Jump to content

Talk:Abortion: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m →Discussion: bullet
Line 168: Line 168:
**Yup those who make these say they are under an open license. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 20:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
**Yup those who make these say they are under an open license. [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 20:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' For a number of reasons. Mostly the style / tone, I think the jazz / cartoon thing has a trivialising / overly simplistic effect that is not appropriate to the subject matter. The premium version of this video making website includes colour, which makes a huge difference to the part of the video that says – "''The World Health Organisation recommends safe and legal abortions be available to all women.''" – makes the women look as though they are white and then they are quickly swooshed away. Finally, this video highlights the difference that exists between what is okay in text and what is okay in a video. In text the eye can dwell on the final sentence "''Those who favor the legality of abortion often hold that a woman has a right to make decisions about her own body.''" In the video it is an express train sentence slapped onto the end. --[[User:The Vintage Feminist|The Vintage Feminist]] ([[User talk:The Vintage Feminist|talk]]) 19:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' For a number of reasons. Mostly the style / tone, I think the jazz / cartoon thing has a trivialising / overly simplistic effect that is not appropriate to the subject matter. The premium version of this video making website includes colour, which makes a huge difference to the part of the video that says – "''The World Health Organisation recommends safe and legal abortions be available to all women.''" – makes the women look as though they are white and then they are quickly swooshed away. Finally, this video highlights the difference that exists between what is okay in text and what is okay in a video. In text the eye can dwell on the final sentence "''Those who favor the legality of abortion often hold that a woman has a right to make decisions about her own body.''" In the video it is an express train sentence slapped onto the end. --[[User:The Vintage Feminist|The Vintage Feminist]] ([[User talk:The Vintage Feminist|talk]]) 19:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
*'''Remove''' The video fails to explain much of what would be important to someone trying to understand what abortion actually is. My personal reaction varied, but the worst moment was when the narration mentioned "force" and showed a closed fist. It was very jarring and cemented the impression I got from this video that abortion is something that happens '''to''' someone who is pregnant, lacking a sense of autonomy for that person. Several other things, like the image that appears to be almost a 9 month pregnancy (not the time most people are considering such a thing), and the fact that everyone appears to be white, together equal too many problems than this video would solve in its attempts to explain abortion. [[User:Heatherawalls|heather walls]] ([[User talk:Heatherawalls|talk]]) 21:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


===Discussion===
===Discussion===

Revision as of 21:56, 29 October 2017

Template:Vital article

Former good articleAbortion was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 26, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 14, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
February 21, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article

Template:AbortionGSTP

Archive
Archives
Archive Index
Topical subpages
Lead
Notable precedents in discussion

Grammar

Here are some samples of what I would like to see as woman in singular possessive form spelled out in its plural possessive form.

  • a women's personal preference.
  • a women's history of previous spontaneous abortions
  • clinician judgment or a women's request

Misterbister (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Took me a moment to parse your comment, but fixed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need updated map

Chile now allows abortion in some cases, as of last month. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/world/americas/chile-abortion-court.html?mcubz=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.254.233.24 (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thissecretperson (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

video

The video blatantly violates WP:NPOV. Benjamin (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually reading the EN WP article but with illustrations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Benjamin may be noting that it leaves out the two penultimate sentences, leaving the coverage of the abortion debate uneven. Sizeofint (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very uneven indeed. It's obviously pro abortion, with not even the slightest mention of the other side. Benjamin (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This may be easily adjusted. I have pinged Ilya at Simpleshow Foundation at Commons:File talk:Mysimpleshow Abortion.webm. Sizeofint (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I don't think that it's fair to say that the coverage is uneven. It discusses several objective facts about abortion. It mentions neither the pro-choice side nor the pro-life side. I'm not sure why you call it pro abortion. If there were a similar video about fistula surgery, or joint replacement, would you call it pro fistula surgery, or pro joint replacement? Triacylglyceride (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You think it is okay for the video to include Those who favor the legality of abortion often hold that a woman has a right to make decisions about her own body. without including Those who oppose abortion often maintain that an embryo or fetus is a human with a right to life and may compare abortion to murder.? Leaving out one of the two sentences summarizing why abortion is controversial seems a fairly significant omission to me. Sizeofint (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be perfectly honest here; I either didn't see or didn't process those lines at the end, and I misread "penultimate" as "ultimate". Mea culpa, slash I wish OP had described why it was a violation in the first place.
I agree that either the last "segment" (a section between two hand-wipings-away) should be removed (probably with the legality "segment") or the balancing segment should be added. Or we should get rid of the thing entirely. I dislike it and its illustrations (using a stork with a baby to illustrate a pregnancy?). Triacylglyceride (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sufficient reason to remove it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, it is incorrect to assert that the video doesn't require comments section consensus per the agreed-upon rules for this controversial article, claiming that it is no more and no less than the words on the article already: the video has illustrations. Since when do illustrations, especially new illustrations, not merit comments section consensus? 208.71.156.130 (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While at this point it has been in the article for more than two months. You could start a RfC to remove it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya hasn't responded. I don't think the video adds anything substantial and would support removing it, at least until it is fixed. Sizeofint (talk) 09:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the objections here I don't see there is consensus to keep the video. A few months is still a relatively short period of time so I am not sure the silence before this point should be interpreted as affirmation. Sizeofint (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of weeks maybe but with 900 people having the article on their watch list I think a couple of months is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should invite them to speak. Any of the ~900 people watching this page, you are invited to lend your insights to this discussion. Sizeofint (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of these page watchers has decided to comment. Their WP:SILENCE is all we have to go on at this point. I'm not seeing there is consensus to keep the video. Sizeofint (talk) 01:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing consensus to remove the video. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Besides you, I don't see anyone else in this discussion arguing to keep it. Four contributors here have found the video flawed for one reason or another. You don't consider this a consensus? Sizeofint (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not. I have started a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence.

The first sentence of this should say that the procedure kills the fetus. It's really confusing and misleading the way it's written, because it makes it sound like abortion is a way of inducing labor. Saying "before it can survive" does not make it any clearer because there are a lot of NATURAL reasons a fetus wouldn't be able to survive at the end of 9 or 10 months (complications), but the reason here is because they are forcibly taken out. I think they can re-word this and make it less confusing. It makes it sound like the fetus will still be alive afterwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.200.122 (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely, I agree with you but disagree that it's incorrect: at any given stage of development, in cases when feticide is not administered or executed, there is no reason to doubt that the fetus will still be alive once removed. I would bet you a quarter (US 25 cents) that less than 5% of people who work in abortion clinics have ever taken a peek inside the tub of an abortion vacuum machine within one hour of a procedure, ever. Also, I don't know if they fill that tub with chlorine or Windex or something, in which case we can probably guess whether the fetus was alive before it dropped into the tub. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no. Binksternet (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's obviously the case if you have already decided that the "fetus" is "not alive" until it's a person. But remaining ambiguous on the issue of whether "it" is "alive", supposing that a developing fetus "is" alive, then I don't think this is obviously false, or even probably false. When do you suppose that a "living" fetus "dies" along the course of a 1st-trimester abortion? 208.76.28.70 (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This section is getting contentious and strange. I'm with Doc James and Binksternet on both the "disagree" and "uh, no" viewpoints here. Talk pages are not place to conjecture wildly on what goes on in abortion clinics.
The lede of this article has been extensively reworked. We are always open to suggestions on how to modify it, but our responses will reflect the fact that it took a lot of work to get where we are now. Please read through those discussions and make a suggestion rather than lodge an objection. Triacylglyceride (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC regarding video

Video in question

Should we keep or remove this video that describes abortion? The video is more or less based on the lead of our article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep video

  • Keep Many people learn better with video / wish video. Also it is someone reading our content which improves accessibility. No more controversial than article article itself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the video adds to the articles information positively...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The video is excellent and the very minor issues voiced above are not enough to remove it. It is unwise to remove things, just because they aren't perfect. Carl Fredrik talk 14:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This video came from simpleshow, described at Wikipedia:simpleshow. The general concept of this sort of video is called an "explainer video", which I tried to document at Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Explainer Videos. I have been a fan of this project since about 2013. Anyone can make videos like this one through the tool at https://mysimpleshow.com/. The organization behind this has attempted to license the art and music to be compatible for Wikipedia. They have attended 5+ Wikimedia events including a couple of Wikimanias to do outreach and seek partnership. Video editing is complicated but I think that it is part of the future of Wikipedia and that we ought to support pilots of new technology like this. I am not ready to support a total rollout of these videos in many articles, but this particular video has content which matches the community reviewed text in this article's lead so the information shared ought to be acceptable. Also, the wiki community does have the option to edit this video. Making changes could be a 15 minute effort, which I think is a reasonable to ask considering how such ease is a technological miracle breakthrough in video production. Not everything about the video is perfect but it is still impressive quality from both a production and content perspective. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user who is suggesting the video's removal is claiming that the present version is not a match to the community reviewed text in the article's lede... if this were corrected, the present argument would probably lose its legs, IMO. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried to access this video through the third-party website, but there seemed to me no mechanism for my account to see the work of another user. This is consistent with what's explained for the WP community at WP:simpleshow: simpleshow videos are "stable media items" that cannot be edited like Wikipedia articles. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The seed of the video is the text of the script. Anyone with the text should be able to change the video by changing that text, uploading it and generating another file. The intent is to be as easy to edit as possible. I can confirm that as with any experimental technology, it can be challenging to new users. This video is definitely experimental technology in Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems matter-of-fact, and I think it would be good to keep in the article (the question of the RFC). Does it belong in the info box of the lede? That is a different question (not the RFC). I have no opinion on that. Attic Salt (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As it stands it does no harm and for some readers it could be helpful. It might be improved, in which case more strength to those who could do it better than I could (not my line at all, so I am not getting involved, but some items such as the diaphragm seemed likely to be a bit opaque to some watchers, or removed too abruptly for them to understand what they see). But granting that perfection is not in us, I say keep it as it is till we have something better; do not scrap what we have just because someone might someday come up with something better. JonRichfield (talk) 07:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it would need to be proved here that the video does no harm. The talk page discussion is presently evaluating claims that the video is not WP:NPOV and that it has an incorrect WP:Tone, both as a medical / ethical subject and regarding the personal sensibilities of editors who have commented. Why have no folks who want to keep the video gone to the trouble of saying why the sentences were removed that were removed? Why is it OK not to use formal tone (see WP:Tone) regarding the cartoons and sound effects? 208.76.28.70 (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep might not be perfect but a nice addition (we should have more videos not less).--ChristopheT (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove video

  • Remove at least until fixed. As discussed above, the video does not adequately summarize the lead. It leaves out, among other things, one of the two sentences in the lead that explains why abortion is a contentious issue. The lead here has presumably been hard fought over so why should a new video that essentially reads the lead be allowed to ignore large parts of it? To the accessibility point Doc James raises, between listening to this video or using a text to speech application to read the lead, I think the TTS application would better inform the reader. Finally, in my opinion, the illustrations themselves add little to the text being read. Sizeofint (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SOFIXIT Add the sentences that are missing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you fix it? I don't think that I can, and if you can't either, then it's not really fair for you to discount someone else's POV by saying that you think they should do what you're unable to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • But should we really remove the entire video just because of this? We'd be making Wikipedia worse by removing the video, and I don't see the issues raised here. There are other things from the lede that aren't mentioned in the video, it seems like nitpicking to remove it on these grounds, and is frankly the definition of WP:POINTY. Carl Fredrik talk 14:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • From my reading of WP:Pointy, the user who seeks to remove the video because it overlooks some selected sentences or words of the lede is not doing the thing WP:Pointy always entails: making edits they do not personally agree with. I believe that that user would indeed prefer not to have the video, because either the user cares enough about WP:NPOV to remove POV material or because the user's own personal POV is the one that loses when the specified content is missing. I assert that removing POV content "makes Wikipedia better" even if re-working the content would "make Wikipedia even better." 208.76.28.70 (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Could I fix it? Yes I could. But I do not see it as critical enough to spend the time required to do so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • Remove User Gandydancer suggested below in "discussion" a thought that reflects my original feeling about the "video", though I couldn't quite put a finger on it: the cartoons and swooshes. No, I do not believe that the cartoons and swooshes are appropriate for this subject. Would you want cartoons and swooshes on the outcome of the 2016 US general election? Climate change? The Constitution? Amputation? Abraham Lincoln? Pol Pot? Penicillin? 208.76.28.70 (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point as it helps one to consider why a cartoon may be appropriate for some issues but not others. As a woman with two daughters I know how it feels to carry a baby inside of myself. It would have been a devastating experience for me to have had to have an abortion. Like an amputation, but much worse and I don't think that we'll be having a cartoon that shows a leg swooshed away. Gandydancer (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have "cartoons" on some 275 medical articles now and they are getting millions of views. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I did not say that "cartoons" are never appropriate. But I am curious -- how many medical articles do we have? Gandydancer (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This says 6,800[1] condition related articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since this article is cross-referenced both as medical and religious, I think it's appropriate for it to receive special consideration in contrast with other medical articles. Furthermore, I personally can't imagine that there are any other medical articles with as many pages of Talk archives as this one, reflecting the peculiarity of this article. For that reason, adhering strictly to standards like formal tone (per WP:TONE) here but not in the other 275 articles doesn't seem like a problem to me.
(Correction: the third sentence above should read "for these reasons" instead of "for that reason")...208.76.28.70 (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A quick Google search for <<< "Medicine portal" "Religion portal" site:wikipedia.org >>> revealed about 150 hits, with the only medical procedure showing up being circumcision. This to demonstrate the peculiarity of the article about abortion and its ethical significance. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Speaking as a woman who has long strongly supported a woman's right to choose and yet being fully aware of the emotional struggles that some pregnant woman may go through when they decide to abort a fetus, I strongly object to this cartoon about abortion. I've been involved in this article for many years and have always felt that it handled this most delicate issue in a fair and unbiased manner. As a Wikipedia editor I have even "bragged" to my woman friends about how this article has managed to present an unbiased review of the issue. I want an article that even Pope Francis, who I disagree with but deeply admire, would find acceptable. This abortion cartoon would change that. Gandydancer (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you think is wrong with it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not necessary in gaining consensus for any given voter to justify his or her decision, although of course it's hard to persuade others to your position without explaining your decision. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I am aware of that. And if no answer is provided it is not a big deal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doc, as I said elsewhere I feel that this cartoon is demeaning to women and that abortion is probably not a good candidate for a Wikipedia video of just a minute or so in length. To be more specific, I can't see that most of the images are appropriate if their intent is to make abortion more understandable. I'll mention a few: 1) The opening image should not be of a pregnant woman since this is about abortion and not pregnancy. Abortions are not done on obviously pregnant women and a pregnant image may suggest that to a less well-educated person. 2) A stop sign and a stork with a cute little baby is like something from a children's book. 3) The uterus looks more like a vegetable to anyone that actually needs a simple pictured abortion explanation, IMO. Most people don't know that a uterus and tubes, etc., look more or less like the image. 4) I don't think the "he's got the whole world in his hands" image is appropriate to show the whole world. 5) While a symbol of death, I don't like the skull and crossbones in a short presentation on a medical procedure. 6) Of the five women that represent women not one has dark skin. 7) There are two symbols, one looks sort of like a caduceus and the other one is a shield of some sort. If I don't even know what they are I can't see how they would add to the understanding of a person less well-educated than I.
Clearly my views are in the minority here so it may well be that I am being too critical. In the past I've trusted the group decisions for this article, so this would be the first time that I find myself in disagreement. Gandydancer (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be interested in working with them to make a better video? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Doc, we had an edit conflict) To add, I just quite by accident watched the Breast feeding video and I JUST LOVED IT! It's the first medical video (other than this one) that I've seen. No weird pictures of a placenta (like our weird uterus picture) and such. Why can't we have a video like that? Then you could include information such as that contrary to what the people that are advocating against a woman's right to choose, women do not become depressed after an abortion but most women just feel relieved, etc. IMO the weird images that are being used to explain our article just make it next to impossible to really cover this issue in a fair and unbiased manner. Gandydancer (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes agree that Osmosis does better work. I will request that they make a video similar to the style of the one you see at breastfeeding for this article. Here are all 273 they have made for us so far.[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They have put it on their list. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove - As much as I appreciate the effort, this video just has too many problems (e.g. the upbeat jazz music, the silly clip art, the overall tone). Also, are we sure all the clip art in that video is freely licensed? Kaldari (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove For a number of reasons. Mostly the style / tone, I think the jazz / cartoon thing has a trivialising / overly simplistic effect that is not appropriate to the subject matter. The premium version of this video making website includes colour, which makes a huge difference to the part of the video that says – "The World Health Organisation recommends safe and legal abortions be available to all women." – makes the women look as though they are white and then they are quickly swooshed away. Finally, this video highlights the difference that exists between what is okay in text and what is okay in a video. In text the eye can dwell on the final sentence "Those who favor the legality of abortion often hold that a woman has a right to make decisions about her own body." In the video it is an express train sentence slapped onto the end. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove The video fails to explain much of what would be important to someone trying to understand what abortion actually is. My personal reaction varied, but the worst moment was when the narration mentioned "force" and showed a closed fist. It was very jarring and cemented the impression I got from this video that abortion is something that happens to someone who is pregnant, lacking a sense of autonomy for that person. Several other things, like the image that appears to be almost a 9 month pregnancy (not the time most people are considering such a thing), and the fact that everyone appears to be white, together equal too many problems than this video would solve in its attempts to explain abortion. heather walls (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • On the fence(see below) - Thinking about this as a bigger question than just this one instance, for better or for worse. As far as I can tell, this video is text-to-speech audio of our lead combined with very basic clip art corresponding to specific words/phrases in the lead. It is not the sort of explainer video that adds greatly to understanding in a way that only video can do. In other words, it seems like it used the Wikipedia article and generic clip art for the sake of creating a video rather than creating a video for the sake of explaining. There is something to be said for the fact that some people learn better from visuals, but wouldn't a script that just scans for phrases in an article and adds little diagrams from Commons be the same as what we have here? I think there's potential here, to be sure, but I feel like it's problematic to start adding videos based on Wikipedia content that do not add meaningful explanation beyond what we could already do with editable content. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: Support including a link to the file on Commons, Oppose embedding. Perhaps we could develop a template along the lines of "a version of the lead, supplemented by graphics, is available on Wikimedia Commons" (ok that wording is pretty dreadful, but you get the idea). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Rhododentrites's solution is a good one (and would note in the link the date of the version the video is based on). Link if people feel the video is truly helpful, but do not embed. I think embedding a video that is directly adapted from Wikipedia's article, but which does not allow for the same editing process as Wikipedia's article, is very unwise - it has the drawbacks of self-sourcing/circularity without the benefits of the collaboration and refinement process. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the fence - I agree with the above -- I don't like the video not because of any unfairness or balance issues, but because I don't feel it adds much to the article. I would favor a different picture. Pending a suggested replacement, I would keep it. Triacylglyceride (talk)
  • Not speaking to the fair/unfair to abortion opinions issues just yet, but I hate the video. We should not be treating such an emotionally charged issue with cartoons of storks and what not with wooshing sounds as they are swept away, etc. I see it as very demeaning to women. Gandydancer (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This RfC invites the broader question about whether a summary video enhances visitors' understanding of the topic and, if so, what are the consensus-generated editorial, creative, and technical guidelines regarding any video which may appear in the lead section of this article. The zeitgeist I sense is yes, a video may enhance visitors' understanding about the topic, just not necessarily this particular video. Which leads to the bigger picture (no pun intended): what rubric can we, as a community, rally around governing the production of any video which would appear in the lead section of this article? For instance, how closely should the script, narration, and text within the video match the lead copy—if at all? Should the video only use images already in the article (thus minimizing objections), or can new artwork be incorporated? If new artwork is permissible, should producers only use vector artwork or are pictures acceptable? What about other languages? How do technical constraints e.g., video file size and cross-platform video production compatibility, affect editorial choices? Of course, these are rhetorical questions intended to elucidate the sort of thoughtfulness any such video production deserves. Fortunately, Wikipedia has a robust set of principles, policies, and guidelines along with a vibrant community to help us as we think about how to apply them to creating videos for and maintaining videos on Wikipedia. (The OP's concern is that the deviation from the lead copy verbatim violates WP:NPOV. Suppose technical reasons, such as a certain length or file size, is why the two sentences were omitted: how do we reconcile such limitations with WP:NOV?) My suggestion? Decide whether this particular article is improved by a video animation of the lead, as opposed to a spoken version of the article instead. If so, let's setup an ad hoc group to draft editorial, creative, and technical guidelines (perhaps in a sandbox?) which is then presented to the broader community here for feedback, refinement, and endorsement. Then, answer this RfC and/or create an alternate video consistent with that vision. Finally, consider the ongoing level of effort, logistics (software, media storage, etc.), and review oversight required to maintain consistency between the article and the video. ― Aidan ⦿ (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the present decision needs to hang on all the technical details for Wikipedia's incorporation of simpleshows in general, although that's clearly a need. Excitingly, since the video production is a structured process, the makers of simpleshow.com (sp?) could, with the right funding, produce a system that compiles wiki into video, just as the present system compiles wiki into formatted text, templates, and images / sounds / content with links. Having editable wiki that gets rendered with each edit would be the gold standard for simpleshows, in my opinion, and would lead to an explosion of new videos on Wikipedia. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought of a way to further automate these simplevideos... perhaps improving the quality, perhaps not, but at least ensuring that there is already consensus and rights for all the images used in each first draft: the new code for making simplevideos could parse the wiki and use whatever wikilinks are present to find images to include. For instance, the auto-created video for Hair transplantation would have these three images in the first sentence: [5], [6], [7], [8]. Just a brainstormy idea! 208.76.28.70 (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with some of the other comments that the video is odd. For instance, how the fist icon pops up when it says abortion can be accomplished with violence -- it seems cheery and comes off as really very insensitive. It's somewhat the use of the icons, but it's also the text-to-speech issue. A human narrator would know to make their tone more somber in this area. Overall, I think it reduces the professional feeling of the article. On the other hand, the accessibility issue is a good point. I'd be fine with either decision, but I'd prefer if the video could be fixed ASAP. Re-narrating it would be a good first step. Mvolz (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1992 WHO ref

Doesn anyone mind if I update ref 67 with a new version from WHO which can be found here?

Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 22:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds quite reasonable. Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading content re: history section, Christianity

Hi, the article implies that it had been unclear whether abortion is OK or not in Christian teaching until the nineteenth century. But this is incorrect: various sources, including "Abortion & the Politics of Motherhood" by Kristin Luker, report that abortion was not allowed at a very early time. It is true that punishment for abortion has varied from murder to not murder, but this is not because the Church taught that abortion is OK. The Catholic Church has always condemned the act of abortion but has specified more or less penance as punishment at different times. 

 [9] 208.76.28.70 (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You raised this on 15 June 2017. Nobody was interested. You again raised the issue on 5 September 2017. Nobody was interested. The tread was archived on 19 October 2017 to Talk:Abortion/Archive 50. The agreed time before a dormant thread is archived is 30 days, so your concerns have been more than well-aired. You must not revert the archiving without good reason, nor should you interfere with an archive. Now, take a hint. There has been zero interest in your thesis and that is understandable because frankly it's WP:UNDUE for this article. Please don't think that your attempts to keep this on the talk page is going to result in a different outcome. It will simply result in your disruptive editing attracting sanctions for you. --RexxS (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine WP:UNDUE would be more applicable if I wasn't raising a concern about the present content being actually false/misleading. Is WP:UNDUE also a guideline as to what deserves to be discussed on the talk page? 208.76.28.70 (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, but WP:REHASH is. --RexxS (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To that end, I thought it would be helpful for me to make my point in much fewer words than before. Maybe now folks will find it easier to evaluate the claim and say something about it. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, maybe it would be helpful at this time to just say that "Abortion & the Politics of Motherhood" by Kristin Luker is the secondary source (numbered 5) that supports an identical statement in Wikipedia's reference 14, Joffe 2009: 'Early Christian thought was divided as to whether abortion of an early “unformed fetus” actually constituted murder.' 208.76.28.70 (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "much [sic] fewer words," you mean 8 fewer words. Your almost-identical post previously was 105 words. This one was 97 words.
Regardless, your claim that the article is unclear and that a clarification is necessary is incorrect. The article states "the Catholic Church had previously been divided on whether it believed that abortion was murder, and did not begin vigorously opposing abortion until the 19th century." That in no way implies that they ever thought it was "OK."
Abortion and the Catholic Church has its own article where finer details can be discussed in more detail than that. Triacylglyceride (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I really don't agree with your assessment of the implication of the sentences there about the Christian position on abortion. While it's clear from History_of_abortion#Christianity what Christianity's position was back then, it's not reproduced faithfully at Abortion#History_and_religion. If you were trying to find out if early Christians, Greeks, and Muslims were permitted to get 1st trimester abortions, what would you think after reading Abortion#History_and_religion? 208.76.28.70 (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we shut this down? Fruitless discussion, a time-waster for all involved. It's clear that our IP friend from Berkeley is repeatedly sapping the community of its energy. Binksternet (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am really hard-pressed to find a source to justify the word "divided" regarding Christian teaching on abortion. It's not supported at Joffe other than to reference Luker. It's not supported at Luker other than to reference "Contraception" by John Noonan. And "Contraception" reads at page 88 that "the Christians taught that all life must be inviolate, and, using the terms the law reserved for the killing of adults, they charged that not only the destruction of existing life but the interruption of the life-giving process was homicide and parricide." Without investigating whether author John Noonan means pregnancy to be part of the "life-giving process", it's clear that Noonan reports a clear stance by Christians regarding abortion. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you, @Binksternet:, kindly quoted on 5 June 2017 of the Luker source, "...it is true that the early Christian church denounced abortion (along with other barriers to procreation, such as contraception, humosexuality, or surgical sterilization); but it is also true that the church's sanctions against abortion were almost never as severe as the penalties for the murder of an adult person. Moreover, throughout most of the history of Western Christianity, abortion early in pregnancy, though verbally chastized, was often legally ignored." This does not support Wikipedia's present answer to the question, "whereas Aristotle and Islamic tradition allowed early-term abortion, was this allowed by the early Catholic Church?" ...which by implication is, "yeah, I guess so." Failing to prosecute early abortion as murder doesn't justify this answer by Wikipedia either! Let's not forget that the Catholic Church had absolutely no political power during its early years in Rome. 208.76.28.70 (talk)
So I propose this re-write. Instead of...
In Christianity, Pope Sixtus V (1585–90) was the first Pope to declare that abortion is homicide regardless of the stage of pregnancy;[159] the Catholic Church had previously been divided on whether it believed that abortion was murder, and did not begin vigorously opposing abortion until the 19th century.[14]
...We should have...
Early Christian leaders did not permit abortion at any stage in their community except as required to save a mother's life.[1][2][3] Much later, Pope Sixtus V (1585–90) declared that abortion is homicide[159], but still the Church did not begin politically opposing abortion until the 19th century.[14]

References

  1. ^ Augustine (1885) [c. 420]. "The Case of Abortive Conceptions." Enchiridion. in Philip Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 3. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
  2. ^ Daniel Schiff, Abortion in Judaism (Cambridge University Press 2002 ISBN 978-0-521-52166-6), p. 40.
  3. ^ Cyril Charles Richardson, ed. (1953) [c. 150]. "Didache". Early Christian Fathers. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. OCLC 832987. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
208.76.28.70 (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What text in this is supporting that line of text?[10]
We do not need to use references before the 1990s really. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That reference is shown as number 28 on History of Christian thought on abortion... the author contrasts Judaism's nuance and flexibility with the black-and-white position he sees the Christians holding at the time in question (approx 150 - 350 AD if memory serves). 208.76.28.70 (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For Didache we could use [1]

References

  1. ^ Gorman, Michael (26 Oct 1998). Abortion and the Early Church: Christian, Jewish and Pagan Attitudes in the Greco-Roman World. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers. pp. 47–62. ISBN 9781579101824. Retrieved 27 October 2017.

208.76.28.70 (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a general feeling on the subject, it seems that other sources (John Riddle, "Contraception and Abortion from the Ancient World to the Renaissance" and also the reference I made to Kristin Luker, which was a source for "Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy", 2009 Blackwell publishing / John Wiley and Sons) keep going back to John Noonan's book "Contraception", which I referenced above. (Yes, two IP addresses... sorry) 208.76.28.70 (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you quote the exact text from this ref that you feel supports that line of text?[11] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It's the inset from History of Christian thought on abortion.

As early as the time of Tertullian in the third century, Christianity had absorbed the Pythagorean Greek view that the soul was infused at the moment of conception. Though this view was confirmed by St. Gregory of Nyssa a century later, it would not be long before it would be rejected in favour of the Septuagintal notion that only a formed fetus possessed a human soul. While Augustine speculated whether "animation" might be present prior to formation, he determined that abortion could only be defined as homicide once formation had occurred. Nevertheless, in common with all early Christian thought, Augustine condemned abortion from conception onward.[1]

References

  1. ^ Daniel Schiff, Abortion in Judaism (Cambridge University Press 2002 ISBN 978-0-521-52166-6), p. 40.
208.76.28.70 (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That book references this quote pronouncing the Catholic perspective on this history:

Abortion was wrong to the early Christians, and this was what concerned them, not what penalty it deserved... One finds in the early Church, then, simple, clear condemnations of abortion without any attempt to distinguish or classify.[1]

References

  1. ^ Connery J.R., Abortion: the Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective, Loyola University Press, 1977, P. 34.
208.76.28.70 (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So more like "Many early Christian leaders did not approve of abortion at any stage." That ref does not comment on the "save the woman's life" bit

Than followed by "Pope Sixtus V (1585–90) was the first Pope to declare that abortion is homicide regardless of the stage of pregnancy;[159] the Catholic Church had previously been divided on whether it believed that abortion was murder, and did not begin vigorously opposing abortion until the 19th century.[14]"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sources would support Wikipedia saying, "Early Christian leaders did not approve abortion at any stage." ...I would like this better. But what you wrote is an improvement. I can't remember where I read that they allowed exceptions for the life of the mother... I'm OK dropping that clause here. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay will give others a couple of days to comment and than will add. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's the new proposed text, exactly? I got lost in all of the suggestions above, and it's a little disheartening when suggestions lack support in the citations. Triacylglyceride (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is to add this line "Many early Christian leaders did not approve of abortion at any stage.[12]" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it's quite that simple. History of Christian thought on abortion Gandydancer (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not a fan of this text. It makes it sound like some early Christian leaders approved of abortion at some stages, and it sounds from looking at the History of Christian Thought on Abortion (HCTA) article that it is more complicated, and relates to abortion as a sexual crime/sin more than as a murderish crime/sin.
I'm not sure that this section needs to change significantly. I think that our Berkeley friend's hypothesis, "the article implies that it had been unclear whether abortion is OK or not in Christian teaching until the nineteenth century," is untrue. It's untrue in a couple of ways.
First, the article states that the Pope called it murder in 1585, so I don't know how our Berkeley friend got the nineteenth century from that. Second, the article does not contain the implication. It is silent on the matter. Finally, taking a look at the HCTA article... I kinda think it *is* unclear what Christian teaching was on abortion in the 100-300AD range. Is it a sex sin/crime? Is it a murder sin/crime? Is it okay in cases of adultery (as, y'know, described in the Bible?).
This is a small section in the article dealing with abortion over almost five millennia. There is a single paragraph that deals briefly in religious approaches: some philosophy, some Catholicism, some Islam, well-documented stuff. That's appropriate. Getting into detail (or vagueries) about what early Christians thought seems unproductive. Triacylglyceride (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Triacylglyceride good points. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion&oldid=807742002"