|
Speak up and be heard! (last blanked 7/26/05)
{{controversial}}
Discussion Archives:
[[Talk:Abortion/Archive_1|Archive 1]] | [[Talk:Abortion/Archive_2|Archive 2]] | [[Talk:Abortion/Archive_3|Archive 3]] | [[Talk:Abortion/Archive_4|Archive 4]] | [[Talk:Abortion/Archive_5|Archive 5]] | [[Talk:Abortion/Archive_6|Archive 6]] | [[Talk:Abortion/Archive_7|Archive 7]] | [[Talk:Abortion/Archive_8|Archive 8]]
----
== To do list Civitavecchia==
Thanks for the minor correction made to my additions to the Civitavecchia article. Normally I don't make that mistake, but I seem to have slipped up.
==Preservation of [[Fecalcore]]==
Hi! I am very glad you found my article funny, that is the main point, a serious, encyclopedic funny. I see you were talking of preserving it on [[BJAODN]], which I would greatly appreciate, as I have put considerable time in making it what it is. Would you mind discussing the BJAODN w/ me and how I could put it on there? Or should I just go RAMBO and put it on there myself? Thanks!
== Sango's RfA ==
[[Image:WikiThanks.png|right|Thanks!]]
Hi, Everyking. Thank you for supporting my RfA! I am honored to have your endoresment and hope to make good use of the mop. <font color="#3D9140">[[User:Sango123|Sango]]</font><font color="#006400">[[User talk:Sango123|123]]</font> 01:40, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
==AN/I==
I think some of your recent comments on AN/I have really been over the line. I hope you'll moderate yourself as discussed in our mediation and other times. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 17:37, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
/sigh. Arbitration will be requested against you shortly. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 18:11, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Everyking, I noticed the request for arbitration regarding you and [[User:Snowspinner]] where you mention [[User:David Gerard]]. David Gerard was involved in a dispute with me and a few others wherein they attempted to discredit me and my attributions. David correctly recused the arbitration, but mentioned he was going to be submitting evidence. David has still not provided any evidence in the case. However, I have evidence of him arbitrarily claiming an organizations affiliations with Scientology. He initially ignoring my questions about it and then he came back and corrected his claim of affiliation which turned out to not be Scientology. He is a critic of Scientology, yet he is a member of the Scientology project which claims to have the goal of NPOV'ing Scientology articles. I don't know if this mention helps you in anyway, but I thought it wouldn't hurt your case or mine to mention it. If you want the evidence, let me know. Also, Snowspinner blocked me for 24 hours last weekend as a result of a erroneous 3RR report by [[User:Jdforrester]]. I explained this to them, but they ignored me and this was right at the time of dispute I mentioned above. TINC is no longer true, IMHO there IS somewhat of a cabal. --[[User:AI|AI]] 21:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
== McDonald's fun facts ==
I rarely snort when I laugh, but "you can't call the massacre a "fun fact"" in your edit summary did it. [[User:Joy Stovall|Joyous ]] [[User_talk:Joy Stovall|(talk)]] 00:44, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
== Barnstar ==
Hi, EK. What was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Everyking&diff=19776272&oldid=19731224 this] for? My faith in your vandal-fighting is still as strong as ever! Cheers, [[User:smoddy|<nowiki>[[smoddy]]</nowiki>]] 11:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, the article is unlocked and there are anumber of things to work on:
:Oh dear me. I should ''not'' have said that. I did not read my comment through, as I was in a bit of a rush. I should know better by now... Comment removed. Would you accept my apology, and my continued faith in you? If it makes a difference, I think the RfAr against you is completely spurious, and borders on a personal attack... Cheers, and best wishes, [[User:smoddy|<nowiki>[[smoddy]]</nowiki>]] 12:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
#The Pro-choice and Pro-life sections need to be renamed with an introductory blurb explaning the use of advocacy terms.
::I'm glad to hear it. Cheers, [[User:smoddy|<nowiki>[[smoddy]]</nowiki>]] 12:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
#A paragraph on terminology needs to be written/expanded. Possibly embed into intro paragraph.
==[[Tom Brinkman]]==
#I'd like to get a breif list on prefered terminology going. Positive statements only please, I will be applying [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:RPA]] judiciously and I invite everyone else to do the same. I will open up a new section on that.
You were kind enough to support my nomination of [[Jean Schmidt]] as a featured article and I wonder if you would look at my newest FAC, Tom Brinkman. The voting page is at [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tom Brinkman]]. [[User:PedanticallySpeaking|PedanticallySpeaking]] 15:04, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
== Arbitration Problems ==
Please add to this for other pressing matters.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 15:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I saw your troubles on the requests for arbitration pages, with respect to Raul654 and those other clowns. Don't let them get you down.
== Terminology preferences ==
==Block them?==
Please list terminology preferences and a brief statement as to why. Extremely civil discussion is welcome, but be very judicuous about [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:Civility]].
69.118.219.88 has had all the warnings they need... -[[User:Splash|Splash]] 01:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
==Thanks==
Tznkai's preferences.
for the userpage revert; quick to catch vandalism as usual. [[User:Mindspillage|Mindspillage]] [[User talk:Mindspillage|(spill yours?)]] 05:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
*Death - The term is reasonably sterile, neutral and factual. Cells die. Fetuses die. Humans die. The only we don't know if it dies is a virus because we're not sure if its alive to begin with.
*Fetus/unborn - I prefer fetus, but unborn is fine.
*In favor of legalization/Against legalization. Non of this pro-choice pro-life prattle. we'll mention it once, then give a breif, neutral report of positions.
*In general, sterile terms are prefered in this and in most articles. I feel this focuses on facts and allows the reader to make his or her own decisions without out interference.
--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 15:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
==Canderson7's RFA==
MamaGeek's preferences:
Thanks for supporting my RFA. I'm honored! --[[User:Canderson7|Canderson]]'''[[User_talk:Canderson7|7]]''' 16:57, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
*Death - fine with me
*Fetus/Unborn - I prefer unborn, as fetus only refers to one particular stage of prenatal development. However, when that stage is being discussed, fetus is acceptable, but I suggest using "human fetus" occasionally to distinguish from other life forms.
*In favor of legalization/Against legalization. Isn't it already legal? These terms seems to imply that it is not. Comments?
:Sorta. It depends on where. I assume you're from the States? It varies by country to country, and the restrictions in various parts of the US might make it as good as illegal as I understand it. We're just trying to avoid advocacy phrases.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 18:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
:Good point about different laws in different countries. With that in mind, I will agree to the terminology "In favor of legalization/Against legalization. You are mistaken, however, about restrictions in various parts of the US. There are actually very very few restrictions anywhere, and they can only actually prohibit abortion on minors without their parents consent, if a state so decides. They cannot prohibit it for any other circumstances, (Partial-birth abortion laws were all struck down, but they only applied to very rare abortion types anyway) only require things such as informed consent. There is noplace in the U.S. where a legally adult woman can be legally denied an abortion.--[[User:MamaGeek|MamaGeek]] 14:33, 27 July 2005 (EST)
--[[User:MamaGeek|MamaGeek]] 14:06, 27 July 2005 (EST)
::Thats what I thought RoeV.Wade did, but I recall hearing stories about laws that interfere with the processes somehow (papers to be signed, have to gain consent from fathers). They may have just been proposed laws though, I'm not really up to date. At anyrate, we're looking at a termniology shift away from advocacy phrases as the goal--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 18:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
==Important VFD==
-- 198's preferences:
Please see the [[commons:Template:Deletion_requests#List_of_victims_of_the_1913_Great_Lakes_storm|VFD for commons:List of victims of the 1913 Great Lakes storm]]. This is of '''vital importance'''. This list and others like it are being pushed off of the entire Wikimedia project. It started at Wikipedia, where they were VFDd in favor of moving to Wikisource/Commons. Now they are being [http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium#Remove_Tables_and_Lists_from_Wikisource VFDd off Wikisource] (they don't really belong there, since they are not original source texts), with people there saying they should be on WP/Commons, and it is also being [[commons:Template:Deletion_requests#List_of_victims_of_the_1913_Great_Lakes_storm|VFDd on Commons]], where people don't realize that '''Commons accepts texts''' (says so right on the Main Page). This will set a precedent for any user-created lists. --{{User:Brian0918/sig}} 22:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
* Death is not fine. We are trying to write from a neutral point of view, right? No advocacy, no loaded terms, no cheap rhetorical tricks…. This is a reasonable starting point. So, why then do we need to begin this definition by using highly questionable terminology. Stating right off the bat that embryo/fetus (EF) dies or is capable of dying insinuates that EF is a living entity in more than bio/med terms. This clause establishes the personhood, “individuality” (sic), and bestows distinct ontological being to EF. If reproductive rights/abortion industry people accept this assertion, they have already lost the argument. Hence, this is POV.
* Furthermore, the usage in question is really a not-so-subtle rhetorical maneuver: the word “death” is here selected and agreed upon on the basis of a limited definition void of its full context, other meanings and connotations, and the history of its usage... The argument goes something like this: if we can agree that a living cell can “die,” then everything that’s made of living cells must “die” as well (including EF). Or, in the words of Tznkai, “Cells die. Fetuses die. Humans die.” “Die” would appear to be the same word here used indiscriminately. However, in Tznkai’s example, “die” signifies three different things as its connotations vary. “Die” or “death” cannot be statically defined by the definition I suggested above; its meaning changes with its usage and depends on its relation to the words and context around it. “The death and premature expulsion of an embryo or fetus” comes straight out of the pro-life/anti-choice orientation manual. Remember, whoever defines/frames the terms in a debate, wins! Wiki is nobody’s patsy :)
::What alternative do we have to the term death? I certainly don't think saying "the cessation of life defining characteristics" is NPOV, its silly. When I say my dog died, and when I say the bacteria died, and when I say the skin died, or I have dead skin all over me, or I say "programmed cell death" we're using the same word but we depend on the context to explain exactly what we mean. To use your own argument, saying that an EF dies does not give it personhood any more than saying bacteria or a dog dies gives bacteria or a dog personhood. The second paragraph of [[death]] points out exactly what it is. I take exception to your suggestion that "The death and premature expulsion of an embryo or fetus” comes straight out of the pro-life/anti-choice orientation manual." Dig through the history and you'll see I've been repeatedly attacked as ''prochoice'' sympathizer. What the hell else is an abortion? The death of an unborn human, thats pov. The expuslion of tissue. Thats POV. Both are strictly accurate, but obscure facts. NPOV does not allow us to lie or obscure. The embryo and the fetus, when an abortion happens, DIE. Period. Cessation of life. No more living. No longer living cells. Dead. Inert. Ex-cell. Whether we ascribe personhood to it, whether we are killing, that is a matter of POV and the meat of the debate. To say that an embryo dies is stating a neutral medical fact. I'm sorry if I seem heated, but I really can't see a way to remain accurate without treating abortion like the elephant in the corner.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 03:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
==IRC==
Hey EK - Why don't you come onto IRC tomorrow night (Wednesday night, US Eastern Time) so we can discuss your case. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 08:25, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
:Well, several of us (myself, Fred, David Gerard, and Jimbo) waited up for you, but you never showed. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 00:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
::Yes ''discuss the case outside of Wikipedia, in *IRC* of all places''. The idea of TINC is propaganda. I have a new term IRCCE (IRC CABAL EXISTS). :) Anyway, congratulations Everking, I am glad they did not impose any extreme restrictions upon you. If you have time, take a look at [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/AI/Proposed decision]]. Aloha --[[User:AI|AI]] 00:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
:: Tznkai, your response in not heated and there is no need to apologize. I have tremendous respect for the work you’re doing here. Below is my counter-argument which I would like you to consider. I am NOT going to make further edits and will instead refer to your better judgment. Also, it has not occurred to me to question your pro-life/choice credentials – this really is only about the definition in question (not politics). It may be naïve of me to hope to have a semiotic discussion about such a hot issue. In any event, I agree with you when you say that “we're using the same word” the meaning of which “depend[s] on the context.” However, the context (both synchronic and diachronic) is not something that’s at our disposal to use “to explain exactly what we mean.” In other words, some of the meaning “happens” before or regardless of our efforts to explain it. It’s independent of the context WE intend to create around it. In our example here, one of the involved parties sees and refers to itself as favorable to “Life” (“Pro-Life”). The meaning of the linguistic sign “Life” in the community of language users is intrinsically tied to its binary opposite, “Death.” We think of these two signs always and already in terms of each other (whether this is right or not is beside the point here). Thus, while it may be biologically accurate to refer to the death of a cell/organ/organism, its application here also infers the logic of one and only one side in this contentious debate. You see, my suggestions here are not political or ethical in nature; I am not trying to argue either/any of the sides and would be equally opposed to adding any language that comes from the “Choice” side of the argument. My suggestions are linguistic/semiotic in nature. Thanks again for you diligent work. Cheers. 198 --[[User:198.104.64.238|198.104.64.238]] 21:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
==Admin nomination==
:::Thanks. I think I see where your argument is going, although I disagree slightly that the context gives the argument to the pro-life camp. Ultimatly though, I think the problem is we don't have a better word for cell death other than death. Using dictionary.com's thesarus we get...
::::afterlife, annihilation, bereavement, casualty, cessation, curtains, darkness, decease, demise, departure, destruction, dissolution, downfall, dying, end, ending, eradication, eternal rest, euthanasia, exit, expiration, extermination, extinction, fatality, finis, finish, future home, grave, grim reaper, heaven, loss, mortality, necrosis, obliteration, oblivion, paradise, parting, passing, passing over, quietus, release, repose, ruin, ruination, silence, sleep, termination, tomb, un
:::None of which I find particularly useful. I think a neutral presentation of facts is not a balanced view in the case of [[abortion]]. The facts give each side an advantage at certain points. The majority of abortions are elective. Fetuses die. Abortion probably helps cause depression (come on people. If having a freaking successful pregnancy causes short term depression, miscarraiges cause depression, I have no doubt an induced abortion causes depression). At the same time, rape and incest happen. Adoption programs are horrific. Abortions are done with excellent clincial standards. Ectopic pregnancies happen. All of these are pretty much the facts, each side gaining a slight advantage depending on what you're reading. We need to focus first on accuracy. To quote from [[WP:NPOV]] "The facts, in themselves, are neutral, but the simple accumulation of them cannot be the neutral point of view. If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral." By avoiding partisan commentary during the bare bones facts sections of these articles, we allow people to make their own intelligent decisions. Simply by knowing information on [[partial birth abortion]] may sway people towards pro life or information on [[Eisenmenger's Syndrome]] may swing pro choice does not allow us to cherry pick facts and terms.
:::Ultimatly, my point can be summed up in one of my favorite phrases: Reader's Aren't Stupid.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 16:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Again, kudos to you for being even-handed. I am happy to see that you seek a truly neutral presentation of the factual information about this topic. [[User:214.13.4.151|214.13.4.151]] 15:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Jim, of all the support votes I've gotten, yours is the first I've directly responded to since it really means a lot. I know that you're very particular about who you support for adminship. I truly cannot thank you enough. - [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] 17:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
==Mediation update==
As part of my looking into the topic, including terminology issues, Ive found some work must be done accross various abortion related articles. To organize this, we need to make an [[Template:Abortion]] sidebar, and deal with issues in their own context, for example [[pregnancy]], [[fetal personhood]], etc. Perhaps even abortion can be split into [[abortion]] - what it is, and [[abortion debate]]. We'll see. Sorry for neglecting recent developments here -been working on other cases, other articles. -[[User:Stevertigo|St]]|[[User_talk:Stevertigo|eve]] 22:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
==WP:AN and arbitration talkback==
== Abortion law ==
My fellow James...it's odd, but I can't recall the last time I posted on your talk page. We've both been around for so long, I feel certain I have before....but perhaps I haven't? If so....allow me to belatedly welcome you to Wikipedia! (Forgive my bizarre sense of humor this evening.)
Now, with my perhaps foolish attempt at humor aside, I hope you'll extend me the courtesy of hearing me out -- I'm tired of seeing you try to take on the AC on WP:AN. I said something about it before, apparently to no avail. Now you're talking back to them on AN about the agreement you made in EK3 or whatever the heck they called it. I almost unloaded on you right there, but I decided I should take this to you privately on talk first. You've been a fantastic contributor (better than I, by far) and a good admin (more active and probably more effective than I, again by far), and you deserve that courtesy. That said, I truly implore you, if you have any respect for my opinion whatsoever, stop doing this on AN. It only makes people like myself weary of your comments and frustrated at your desire to publically challenge and defy a group of people you clearly don't respect. And I like and value you as an editor (please don't misunderstand me on that point -- I'm very sincere about this).
An anon changed the section to this:
Abortion was legal and widely practiced in the United States before the late 1800's. Near the end of the 19th century, male doctors attempted to "medicalize" reproduction and childbirth, creating a professional monopoly. In doing so, they aimed to eliminate women herbalists, midwives, and other "irregular" medical practitioners, mainly women, who had traditionally provided a substantial amount of care to women particularly around reproduction. Combined with anti-immigrant sentiments and feelings of white male Protestants that their status was threatened by women's growing power (seen, for instance, in the growing suffrage movement), these male doctors were mostly successful in criminalizing abortion in most American states.
I've served on the AC....longest 5 months of my wikicareer. I loathed every minute of it. Bearing responsibility for those decisions was agonizing -- no punishment seemed fair to anybody, no explanation was sufficient, no case moved quickly enough (or else we were over-hasty). That's not to say that there isn't legitimate room for criticizing arbitration here, or specific AC decisions. I know you feel shabbily treated by the AC. All I can say is, your public criticism of them is not being taken seriously, and only serves to further marginalize your opinion in the eyes of many (judging from the response of most editors to your comments). I think you have a valuable perspective -- you're an undeniably talented editor who has experienced the sanctions of the AC and has remained here as a contributor. I think that gives you an insight into arbitration that can be very helpful as we continue to explore how that process will be used by Wikipedia in the coming years. But I am continually frustrated by the fact that, as far as I can tell, you want to limit most of your criticism of arbitration to potshots and nit-picking, usually posted in a forum (AN) which is not traveled often enough by arbitrators (especially the arbitrators with whom you do not seem to have a "past"). I feel that, if you didn't do these things, you would be in a far better position to make some serious and well-thought-out suggestions for how arbitration can be improved here.
In the United States, the Supreme Court held in 1973 that state laws restricting abortion contradict an implied constitutional right of privacy (see Abortion in the United States), while the German Supreme Court struck down state laws legalizing abortion, holding that they contradict the constitution's human rights guarantees.
Yes, this is far too long -- if you've read it all, I thank you for that courtesy, and I hope I made it remotely worthwhile. If you want to discuss this with me, please drop me a note. Whether you do or not, please be fairly warned -- I respect you, I value your contributions, I hope to see some positive and constructive suggestions about arbitration from you in the future. But if I see you using the AN as a forum from which to criticize the AC (either explicitly, as you did in the Zivinbudas case a few weeks ago, or else implicitly, by challenging the lack of a time limit in an agreement that you voluntarily accepted and by then implying that you were coerced into that agreement), I'm not going to just leave a note here explaining my perspective. I'm going to be very clear about my objection on AN in response. I know you may take this as a threat, and I apologize if it reads as one. I just feel that my politeness in replying to you in the past was not taken seriously, and I want to be taken seriously by you -- I assure you, when you make serious criticisms of Wikipedia practice and policy, whether I agree with you or not, I always take you seriously. I wish you the best of luck in the future here, and I hope that my comments here did not offend you in any way -- I mean to be clear about how displeased I am, but not offensive or rude, and if you think I crossed the line, please know that I will fully apologize for doing so if I am informed. Best regards, [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] 09:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Historically, some cultures have offered legal protection to unborn human offspring, although not until "quickening," the point at which fetal movements begin to be felt (5-6 months into a pregnancy). Abortion has been banned and otherwise limited, often originating with religious prohibitions in many countries. Almost two thirds of the world's women currently reside in countries where abortion may be obtained for certain reasons. Abortion laws vary widely by nation, with some countries allowing nearly total liberalization (examples including the United States, China and Russia), and others banning abortion under any circumstances. There are also countries that do not have any laws restricting abortion, such as Canada (see Abortion in Canada).
:Thanks for your response, James. I hope you know that I don't mean to silence you, and I can't imagine that you think I have a personal grudge against you (I certainly don't). All I mean to say is that I personally feel that any quibbles or challenges you mean to address to the AC should go directly to them, not onto AN. And that I think you will find more support and more people seriously attending to your perspective if, instead of challenging the AC on specific issues on AN, you instead put together some more general thoughts on arbitration and what could be done to improve it, then invite others to comment and discuss. If I'm tempting you to violate your new agreement, please forgive me -- I'm not intending that. I just feel frustrated, because (though this is probably not a fully accurate perception) it appears to me that everytime the AC announces a decision on AN, you want to turn it into an opportunity to start an argument. And I'm saying that I feel that's not productive. I really appreciate your talking about this with me in a calm and reasonable manner (heck, I didn't expect any less :-) and I hope you don't feel attacked by me. I'm headed for bed, but thanks once again for your reply, and I hope this somewhat briefer note helps clarify my position. Best regards, [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] 10:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I reverted it because I felt it was both POV and too detailed for a summary. Thoughts, comments and other ways we can intergrate things?--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 21:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
== Please understand my position ==
== Chemical Abortion ==
Why do you people want to block me? I'm trying to spread the message of Democracy to Cuban people (and also i'm active within Cuba), this is hardly extreme POV pushing--[[User:Comandante Gomez|Comandante Gomez]] 09:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Anon changed this section to:
Chemical abortion, which comprises 10% of all abortions in the United States and Europe, is a method used to induce abortion by ingesting drugs, usually during the first nine weeks of pregnancy. Chemical abortion is accomplished by administering either methotrexate or mifepristone (RU-486) followed by administration of misoprostol. Approximately eight percent of these abortions require surgical follow-up, usually by vacuum aspiration (See below). Methotrexate may also treat undiagnosed or concomitant tubal pregnancies, or assist women who have spontaneously aborted.
== Heya... ==
A common misconception is that emergency contraception, commonly known as the Morning-after pill, sold under the brand name Plan B, causes an abortion. This is medically inaccurate, since emergency contraception only works before pregnancy begins. Pharmacologically, emergency contraception is identical to ordinary hormonal contraceptives, and work to prevent pregnancy by delaying ovulation, inhibiting sperm motility, and possibly by making the uterine lining less hospitible to implantation. Emergency contraception has no effect on an existing pregnancy, and must be taken within 120 hours of unprotected intercourse, though it is most effective if taken as soon as possible. Intrauterine devices, also known as IUD's, can be used to prevent pregnancy after unprotected intercourse as well.
I am currently in discussions with Ozemail regarding persistent vandalism that has been occuring from the following IP addresses in their network:
Not going to RV this one because of [[WP:3RR]], but I think it needs work. The content is pretty good, but the prose needs to be neutralized.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 21:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
:I would question the claim that it has no effect on an existing pregnancy. Is there any source for that claim? Certainly, most pregnant women are advised to avoid any kind of powerful drug, and I imagine the morning-after pill is extremely powerful.
*{{vandal|203.166.96.234}}
:I'd also question the claim that it's medically inaccurate to say that the morning-after pill causes an abortion. Obviously, if it succeeds in preventing ovulation, then it works simply as a contraceptive. But, if ovulation has already taken place, and if the sperm reaches the egg, then the morning-after pill ''does'' cause an abortion. I'm not sure why Anon said "possibly" (in ''possibly by making the uterine lining less hostpitable to implantation''). Again, where is the source for "possibly"? Is there any reputable medical literature claiming that the uterus ''may not'' become less hospitable? If the woman ovulates first, has intercourse second, and takes the morning-after pill third, and if the sperm still manages to reach the egg, then the changes made to the uterine lining cause the embryo to be expelled. Surely that's a fact - nothing to do with approving or disapproving? Whether the embryo is a clump of cells or a human being may be POV, but what ''happens'' to it when a woman takes the morning-after pill after ovulation is not. [[User:Ann Heneghan|Ann Heneghan]] 22:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
*{{vandal|203.166.96.235}}
*{{vandal|203.166.96.236}}
*{{vandal|203.166.96.237}}
*{{vandal|203.166.96.238}}
*{{vandal|203.166.96.239}}
*{{vandal|203.166.96.240}}
*{{vandal|203.166.99.246}}
*{{vandal|203.166.99.247}}
*{{vandal|203.166.99.252}}
Calton told me that you were hip-deep in fighting these vandals. I need assistance with all the specific items of vandalism. I have setup a page to gather this evidence at [[User:Ta bu shi da yu/Ozemail]].
::I have reverted that section for the moment. I think it needs discussion here. Apologies for jumping in like this. I'm not new to Wikipedia, but hadn't looked much at this article before tonight. [[User:Ann Heneghan|Ann Heneghan]] 22:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
:::Welcome aboard. More editors, especially those who follow wikipolicy are welcome and wnated.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 04:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Are you able to help? If so, please use the format:
== Total Dispute ==
* '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu&diff=20311223&oldid=20311029 13:30, 5 August 2005]
I'm out of reversions, a bit frustrated so this seems to be the best course of action.
** Added abusive text to [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] user page
We'll see just how good their service is at responding to this sort of thing - we should be supporting any company that assists us. Therefore, I'm hoping that the Wikipedia spirit of cooperation and immense amount of volunteers will help with tracking down vandal edits.
If Ozemail gives a good response, we can use them as an example of a good ISP, and maybe even shame AOL into assisting us (we get lots of vandalism from them).
Based off of my last good edit as a refrence point [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=19885621&oldid=19879526]
If nothing happens, I'll be taking the whole subnet to ArbCom as I can't think of any other way of dealing with the problem.
Line 1:See above. if someone finds me a neutral accurate and useful term for cell death other than the word death, enlightenme.
[[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 02:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Line 6:Reasons for induced abortions: Unsourced claim. I happen to know personally people stupid enough to use it as birth control, I'm sure I can find documented instances of it, and so can the rest of us. That is something that happens, sad but true. Removing it fails accuracy and neutrality.
:oh yeah. people who abort where there is no birth contro are not doing it because of birth control failure!--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 16:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Line 37:
Opponents of abortion rights invented the term "[[partial-birth abortion]]," a term which does not exist in medical language, to describe these procedures.
Probably true. Not totally relevant as we are not Wikimedicine. Certainly more neutral ways to say it. They can check the main article for the history of how the word developed. We try to avoid the term "abortion rights" and "reproductive rights" as much as possible. because of [[WP:NPOV]].
== Rollback ==
These techniques are also necessarily used to remove miscarried fetuses from the uterus to prevent the woman from becoming infected. ''well then it isn't an abortion'' and we need refrences.
And once again I ask you why. To which policy or guideline are you referring? Why do you think that the information automatically created by rollback is inferior ro to the information I'd have placed in the edit summary anyway? When editors don't explain their edits, or engage in large numbers of vandalistic reversions, why do you think that rollback is inappropriate? Don't just issue commands to we lesser beings; have the courtesy to explain yourself. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>)]] 10:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
line 53: Leave the vast majority of that to the [[history of abortion]] [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not a soapbox]]. Using facts as advocacy is still advocacy.
Do you think it is OK to use rollback on a self-revert? [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 11:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
"In the United States, during the period when abortion was mostly illegal, many thousands of women were estimated to have died every year from complications of unsafe and illegal abortions."
Unsourced claim, not relevant, Amero-centric, and dripping with prochoice rhetoric. The passage "Studies have found that in developed countries where abortion is legal, the risk of serious physical complications of an abortion is less than 1%. In countries where abortion is illegal, this percentage is much higher, although the exact figure is unknown. This is likely due to the inherently dangerous nature of unregulated illegal surgery by doctors of dubious skill." covers all of that without the lurid detail.
== vandalism to RCP page ==
Physical health
Section is argumentative. Its arguing against an invisible opponent.
An anon user has been adding zip file links to the [[Revolutionary Communist Party (USA)]] page repeatedly in the last 24 hours. This seems a pretty obvious violation of wiki protocol. The zip files could consist of anything and the relevance seems tenuous at best.
Line 78: " do not establish a causal link between abortion and mental health problems" Readers aren't stupid. Report the facts, straight out, and use all of the ones avaiable. We can't just cherry pick. We let politicans do that, not wikipedians.
The contributor is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=24.19.62.186
And to a lesser extent from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=69.145.21.94
Any help you could give to monitor the situation or block the user, if necessary, would be appreciated. [[User:DJ Silverfish|DJ Silverfish]] 07:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
==Schmidt and Hackett==
:Actually, I would argue that readers ARE stupid. Most laymen don't understand that correlation does not imply causation (a lot of scientists forget this too) I don't think that mentioning that these studies do not establish a causal link is unreasonable. Perhaps we should remove any studies which do not establish a causal link? [[User:Lepidoptera|Lepidoptera]] 22:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
You worked on articles on the special election in Ohio on [[August 2]]. I have posted my articles on the nominees in that race, [[Jean Schmidt]] and [[Paul Hackett]], at [[Wikipedia:Peer review]] and would appreciate your comments. The individual pages are at [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Jean Schmidt]] and [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Paul Hackett]]. [[User:PedanticallySpeaking|PedanticallySpeaking]] 19:29, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
== Admin out of control ==
:I have special issue with this study: "According to one study of 1,884 women conducted by the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, women whose first pregnancy ended in abortion are 65% more likely to be diagnosed with clinical depression around eight years later." The information doesn't seem to have a source, and it sounds like a poor imitation of the third study listed. Is its inclusion nessecary? [[User:Lepidoptera|Lepidoptera]] 22:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Under exactly what authority does [[User:UninvitedCompany|UninvitedCompany]] think he can unilaterally permanently ban users, and destroy their user pages, and protect their talk pages so that they can't respond? - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3A-Ril-&diff=21264723&oldid=21115048]
It should be noted that the alleged images were listed at [[User:Evil Monkey/Nudity]] as well as being considered entirely appropriate for articles, having, as far as I can tell, already survived IFD, and have been on Wikipedia for over a month.
Line 102: Why Include [[NARAL Pro-Choice America]]? The article isn't great and It isn't as major of a player as NOW< ACLU and planned parenthood. In fact, may be we should just remove all the examples alltogether.
Note that an arbcom case has only just opened and has by no means come down with even remotely any penalty such as a ban. UninvitedCompany seems to think he has greater authority than ArbCom, and can completely act outside it.
Does UninvitedCompany has infinite power and permission to unilaterally with impunity?
I've spent a lot of time protecting this article from pro-life POV, and I will protect it from pro-choice pushing POV just as strongly.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 04:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Particularly when the user/victim in question has challanged a prior abuse of adminship by UninvitedCompany in an RfC, and has diametrically opposed political opinions?
I am happy to note that your current slate of edits in fact evidences your desire to eliminate POV. I find it rare among folks at wikimedia (editors claiming neutrality who are actually editing in a neutral fashion). Kudos to you. I have a strong POV, admit it, but also understand that facts are the important thing. I am comfortable that a neutral presentation of the facts will always favor the pro-life POV, which is why abortion advocates hate to deal with the topic honestly. Best of luck to you in your attempt to keep things even-keeled. [[User:214.13.4.151|214.13.4.151]] 15:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
This seems to be a case of right wing evangelical Christian admin'''s''' thinking they have the right to dictate to everyone else.
I went a head and did a mass reversion as seen here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=19928795&oldid=19898916]. This highlights that certain sections could stand improvement. Remember though that [[abortion]] is a SUMMARY article not a detailed analysis of all things abortion, not a forum for the debate, not a platform for advocacy.
It also seems in contempt of the arbitration committee's right to make the decision.
Looks like I broke 3RR in the process. Going to report myself. Play nice while I'm gone kids.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 16:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
[[User:RonaldTaril|SomeAccountThatIWillListOn-Ril-'sUserPageWhenOrIfIEverGetItBack (-Ril-)]] 11:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
==Emergency Contraception==
Is the inclusion of the term "human" nessecary? Dogs can have abortions too... I'm just wondering if there's any particular reason that's there.
==Move Roxelana==
On a side note, I removed a reference to the morning after pill under the chemical abortion heading. The morning after pill prevents pregnancy and was not relevant to the subject. I know there has been a lot of controversy about the morality of EC in general, but whether or not life starts at fertilization or does not, abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy, and pregnancy starts at implantation. [[User:Lepidoptera|Lepidoptera]] 05:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Everyking, You expressed your preliminary support to the move at [[Talk:Aleksandra Lisowska]]. Could you consider casting a vote there now regarding the official move proposal? Thanks! --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 20:42, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Talk:Aleksandra Lisowska
== On "polls are evil", and what it means and doesn't mean ==
:I understand your points. The inclusion of human will be needed, because no one really cares all that much about general mamillian pregnancy. Perhaps a statement that "this article focuses on human abortions" will fix that. As for the morning after pill, we still need to include it somewhere in the article. While it may not technically cause an abortion, it is still very informative and useful to include it in the article. From a non technical perspective, an abortion is a prevention of a succesful pregnancy. The morning after pill does that. I suggest we make it a new section with the note "...while not an abortion per se...".
While I'm generally loathe to spam people with requests for attention, "polls are evil" (in the sense I mean it) is something dear to me, and I want to make sure we understand were each of us is coming from. Just in case it slips off your radar: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency]]. I'm not asking for a response there, mind you; a private discussion is fine as well. [[User:JRM|JRM]] · [[User talk:JRM|Talk]] 00:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
:Welcome to the article Lepidoptera, enjoy your stay.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 15:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
== Wikiproject ==
::Your definition of abortion doesn't make sense Tzukai; since that would bring condoms etc. into it as they too "prevent successful pregnancies". As our lead says, its the termination... not prevention that counts; and we should note pregnancy (at least medically) is defined as beginning at implantation. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>[[User:RoyBoy/The 800 Club|800]]</sup> 17:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
The WikiProject for decency is a mess. I appreciate your understanding that at least some of those involved in it's protection never desired to commence a witch hunt for whatever was deemed obscene. I'm for renaming and considering something that deals more with encyclopedic merit...this would greatly transcend the original direction the project seemed to be headed, one I would ultimately not been a part of, which was to go around tagging certain things. The project could discuss the possible legal ramifications of hosting images of individuals without also ensuring that there are appropriate legal disclaimers proving age of consent of persons displayed in such images...something Jimbo has stated he is not interested in doing. The project could also address the need for encyclopedic merit or worth of questionable sourcing, article content, and related issues. Perhaps such a similar enterprise already exists that you may be more aware of. Your thoughts, if you feel so inclined, would be appreciated.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 08:43, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
:::Condoms essentially prevent actual sexual intercourse. The morning after pill is a termination of pregnancy process. I think, even if technically incorrect, this is quite reasonable. I agree that we should note that pregnancy begins in a medical sense at implantation.
:::As an aside, I believe the morning after pill, in general is a really ''stupid'' idea, so I'm not totally unbaised.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 17:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
==Thanks!==
::::Condoms make intercourse safer; I would hope they don't prevent it. :"D Indeed the abortion pill '''can''' interrupt the process; I say can because a significant percentage of fertilized eggs don't implant anyway. [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>[[User:RoyBoy/The 800 Club|800]]</sup> 17:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Just to drop a line to thank you for reverting the vandalism in my user page. ;) --[[User:Huaiwei|Huaiwei]] 10:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::In a sense, a succsessful condom use means you are going through extremly aggressive mutual masterbation :P (Wow my spelling sucks!). The point is, technically correct or not, its reasonable to think of the Morning after Pill as an abortion of a pregnancy.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 18:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
::::::If we mention the morning after pill than we must certainly mention [[Intrauterine device]]s (IUDs). Before the legalization of the morning after pill, you could go to the gynocologist and have an IUD inserted after unprotected sex. This method is actually far more effective at preventing pregnancy than the pill, but it's also expensive (around $400- $500)- although you can leave it in for up to 12 years after for effective pregnancy prevention. Birth control bills can be used in exactly the same way- before the pill, you could just go to your gynocologist and get a pack of bc pills for $17.50. I have several packs of BC (Alesse) which I am no longer on, and should I have unprotected sex, I could take 5 of the active pills as soon as possible, and another 5 12 hours later for the same effect. The advantage of the morning after pill as opposed to using the birth control pills is that bc pills have very high levels of estrogen, which causes nausea. [[User:Lepidoptera|Lepidoptera]] 17:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::::Excellent point. My knowledge is a little thin on this aspect of the abortion issue, but I will try to stick it in somewhere.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 17:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
::::::::Or even better. Write it up yourself. I will be shuffling things around (I don't hear a lot of complaints on me improving the prose and organization) but I will do my best to keep your additions in.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 17:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
:::::::::Okay, tried it. I wasn't really sure where to put it, but I hope that's okay. [[User:Lepidoptera|Lepidoptera]] 21:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Same here, such cleanup is always appreciated. -- ([[User:Drini|☺drini♫]]|[[User talk:Drini|☎]]) 19:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Str1977 added "in a medical sense" under this section- is this really nessecary? Can you have an abortion in a non medical sense? RV unless anyone can provide a reasonable argument why it should be there. [[User:Lepidoptera|Lepidoptera]] 21:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
== what are extant cliques? ==
Let me explain my reasoning:
Is there possibly an established clique between Jtdirl and Slimvirgin? or how? [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] (recent items) show how there seems to emerge excuses etc. [[User:217.140.193.123|217.140.193.123]] 10:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
If abortion is defined only as "ending" a pregnancy and if that in the medical sense is defined as beginning with implantation, then the passage is correct in saying that the ma-pill does not cause an abortion.
== Is anything being done? ==
However, morally these are equivalent: whether an implanted embyro is aborted (medical abortion) or whether an embryo (I know this is not the correct term) not yet implanted is kept from implanting. Both result in his/her death.
Hi,
This moral equivalence is included in this passage and hence I thought it best to refer to the abortion that does not occur as "abotion in a medical sense". This clearly defines what is meant here: medically no abortion, but morally the same issue.
I notice you've reverted several edits by 203.144.21.77. I just reverted one more of the same sort of edits and started to trace back to his other edits, which you seem to be following up on. Is there anything else that needs to be done? [[User:Patrick0Moran|P0M]] 07:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
[[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 21:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
==[[Jean Schmidt]]==
Thanks for your support for my previous effort to get this featured. I've submitted the article as a FAC again and would appreciate your vote at [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Jean_Schmidt]]. [[User:PedanticallySpeaking|PedanticallySpeaking]] 17:08, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
==History of South Carolina==
That's why I said "Some consider it the moral equivalent of an abortion". It's redundant. [[User:Lepidoptera|Lepidoptera]] 02:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Hello. [[History of South Carolina]] is on Featured Article Candidates for a third time due to recent controversy. Because you commented on one of its past nominations, you may be interested in commenting this time at [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of South Carolina]]. [[User:Toothpaste|Toothpaste]] 19:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
About the revert: I think we should just stick to "potentially" because statistics are very fuzzy. The first issue is that the chances of pregnancy from a single incident of unprotected sex are very low to begin with- during the second and third week of the cycle (where fertility is much higher), only about 8 percent. EC, the morning after pill in particular, can in many cases prevent ovulation since its composition is the same as BC pills which work by preventing ovulation. (For IUDs, the issue is more complicated, since there's some debate as to how they work in general) This pushes the possibility of zygote death after taking EC very low. Hope the way it is now is to everyone's liking [[User:Lepidoptera|Lepidoptera]] 16:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
== ArticleUserpage inand use:Trollderella ==
Hi Everyking!
Fixing Debate on abortion laws section. Possibly renaming the section.
I have unblocked Trollderella, but left another warning that such a username might be asking for trouble. Anyway, I have also restored your userpage. I think it got hit by Willy on Wheels (we can block ''him'' on sight can't we?), and two admins tried moving it back at the same time, thus deleting it by accident. I liked your userpage with links to your subpages better though... [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 07:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
The problem: This current organization is the result of a compromise/me stuffing change down people's throats. It worked for a while, but its also highlighted some problems.
:Thanks for fixing up my userpage and talkpage, I seem to have gotten at least one enemy on Wikipedia. This guy's been after my user and talkpage about a zillion times. Userpage protected again. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 08:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
A couple of the sections are completly stagnant. considering these reflect current law trends, I consider that a problem.
==Vandal==
The end goal is to harmonize as much as the section as possible, reducing the subsection count and giving a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate treatment of the debate.
Hi. Can you please block [[User talk:202.74.164.3]] who is vandalising [[Jew]] and [[Jews in the Middle Ages]]. Has been warned several times. Cheers [[User:TigerShark|TigerShark]] 07:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
As a courtesy, feel free to leave suggestions and comments here, but do not edit the article until I am finished please. I hope to get this done within 36 hours, as this is a major overhaul.
AsYes thisplease articleblock hashim beenif relativlyi stablehad foradmin apowers while,i Iwould hopehave thatdone is notso a problemwhile ago.-- [[User:TznkaiJobe6|Tznkai<font color="green">Jobe</font>]][[User 05talk:Jobe6|<font color="red">6</font>]] 07:21, 2 August 25, 2005 (UTC)
:OK, if I see any more vandalism from that IP, I'll block it. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 07:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
== Motorola i930--Vandalism Lock Request ==
Update: Looks like the section was easier than I thought, but he article as a whole is a pain. I'm heading to sleep soon, and will remove the in use tag. I intend to restore the two removed sections and do other significant improvments. Feel free to edit and comment on what I have done already.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 07:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
:Here is the before and after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=20102720&oldid=20088256]
The recent Vandalism incident at the article [[Motorola i930]] has really redflagged the integrity of the article. I keep watch on that article, and realized that there has been some vandalism attempts lately. If you are an Administrator and/or a Sysop, can you lock the Motorola i930 article for me to deal with Vandalism by Vandals? Those who want to discuss about changes should direct all the feedback to me. I appreciate it if you temporarily lock the Motorola i930 article to deal with vandalism. Thanks. — [[User:Vesther|Vesther]] 12:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
== removed subsection: pending reinsertion. ==
==Head's up==
===Current status of abortion law===
In case you hadn't already seen it, here's a heads up - [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 29, 2005]] [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 03:39, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
==Deletion==
{{Main article|Abortion law}}
Ah, burning midnight oil as well, I see. :) That "Jessica Stover" thing was little more than a single sentence and an external link. No notability established and I wiped it out as link spam. Sorry about brain fading on the summary. - [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] 07:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Historically, some cultures have offered legal protection to unborn human offspring. Abortion has been banned and otherwise limited. Almost two thirds of the world's women currently reside in countries where abortion may be obtained for certain reasons. Abortion laws vary widely by nation, with some countries allowing nearly total liberalization (examples including the United States, China and Russia), and others banning abortion under any circumstances. In the United States, the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] has held that state laws restricting abortion contradict an implied constitutional right of privacy (see [[Abortion in the United States]]), while the German Supreme Court [[German Federal Constitutional Court abortion decision|struck down]] state laws legalizing abortion, holding that they contradict the [[Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany|constitution]]'s human rights guarantees. There are also countries that do not have any laws restricting abortion, such as [[Canada]] (see [[Abortion in Canada]]).
*I get it right every so often, I guess. :)) Thanks for following up. - [[User:Lucky 6.9|Lucky 6.9]] 07:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
== Removed subsection 2 ==
== [[Penda of Mercia]] ==
I'm at a loss - what do you call the British in the 6th Century? --[[User:BDAbramson|<font style="background: lightgreen"> ''BDAbramson''</font>]] [[User talk:BDAbramson|<sup><b>talk</b></sup>]] 02:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Abortion has been a bitterly-fought [[politics|political]] issue, particularly in the [[Abortion in the United States|United States]]. The controversy in the U.S. started in [[1973]] with the case of ''[[Roe vs. Wade]]'', when the [[United States Supreme Court|Supreme Court]] ruled abortion to be a constitutionally protected right, as part of the greater [[right to privacy]]. Specifically, it ruled that states could not forbid a woman to terminate her pregnancy in the first three months (the first trimester) of her pregnancy. The United States Supreme Court is largely considered the gatekeeper of abortion rights in the United States, and as a result, the possibility of the balance of the Court shifting towards a more conservative body became an issue in the [[2004 US Presidential Election]].
Please ''don't'' censor me, Thank You.--[[User:Comandante Gomez|Comandante Gomez]] 04:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
In many other countries, abortion is less of a [[political]] issue. For a long time, it has not been a mainstream political issue in the [[United Kingdom]]. In the lead up to the [[United Kingdom general election, 2005|2005 General Election]], [[Michael Howard]], the leader of the [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservatives]], stated that he, personally, might support a reduction in the limit from 24 weeks to 20 weeks, but the issue was not included in the party's manifesto for the election.
<!---This section needs a lot more global information.--->
I've been doing better if you look the Castro's page, I stopped calling him a "Dictator" (even though I REALLY think he is)...and agreed with the editor known as Speak Box, who has been editing the page recently.--[[User:Comandante Gomez|Comandante Gomez]] 04:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
== Inuse #2 ==
== We Belong Together ==
Will be applying the inuse template as soon as I get home to a stable internet connection. Doing a major reorginzation starting around 2:30 EST. See embbedded comments. Voice objections and comments now or hold your peace until I'm done please.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 17:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
RL is being uncooperative. Edit postoponed until tomorrow--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 19:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
James, I just noticed that you unprotected [[We Belong Together]] shortly after I'd protected it. Please don't do that again to articles I protect, and particularly not if you intend to edit them yourself. I protected because of the reverting between Omega and Mel, which both have discussed with me and which needs to be sorted out. In future, if you feel I've protected something inappropriately, I'd appreciate it if you'd leave a note on my talk page and give me time to respond. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 23:26, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
:As my request is denied, I'm therefore re-submitting it. If one admin protects a page, another admin shouldn't unprotect it just hours later, except in exceptional circumstances, where a mistake has been made or similar. This is a basic matter of courtesy, and so perhaps I should rephrase my request in those terms.
==Questions about the morality of abortion==
# The beginning of personhood: Also phrased "the beginning of life", when is an unborn human considered a person? See also fetal personhood
# Universal human rights: is aborting an unborn human a violation of human rights?
:As for the revert war, I agree that it's low level, but it's been going on for a long time and involves several articles, this one being the main bone of contention, it seems, and it needs to be sorted out, which is what I'm making an effort to do. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 03:45, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
I think both of these questions are leading, but I changed the second one as a form of balance, especially since the second topic is redundant: obviously, when an fetus is considered a person, it's a violation of their human rights to abort them, so the second question is unnessecary. I think the section as a whole is unbalanced because there is no mention of the ethics of forced pregnancy/birth- is it ethical to force someone to undergo massive body changes and discomfort/pain, and possibly drive her to actions which my result in her death? Perhaps my wording wasn't neutral enough, but I thought it added balance. Can you suggest something better? [[User:Lepidoptera|Lepidoptera]] 22:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
::In that case, I owe you an apology. When I looked at the history, I misread it that the page was protected and unprotected on August 25, but now that I look properly, I see there were three days in between, which sheds a different light on it. I would still have appreciated a note in advance of unprotection, but three days is less of a deal than a few hours. I'm sorry for jumping the gun. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 03:59, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Dear Lepidoptera,
the 2nd question is only redundant if you adhere to the concept of human rights. I do and I guees you do and many many more do so as well and hence this might seem redundant. But ask the Chinese government and they will tell you differently. Also IMHO there are many people in west that do not fully adhere human rights, even without disputing it conciously, but through acting differently. (Not they are right in that.) [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 22:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
== Vasco da Gama ==
:Lepidoptera... we've had this discussion in excruciating detail before; as human has two meanings. We've been more than fair in allowing "unborn human" to pro-lifers; since it is entirely correct and undisputed that the fetus is a homo sapien sapien; but it is entirely disputed as to whether it is an individual "human being" (alternatively, "human forming"). If the "human" question is left open; or answered by both perspectives then that should be fine. (BTW, if this doesn't help my bad, I'm just reading the talk section for now.) - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>[[User:RoyBoy/The 800 Club|800]]</sup> 03:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
An article that you've edited before ([[Vasco da Gama]]) is nominated for [[Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive|Article Improvement Drive]]. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. [[User:Joaopais|Gameiro]] 02:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
:Lepidoptera,
:the preceding post by RoyBoy only illustrates the fallacy of the "pro-choice" view. To justify it, he has to stretch logic by saying that "human" is not the same as "human" - he is allowed to have his POV, but it is illogical nonetheless. But I don't want to stir up that old debate (which isn't really a debate anyway) again.
:as for your question: it is ethical to force someone to endure discomfort over against the preservation of a greater good, in this case another human life. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 16:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
== thank you -Jimbo's post is covered ==
:I'm not always the most eloquent; clearly I have failed in some way. The point of contention is about when a human (our species) becomes an individual being (human); and you are '''not''' allowed to misrepresent the key philosophical disagreement on this issue. My and your POV's be damned!!! Using "human" without context, and at this point I think its intentional, removes the distinction... a distinction pro-lifers do not see; and that's fine for their POV, but not for this article. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>[[User:RoyBoy/The 800 Club|800]]</sup> 18:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
saw your post --and deletion --in re my post on Jimbo's page --yes, I got it wrong, but copied it to the "Real" page.
:::There's no problem, Roy, with your eloquent. And granted, what I stated above is merely my POV and you yourself admit that that's fine.
:::My point was that there are two POVs here (mine and yours) - one is assuming that human == human, the other is assuming that human =/= human. Both are present. Let anyone decide for themselves which is more reasonable.
:::I for my part cannot see why I should distinguish, you think differently.
:::I was not misrepresenting, just using some focus.
:::[[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 19:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thanks again for your concern -- ps: we could use a few "affirmative" votes to encourage Terri Schiavo to kick butt. Thx in advance.--[[User:GordonWattsDotCom|GordonWattsDotCom]] 10:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
::::No, the other (=/=) recognizes there is one meaning is being obfuscated. You're providing the antithesis of focus. I'll put it very simply; when you ask someone if a human is self-aware; they will say "sure," but they will have forgotten it's possible to be physically/genetically human and not be self-aware. There is an assumption "human" means a conscious individual similar to you or I (a person); we have to be clear here in order to avoid that misleading assumption stemming from common use of "human" which everyone uses in their daily lives. For it does not account (nor even consider) early development or exceptions such as comas and other brain damage. There is no "stretch logic" here; just an understanding words sometimes are not clear or specific. Which is exactly the focus of this discussion; replacing an ambiguous "human" with the more specific "person". - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>[[User:RoyBoy/The 800 Club|800]]</sup> 06:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
:::I know, Roy, that you don't see or don't want to see the stretch logic. Otherwise you couldn't hold to your POV as you do. And note that we needn't discuss this endlessly. I'm not disputing the article as it stands. Just pointing out the "flaw".
:::Consciousness is a perfectly arbitrary condition for "human being". Anyone can think of some category according to his wishes and this has happened in the past. With horrendous consequences. Or it can happen unconsciously: a murder has IMO already deprived his victim of his/her humanity before he murders, at least unconsciously.
:::Are those in "comas and other brain damage" not human beings?
:::Early development? When does someone begin to be human? I say conception, since from then on it's just natural growth, fed by nutrition, but nothing changes. If you provided some other point where a leap might occur to humanity, you'd surprise me.
:::You and I were once embryos too - when did we begin to be humans?
:::[[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 11:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
::::Depends, but it has little to do with word ambiguities. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>[[User:RoyBoy/The 800 Club|800]]</sup> 20:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
==[[JonBenét Ramsey]]==
::::Folks, this discussion is fascinating and all, but I lost track of the part where we're talking about the article.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 14:26, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I'm playing around with wiki tonight, mostly just vandal hunting (for the first time), and I saw a recent entry for JonBenét, and decided that it was just...um...wrong...if you know what I mean. So I reverted it. In between I noticed that you saw it and didn't revert it, but instead just corrected the spelling (which I do find quite humorous). So should I have left it alone? [[User:Hagie|Hagie]] 08:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
== Ashlee Simpson FAC ==
::::Yes, Tznkai, you're right. I'll shut up on this one. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 19:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Hey Everyking :). The article is already on peer review now... any ideas on how to improve it before we send it to Featured Article Candidates? <small>[[User:RN|Ryan Norton]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 09:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
::Is it even a greater good? The very nature of the abortion debate is insidious. Every tagline or question you ask is full of [[loaded term|loaded terms]]. I did my best to keep it as neutral as possible, but I welcome improvements. Note that the new structure is designed to completly eliminate prochoice/prolife sectioning, leaving that to the main debate article. Ithink this is a major improvment --[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 17:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
== [[Belarusian Republican Youth Union]] ==
::It is an improvement. I was referring only to the points touched upon here at the talk page. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 17:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch for doing the minor grammar check there. [[User:Zscout370|Zscout370]] [[User_talk:Zscout370|(Sound Off)]] 08:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
== ... ==
I don't know how you do it... even with all the RfArs and whatnot you still tirelessly edit. Try to remember that words do matter though, and I think if you keep that in mind maybe it'll improve with some of the other admins, no? Take care! --RN
My point was: The questions to think about ONLY consider the morality of abortion from the point of the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby. The morality of abortion asks two questions: From the point of the view of the women, and the point of view of the zygote/embryo/fetus/baby. So where is the former? [[User:Lepidoptera|Lepidoptera]] 03:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
:I think I see where you're going with this. Will work on it, but its implied in the individual liberty parts of the questions. --[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 03:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't really see that it is a question of liberty- instead, a question of property (remember, the US constitution grants us the right to life, liberty, and property). It's a question of defending your property- legally and morally speaking, your body is your property. If any one or anything invades your home or tries to hurt you, you have a right to defend yourself with force- even lethal force. In the case of rape, physical damage is usually low as opposed to, say, even getting punched in the face- but your body is your property, and if someone tries to rape you, you have a right to shoot them to make them stop if you have the opportunity. So the question really becomes: if someone attacks your life, liberty, or property, to what extent can you defend yourself? If someone were to tie me down, give me injections of estrogen every morning to make me throw up, and shove a rock up my uterus every day for 9 months, and then at the end of the nine months cut me open to remove all the rocks, I think I can use lethal force to prevent them from doing that, even though they're a full grown adult with the same rights as I do. And when that person is not in fact a person but a proto human who depends soley on my body for sustanence and cannot live on it's own, then it's even clearer to what extent I can defend myself. I personally would have difficulty killing a rapist, because they are as fully human as I, and while I have no desire to be raped, it's a relatively short period of discomfort, although there is the potential of pregnancy/STI's. I find the prospect of pregnancy and birth far more horrifying than the action of being raped, so the morality of abortion in my mind is not even questionable. (And yes, maybe if you hadn't had sex, you wouldn't have gotten pregnant, and maybe if you hadn't walked down a dark alley alone at night, or worn that short skirt,you wouldn't have gotten raped either- but regardless of what you could do to prevent an attack, the situation still remains) Anyway, just a rant, but thought it would add an additional perspective. [[User:65.96.72.221|65.96.72.221]] 16:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
== Removed[[SuperShadow]] sectionVfD ==
Greetings: pawing through the SuperShadow edit history, I noticed you've edited the page in question before. I thought you'd want to know it is now the subject of a [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|Vote for Deletion]], at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperShadow]]. If you want, you could stop in there and cast a vote. --[[User:Marudubshinki|Maru]] 22:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
== Please could you comment on a peer review? ==
There are several forms of [[birth control]] that some consider the moral equivalent to abortion because they destroy an embryo prior to implantation. Prior to 1976, a '[[contraceptive]]' was understood to be an agent that prevented the union of sperm and ovum (fertilization). In 1976 the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists changed the definition so that a contraceptive was redefined as anything that prevented implantation of the blastocyst embryo, which occurs six or seven days after fertilization. Those who believe that life starts at [[fertilization|conception]] believe that forms of birth control which can prevent the implantation of a [[fertilized egg]] or [[embryo]] in the [[uterus]] end a human life. The most controversial of these forms of pregnancy prevention is currently the [[Morning-after pill]], which is legal in a number of countries and has recently been legalized in the [[United States]] and in [[Canada]].
I was reading the ''[[Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)|Autobiography]]'' article, and was very impressed by it. I actually think it's one of the best Wikipedia articles on recent albums that I've seen. Anyway, after perusing the edit history, I noticed that you were responsible for most of the content of the article. This did not surprise me (due to your great contributions to [[Ashlee Simpson]]), but since the style of the ''Autobiography'' article influenced my expansion and rewrite of the article for ''[[Extraordinary Machine]]'' (which is a forthcoming album by [[Fiona Apple]]), I would be extremely grateful if you were to visit its peer review request [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Extraordinary Machine|here]], and comment and add suggestions on how the article could be improved. You don't have to, of course, but I want this article to be the best it can be, and I believe that your guidance may help me and the other editors of the article to achieve that goal. I even hope to submit it at [[WP:FAC]] some day after the album is released. Thanks in advance. [[User:Extraordinary Machine|Extraordinary Machine]] 23:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
This is very good, but I think Its a little detailed for this article. --[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 14:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
:Anyway, this history bit is intresting, but i think it'd do better in the main article. It could problably use a little expansion though. What do you think the best summarizations of the views of each side is?--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 14:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
== Winter War==
==Deletion in the Mental Health area==
Re. "give me a break..how do you define "moral victory"?"
The first study states the same material as the third study with less detail, and it has no source. It's unnessecary. [[User:Lepidoptera|Lepidoptera]] 14:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Lepidoptera
You're right, of course. But I put that in there as an attempt to give some ground to the "Finland won" POV revisionism, rather than just have a revert war with those guys.--[[User:67.101.67.73|67.101.67.73]] 14:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
:Ahkay. I don't think I have an objection then. Anyone else?--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 15:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
== QuestionableAutobiography "Study"on FAC again ==
I put Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album) on FAC again... I think its pretty much ready. Maybe you might want to take one last pass at it when you get a chance :). Go to [[Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates|FAC]] and comment there if you'd like also :). <small>[[User:RN|Ryan Norton]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 00:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
The source of the "study" showing an increased rate of premature birth is unlisted, and the argument is questionable. Many "studies" are conducted by biased groups such as the "Focus on the Family" institute. Only empirical studies with empirical evidence should be listed on topics that invoke such strong positions on each side. Due to the nature of the debate there is, after all, a large potential for the manipulation of information to present a biased result. Sources and a list of subject material and "evidences" would be preferable when such claims are made.
== Museveni on peer review ==
Furthermore, no number of premature births resulting from "post abortion" damage was given, nor an initial percentage, so the "increased risk" may well seem more serious than it supposedly is. Moreover no information was given to indicate the cause of such a phenomena, what type of abortion "causes" premature birth the most? Is it considered premature birth when a fetus or embryo simply doesn't hold? The utter lack of information regarding this "study" makes it appear designed to scare young women from considering abortion a viable option. --[[User:LucaviX|LucaviX]] 12:30 AM. August 10'th 2005
Hey EK, just thought I'd let you know that [[Yoweri Museveni]] is now on [[Wikipedia:Peer review|peer review]] as you have contributed to it previously. I thought now was about the right time, as it would be good to get a feel for the kind of things people will say in [[WP:FAC]] now, rather than pressing ahead with expansion and then having to change a whole load of stuff later. [[User:TreveX|TreveX]]<sup>[[User talk:TreveX|talk]]</sup> 11:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
:Since the study is listed as the [[Abortion#endnote_abortion2|2nd footnote]]; I'm unsure if responding to the rest of this is even necessary. Is there something wrong with the [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15777440&query_hl=8 reference] provided? Also I had to reword the entire section to this version, because previously it was worded to scare women. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] <sup>[[User:RoyBoy/The 800 Club|800]]</sup> 06:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
::Lucavix, can you be more specific with your problems with the study? I think we're pretty screwed if we're dependant exclusivly on unbasied sources for our data. In fact, I don't think we'd have any. By providing the refrence, the reader can determine the worth for his or herself.
::I think we give Lucavix 24 to respond before removing the objection comment? --[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 14:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
== Zoey 101 ==
Regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zoey_101&diff=22732808&oldid=22732624 this edit]. First of all, you made it look like [[January]] 9]]. Second, why even change it form [[January 9]] to [[January]] [[9]]? [[User:Howabout1|Howabout1]] [[user talk:howabout1|<sup><span style="color:red">Talk to me!</span></sup>]] 23:43, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
My objection is to how the "study" is presented, the lack of any evidence provided to support the "study", the lack of any provided source, and the lack of information in the "study" (such as what the initial statistics for premature birth and the utter lack of information as to how this "study" was even conducted). This almost seems no more than propaganda, and not a "study" at all. There are all kinds of "studies" out there that are no more than opinion pieces and use skewed or false statistics. Furthermore the entire study seems deliberately engineered to scare women away from considering abortion as a viable alternative, by leaving out information such as what the actual probability of premature birth might be ( for example, saying that there's a 70% increased risk that something bad will happen doesn't say much if the risk is extremely miniscule, at say .007, to begin with). Unless some sort of source is provided or more information is provided about the "study" or more information regarding the content of the study is provided, the objection will remain. --[[User:LucaviX|LucaviX]] 10:03 AM. August 10'th 2005
:Lucavix, the study is linked. we don't have room to exhaustivly document each study. Thats what refrences are for. They can research the Pregnancy article as well. We don't have the room to lead our reader's by the hand and give them the research. We've provided bloody hyperlinks for them already. Readers Aren't Stupid.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 15:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Huh? Are you sure? I'm looking and it now and it appears the other way around with EK fixing it after you reverted... <small>[[User:RN|Ryan Norton]] <sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:RN|T]]</font> | <font color="#0033FF">[[Special:Emailuser/RN|@]]</font> | <font color="#FF0000">[[Special:Contributions/RN|C]]</font></sup></small> 23:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
One of the Links doesn't even work and the other is a propaganda page by Peter Bowen who is a self described "pro-life" Politician. His agendas are also suspect, and his sources are slanted and far from scientific! The objection holds. -- [[user:lucavix]] 11:51 AM August 10'th 2005
:Not sure about the second one, but the first one is the PubMed database, one of the more impressive and rigerous databases of medical sceince outthere. I'll let another editor with more expertise take it over from here--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 17:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Stupid me! Sorry Everyking. :) [[User:Howabout1|Howabout1]] [[user talk:howabout1|<sup><span style="color:red">Talk to me!</span></sup>]] 23:48, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
At least have the initial statistics for premature birth listed or the objection is going to stay there. The entire piece is totally slanted, unless more information is provided to balance the objection must remain. -- [[user:lucavix]]
:Could you please help with the reserach then? --[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 17:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Another question, what is the policy regarding a father and son with the same name and both should have wikipedia articles. Is it [[Paul Butcher (Actor)]] and [[Paul Butcher (NBL Palyer)]] or [[Paul Butcher Jr.]] and [[Paul Butcher Sr.]]? [[User:Howabout1|Howabout1]] [[user talk:howabout1|<sup><span style="color:red">Talk to me!</span></sup>]] 23:58, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Source appears to be Dr Caroline Moreau, an french anti-abortionist who has stated that embryo's are sacred. His entire findings are subject and should be reviewed with the utmost scrutiny. -- [user:lucavix]]
| 