The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to abortion, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Should we add or expand coverage of a particular aspect of abortion?
It is likely that we have already done so. There was so much information on abortion that we decided to split it all into separate articles. This article is concise because we've tried to create an overview of the entire topic here by summarizing many of these more-detailed articles. The goal is to give readers the ability to pick the level of detail that best suits their needs. If you're looking for more detail, check out some of the other articles related to abortion.
This article seems to be on the long side. Should we shorten it?
See above. The guidelines on article length contain exceptions for articles which act as "starting points" for "broad subjects." Please see the archived discussion "Article Length."
Should we include expert medical or legal advice about abortions?
Should we include or link to pictures of fetuses and/or the end products of abortion?
No consensus. See the huge discussion on this topic in 2009 here. Consistently, there has been little support for graphic "shock images"; while images were added in 2009 the topic remains contentious, and some images have been removed.
Should we include an image in the lead?
No consensus. Numerous images have been proposed for the article lead. However, no image achieved consensus and the proposal that garnered a majority of support is to explicitly have no image in the lead.
Should we mention the "death of the zygote/embryo/fetus/child/etc." ?
No - It is not mentioned because it is well known and understood by everyone that this happens. To explicitly mention it is POV of anti-abortionists. No one believes that in an abortion procedure the embryo will be transplanted to another woman's uterus or transferred to an artificial placenta so that it can then gestate to term and be birthed.
Are the terms "safe" and "safety" used correctly in this article?
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Abortion 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
William Cronon (2012-02-01). "Scholarly Authority in a Wikified World". American Historical Association. Even controversial topics that are famous for generating warring submissions by opposing sides often do a remarkably good job of migrating toward shared middle ground. Compare Wikipedia's entry on 'abortion' or 'abortion debate' with Britannica's and ask yourself which does a better job.
Proposed label is "Miscarriages induced by either self-taught midwives or obstetricians not only maim the woman, they also often lead to death." 91.105.17.149 (talk) 06:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to NightHeron's comment at WikiProject Russian section (copying over: @Altenmann, @Valereee. The English-language meaning of the revised translation is very different from the meaning of the Soviet poster. The background for the poster is that in 1925 abortion was legal in the USSR. (The history section of the abortion article mentions the Soviet legalization of abortion in 1920.) The poster warns women against the use of informal abortion providers, namely, midwives and what (in the African American dialect of English) are sometimes called "granny midwives" (older women who perform some midwife functions). Nothing in the Russian indicates "self-taught", which in current English usage means learning from books or videos. Typically they were not self-taught, but rather learned from the older generation of midwives, through woman-to-woman instruction or apprenticeship. Nothing in the Russian indicates "professional" or "obstetrician", both of which in current English usage indicate accreditation by the recognized medical establishment. The Soviet poster was not a warning about abortion performed by credentialed doctors, that is, obstetricians.
Please note that, according to WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, the stable version of the caption should remain while this matter is being resolved here or on the article talk-page. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to restoring if you disagree with the second translation; you probably don't need to quote policy to people who haven't even disagreed with you or reverted you yet. :D Perhaps we should for now just say "1925 Russian poster warning of the dangers of abortion by non-obstetricians" or something? Valereee (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My correction was mistranslation of "babka" as "grandmother" and "akusherka" as "obstetrician". In this context "babka" is an abbreviation of "povivalnaya babka", i.e. NightHeron's "granny midwife" is literal, word-by-word, equivalent (originally I thought of "old hag midife", because 'babka' is not at all a term of endearment such as "grammy" - an objection akin to yours gains "self-taught"). Hovever "akusherka" is literally "midwife". I thought the text "old hag widwifes and midwifes" looks strange, therefore I distinguished them with epithets. The most recent translation misses "akusherki", who are actually midwifes with credentials (and yes not obstetricians). I don't think an English reader knows what a "ganny midvife" means. Therefore I suggest it to at least modify it to "by folk and professional midwifes" or "by midwives, both folk and professional", or something elese along the lines I described. - Altenmann>talk16:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The folk practitioner in the poster is not shown to be a lay midwife or traditional birth attendant. We have no idea what have been the woman's previous activities regarding pregnancy or childbirth. All we see is one panel where the woman is standing and pointing while holding on to a flask with brown liquid, and a long, sharp tool. For all we know, her only involvement with pregnancy is as an abortionist. Let's not make assumptions and saddle the woman with unsupported career titles. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with Binksternet's version (the current version) that has a shorter caption. If others think we should include a translation of the warning at the top of the poster, I'd favor "Miscarriages induced by midwives or folk healers not only maim the woman, they also often lead to death." That would preserve the original meaning and make sense to English speakers. NightHeron (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like Binksternet's version, or your version would be acceptable to me also. It seems that this is a hard translation to get clear given then context and meanings and changed times. ---Avatar317(talk)22:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working to improve the readability of articles on contentious topics without involving myself in content disputes. I didn't intend to change the articles meaning, and I'm appreciative that NightHeron noticed my initial edit (unintentionally) also changed the meaning. Any editor who prefers the old wording is welcome to either directly revert or ask me to self-revert. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BillMPike: Thanks, I appreciate that your edits are obviously in good faith. Your second change also changes the meaning, since "home medication" (like the term "home remedy") suggests that it's a medication designed to be taken at home, which in this case is not true. In fact, regulations in some jurisdictions require that the medication be taken at a clinic or doctor's office. Please self-revert. NightHeron (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In it, it says: "No consensus. See the huge discussion on this topic in 2009 here. Consistently, there has been little support for graphic "shock images"; while images were added in 2009 the topic remains contentious, and some images have been removed."
But if the actual abortion photos are described as "shock images" then why is abortion called a standard medical procedure?
I understand much of the existing verbiage is the consensus of WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycles. My goal is improve readability without challenging any existing consensus on NPOV, nomenclature, topic weight, reliable sources, etc.
This statement should be removed. It is obviously incorrect as there are safer procedures like palpation, auscultation, blood pressure, etc.. The reference that supports the claim is a 2006 study that has a bit of biased/opinionated wording in some parts and this is one example. A superlative statement should need to be quantified/supported with data and whilst there is data that it is safe, there is none that show it as being the safest. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're misquoting the article. It says "one of the safest" and "among the safest", which is indisputably correct, and does not say "THE safest". NightHeron (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are dozens if not hundreds of safer procedures, labelling it amongst the safest is unnecessary and is why the 'safest' is only used in the one source rather than the rest. The safety of abortion depends heavily on the method and gestational period, this information is properly explained in the body but cannot be summarised as 'one of the safest' in the lead. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surgical abortion is very safe compared to other surgical procedures, as is non-surgical abortion compared to other non-surgical procedures. So "one of the safest" and "amopg the safest" is correct. NightHeron (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the source cited for the first sentence, "sex in marriage for pleasure rather than procreation" isn't mentioned even a single time; yet, I have been reverted in my removal of that phrase. Anotherperson123 (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Noonan's book (cited at the end of that sentence) devoted to the topic of how the Church, from its beginning until the 20th century, viewed contraception and abortion, on page 58 he writes that "most Church fathers" subscribed to the doctrine that "virginity is preferred, but intercourse in marriage, for procreation only, is permissible." Later, in the pages cited (p. 165) he writes that, in contrast to some other theologians, Augustine and Jerome viewed sexual sins within marriage (that is, non-procreative practices) very harshly. This supports the wording that "opinion was divided" on the relative seriousness of abortion and sexual sins within marriage. NightHeron (talk) 01:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase is, at least, poorly phrased, as it seems to suggest that the Church fathers thought pleasure itself is sinful. Perhaps the sentence should be changed to "In the Catholic Church, opinion was divided on how serious abortion was in comparison with such acts as contraception, oral sex, and other non-procreative sexual acts." Thoughts? Anotherperson123 (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a rewording of the sentence might improve it. The only problem I see with your proposed wording is that it would suggest that the Church was okay with procreative sexual acts outside of marriage (as in "common-law marriage"). I see no way to change that without mentioning marriage vs non-marriage. On the other hand "such acts as" suggests that the three examples are not a complete list (for example, you could change "oral sex" to "oral or anal sex", since Noonan mentions the latter). So if you don't find a wording you like that makes it clear that even procreative sexual acts outside of formal marriage were forbidden, I won't object to your proposed rewording. NightHeron (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After brainstorming for possible misreadings and misunderstandings of several different ways of wording this, it seems that the inclusion of this phrase (the one currently in the article, if there's any confusion) in any phrasing can lead to many misreadings and strange apparent meanings. I think the elimination of this phrase might be best. The sentence does say, “such acts as”, which, as you have mentioned, suggests that it is an incomplete list. The intended meaning of the phrase also seems to be already expressed in the list. The following two options for sentence modification seem to pose the least problems in terms of potential misreadings:
“In the Catholic Church, opinion was divided on how serious abortion was in comparison with such acts as contraception and oral sex.”
“In the Catholic Church, opinion was divided on how serious abortion was in comparison with such acts as contraception, and oral or anal sex.”
I don’t think the phrase is necessary for conveying the essential meaning of the sentence and the paragraph (it appears to me to be a little bit redundant too, given that the first two things in the list are included in the intended meaning of the phrase); and the phrase introduces ambiguity. Anotherperson123 (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the sentence to the second variant above, which seems to be a reasonable compromise. It's supported by the source, and I don't see any redundancy with the rest of the paragraph. NightHeron (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
My correction was mistranslation of "babka" as "grandmother" and "akusherka" as "obstetrician". In this context "babka" is an abbreviation of "povivalnaya babka", i.e. NightHeron's "granny midwife" is literal, word-by-word, equivalent (originally I thought of "old hag midife", because 'babka' is not at all a term of endearment such as "grammy" - an objection akin to yours gains "self-taught"). Hovever "akusherka" is literally "midwife". I thought the text "old hag widwifes and midwifes" looks strange, therefore I distinguished them with epithets. The most recent translation misses "akusherki", who are actually midwifes with credentials (and yes not obstetricians). I don't think an English reader knows what a "ganny midvife" means. Therefore I suggest it to at least modify it to "by folk and professional midwifes" or "by midwives, both folk and professional", or something elese along the lines I described. - Altenmann >talk 16:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Reverted I still feel the dangling modifier is bad for readability. Is there any verbiage you would suggest? — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
