that even in passing seems to support that assertion should be mentioned in great detail. But doing that is what made made the article POV and unbearable in the previous iteration. Are you seriously going to make us go through all that again? How do you find the time?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not dishonest. I actually understand the carefully worded statements and conclusions in these studies. Unfortunately, you tend to guess too much. For example, you describe the Gissler study as a meta-analysis. It is not. A meta-analysis is a study of numerous, one which attempts to combine data from multiple studies. Gissler study is a record based study that used multiple data sources. The Washington study specifically describes suicide attempts post-delivery or pregnancy loss....not post-abortion. It specifically states that a history of abortion was not found to be associated with suicide following a SUBSEQUENT pregnancy that was delivered or miscarried. Please read more carefully and avoid making edits if you do not fully understand the material. Also, please stop accusing me of bias simply because I present objective facts which do not support the POV you are pushing.--Strider12 (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the suicide study - its conclusion is inline with confounding factors and merely reiterates what the paragraph already says. It seemed to be misrepresented and unnecessary. --Phyesalis (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Studies Relating to Reactions at One Year Post-Abortion

For discussion:

Interviews with of 854 women one year after they had abortions at a hospital in Sweden, found that approximately 60 percent of the women had experienced some level of emotional distress from their abortions and in 30% of the cases the reactions were classified as "severe."

The research also compared pre-operative data on the women who agreed to participate in the one year followup and data on women who refused to participate, who represented approximately one-third of all women who had abortions at the hospital. Based on socio-demographic factors, reproductive history and reasons given for the abortion, the researchers concluded that women who are most likely to experience negative post-abortion reactions are also least likely to participate in post-abortion research, stating that "for many of the women, the reason for non-participation seemed to be a sense of guilt and remorse that they did not wish to discuss. An answer very often given was: ‘I do not want to talk about it. I just want to forget'."

A record-based study of Finnish women found that in the year following a pregnancy outcome the rate of suicide following abortion was 34.7 per 100,000 compared to 5.9 per 100,000 for women who gave birth, 18.1 per 100,000 for women who had miscarriages, and 11.4 per 100,000 for women who had not been pregnant in the prior year.

Organizing studies around the time frame in which they were conducted following the abortion may provide a useful structure for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strider12 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, you misrepresent the studies.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)