Talk:Illegal operation (euphemism)

Did you know nomination (2022)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

1919 San Francisco Chronicle coverage of a death by “illegal operation”

• ... that "illegal operation" was a common euphemism for abortion in early 20th century North American newspapers? Source: “In polite company, abortion wasn't even whispered. It was referred to in newspapers as ‘an illegal operation,’ usually reported only when those who performed abortions were arrested or women who had abortions turned up in emergency rooms hemorrhaging, with raging infections, or dead.“Neville, Anne (2002-11-25). "'I WAS DOING SOMETHING ILLEGAL'". Buffalo News. Retrieved 2022-09-03.

Alternate image for option 1:

1920 California newspaper headline

• • ALT1: ... that some American films like The Doctor and the Girl used the euphemism "illegal operation" in dialogue about abortion? Source: the phrase “illegal operation” appeared in the 1949 American film The Doctor and the Girl, “[Signaling] the return of veiled dialogue in abortion narratives as Breen compromised by allowing them to refer to ‘an illegal operation’ ... Despite the vagueness of the phrase ‘illegal operation’, studios realized that the PCA had just allowed an abortion narrative on the screen.”Kirby, David A. (2017-09-19). "Regulating cinematic stories about reproduction: pregnancy, childbirth, abortion and movie censorship in the US, 1930–1958". The British Journal for the History of Science. 50 (3): 451–472. doi:10.1017/S0007087417000814. ISSN 0007-0874 – via Cambridge.org.
  • Reviewed: QPQ Template:Did you know nominations/Philippe I, Duke of Orléans

Converted from a redirect by Jengod (talk). Self-nominated at 04:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC).

References

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed:
• Used in article:
• Clear at 100px: - N

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Both hooks approved but recommend the original. Image denied as it is not clear at 100 by 100 pixels, the size at which DYK images appear on the Main Page. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for reviewing. Alt image just in case it helps anyone:

1920 California newspaper headline

jengod (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

That image looks much better, thanks for providing. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengod (talk • contribs) 04:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 22 September 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: move...looks like there are several options, but it appears that "Illegal operation (euphemism)" is what is desired. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Illegal operation → Illegal operation (law) – There is WP:NOPRIMARY for this term with Illegal opcode, also commonly known as an "illegal operation", and they should be disambiguated. Indeed, the earliest version of the page was about the computer term. I have no strong opinion on what the disambiguation should be but (legal term) or (medical term) could also work, although there is also the problem of it potentially intersecting with Organ theft, so maybe (abortion law). Preferably only the history after 2022 be moved to this new location, the history prior to 2022 can be moved to a redirect called illegal operation (computing). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest Illegal operation (abortion euphemism) for the new title, since the article covers the use of the phrase across several domains (media, law, the arts) jengod (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jengod: Maybe "abortion term" then? I'm not sure any article uses "euphemism" for its disambiguation and they should be WP:CONSISTENT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Just Illegal operation (abortion) or maybe Illegal operation (archaic) would be my preference jengod (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jengod: (abortion) makes it sound like it is a form of abortion procedure, not a term used to describe them. (archaic) can still cover incidences of organ theft and other non-abortion-related operations that are/were illegal. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

1. I think illegal operation (euphemism) is best suited for the article as the text stands now
2. If that’s not allowed, I’ll leave it to your best judgment. Cheers, jengod (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't see the phrase "illegal operation" on the Illegal opcode page. Illegal operation already has a note about computer errors that can lead the reader where they might have wanted to go; I don't see the need for this change. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 21:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@NekoKatsun: A simple Google search will come up with mostly the computer term and nothing about abortion. As well as Illegal taxi operation. It's clear that this term has to be disambiguated. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm: Yeah, but I'd point out that this use is early 20th century – a simple google search is going to encompass recency bias, no? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

There are no inbound Wikilinks to the article that are about the computer error or other illegal surgeries. Could we create illegal operation (disambiguation) with this content? Or just put an edited variant of it at the top of the page?

• for the historic euphemism for induced abortion, see illegal operation
• for the computer errors, see illegal opcode and general protection fault
• for unlicensed cabs, see illegal taxi operation
• for involuntary organ removal surgery, see organ theft

jengod (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I just looked at the page view stats for calendar year 2021 and illegal operation had 45 views, while illegal opcode had 13,151 views, so people are definitely finding their way around OK. 14:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment whatever the new name, this clearly is not the primary topic per the nominator. This should be a disambiguation page or just point to illegal opcode -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 04:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

How do we move forward with this discussion? Who can adjudicate if illegal operation (euphemism) or illegal operation (abortion euphemism) is an acceptable format for an article title? jengod (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

It could just be simpler, the topic area of concern is "abortion", so illegal operation (abortion) (topic name + topic area disambiguator) could do it. -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 05:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

That would be fine with me! jengod (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.