Talk:Instillation abortion

Article concern
This article has been copied, almost verbatim, from an essay on a pro-life site: http://realchoice.0catch.com/library/weekly/aa063000a.htm. Due to the obvious neutrality and copyright concern this poses, I will be removing problem sections, which should be replaced with sourced material. -Severa (!!!) 09:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, there is no copyright concern because I am the owner of the material in question. Second of all, you don't show any concern for neutrality when National Abortion Federation promotional materials are posted verbatim. My article was referenced thoroughly and I included those references in the article. ChristinaDunigan 17:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The folowing post has been copied, in part, from User_Talk:ChristinaDunigan...
 * Granted, at first, it appeared that the Saline abortion had been plagerized, and thus would be a violation of Copyright. This warranted immediate removal. However, if you are posting your own work, you must also be mindful of WP:OR. Also, counter to your claim, Saline abortion does not provide neutral, reliable sources, as required by WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CITE. Many of the claims do not have numbered citations and those which do are deadlinks. I am sorry to say that the burden of proof is upon you to provide sources before you post anything to Wikipedia. Otherwise, it's original research.


 * Saline abortion has a negative, editorialistic tone, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It is clearly counter to WP:NPOV; after all, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. As for recreating the "Saline abortion" page, this seems unjustified, given the fact that saline instillation is now covered at "Instillation abortion." This is the technical term I have encountered in all the academic sources which I consulted; "saline abortion," in a Google search, returns only advocacy sites. I will, of course, be redirecting the page again, because the current fork is redundant and serves only to host your own OR/op-ed piece. -Severa  (!!!) 23:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"Hijacking"
Hi, I removed your post from Deletion review. It was put in the wrong place - you need to edit today's deletion log to make a new request (go to the 'Decisions to be reviewed' section and click the link where you see "Follow this link to add a new deletion review entry in today's log").

Normally I would move your post myself, but your request doesn't actually involve a deletion. Anyone may move, redirect or edit an article, and for that matter anyone may revert the move or edit. You should query the changes Severa made either on Talk:Instillation abortion or Severa's user talk page, and go to Requests for comment to get outside views on the article if you can't reach agreement with Severa. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

(moving conversation back here - please reply here, I'm watching this page for replies)
 * Sam, thanks for the note on Severa's redirection of my saline abortion page. I have tried but have been unable to revert. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChristinaDunigan (talk • contribs) 17:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Severa seems to have moved that page as it was, which is different from a redirect - a redirect erases all the content, whereas moving moves all the content to a new page. Then she added information on other forms of instillation abortion. If you tried to revert using the page history, you wouldn't be able to. To revert the move, you would need to click 'move' at the top of the page and then move it back to the original location. Then you would have to decide what to do with the material on other forms of installation abortion. If your account is very new, you may not get the 'move' button for a few days (that's to prevent certain vandals from abusing it).
 * Telling you how to do that doesn't mean I encourage you to for the moment, however. I would recommend coming to an agreement with Severa first, as splitting an article is a big step and difficult to reverse, and edit wars are strongly discouraged here. Reading the page as it stands, I'm not sure why saline as a solution needs a separate article (I'm not knowledgable in this field, however). P.S. Please sign posts on talk pages by typing ~ at the end to post your name and the date. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi again, Sam. I'm sorry if I'm using the wrong method to communicate but I'm new to Wikipedia, as I'm sure you're aware. I wasn't sure if I posted on my own talk page if you'd see it.
 * Severa completely replaced my saline abortion article with her own instillation article before moving it to instillation abortion. My article focused specifically on saline abortion as it was abandoned in other countries and practiced in the United States. The amount of information unique to saline abortion certainly seemed to me to warrant a separate article.
 * How much time needs to pass before I'm no longer "new" and will be able to restore my work? ChristinaDunigan 17:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 1:54 PM August 14 2006
 * I have this page on a watchlist, so I do see when you've replied. I and many other Wikipedians prefer to keep conversations on one talk page rather than two, otherwise when someone else reads it it's very difficult to follow the thread.
 * I don't think at this point that reverting per se is best, as that would involve removing some of the information Severa added, which looks sourced and relevant to me. If you specifically want to add more information on saline abortion then it doesn't make sense to remove the more general information.
 * You can at any point edit Saline abortion so it's a stand-alone article again - if you click on saline abortion, then when redirected click the blue text in 'redirected from Saline abortion' at the top, you will go to the page without being redirected. Then you can edit the article and replace the ' ' code with stand-alone text. Once you've done that, it would make sense to link it from instillation abortion. Summary style has some advice on how to split pages in this way. It also has a section on avoiding the appearance of so-called 'POV forking' (creating a new article so you can more easily establish ownership and put across your point of view), which will be something you need to be careful of as you've accused Severa of having a contrary agenda with her editing (you might also want to read Assume good faith, incidentally).
 * To retrieve the content you originally added, go to the history tab of Instillation abortion and click the dates in the edit history to see how the article stood at that time.
 * You'll get the move tab once your account is 4 days old. You'll also be able to edit semi-protected pages at that time. --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, Sam. I've fixed it.

It's hard to assume good faith when in a single day one user has nuked virtually everything you've contributed on a topic, but I'll make the effort. ChristinaDunigan 19:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 3:50 PM August 14, 2006

Severa is at it again. I can't find my Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health content to restore it.

I have no beefs with negotiating, but she simply nuked what I had put in, replaced it with a sentence of her own, and then claimed that there was no cite, despite the detailed cite I provided about how CRASH closed in the wake of the death of patient K.B. The very least she could have done was leave the cite in. ChristinaDunigan 13:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC) August 15, 2006


 * It was Andrew c who reverted you the second time here and here. In the future, be sure to check the "History" tab at the top of a page, to ensure you don't pin blame upon the wrong party. Also, please keep WP:AGF in mind, as several of your comments (e.g., "nuked," "hijacked," "censorship") seem indicative of an assumption of bad faith. Assuming good faith on the part of your fellow editors will help to foster cooperative dicussion. -Severa (!!!) 22:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Instillation abortion
As for "hijacking" your work, you are fairly new to Wikipedia, and are obviously unaware that one doesn't own a Wikipedia article. You are free to add content, which others are free to edit, or remove entirely if is inappropriate. If one plans on editing Wikipedia, one must learn Wikipedia's standards, and not to take it personally. And, given that Wikipedia is a communal project, it is best to keep WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA in mind so that you can work cordially and efficiently with other editors. Your entry on my Talk page is accusatory in tone, claiming, without due evidence, that I committed "censorship," etc.

On the contrary, I happen to have most of the abortion-related articles on my Watchlist, and monitor for the creation of new ones as part of my routine categorization at WikiProject Abortion. I thus have a vested interest in all such articles. Abortion is a hot-button, sensitive topic, and, as such, requires a higher calibar of neutrality and sourcing than some articles. I understand you are new to Wikipedia, but the presumption of bad faith, right off the bat, will just make a difficult situation moreso. I'd recommend keeping it cool — and maintaining a strong level of personal detachment — if you plan on editing in divisive topics.

Granted, at first, it appeared that the Saline abortion had been plagerized, and thus would be a violation of Copyright. This warranted immediate removal. However, if you are posting your own work, you must also be mindful of WP:OR. Also, counter to your claim, the article does not provide neutral, reliable sources, as required by WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CITE. Many of the claims do not have numbered citations and those which do are deadlinks. I am sorry to say that the burden of proof is upon you to provide sources before you post anything to Wikipedia. Otherwise, it's original research.

The article has a negative, editorialistic tone, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It is clearly counter to WP:NPOV; after all, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. As for recreating the "Saline abortion" page, this seems unjustified, given the fact that saline instillation is now covered at "Instillation abortion." This is the technical term I have encountered in all the academic sources which I consulted; "saline abortion," in a Google search, returns only advocacy sites. I will, of course, be redirecting the page again, because the current fork is redundant and serves only to host your own OR/op-ed piece. -Severa (!!!) 23:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You took no steps to remove the original National Abortion Federation article, which was clearly taken directly from a NAF PR source and posted verbatim -- it even switches into the first person toward the end. So I don't buy your assertion that you have a problem with articles being too one-sided.

Saline abortion is distinct from other instillation abortions in that it was specifically saline that Wagatsuma and Manabe repeatedly warned about, and their predictions turned out to be accurate. This is relevant information and ought not to be censored. ChristinaDunigan 13:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC) August 15, 2006
 * The NAF mission statement was slipped into the article by an anonymous editor August 7, 2006. Although most would hesitate to call it WP:Vandalism, for reasons explored on the linked page, it was definitely the typical hit-and-run addition one might expect of an anon IP with no mind toward article quality, context, or NPOV. So, really, it's not like the mission statement was stable content agreed upon by multiple editors. It certainly didn't have my seal of approval. Last I read the article, there was no issue, and, unfortunately, it's not uncommon for these things to "slip under the radar" for a few days on smaller, more obscure pages — even despite the best efforts of the Recent Changes Patrol and the article's regulars. Once you have between 100-200 items on your Watchlist, it'll be impossible to be on top of everything, for obvious reasons. But, thanks for catching the oversight. -Severa (!!!) 20:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Born Fetuses
It seems it would be good to provide inromation regarding fetuses who have been born alive after a intillation abortion. Joey 19:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This fact is material to the aricle as anyone who has survived an abortion attempt by this method or who has given live birth after this having undergone this method will attest. I have included a sentence to this effect and cited the BBC.L. Porrello 16:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The BBC mentions one person. Your other link had no information regarding this, and was a POV and non-reliable source. I have changed the phrasing to reflect this.-Andrew c 16:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see why you made the edit, but I think the current text is also inadequate. First of all, it is in the past tense. It should state, "there is one documented case...." The second issue is more problematic. Unless you have done an exhaustive search of the literature, I do not think you can say definitively that there is _only_ one documented case. There are other documented cases on POV sites. That alone makes your claim false. I concede that if a site has a clearly stated POV it probably should not be included in Wikipedia. However, just because a site has a POV does not mean that its information is unreliable. To remedy this situation, I think the statement needs to be reworded to indicate that live birth is possible after this type of procedure as evidenced in a case documented on the BBC. L. Porrello 17:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe your changes obscured the fact that the occurrences of a live birth result are very rare. The AbortionFacts site lists two people, where I have so far been able to verify that the second person "Amy" is a documented case. However, I have changed the phrasing to live this interpretation open. We don't need to bend over backwards in the lead to address 1 documented and 1 alleged case of live births from 30 years ago. We have to keep in mind undue weight concerns, and accuracy. Leaving the wording too vague gives a false impression about the frequency of such occurrences. -Andrew c 18:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your critique, and it was something I was struggling with too. Perhaps it is needless to say, but I think it would be wrong to mislead in either direction. I like your revision. Thanks! L. Porrello 18:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the curent location of the statement in relation to the overall flow of the article. I would move it to the end. Objections? Suggestons?LCP 18:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I only have access to Obstetrics and gynecology. from 1995-, and no abstract was given for the recently cited article "Fetal survival following threatened abortion." But the title seems to suggest it doesn't deal with Instillation abortion, so now I'm curious. Would you mind please explaining this citation a little more, or quote the relevant passage? As to your question, the sentence could fit just about anywhere. The end works. What do you think about after the paragraph that starts "The rate of mortality reported in..." -Andrew c 18:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Try this link for the full text:, http://www.prolife.org.uk/pdfs/Abortion_Survivor.pdf. I wasn't sure how to include the ref to two texts, one to prove that the article exists and the other to show its content.LCP 18:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I understand why you would suggest after mortality, since like mortality, live birth is unexpected. I was thinking at the end, however, because everything else in the article has to do with the effects of the procedure only on the woman, and live birth effects mother and neonate.LCP 18:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Information and Sourcing
The article says that injecting the saline solution induces uterine contractions. The source given says nothing of the sort, not even mentioning what saline abortions do. Besides that, the information is incorrect. The saline solution kills the baby by burning it to death, and then the body miscarries the dead baby. Sorry to be so graphic but that's pretty much it. This article needs to actually say what happens during this kind of abortion and it needs to use adequate sourcing. Kristamaranatha (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The link has changed since 2006. They split the article up into 4 sections. The redirect went to section 1 (but if you had used the navigation at the top or bottom, you could have found the content in section 3: treatment). If you have better sources, please feel free to suggest them, and feel free to read up the newly updated citation to see if we are at the very least accurately representing that source. -Andrew c [talk] 04:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I find that claim hard to believe. If the fetus is being burned to death by chemicals, wouldn't that cause catastrophic injury to the woman? If there's a reliable source stating otherwise, go for it, but I remain skeptical. Asarelah (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)