User talk:Wikicrat

Abortion image
The image you removed, saying "This isn't Conservapedia's article on abortion" showed a complete spontaneous abortion. It is illustrative, and to me non-controversial. I found that image on WikiCommons and thought it was ideal, along with another showing a therapeutic abortion at 10 weeks. Your comment about Conservapedia implies that my motivation in including these images is somehow motivated by a conservative political agenda, which, frankly, is ludicrous. I'm as liberal as liberal gets. I'd be banned in a second from Conservapedia. Why shouldn't an article on abortion show non-shock images of fetuses post-abortion? Fences and windows (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw a fetus picture in the abortion article and took it out because I thought it presented issues in terms of NPOV. Please don't read personal accusation into my edits, when I didn't know who added the fetus picture until you posted here. As for political views, you ask above that I take into account that you did not make your edits on abortion for partisan reasons, but on Talk:Abortion you contradict your own request by asserting that personal beliefs are the only reason I could have wanted to take the fetus picture out of the abortion article ("Clearly I underestimated the way that partisan beliefs can cloud thinking on this issue"). You also call me "annoying," which I consider out of line.


 * I brought up Conservapedia because I think that the example offered by their abortion article is useful for comparison. CP is kind of a guide on how not to do things on Wikipedia - they make no bones about their conservative prolife position, whereas Wikipedia has NPOV, and has to engage the abortion topic without taking sides. And if the fetus picture in CP's abortion article is there only to influence how readers look at the issue, it raises questions about what impact a fetus picture has here on Wikipedia. I'm willing to grant that there may be valid apolitcal arguments for adding a fetus picture to Wikipedia's abortion article, but I think adding such a picture still moves the article away from a neutral position, even if that's not the intent. I suppose an equivalent from the other end of the political spectrum would be to add a photo of a poor and frightened pregnant teen from a country where abortion is outlawed to the part of the article on unsafe abortion or abortion law. One could make an apolitical case for adding such a picture (it illustrates real-life conditions unknown to firstworld readers, etc.), but to someone who saw that picture presented in the context of an article on abortion, it would probably seem more like an argument for legal abortion.


 * I don't want to get involved in a long drawn out debate. Especially not if it's just going to be as hostile and circular as a brief run-through of recent threads on the Talk:Abortion page suggests. But the fetus picture is a real can of worms, and I don't think I'll be the last to raise concerns over its neutrality. Wikicrat (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)