Talk:Abortion and mental health/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7 →

Contents 1 More Unjustified Deletions 1.1 Hanna Söderberg -- Reactions One Year Post-Abortion 1.2 Gregory Wilmoth 1.3 Julius Fogel 1.4 Priscilla Coleman 1.5 David M. Fergusson 1.6 Example 1.6.1 IAA deletes Coleman 2 Notes on Priscilla Coleman 3 Deleting 'disputed text" 3.1 Issues 4 Question from outsider 5 Peer Reviewed Studies as Reliable Secondary Soruces 5.1 Primary Secondary Sources 5.2 re: Primary Secondary Sources 6 Primary/Secondary and Reliability 7 Studies 8 Sources are hard to verify 9 Intro and PTSD Section 10 Intro & PAS Section 11 Consensus Statements 11.1 Gregory Wilmoth 11.2 Priscilla Coleman 12 Coleman Review as Undisputedly Reliable Secondary Source 13 Intro 14 Gregory Wilmoth 15 Criticisms of the missing Reardon 16 Opinion vs Opinions / Rebuttals / Affiliations & Guilt by Association 17 Royal College of Psychiatrists 18 Auto Archive 19 Majority View Is Now that Abortion Has Mental Health Risks 20 Project Rachel 21 1987-1990 APA Task Force Review 22 Edit warring 23 Please be careful when deleting material 24 What is the majority view? 25 Clean up OR and inferences 26 A reliable source for deleted statement 27 United States Surgeon General 28 Ordering of subsections 29 Unwarranted Blanking of Material 30 Let's pause, take a few breaths, and figure out how to proceed from here 31 Why are we reporting a statistically insignificant result? 31.1 Fringe view?

More Unjustified Deletions

If we are going to allow Nada Stotland to have an opinion, what justification is there for the continued deletion of the expert opinions of Soderberg, Wilmoth, and Fogel? All are pro-choice. I haven't even added the opinions of abortion critics yet.

Strider12 (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are implying causation where there is none. You are taking quotes from the study out of context to imply the causation. This study has already been discussed ad nauseum.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything about causation. Nor do these studies. These studies demonstrate the FACT that abortion is ASSOCIATED with these negative problems. Isolated CAUSATION is nearly impossible to prove, which is why complaints about failure to prove causation are really just a weak last argument. Example: Does smoking CAUSE lung cancer? Certainly not 100% of the time. And perhaps it's not even a direct cause, but only "triggers" lung cancer in people with a certain genotype that makes their lung tissue suscetible to cancer, etc. In most cases, especially psychological health, there are MULTIPLE FACTORS OF CAUSATION. IF a woman commits suicide after an abortion, even if she left a suicide note saying she couldn't live with the pain of her abortion, there are probably other factors that contributed to or "caused" her to commit suicide, including a history of prior self-destructive behavior, depression, or even the phase of the moon...if you buy into the lunar effect. The inability to prove 100% causation does not diminish the FACT that abortion is ASSOCIATED with these problems and that women themselve ATTRIBUTE abortion to being a "cause" or an "aggravator" of these problems. If you're going to delete any material that does not prove 100% cause and effect, then we might as well just delete this article and 80% of Wikipedia.--Strider12 (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Strider, typing in all caps doesn't make your argument any clearer. Let's use your logic on a different example. Some people commit suicide after being rejected by a crush. If we were to apply your logic to this case, we ought to blame the rejector for causing the suicide. But this doesn't make sense. A person may experience sadness after being rejected, but suicide is not a normal response to rejection. There is something else going on there... probably confounding factors like major depression caused by a chemical imbalance, poor self-esteem, lack of familiar support, etc. etc. etc. (on this point we agree). My point is, we don't blame the rejector for the suicide. There are plenty of life-stresses that can impact a person, and many times these are unpredictable. However, we cannot point to psychological causation from any one act or incidence. We can't say A & B & C -> D. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of these issues have been discussed ad nauseum already. For the rest, see my comment one thread above. MastCell ^Talk 03:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not a sufficient explanation for the unjustified deletion of these reliable peer reviewed materials and expert opinions.--Strider12 (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Example

Other sources that use almost the exact same language we do for Koop's testimony - putting the testimony in context:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by IronAngelAlice (talk • contribs)

I'm quite comfortable with the first example you give:

• New York Times - Reporting from capital Hill New York Times: "Surgeon General C. Everett Koop told a Congressional hearing today that there was not enough evidence to assess the psychological effects of abortion and that an unimpeachable scientific report was not possible." and "There is no doubt about the fact that some people have severe psychological effects after abortion, Dr. Koop told the hearing, but anecdotes do not make good scientific material."

That is accurate and actually shows the real balance that Koop was trying to strike, "we don't have much reliable data but we do know it effects some." However, it does not matter how many sources repeat the error, it is simply false to put Weiss's phrase ""miniscule from the public health perspective" into Koop's mouth. It is doublly wrong to do so while deleting Koop's response which emphasized that abortion can be devastating on a personal level.--Strider12 (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any new arguments here; rather, just a repetition of the old ones plus a few accusations. In the interest of space, see my response above. MastCell ^Talk 23:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

IAA deletes Coleman

IAS deleted material from a peer reviewed study in Psychology & Health stating as her reason "Priscilla Coleman only publishes with Reardon in a pro-life journal." None of the PEER REVIEWED journals in which she or Reardon are published are "pro-life journals" nor are they owned or operated by pro-life groups. These are by definition RELIABLE sources since they are peer reviewed. You can't just unilaterally delete the opinions of experts because you don't like who they have collaborated with.--Strider12 (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is her actual affiliation at BGSU: http://www.bgsu.edu/organizations/cfdr/about/facultymembers/coleman.html--Strider12 (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Point is, we can't use Colemen in the same sense we can't Reardon.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That's absurd. Not only are you arguing guilt by association your are presuming there is some reason we can't use Reardon, when in fact he has many studies that have been published in peer reviewed journals where experts have validated him as an expert. Your attempt to blockade inclusion of material from pro-life researchers is simply unjustifiable.--Strider12 (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Notes on Priscilla Coleman

Her recent publications are mostly co-authored by Reardon or Rue or both. Also, she is not Psychology faculty. She is "faculty affiliate" at a center called "The Center for Family and Demographic Research," established with grants from the Bush Administration.

(unsigned...above is IronAlice Angel's contributrion??)

She is actually an Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University. See here and obviously one of the most published researchers in this field.--Strider12 (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"The Center for Family and Demographic Research" is associated with Bowling Green, but it is not a teaching department. Here are some of her activities from her CV:

• Faculty Advisor, Falcons for Life, (a pro-life group)
• Guest Lecture for Creed (Catholic student organization). Topic: Abortion and Mental Health
• Interviewed by Emily Bazelon, NYT Magazine reported. The article was the cover story on the New York Times Magazine
• Co‐founder and Co‐director with Dr. Catherine Coyle and Dr. Vincent Rue of a non‐profit Corporation, Alliance for Post‐Abortion Research and Training
• Radio interview with Family News in Focus (Josh Montez) regarding post‐abortion research, a paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics
• Radio Interview on New Zealandʹs Rhema regarding post‐abortion research, a paper published in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence.
• Radio interview with Family News in Focus (Kimberly Trombee) regarding post‐abortion research, a paper published in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence
• Presentation on abortion and mental health, St. Aloysius Catholic Church
• Assisted legislation consultant, Vincent Rue, Ph.D. hired by Attorney General Phil Kline of Kansas in the defense of a mandatory underage sexual activity reporting statute (S.A. 38‐1522), AID FOR WOMEN v FOULSON, Federal District Court

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just as a reminder, here is what was in the NY Times article:

This is an interview with her on NOW (with David Brancaccio) at http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/329.html:

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Coleman may have multiple positions, but she is certainly and verifialy a teaching and research professor at BGSU. Everything else you wrtie in you extensie "expose'" is irrelevent. The job of editors is not to second-guess peer reviewers and to decide we are going to block information from the peer reviewed articles and reviews of experts just because they are, or are perceived to be, pro-life in their political views. If that is the case, we would also have to purge everything associated with Russo, Major and Stotland as they are all publically admitted to be of the pro-choice political persuasion. The bottom line is that Coleman is an expert who has many peer reviewed studies and peer reviewed reviews of the literature, all of which have been verified as reliable by other experts in her field. Deleting relevent material from reliable sources that is disruptive, as per ArbCom rulings, as has been frequently pointed out. Please stop deleting material just because you believe the authors do not share your pro-choice perspective.--Strider12 (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Our secondary sources point to several problems with her "research"

2. 12 of the 15 articles she has written about abortion and mental health are co-authored by Rue, Reardon or Both

3. The intent of pointing out that she is at a center associated with Bowling Green University is to show that she is not in a psychology department, but at a center supported by the Bush Administration - which should set off red flags. However, the fact that her research has been criticized by the APA, and that she only publishes with Rue or Reardon are much more important criticisms.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

All your arguments are not just questionable and false (she has, for example, many publications without Reardon or Rue as co-authors), they are IRRELEVENT. The article which she wrote that I've cited is published in a peer reviewed journal, therefore it is by definition and policy a reliable secondary source as her analyses and facts have already been done by EXPERTS in the field, not just Wikipedia editors. That other secondary sources have criticized some, or even all, of her work does not PROVE that some or all of her work is wrong or irrelevent. (Actually, you have not even found one secondary source criticizing the particular review article I've cited). At best, all you have done is proven what we already know: this is an issue of scientific controversy. Feel free to add reliable sources that offer other viewpoints, but don't delete reliable sources added by other editors. That is defined by ArbCom as DISRUPTION, as I've frequently pointed out.--Strider12 (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

We had the same problem with Reardon. Just because Coleman has had articles published in peer-reviewed journals, does not mean her articles are reliable. In fact, I've found several refutations from journal editors (journals in which she has published) that refute the findings of Coleman, Reardon and Cougle. The APA has refuted the published articles as well in a letter to the PBS program NOW with David Brancaccio. To paraphrase Stottland in the New York Times article - sometimes it takes science a while to sort out bad studies.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Typing in all caps doesn't make your argument more factual ;) --IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting 'disputed text"

During the last fifteen years, prospective and case-control studies have found that abortion is associated with higher rates of psychiatric treatment^{[8][9][10][11]} anxiety,^[7][12][13] depression,^[7][14][8]alcohol use,^{[15][16][17][18]}, post-traumatic stress disorder,^[19][20][21] drug use,^[7],^[22][17] increased requests for medical treatement and worsening of general health,^{[10][23][24][25]} suicidal thoughts^[7][26] completed suicides, ^[27][28] and child maltreatment.^{[29][30][31][32]}

MastCell reports that she deleted the above contribution 1 because it is "disputed text [inserted] without discussion"

What exactly is your dispute? All the sources are reliable, secondary sources (analyses of primary source data) by experts whose analyses have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication in reputable medical journals. While not required, I even went to the trouble to find multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources documenting each symptom listed so there could be no question that each findings has been replicated. I thought editors were to "boldly" insert reliable material and that other editors were supposed to avoid deleting reliable material.--Strider12 (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Strider, you consistently misrepresent studies. Or, more accurately, anti-abortion websites misrepresent studies, and you then copy and paste that information here.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never misrepresented any studies. In fact, I've only been pushing for FULL and proper representation of relevent findings. Instead of attacking me, try reading the abstracts at PubMed (which is not a pro-life source), or better yet read the studies themselves. If you have specific questions about one of them, let me know and I'll quote you from the text with page number as I have most, perhaps all, of these in my files, so I can readily answer your questions and fact checks.--Strider12 (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not attacking you. I don't think you to it on purpose.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Writing "you consistently misrepresent studies" is an attack.--Strider12 (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's a statement of fact.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is not only an attack, it is also the exact opposite of the truth. NCdave (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Issues

You two have completely ruined this article for everyone. I hope you realize that. I've stopped trying to make this article sound neutral because of you two constantly reverting each other and otherwise feuding like a couple of prepubescent children in your equally-radical manner of defending your opposite POVs. I hate to step in here like some kind of parent, but if you two don't cut it out, I'm going to spend a couple hours gathering up a load of evidence and take it to ANI to get you both topic-banned. I'm not joking even a little bit. This article has suffered enough because of you. If need be I will make it my hobby to save it from you. Think about it. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:49, 26 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Equazcion, I do not respond to bullying. And this is not the first time you have attempted to bully. May I suggest you read through the talk page paying particular attention to MastCell's carefully worded responses?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

IronAngelAlice, he is not bullying you. He is making a legitimate point. Edit warring from both sides are not helping the article. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

мirаgeinred (a.k.a. Saranghae honey) is correct.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

мirаgeinred/Saranghae, while I agree with the general premise that edit waring is not productive, I do not agree that I edit war or am responsible for making this article unbearable. MastCell has spent numerous hours trying to work with and respond to Strider. When I revert Strider, it's because she repeatedly tries to insert text that has been deliberately excluded by consensus. While I have strong opinions, I do not use the same tactics as Strider. For example, I do not believe the Finnish study to be noteworthy if this article is to be about the mental health effects of abortion. But, I do not constantly try to remove the study (or change the conclusions of the study to be something that the study is not) because it was agreed by consensus to include the Finnish study. I, therefore, do not accept the label Equazcion has placed on me as someone who consistently engages in edit wars. Yes, I revert. But I do not do so out of malice or as a way to side-step consensus. I do so to maintain the consensus. Therefore, when Equazcion pops in every month or so to compare me to Strider, he is not being constructive in any way. He is just name-calling.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Equazcion, I hope you will have noticed that I don't delete other people's contributions or sources. I don't even try to edit the summary, though it is out of whack, preferring to simply insert some accurate information into the body of the article. I have occasionally tried to edit for clarity and have inserted additional material from the same sources (see Stotland and APA) which more fully present what the sources say. Mostly, I've simply been trying to add any number of dozens of sources--all reliable secondary sources from peer reviewed journals offering analysis and intepretation of primary data--and have had these repeated deleted without any reasonable justification...usually within an hour of my posting in a fashion that denies readers and editors to comment on or refine my edits.

Given this "autoblanking" of my every contribution on spurious grounds, I have, in the edit above, gone to the trouble of demonstrating that each of these symptoms has been independently reported by multiple peer reviewed studies so that there can be no dispute that these are reliably reported. I realize this is source overkill, but with editors like IAA deleting literally EVERY reliable source I bring to the article, I feel cornered into oversourcing my edits. I'm quite willing to leave other people's contributions alone, but I strongly object to the immediate deletions of well sourced material I continue to contribute to the article.

Do you disagree with the guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.1 as pointed out in the guidelines for avoiding tendentious editing which state "Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information." See [wp:tend]? If not, please support my right to contribute material from peer reviewed journals. That would end the need for me to continue to try to find new ways (detailed, or summary, or lists, etc) to add material in the hopes that one way or the other will not get deleted. --Strider12 (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

← Strider, I believe it was Einstein who once said that the definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over again while expecting different results. Were I insane, I would continue this discussion here yet again. As for IronAngelAlice, this isn't bullying. The possibility that I don't choose my words with as much care as some other users doesn't change the fact that I'm only threatening to use a Wikipedia process in order to settle a dispute. The diff you point to is also not "bullying" -- it was merely an expression of frustration at the situation here, as evidenced by the fact that I said I was leaving for good (bullies don't generally say "I'm sick of this" and walk away). And even if I do need to answer for that one statement in order to bring attention to your many examples of poor behavior, it will have been more than worth it. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:42, 26 Feb 2008 (UTC)

First, I take serious issue with the accusation of "poor behavior" and any comparison of me to Strider. If you have a particular problem with something I have done, raise it as a specific issue. Attempting to malign my character will not improve this article or further any cause you may have. Second, I should point out that you haven't exactly walked away. I suggest that if you would like to improve the article, you should start doing that rather than attacking me.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I didn't stay away doesn't bear any significance on whether or not my statement was bullying. You should take serious issue, and at ANI, I will raise specific points. There's no point in rehashing things here. I have attempted to improve the article, if you recall. I was not able. Now I'm trying something different. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:09, 27 Feb 2008 (UTC)

If I am to understand you correctly, your new tactic is to attack me rather than build consensus?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My new tactic is to address the actions of those users I find disruptive enough as to block the proper building of consensus. If you consider this an attack I'm sorry, but I'm only being honest. I'll let you know when the ANI posting is ready, and you can tell everyone there how I attacked you. Cheers. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:14, 27 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I am curious to see what I am being accused of specifically.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Alice, since you asked, I'll take a guess at an answer. But I think you already know it.

I've not been participating in this article, but I can see that you have been engaging in the same sort of disruptive behavior here as over on the Crisis Pregnancy Centers article, where you are also guilty of a recent defiantly deliberate 3RR violation. With your edits you consistently seek to bias the article toward your POV, both by inserting (often dubious) information and editorial comments in favor of your POV, and also by blanking even well-sourced, encyclopedic information that conflicts with your POV. No wonder your previous Wikipedia ID was permanently blocked. NCdave (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Forum shopping isn't going to help, NCdave. Also, the first resolution on the 3R you brought against me was that there was no 3R. There is no resolution on your further insistence that I 3rd. To say I'm "guilty" is jumping the gun. Moreover, if I did 3R it was due to confusion, and I have self-reverted your claim that the Congressional Report is "Pro-choice." To say I am completely unreasonable, is, well, a bit unreasonable.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Question from outsider

Does "disputed text" mean:

• disputed by other editors as to whether it is verifiable as coming from a reliable source?
• disputed by editors on the basis of other policies?
• or, disputed in other reliable sources as to accuracy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbowers3 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Disputed text" does mean disputed with regards to coming from a reliable source (David Reardon and his coauthors Coleman, Rue and Cougle, for example). Please take a look at the archives here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion_and_mental_health/Archive_2#Dealing_with_Elliot_Institute_.22studies.22

Note, all the text placed in red was added by Strider12 several months after the original conversation.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Also note that the Elliot Institute is run by David Reardon.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are the secondary sources that speak to Reardon's reliability:

• http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0410.mooney.html Research and Destroy
• http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/magazine/21abortion.t.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=5092fc3344065aec&ex=1327035600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1190370959-M3NVF8bZOGTDu468IEZo8g
• http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/329.html

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Reardon's objectivity, biases, and methodology have certainly been questioned by a number of reliable scientific and lay sources. That doesn't mean his studies are "unreliable" in the Wikipedia sense - they can still be cited, and at least some probably should be. Any dispute I or other editors have with Reardon's conclusions is immaterial here. However, the context and weight his views are accorded by independent reliable sources and experts in the field should be apparent to the reader. MastCell ^Talk 20:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with including the Reardon, Colemen, et al studies that claim a causal relationship between abortion and depression, suicide, etc - as long as the criticisms of their research methods and biases by the American Psychology Association (APA), as well as contributors to the Journal of the 'Journal of Anxiety Disorders are included in the same paragraph:

• NOW with David Brancaccio PBS
  HINOJOSA: In emails, two prominent independent scientists, on a panel that is reviewing the scientific literature for the American Psychological Association told us the studies have "inadequate or inappropriate" controls and don't adequately control "for women's mental health prior to the pregnancy and abortion."
• Two prominent researchers on reproductive health wrote to the editors of the Journal of Anxiety Disorders. They said, "We believe that Cougle, et al., operate with strong political views regarding abortion, and unfortunately their biases appear to have resulted in serious methodological flaws in the analysis published in your journal. [Reardon, Coleman and Cougle] are involved in building a literature to be used in efforts to restrict access to abortion." Correspondence between Jillian Henderson and Katharine Miller and journal editors Michel Hersen and Cynthia Last, January 13, 2004 on file at PRA.

The popular articles about them (above) and the issue of the pro-life activism of Reardon and Colemen should also be included:

• American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists lists Coleman
• Also discusses Coleman's activism
• David Reardon's Elliot Institute

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out everyone's pro-life or pro-choice views gets a bit in the way of readability. But if there is consensus that should be done, I don't mind citing sources indicating that Reardon or Coleman hold pro-life views, but the same should be done with regard to citing the pro-choice positions of Russo, Major, Stotland, Adler, etc. For example, in the past I included reference to the APA's own OFFICIAL adoption of a pro-choice position (back in 1969) and their active lobbying in congress and the courts in favor of abortion. If you feel it necessary to underscore that Coleman or Reardon have been identified as involved in pro-life politics, or whatever, then the same should apply to all the other parties. It is not just one side that has a political view. For the sake of readability, I'd rather just let readers draw their own conclusions about people's positions and just report the facts reported by researchers and their conclusions.--Strider12 (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between being pro-life or pro-choice and being a pro-life activist or pro-choice activist. An example would be Koop vs. Reardon.

Dr. Koop is pro-life, but he is not an activist and does not actively work toward making abortion illegal. Coleman and Reardon, however, are not just pro-life, and not just abortion "researchers," they also work toward making abortion illegal or restricting access to abortion through various and multiple pro-life organizations.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I have no problem with underscoring that the APA testified in Congress on behalf of making abortion legal. The APA wasn't the only organization to lobby on behalf of abortion rights. Curiously, during the 1971 and 1974 Southern Baptist Conventions, Southern Baptists were called upon "to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother."^[1] W. Barry Garrett wrote in the Baptist Press, "Religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the [Roe v. Wade] Supreme Court Decision."^[2] It wasn't until the 1980's that Southern Baptists took a different stance on abortion.

With that said, however, I can see how both of these fact are rather tangential and not pertinent.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) I agree with MastCell above. The reliability of a source (per WP:RS) is determined not by the author of a piece but by the publisher. A peer-reviewed journal is a reliable source regardless of who the author was.

The political views of authors is not relevant and should not be highlighted. Objections to a study should be based on the content of the study, not on the persons who wrote the content. If there are mistakes in the the methodology of a study it doesn't matter if they were caused by bias or by ineptitude; if a study is peer-reviewed as methodologically accurate then it is equally accurate and useful whether it was written by somewhat biased or somewhat neutral. If we qualify every citation as pro-life or pro-choice then we are participating in the fallacy of Ad hominem attacks:

replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

If an author manipulates the data or skews the methodology to support his bias, then the peer reviewers will find the problems before publication and/or other authors will find and publicize the errors. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe these references fit your qualifications:

• NOW with David Brancaccio PBS
  HINOJOSA: In emails, two prominent independent scientists, on a panel that is reviewing the scientific literature for the American Psychological Association told us the studies have "inadequate or inappropriate" controls and don't adequately control "for women's mental health prior to the pregnancy and abortion."
• Two prominent researchers on reproductive health wrote to the Journal of Anxiety Disorders. They said, "We believe that Cougle, et al., operate with strong political views regarding abortion, and unfortunately their biases appear to have resulted in serious methodological flaws in the analysis published in your journal. [Reardon, Coleman and Cougle] are involved in building a literature to be used in efforts to restrict access to abortion." Correspondence between Jillian Henderson and Katharine Miller and journal editors Michel Hersen and Cynthia Last, January 13, 2004 on file at PRA.
• http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0410.mooney.html Research and Destroy
• http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/magazine/21abortion.t.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=5092fc3344065aec&ex=1327035600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1190370959-M3NVF8bZOGTDu468IEZo8g

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Be careful - in the JAD example, it wasn't the editors who wrote that, but apparently it was people writing to the editors (hence "your journal"). I'm not entirely there with Sbowers3, in that I think that if the authors of peer-reviewed work have been criticized by reliable secondary sources as biased, then that bias may have some relevance to our article. For example, the researchers who are paid by Philip Morris or ExxonMobil and turn out papers denying the harms of passive smoking or CO2 emissions are criticized both on methodological grounds and in terms of bias, and there is some literature, at least for tobacco-funded work, on how people reach different conclusions depending on who's funding them. Tangentially relevant, but I mention it because some of the researchers who promote "post-abortion syndrome" have been criticized by reliable secondary sources both on methodologic grounds and in terms of the biases they brings to the table as active campaigners against abortion - and both may be relevant to the article if appropriate sourced. MastCell ^Talk 23:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I'm going through those references too quickly. And doing too much multitasking. Here are links to Jillian Henderson and Katharine Miller:

• http://bixbycenter.ucsf.edu/fs/bios/henderson-jillian.html
• http://stanfordwho.stanford.edu/SWApp/detailAction.do?key=DS547Q235&search=katharine%20miller&soundex=&stanfordonly=&affilfilter=everyone&filters=closed

They are both prominent in their fields.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional reference: Science in support of a cause: the new research, by Michael Kranish, published in the Boston Globe —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronAngelAlice (talk • contribs) 00:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer Reviewed Studies as Reliable Secondary Soruces

One of the major conflicts in this article is in regard to accepting or deleting sources. Below is a cross post of an important dispute regarding acceptable secondary sources for this article that MastCell started my talk page.

As will be seen, MastCell's position is that nearly any peer reviewed study should be excluded because it is a "primary source." Her preference is for using "reliable" magazine articles which are secondary sources. My position is that she misunderstands the definitions, and that any peer reviewed analysis, summary, and conclusions relying on primary data should be treated as a secondary source. Ineed, as pointed out at the bottom, MastCell's position unreasonably elevates selective reporting in magazine articles above all inclusive analyses published in peer reviewed journals. Comments are invited. I plan on posting some queries regarding this on some pages related to reliable sources to solicit additional comments.Strider12 (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Primary Secondary Sources

I'm not the one classifying journal articles as secondary sources; see WP:PSTS: "...published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research..." are primary sources. There is a very sound reason for this: it is extremely easy for a sophisticated person to cherry-pick the original peer-reviewed literature to explicitly or implicitly advance whatever agenda they like. The defense against this is to require secondary sources for context and weight - that's where things like the APA panel, major review articles (e.g. Grimes), the New York Times, and so forth come into play. MastCell ^Talk 23:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I still believe you are misintepreting and misapplying that. As stated above, your intepretation would cut out 98% of all peer reviewed scientific studies and hobble us to waiting for periodic review articles, in peer reviewed journals (which are good, but rather rare and also prone to promoting a school of thought, ie. a slant) or worst of all, to wait for some journalist to write an "interesting" slant.

If you've read the discussions on this topic, most editors appear to agree that the definitions of primary and secondary sources can overlap and mean different things both within the source and in other contexts. Furthermore, in regard to many of the studies we are talking about, the quote you gie above doesn't apply at all. For example, Russo and Reardon both analyzed data that THEY did not gather at all. It was gathered by an unrelated NLSY team of researchers who publish the raw, PRIMARY data for secondary analysis by researchers like Russo and Reardon. Similarly, Gissler and Reardon analyzed government paid health care claims (Finland and California, respectively), which is data they did not gather but rather simply analyzed as SECONDARY analysts of primary data. This is not about "cherry picking" it is simply reporting what peer reviewed analyses have reported. If ever I (or you) report something from an analysis tha fails to describe some other balancing material from the same source, that might be cherry picking, but the proper response is to add the balancing material from the same source (as I have done in regard to the APA and Stotland sources which specifically admit that there are SOME cases of negative reactions, points not made in the original Wikipedia article.)

Moreover, "...published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research..." is, in my opinion, written very narrowly to describe published experimental data in it's raw, unalyzed, form. For example, a climatologist who publishes tables of atmospheric temperatures is publishing primary data. If he stops there, that source is just a primary source. But if there are additional sections in which he analyzes the data and draws conclusions from it, and that analysis and conclusions are peer reviwed, that portion of peer reviewed article then becomes a reliable secondary source with both the researcher AND peer reviewers have intepreted. In that sense, a Wikipedia editor should be cautious about using the raw data, but any averages, trends, and conclusions of the researcher, as peer reviewed, can and should be treated as a reliable, peer reviewed, secondary source discussing the raw data. Also, consier a study like Fergusson's where he is one of a team of scores of researchers who gather the data over 25 years, he and a few others analyze and intepret it, and he also interprets it in the CONTEXT of other studies which he had no hand in at all. Is not, at the very least, his peer reveiwed interpretation of a large body of literature related to his findings a reliable source regarding all the studies he examined in relation to his own? In essence, most of the studies we're talking about are review articles in that they review dozens of related studies which are interpreted in the context of additional information which is analyzed as part of the study which contributes to the literature which is the main focus of the paper. I think Carl's comment below is the correct intepretation of the quote you raise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_34#Scientific_Studies_As_Reliable_Secondary_Sources The PSTS section is very carefully worded so that most peer reviewed papers are not classified as primary sources. This would be very unimportant apart from the use of the term "primary source" to taint things. Only "written or recorded notes of laboratory and field research, experiments or observations" and "published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research" are considered primary sources. The bulk of peer reviewed research, including all interpretation and analysis, is considered a secondary source for the purposes of the NOR. This may or may not disagree with your favored definition of "secondary source", but it's what we've arrived at here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)]

Well, since most peer-reviewed scientific and medical publications (excluding review articles) consist exactly of "published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research", I don't agree with the distinction you're drawing. The fundamental problem remains: selective citation of primary sources/original journal articles to advance a point out of proportion to its proper weight is inappropriate. You can try to put lipstick on the pig if you like, but it's still a pig. MastCell ^Talk 05:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Show me any "published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research" in Gissler's analysis of the suicide data. He conducted no experiments. He simply ANALYZED records made by thousands of other people.

You're more familiar with Wikipedia. Why don't you take this to one of the reliable sources discussion pages. Cut and paste, if you would, my argument and your own (and put a link here for me to follow) and let's see what others say. If you get universal support from other editors, I'll concede your argument. Will you, visa versa?--Strider12 (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And I will certainly never agree that a popular magazine article (NYT Magazine) can in anyway be treated as a reliable secondary source when it comes to analyzing a body of medical literature...especially Bazelon's article that does not even bother to describe any actual research findings (not a single %, as I recall), but simply embraces and repeats opinions of a few "representative" experts. The Coleman review article, at least qualifies as being both a true review article and one that was peer reviewed by experts in the field (not just a NYT fact checker.)

Perhaps you (or we) should start a discussion of what that means on the reliable sources dicussion page to get further input. --Strider12 (talk) 05:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

re: Primary Secondary Sources

I take "published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research" to mean "experimental results published by the person(s) actually involved in the research". The key is whether the author and the publisher are the same person or different people. When they are the same person there is no independent fact-checking to verify the data or methodology. When the publisher is independent of the author and the publisher uses peer reviewers to carefully analyze the paper then the result is most reliable.

If a researcher collects articles from peer-reviewed journals and then self-publishes the results, without any independent scrutiny, then that paper must be considered a not-so-reliable primary source. But if that very same article is submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, and after fact-checking is published by that journal, then that paper is a very reliable secondary source.

The wording in WP:Verifiability regarding reliable sources and self-published sources I think is clearer than the wording in WP:NOR. It talks about "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". "The most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals ... the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts ... and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments ... the more reliable it is." It is clear that fact-checking and independent scrutiny are the important factors. It doesn't matter that the author of a paper is involved in the research - that applies to just about every paper ever written. What matters is whether the paper was scrutinized by independent experts.

To take one point mentioned above: "[Gissler] conducted no experiments. He simply ANALYZED records made by thousands of other people." It doesn't matter whether he conducted the experiments or simply analyzed the records. What matters is whether his resulting paper was fact-checked by independent peer-reviewers.

I don't know if my interpretation falls on one side or the other of what apparently has been a long debate. I'd like to know whether the disputed sources qualify as self-published or as independently fact-checked. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

By moving the word "published" from what's written in the policy, you've changed the meaning. The point is that the results are compiled "by the person involved in the research", not that they are published by the person involved in the research. No serious research is self-published. In any case, when I write a paper and it's accepted by a medical journal, I would say that I "published" my results. That doesn't mean I own Elsevier Publishing - it means that I wrote up the results and "published" them in a medical journal.

Peer-reviewed papers are reliable sources and have gone through a fact-checking process. The question is separate though - can an editor select and cite particular journal articles, in a way which circumvents WP:WEIGHT and proportionate expert opinion on a subject? It's extremely easy for a sophisticated editor to mine the medical literature and advance any claim that they like. The spirit of WP:NOR and WP:SYN (and, I believe, the letter of it) are intended to prevent this. I could write an article on HIV/AIDS where I cite a bunch of peer-reviewed, verifiable sources and make it look like HIV is not proven to be the cause of AIDS. Doing so would violate both the letter and the spirit of WP:NOR, despite the fact that I'd be using reliable "secondary" sources. We're dealing with something similar here. MastCell ^Talk 21:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, taking your last example, if you wrote an article using a lot of reliable sources, but abusing WEIGHT, the objection to your sources would not be that they were Primary sources, it would be that you were giving Undue weight to them. Peer-reviewed sources are reliable sources per WP:V. If they are to be excluded it would not be because they do not qualify as RS, but because of Undue or possibly Syn.

I thought the problem was something like this: A researcher (e.g. Reardon) analyzed a number of peer-reviewed papers, then published on his own web site, without independent checking of facts or methodology, his analysis. That clearly would be a primary source and could be rejected on ground of RS. But if he took that same paper to a peer-reviewed journal, where it was carefully scrutinized and then published, then his paper would qualify as an RS. We might still reject it on grounds of Weight but not on grounds of RS.

At Talk:Abortion_and_mental_health#Question_from_outsider I asked whether the disputed texts were disputed on the grounds of RS or for other policies. IAA stated definitively that it was for RS because Reardon was biased. In your reply, you stated "That doesn't mean his studies are "unreliable" in the Wikipedia sense - they can still be cited, and at least some probably should be." I think you and I mostly agree as to what is reliable or not but I think that IAA understands "reliable" with a layman's definition, not as defined in WP policies.

I'm still confused about your opening paragraph above about PSTS. Let's take the case above: Gissler analyzes a number of peer-reviewed papers, writes a survey paper, submits it to a peer-reviewed journal, which after serious scrutiny publishes Gissler's paper. Now is that a Primary source or a Secondary source? And regardless of whether it is primary or secondary is it a reliable source? Sbowers3 (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The distinction I see is between publishing novel results (a primary source), and reviewing and synthesizing existing primary-source journal articles, as is done in a review article (a secondary source). I doubt we're that far apart. I can't speak for IronAngelAlice - my problem is not that Reardon's articles are "unreliable" in a Wikipedia sense. My problem is that Strider12, in particular, repeatedly mines and cherry-picks the original medical literature in a manner which produces undue weight. It's both a matter of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOR/WP:SYN. I think the letter of which specific sub-parts of which policies are being violated is less important than the fact that the article is rendered misleading by many of her proposed edits.

To answer your specific question: Gissler et al. performed an original analysis of existing data and published their results in the BMJ. I consider their article a primary source in that it should not be cited in isolation or outside the context of WP:WEIGHT as determined by expert opinion. Secondary sources, to me, would be review articles which synthesize the multitude of articles such as Gissler's into a coherent narrative, as well as the position statements of organizations like the APA, which have reviewed the available data and synthesized it. MastCell ^Talk 03:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

MastCell's position on peer reviewed studies is simply wrong and upside down. Gissler is a secondary source, not a primary source, by any reasonable definition. Also, it is upside down because your arguments give more weight to the views of advocacy journalists than researchers.

Consider Soderberg Emotional distress following induced abortion: A study of its incidence and determinants among abortees in Malmo, Sweden. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 79:173-178. and Baezlan. Soderberg gathers primary information (interviews) from over 800 women. She tabulates the TOTAL results and ANALYZES this primary data to report not raw data but a statistical analyis of ALL these interviews. This peer reviewed analysis and methodology is therefore a reliable secondary source. Meanwhile, Baezlan interviews a couple dozen people (gathering primary data) and selectively picks the comments that fit her thesis and ignores interview material that doesn't (see Symposium: Is There a Post-Abortion Syndrome where many of her interviewed subjects report her bias and selectivity). Clearly, both Baezlon and Soderberg have conducted interviews, but because Soderberg published in a peer reviewed journal you want to put her findings into the ghetto of "primary research" not citable in Wikipedia (even though she anlayzed and reported on all of the women she interviewed), but you embrace Baezlon's article as a reliable secondary source (even though she selectively picked only quotes she likes) because it is published in New York Times Magazine.

As this example proves, interviews are a form of gathering primary data. It is not the fact that a researcher or reporter gathers primary data that makes a source a primary source. Once a researcher or reporter ANALYZES, SUMMARIZES, and INTERPRETS the primary material, THAT analysis and summary is now a secondary source, and when it comes to scientific matters, peer reveiwed medical journal articles are and should be more highly prized than magazine articles.--Strider12 (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Strider, you are suggesting that the Swedish study somehow refutes what Baelzan has written. The Swedish study does not do that. You are, perhaps unknowingly, doing original research. The conclusion of the study states, "Thus, 50-60% of women undergoing induced abortion experienced some measure of emotional distress, classified as severe in 30% of cases. The risk factors identified suggest that it may be possible to ameliorate or even prevent such distress." Citing "emotional distress" is not the same as claiming abortion causes negative mental health. For example, I am going to experience tremendous emotional distress when my dog dies. The death of my dog, however, will not cause me to be bi-polar. Similarly, no one claims that having an abortion is not an emotional event. Women will naturally feel one of a number of emotions: relief, sadness, guilt, etc. But there is no scientific evidence that abortion causes one's brain to be ill.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No IAA. Try to pay attention. I am not talking about emotional distress or bipolar dogs. I'm talking only about reliable secondary sources, and I am using two examples of sources discussed in regard to this article.

Both Soderberg and Baezlon gather interviews. Soderberg uses "structured interviews" which means the same questions for everyone. She follows scientifically validated methods and statistically analyzes all responses, interprets the general results and publishes in a peer reviewed journal after verification by experts in the field that her analyses and interpretations are reliable. But MastCell says Soderberg is not a reliable source. Compare this to Bazelon's article. Bazelon gathers primary material (quotes and opinions) using unstructured interviews. She reports only some of her findings. She publishes in a non-peer reviewed magazine, where fact checkers who are not experts in the field call people interviewed to verify Baezlon's selected quotes but do not check anything that is omitted. In this case, MastCell says not only that this is a reliable source but it is preferred to Soderberg's paper.

My point is not that Soderberg and Baezlon contradict the other, but rather that MastCell's standard for judging reliability is unequally applied, conflicts with policy, and is clearly counterintuitive. A peer reviewed medical study is MORE reliable than a magazine article. Also, it is not my original research, it is the research of Soderberg and Baezlon that we are talking about. My point is that Soderberg is a reliable source, and though she gathers primary data (interviews, just as Baezlon does) her analysis and interpretation of this data is properly classified as a reliable secondary source because it is Soderberg's analysis of primary data, not the analysis of a Wikipedia editor.--Strider12 (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and Mastcell's point has long been that you've kept trying to use studies like Soderberg's to somehow prove that a mysterious post-abortion trauma syndrome exists and is being covered up by the rest of us, for some mysterious reason, because we're all biased. Given that context, IAA's remarks are perfectly germane and there's no call to be snippy. Mastcell keeps pointing out that a lot of these studies are being rejected because you (and a handful of others) keep using them to make very odd points that are not backed up by the study itself. Frankly, I'm not bothering to follow all of this primary/secondary stuff, because that's not the real issue here. Kuronue | Talk 12:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Strider, it seems to me that the two different sources are doing different things. Simply because one source is academic and peer reviewed does not mean the other source which is not peer reviewed is automatically incorrect or not reliable. The purpose of the Swedish study and report is to find ways to identify and ameliorate emotional difficulties after abortion. The purpose of the New York Times article is to frame the scientific and political debates, as well as personal narratives, for a general audience - people like the readers of our article. The NYTimes article is not peer reviewed, but it is fact checked, and therefore generally seen as reliable.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 05:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Primary/Secondary and Reliability

There are two measures of a source:

• How reliable is it?
• Is it a primary, secondary, or tertiary source?

These two measures are orthogonal - a primary source might be very reliable; a secondary source might be unreliable or vice versa.

Reliable sources are described in WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, and WP:Reliable sources with similar wording:

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.
Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications.

The concept of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources is defined in WP:No original research:

• Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic. Examples include published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research.
• Secondary sources are accounts at least one step removed from an event. A footnote adds that a secondary source "analyzes and interprets research results".

As editors we must "rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Furthermore, all articles must "fairly represent all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view."

Any particular source, whether it is primary, secondary, or tertiary, can be more reliable or less reliable. WP:NOR makes it clear that we can use a reliable primary source, a reliable secondary source, or a reliable tertiary source, and that reliability can vary from source to source and from article to article within a source.

To a large degree, it doesn't matter whether a source is primary, secondary, or tertiary because we should stick to the sources. We must take care to write only what is directly and explicitly supported by the sources. With respect to primary sources, NOR amplifies this point:

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

• only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

NOR says explicitly that we may use primary sources. The requirement that we use them carefully can be satisfied by 1) providing very specific references (e.g. to a particular page, not just an entire article) and 2) using direct quotes or by carefully using wording that is obvious to a layman as saying the same thing the source says.

We need not debate whether a source is primary, secondary, or tertiary. If it is reliable - i.e. if it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - then we can use it. And whether it is primary, secondary, or tertiary we should be very careful to stick to what is in the sources and not draw any conclusions.

In addition to using reliable sources, and sticking carefully to exactly what the sources says, we must represent significant views fairly and proportionately. A priori I do not know how prominent each viewpoint is. I think that will depend on the reliable sources themselves. If there are hundreds of sources for one viewpoint and only dozens for another viewpoint, than the sections for each viewpoint should be in proportion to the number of reliable sources for each point of view. Sbowers3 (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The prominence of each view in the view of experts in the field will be evident from things like the APA position statement, high-profile review articles, and so forth. Proportionate representation cannot be achieved by mechanically totalling up the number of papers reaching each conclusion (even assuming that this was a dichotomy, which it's not - many papers find mixed effects on mental health). Let me be clear that I am not opposed to any mention of journal articles, primary studies, etc - but there has been a long-running, highly focused, and determined effort to selectively mine and cherry-pick the primary literature to undermine the actual, demonstrable WP:WEIGHT accorded to various views by experts and expert groups in the field. That is what I'm opposed to. MastCell ^Talk 04:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It does seem that the hardest part will be determining the proper proportions. As a first approximation would it be useful to poll the major editors here for rough ratios? Sbowers3 (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It might be most useful to review which sources are to be used to establish "the opinion of experts in the field" or proportionality. I'd submit that the APA panel is the most authoritative word here (soon to be updated at some point this year) - the APA is the organization of record of mental health professionals. I would also submit that the recent review article in Annals of Internal Medicine is an important secondary source here (PMID 15096333) - Annals is one of the top 10 or so medical journals in the world, and the article comments directly on the "so-called abortion trauma syndrome". The New York Times is actually a useful source here - it's a reliable source and presumably makes an effort to accurately represent the issues at hand, though it's a lay rather than scientific source. MastCell ^Talk 05:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Studies

Studies that may be of interest that are not presently included:

• Schmeige - Depression and unwanted first pregnancy: longitudinal cohort study
• Major - Psychological Responses of Women After First-Trimester Abortion
• Russo - Abortion Experience does not appear to reduce women's self-esteem or psychological well-being
• Adler - Psychological responses after abortion
• Russo - The relationship of abortion to well-being: Do race and religion make a difference?

Article in popular media:

• Brody (NY Times) - Study Disputes Abortion Trauma
• Edwards - Abortion study finds no long-term ill effects on emotional well-being —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronAngelAlice (talk • contribs) 23:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I would add the following secondary source, which I've not seen us discuss before but clearly has relevance: PMID 14624822 - A 2003 review article, which explicitly assesses material published after the APA/Science paper in 1990. "Women due to have an abortion are more anxious and distressed than other pregnant women or women whose pregnancy is threatened by miscarriage, but in the long term they do no worse psychologically than women who give birth." (from abstract) and "In terms of psychological distress, findings are generally in line with those reported by previous reviews in that most distress was reported prior to abortion and levels of distress decreased following abortion." (from conclusions). MastCell ^Talk 01:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional secondary source: the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated, in their literature review, that: "...the medical literature, when carefully evaluated, clearly demonstrates no significant negative impact" on long-term reproductive and psychological health or cancer risk with abortion. So far I'm finding this referenced in this New Scientist article (PMID 16832957) but haven't yet tracked down the direct ACOG link. Nonetheless, New Scientist is reliable and we should add ACOG to the list of major medical organizations finding no evidence of long-term psychological risk caused by abortion. MastCell ^Talk 20:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I object to identifying ACOG as making any such finding, especially without reference to any such document in which it is asserted they make such a claim. This could be just a comment made in a staff prepared pamphlet, citing Stotland or some other source, and may not at all reflect a carefully undertaken review of the literature nor even an official statement of the ACOG board of directors. This is part of the problem here. People infer far too much from little snippets...--Strider12 (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a throwaway pamphlet. The New Scientist article specifically references the Compendium of Published Material which ACOG puts out yearly - in other words, highly official. In any case, if New Scientist says ACOG has taken a certain position, then I think that's reasonable verification, though of course we should not go beyond what they have to say. MastCell ^Talk 01:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources are hard to verify

I'm going through all the sources, trying to verify that they support the article text. Many of them are difficult to verify.

• The APA press release does not appear to be available online. The APA's own web site doesn't have press releases from that far back. It is not at all necessary that a reference be available online, but it is a big help. Does anyone know if it is available anywhere else online?
• The Adler Family Planning article requires a $29 fee for full access. It probably still qualifies as a reliable source, but it is hard to verify. Is there a different source that could be used to verify the text?
• About half of the references are available as only an abstract for free. Can anyone who knows the sources better than I let us know if any of these are available elsewhere online as the full paper? If so, it would be a big help if URLs were added to the refs.
• Even when only an abstract is easily available, it would be sufficient to verify our article text if we carefully wrote our text to be supported directly by the abstract's wording rather than by other wording from the full paper. I will go through the article looking for opportunities to reword the text for easier verifiability without changing the intent of the text.
• It would help if editors kept in mind that most readers won't want to spend the money for a full paper so it would be convenient if we chose words that could be verified from the abstract's text, rather than from the full paper.

Sbowers3 (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a problem, since most journal articles are available as abstract-only, but most of the discussion here has focused on specific items from the body of the articles. I have considered volunteering to email full text of the articles in question to other editors, but I'm concerned that doing so violates copyright in a substantial way.

I think it is probably best to focus on the abstract, since not only is it readily available and verifiable but it presumably represents the major conclusions reached by the authors. In some cases, there is significant information or context to be found in the text of the article, but we can deal with that on a case-by-case basis. MastCell ^Talk 01:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, the articles are also generally available through one's local library website (or at one's local library), and through university libraries.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have specific questions regarding a study, feel free to ask MastCell and myself, as we both appear to have pretty good access to them. Verification from a number of editors should suffice. But I believe I speak correctly that MastCell does not dispute that the studies say what I state they do but rather that she sees these as primary sources rather then secondary sources, and therefore objects to including them on that basis.--Strider12 (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't object across the board to including them. I object to presenting them in a way which undermines an accurate presentation of proportionate expert medical opinion on the topic. That has something to do with primary/secondary sources, something to do with WP:WEIGHT, and so forth. MastCell ^Talk 01:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Intro and PTSD Section

Here is a link to changes I made to the intro and PAS sections which help to put them into a more NPOV form. The previous PAS barely even touched on the real definition of it and the studies examining this proposed link. The previous intro has a lot of peacock and weasel words.--Strider12 (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

We gave gone over your proposed changes again, and again, and again. By simply inserting the changes yet one more time, you are not helping your cause. Why don't you lay out new reasons for these changes if you have them.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Intro & PAS Section

Here is a link to changes I made to the intro and PAS sections which help to put them into a more NPOV form. The previous PAS barely even touched on the real definition of it and the studies examining this proposed link. My edits were immediately reverted...naturally. But it is clear that present intro is slanted and contains lots of peacock and weasel words. I'd appreciate comments from editors.--Strider12 (talk) 04:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)--

Consensus Statements

I added the following summary statements from excellent peer reviewed secondary sources reviewing the literature as both demonstrate that the consensus of experts recognize that SOME women experience significant negative reactions, with Wilmoth identifying the key issues needing clarification and Coleman listing specific symptoms that have been repeatedly and independently identifeed in the literature. I'm posting here on discussion page since these tend to get blanked in violation of ArbCom rulings against the deletion of reliable and verifiable information.

Gregory Wilmoth

In 1992, the Journal of Social Issues dedicated an entire issue to research relating to the psychological effects of elective abortion. In an overview of the contributors papers the editor, Dr. Gregory Wilmoth, concluded: "There is now virtually no disagreement among researchers that some women experience negative psychological reactions postabortion.^[3] Wilmoth goes on to describe four issues of interest: (1) identifying the prevalence of negative reactions, (2) identifying the severity of negative reactions, (3) defining what level of negative reactions constitutes a public health problem, and (4) classification of severe reactions.^[3]

Priscilla Coleman

In a 2005 review of the literature on abortion and mental health, Bowling Green Universisty professor Priscilla Coleman, a research psychologists with many peer reviewed studies in this field, wrote:

"[T]here is relative consensus among scholars in the field that at least 10-20% of women who have had an abortion suffer from serious negative psychological complications.... Among those who are adversely affected, many stress-related symptoms have been identified, including anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, substance use/abuse, and increased risk of suicide. A few recent studies have further identified relations between maternal history of abortion and problematic parenting."^[4]

--Strider12 (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the merits or flaws of this content. I'm just going to ask, didn't you try to add the exact same thing a couple weeks ago? (see the archives) And did I miss the conversation here on talk where you got consensus for these changes? You need to work with editors. If someone has a problem with one of your proposals, discuss it and try to reach a compromise. It isn't appropriate to just wait a couple weeks and then add the exact same controversial content without discussion. What you are doing is a form of slow edit warring, and is disruptive.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No, disruption according to ArbCom it is the removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style. It is the deletion of material that is causing disruption. The most aggressive deleter is IronAliceAngel who deletes within hours of posting. Replacing reliable and pertinent material is appropriate and even necessary to allow other editors to comment.--Strider12 (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How about all of you stop arguing about who is more wrong than whom and start actually discussing changes to the article? Kuronue | Talk 08:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think most people are more wrong than me. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:27, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Coleman Review as Undisputedly Reliable Secondary Source

Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, the view that a source is a reliable secondary source only if does not include an analyis of data, interviews, or other material not generally available to others, then clearly Coleman's review "The psychology of abortion: A review and suggestions for future research" published in the peer reviewed journal Psychology and Health (April 2005, 20(2):237-271.) clearly qualifies as a reliable source for this article. Unfortunately, it is not available free online, but that hardly disqualifies it.

Previously I posted one of her summary statements after deleting her in line APA citations. Here is the same quote (cut and pasted from a PDF copy of the article) including all her citations to show that she is doing exactly what we are trying to do, giving a well cited summary of the literature:

• Abortion tends to bring relief and a reduction in women’s perceptions of stress(Adler, 1975). However, there is relative consensus among scholars in the field that at least 10-20% of women who have had an abortion suffer from serious negative psychological complications (Adler et al., 1990; Lewis, 1997; Major and Cozzarelli, 1992; Zolese and Blacker, 1992). With over 1.3 million abortions performed annually in the U.S. (Alan Guttmacher Institute, 2000), using the more conservative 10% figure would result in 130,000 new cases of women experiencing related psychological problems each year. Among those who are adversely affected, many stress-related symptoms have been identified, including anxiety (Franco, Tamburrino, Campbell, Pentz & Jurs, 1989; Moseley, Follongstad, Harley & Heckel, 1981; Niswander, Singer & Singer, 1972), depression (Coleman & Nelson, 1998; Cougle, Reardon & Coleman, 2003; Gould, 1980; Moseley et al., 1981; Reardon & Cougle, 2002a, 2002b; Thorp, Hartmann & Shadigian, 2003), sleep disturbances (Barnard, 1990; Gould, 1980), substance use/abuse (Coleman, Reardon, Rue & Cougle, 2002b; Drower & Nash, 1978; Reardon & Ney, 2000; Yamaguchi & Kandel, 1987), and increased risk of suicide (Gissler, Kauppila, Merilainen, Toukomaa & Hemminki, 1997; Reardon et al., 2002). A few recent studies have further identified relations between maternal history of abortion and problematic parenting (Benedict, White & Cornely, 1985; Coleman, Reardon & Cougle, 2002; Ney, Fung & Wickett, 1993).

Another paragraph of interest to this article

• Numerous studies have now identified many of the demographic, individual, relationship, and situational characteristics that place women at risk for psychological disturbance in the aftermath of abortion. The available data specifically indicate that women are more prone to post-abortion psychological problems when they have any of the following characteristics: (1) low self-efficacy for coping with the abortion (Major et al., 1990), (2) low self-esteem (Cozzarelli, Karrasch, Sumer & Major, 1994), (3) external locus of control (Cozzarelli, 1993), (4) difficulty with the decision (Bracken, 1978; Osofsky & Osofsky, 1972), (5) when there is emotional investment in the pregnancy (Lyndon, Dunkel-Schetter, Cohan & Pierce, 1996; Remennick & Segal, 2001), (6) perceptions of one’s partner, family members, or friends as non-supportive (Major et al., 1990; Major & Cozzarelli, 1992), (7) timing during adolescence, being unmarried, or poor (Adler, 1975; Bracken, Hachamovitch & Grossman, 1974; Campbell, Franco & Jurs, 1988; Franz & Reardon, 1992; Osofsky & Osofsky, 1972), (8) pre-existing emotional problems or unresolved traumatization (Speckhard & Rue, 1992), (9) a poor or insecure attachment relationship with one’s mother or a childhood history of separation from one’s mother for a year or more before age 16 (Cozzarelli et al., 1998; Kitamura et al., 1998; Payne, Kravitz, Notman & Anderson, 1976), (10) involvement in violent relationships (Allanson & Astbury, 2001; Russo & Denious, 2001), (11) traditional sex-role orientations (Gold, Berger & Anders, 1979), and (12) conservative views of abortion and/or religious affiliation (Bogen, 1974; Osofsky & Osofsky, 1972; Soderberg, Janzon & Slosberg, 1998). Further, adjustment problems have been documented to be more common when a pregnancy is initially intended (Ashton, 1980; Friedman, Greenspan & Mittelman, 1974; Lazarus, 1985; Major et al., 1985; Miller, 1992), abortion occurs during the second trimester (Anthanasiou, Oppel, Michelson, Unger & Yager, 1973), and when women are involved in unstable partner relationships (Llewellyn & Pytches, 1988; Soderberg et al., 1998). Finally, feelings of being forced into abortion by one’s partner, others, or by life circumstances, increase the risk for negative post-abortion outcomes (Friedman et al., 1974)

As you can see, Coleman gives multiple cites to independent studies that have verified that each symptom is significanly associated with abortion. I could cut and past her bibliography if you like, as that is probably not subject to copyright. For the sake of readability, I believe the citations can be omitted when used in our article.--Strider12 (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the APA panel is skeptical of her results:

HINOJOSA: In emails, two prominent independent scientists, on a panel that is reviewing the scientific literature for the American Psychological Association told us the studies have "inadequate or inappropriate" controls and don't adequately control "for women's mental health prior to the pregnancy and abortion."</ref> A panel convened by the APA has written that the studies by Coleman, and her co-authors have "inadequate or inappropriate" controls and don't adequately control "for women's mental health prior to the pregnancy and abortion."

And methods of the Reardon and Coleman studies have been refuted by Russo and Schmeige several times.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But it doesn't matter in the least whether the APA panel is skeptical or whether studies have been refuted. It is not our job to determine the truth and present just that one side. It is our job to present what is verifiable from reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia - not the layman's definition of reliable) and to present all significant viewpoints. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And it would only be responsible of us to temper any discussion of Coleman with the academic criticism of her methods we've gotten from verifiable sources. Which leads to a bigger question: there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of studies worldwide about abortion and mental health. Who is to say that Coleman, and her co-authors Reardon and Rue, should be included but not Major, Russo, Adler, etc., etc., etc., (whom the APA considers more credible)? Should we include everyone? In the past, it was discussed that we'd only include major organizations - hence the inclusion of the APA task force and Koop. How many studies are we going to support in this article? And if not all of them, should we not include the most prominent meta data studies as we have been doing?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There are not nearly as many studies as you imagine. Koop's review of 250 studies included mostly studies regarding physical complications. My guess is that there are under a hundred that are regularly cited by researchers in the field (indicating that they are considerd important enough to cite) and at most another couple hundred secondary studies. Also, given that priority is normally given to the newer studies with larger populations and better methodolgy, you can now shrink the pool of "important" studies to a few dozen.--Strider12 (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Coleman's review is a reasonable source. Although in the first few sentences quoted by Strider12 I can identify at least one major and obvious fallacy (a 10-20% prevalence of depression, which is the baseline rate in for women of childbearing age, suddenly becomes 130,000 abortion-related cases of depression? Nope!) my opinion is of course neither here nor there with regard to using it as a source. In the interest of context and WP:WEIGHT we should not give the impression that hers is the last word - for instance, we should probably indicate that her research has been dismissed as methodologically flawed by the American Psychological Association's panel, among others. MastCell ^Talk 01:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, no one is claiming Coleman has the last word. Also, MastCell is wrong regarding her OR interpretation of Coleman's brief summary quote. In context of her citations, these are rates above the baseline. It would be VERY wrong however to insert or infer that the APA panel has dismissed Coleman, especially not in general. Have they issued their report? I don't think so. In any event, EVERY study has methodological flaws. Which brings up the problem of how this article constantly tries to point out flaws in studies showing negative results but not the flaws in the two studies that do not report negative results. For example, Russo's study showing no lowering in self-esteem, there was only 40% of the reported abortion rate, meaning 60% of the women had concealed a history of abortion, which would likely bias the results.--Strider12 (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Intro

The first three sentences of the current intro bias the article from the get go.

The relationship between abortion and mental health has been an area of political controversy, but of little scientific controversy.[1][2][3][4]A number of studies have concluded that abortion is associated with no more psychological risk than carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. A smaller number of studies have reported a statistical correlation between abortion and negative psychological effects, though no studies have found a causal relationship.[5][3][6]

As MastCell also noted earlier in discussion, the idea that this is of "little scientific controversy" is simply false. See the journal articles disputing this issue. See also

The claim that a "smaller number of studies" is also simply untrue. Also, while it would require more changes, strictly speaking studies don't conclude anything. A "study" refers to a collection of facts and a study may show this or that, but it does not conclude this or that. "Researchers" make conclusions from their studies. Therefore it would be more accurate to say a number of researches conclude this and a others conclude that. But back to the main point, defining that most or a few conclude this or that is unwarranted unless one goes with the many consensus statements acknowlding that "some women have negative reactions" but there is uncertainty regarding how many. All that aside I believe this section should be revised to read:

The relationship between abortion and mental health is a controvesial issue.[1][2][3][4] A number of studies have concluded that abortion is associated with no more psychological risk than carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. Other studies have reported a statistical correlation between abortion and negative psychological effects, though no studies have proven a causal relationship.[5][3][6]

I would also add as one of the cites for the first sentence Warren Throckmorton. "Abortion and mental health." Washington Times. January 21, 2005. Archived. Reprinted here which discusses the scientific controversy, especially in the wake of the Fergusson longitudimal study. --Strider12 (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the proposed rewrite looks OK, except that I would change the first sentence to read: "The relationship between abortion and mental health is a topic of political and scientific controversy." I think we may as well make clear from the get-go that this is an area where politics and science are closely intertwined. I'd also wikilink association (statistics) to "statistical correlation". I don't know that we need more than 4 cites to demonstrate that the issue is controversial - in fact, we could probably remove at least one of the four cites in the first sentence (probably the Mooney one) and be just fine. MastCell ^Talk 22:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree again. The idea that abortion causes negative mental health is a political controversy, not a scientific one. Reardon, Coleman, etc. and their claims that abortion causes negative mental health are on the fringe, they are definitely the minority. Therefore, "of little scientific controversy" is clear and accurate. This claim is backed up by the APA, Koop, Major, Russo, Adler, and all the other prominent scientists in the field. If anything, the first sentence should be changed to say, "The causal relationship between abortion and mental health has been an area of political controversy, but of little scientific controversy."--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that Reardon et al. are in the minority in arguing that abortion is associated with excess mental health risk; however, that doesn't mean that there's little or no controversy. Even studies which find no excess risk for abortion generally conclude that more and better evidence would be helpful. I think we should guard against the false impression that the two views are equally supported by evidence and expert opinion - they're not - but we should also guard against minimizing the minority view and casting this as a settled issue (along the lines of HIV causing AIDS or secondhand smoke causing cancer), because I don't think that level of certainty exists in the sources. MastCell ^Talk 23:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The level of certainty is not there - that is absolutely true. Science is purposefully cautious when it comes to certainty and therefore precious little is certain in Science. There is a quote by Adler that says to be 100% certain about abortion not causing poor mental health is impossible because it would require a study that asks women to get pregnant, have an abortion, then get pregnant again and have a child (which is obviously unethical). She goes on to say, with the best of her estimation and others' estimations, it is clear that abortion causes no threat to mental health for the vast majority of women. Women who react poorly generally have poor mental health before the abortion, and bringing a child to term can result in the same poor mental health.

Therefore, we cannot confuse "certainty" with "controversy." If we were to state there is a scientific controversy (where there is none), we would be making Reardon's case for him. There is a great series of speeches by Chris Mooney where he describes the label of "controversy" is used by Reardon, Brind, and a whole bunch of other folks to insert POV and and distort science. Here are some links:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCoKPvjneNo&feature=related (the discussion is about the 4th minute in)
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dhzf9bXm96U (about the 10th minute in)
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXVeEQteazI&feature=related (doesn't discuss the use of "controversy," but it is an interesting conversation none-the-less)

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Gregory Wilmoth

The inclusion of Wilmoth is problematic. The only reference I can find to his commentary comes from a David Reardon article. I have trouble trusting Reardon's summarization of Wilmouth which is copied word-for-word in our article: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0978/is_1_26/ai_60794297

I believe that Wilmouth should be removed until we can find a reliable link to the source.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As you've pointed out, the Wilmouth article is easily checked at any medical library. I have a copy and the quote is accurate and reflects the context. Moreover, I don't see what you think he says that is controversial. Both the APA 1990 article and Stotland have agreed that some women have negative reactions. His view also accords with Coleman's. The questions of interest, as he points out, revolve around how common and severe negative reactions are. Even if you have not had a chance to pull the paper, why do you consider these common sense points suspicious? Also, the peer reviewed paper you cited by Reardon above is a reliable source and has been peer reviewed, which includes his review of the Wilmouth article. In that he is reviewing Wilmouth and other articles, it is seen a reliable secondary source, even accordin to MastCell's definition. --Strider12 (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms of the missing Reardon

An oddity has crept into this article. In previous months editors agreed to "purge"--their own word choice--any peer reviewed article associated with Reardon (including ones in which he was only a contributing author.) There was no justification for this other than he is pro-life and has stated the political view that the harm abortion does to women may alter the political landscape.

In any event, even though Reardon's peer reviewed studies, analyses and views are now purged we now have two sections regarding comments from Scmiege and Major criticizing two of Reardon's studies. It reads very oddly in that readers obviously are left wondering what did Reardon find that they are criticizing.--Strider12 (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Your first paragraph deserves no response as it's a repetition of endless, circular, and misrepresentative accusations. Your second paragraph raises a good point. MastCell ^Talk 04:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Reardon is the director of a pro-life organization, and thus is not a neutral scientist doing scientific studies, instead doing studies in an effort to secure more funding for his organization by "proving" its aims correct. However, you have successfully buried this information 5 archives back by filling them with your incessant whining. Let it go. If you care about this article you'll work on improving it and moving forward, not rehashing old arguments to no purpose. Kuronue | Talk 05:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been involved much with this article, and don't want to be. But I would like to urge editors to refrain from incivility. Accusing each other of "incessant whining" and "endless, circular, misrepresentative accusations" is not conducive to everyone getting along with each other and improving the article. The affiliations of scientists should not automatically discredit their work. For example, in the fetal pain article and the fetus article, authors are cited despite their well-documented ties to abortion clinics and pro-choice activism. Please try to be more tolerant and cooperative. Abortion is a very divisive subject, so I hope everyone will resist getting sucked into that divisiveness.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Your intervention might be more effective if it came at some point during the preceding 5 months of relentlessly tendentious editing and accusations, rather than after two admittedly snippy responses to it. But nonetheless your point is well taken. MastCell ^Talk 08:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Opinion vs Opinions / Rebuttals / Affiliations & Guilt by Association

We need to approach all experts and their opinions in the same way. The differences in the Stotland and Coleman's sections, for example, are striking in that Coleman's opinions are immediately undermined. Stotland's section, however, has repeatedly had blanked out references to her involvement in pro-choice activist groups and her later admissions that abortion causes mental health problems and her own commentaries admission that at least 11% of women have problems, etc.

As I see it, there are two routes.

First, simply state each parties opinions and findings without any effort to identify them as pro-life, pro-choice, or presenting an immediate rebuttal of their opinions or views. By this I mean that we don't add material like the three last paragraphs to the Coleman section, and certainly not tangential complaints against the studies not described (by Reardon) in sections under Schmiege and Major.

Alternatively, we go with the pattern presented with the current Coleman section and we follow each expert's opinion with relevent material about criticicms of the expert's views, biases, studies, etc.

I could go either way. I think the second alternative frankly makes for difficult reading and is so obviously contentious. Also, my fear is that those who want the liberty to show criticisms raised against Coleman and Reardon will not allow the criticisms agaisnt the views of STotland, Major, Russo and others raised by Coleman and Reardon and their like to be included.

Comments please. Should we start stripping out rebuttals and affiliation information or are we going to open the door for including the same material for ALL parties?--Strider12 (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Royal College of Psychiatrists

First of all, there is too much verbatim copying of text. The first paragraph is almost entirely direct quotes from the Times (without quote marks). Can we do a better job of paraphrasing to avoid possible copyvio. Also, I'm not sure we need to go into such detail about Emma Beck, nor do we need to quote the suicide note. Finally, I am a little concerned about the Times reporting. We have access to the RCP's statement here, yet there is no mention of the word "mental breakdown", and not allowing women to have abortions until they are warned of mental health risks. I think this statement IS important, and should go in the article, but I'm not sure the manner in which it is currently presented is appropriate. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to reworking as long as it doesn't water down the summary of the RCP's position as reported by the TIMES. I did not vary the wording much because I did not want to be accused of misrepresenting the TIMES or RCP. Also, I stuck to the TIMES text because MastCell has consistently insisted (though I disagree) that we should not look at the original document but only news reports of it. I did not put in quote marks because I did not want to confuse readers regarding quoting what the TIMES reported rather than quoting what the RCP stated. As you correctly noted, their wording is not the same. I think the TIMES linking the position statement to the Beck controversy (apparantly a big news item there) is notable and should be included.--Strider12 (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Either you're intentionally misrepresenting my position or you have not understood it despite 5 months of circular discussion. I have never insisted that we ignore "original documents"; I have drawn a distinction between editorial manipulation of primary sources and the use of reliable secondary sources, because this has been an ongoing issue. Both the RCP report and the Times article are secondary sources, and both are appropriate as references. The RCP statement is relatively cautious and preliminary - it notes that evidence exists on both sides, that the issue is unresolved, and that a formal systematic review (like that currently being conducted by the APA) is due. The Times article takes this and runs with it, though the Times is certainly a good enough source to be included. It will be interesting to see how other media outlets spin the report, since I'm sure it will attract signficant coverage. Content-wise, I think Andrew c's edit looks good at this point. We should either move it to the bottom and maintain chronological order, or we should leave it at the top and re-order the rest of the section chronologically. I favor the former, but either is OK. MastCell ^Talk 18:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I never thought I'd say this, but the Daily Mail actually did a slightly better job covering the report. MastCell ^Talk 18:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that there were some public testimony preceding the College's report which I must assume was used by the Times reporter as background and context for interpreting the statement.--Strider12 (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, though the Daily Mail seemed to spin it a bit differently than the Times: "Updated guidance from the RCP points out that there is still no evidence that abortion causes mental health problems, and they stopped short of saying that women should always be refused abortions if they have mental health problems. The college rejects claims by the pro-life lobby that abortion causes mental health problems, saying: 'The specific issue of whether or not induced abortion has harmful effects on women's mental health remains to be fully resolved.'" MastCell ^Talk 22:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Auto Archive

I see an autoarchive has been set for every 14 days. If it is possible to change the timeframe, I'd suggest archiving every 30 days so new editors can more easily see a month's worth of discussion.--Strider12 (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

They generally will, except in cases where a months' worth of discussions gets too long. A minimum of 3 threads will always be kept on the page. The minimum threads left can be changed, and I'd recommend changing that value rather than the number of days, due to how long this page tends to get. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:02, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've tried to change it to 30 days, and 6 threads. I'm not sure that I did it right. If I messed it up, will someone please fix it? Thanks. NCdave (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Majority View Is Now that Abortion Has Mental Health Risks

According to the official new position statement of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, it is now the acknowledged majority view of British psychiatrists that abortion may contribute to mental health problems in women. It appears that the research of Coleman, Reardon, Rue, Soderberg, Gissler, Fergusson, and others has been convincing after all.

I've long thought that we should at least lay to rest Stotlands 17 year old, out of date claim that there is "no evidence" of a link between abortion and mental health problems. In the NOW interview, she actually complains about the "stack" of new studies now offering evidence of a link. It was an embarrasing overstatement then, and is really irrelvent now. It's like OJ's lawyers saying there is no evidence he committed murder. They (like Stotland) may be fully entitled to say the evidence is insufficient, but to say there is no evidence is absurd.--Strider12 (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't yet realized that this isn't the forum for arguing your personal beliefs, then I fear it may be too late. The Royal College of Psychiatrists report is obviously germane and needs to be worked in, though I don't think it says what you think it says. Your heading says "Majority View Is Now That Abortion Has Mental Health Risks." In your comment, you say the "acknowledged majority view" is that it "may contribute to mental health problems". Those are actually very different statements; the first is flatly incorrect, the second more accurate. It might be worth re-reading the actual statement, which is a preliminary statement that the issue is not fully resolved, that evidence exists on both "sides", and that a systematic review is now due. Interestingly, the APA seems to have reached a similar conclusion as it is currently in the midst of just such a systematic review. MastCell ^Talk 18:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is that the Times is clearly as reliable as your favorite article (Bazelon's magazine article) on which you rest your claim that the majority view is that there is no connection between abortion and mental health problems. The Times article interprets the report in the context of testimony and reports and prior interviews with parties involved in the review and debate and it clearly states there has been a reversal of views. Using your standards regarding Baezlon, Mooney, and NOW, the Times article is the most current, reliable, secondary source regarding what constitute the accepted majority view. If you want to shift standards now, that's fine but we should do so across the board, and stop "crowning" any view as the majority view since clearly all the major people involved agree that SOME women have negative problems and that there is not enough solid evidence on which to base any definitive answer...much less a majority view. But until you agree to chuck your claims of what the majority view is, it is clear that the TIMES article is a counterweight to bloated claims that there are no pscyhological risks associated with abortion.--Strider12 (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I specifically object to the removal of the AndrewC's workup of the following:

According to The Times, the Royal College warned that "women may be at risk of mental health breakdowns if they have abortions" and that "women should not be allowed to have an abortion until they are counselled on the possible risk to their mental health."^[5]

Given all of the "contextual" intepretations from non peer reviewed sources like Baezlon, Mooney, NOW, etc, in this article, the blanking of The Times characterization of the RCP report is totally unwarranted.--Strider12 (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Your confrontational tone is exactly the problem ("chuck my claims", "counterweight" to my "bloated claims", etc). The Bazelon article is not my "favorite article on which I rest my claims"; it's one of the better reliable secondary sources covering the topic. I understand you are deeply invested in a particular side of this subject; I am not, and I'm happy to go where the sources lead, so please leave the gamesmanship behind. The Times article is a good secondary source, as is the Daily Mail article covering the same report, and as is the report itself. You describe any change to your preferred wording and sourcing as "vandalism", "purging", or (in the most charitable terms) "unwarranted blanking", which makes it nearly impossible to edit collaboratively with you. MastCell ^Talk 19:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem here now? Do we need to go over the difference between "has mental health risks" and "may contribute to [existing] mental health problems", or am I misreading the argument at this point? Kuronue | Talk 02:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Project Rachel

The Roman Catholic Church has a dedicated ministry to people (mainly women) suffering the aftereffects of abortion, called Project Rachel. The Project Rachel web site says:

"Project Rachel operates as a network of professional counselors and priests, all trained to provide one-on-one spiritual and psychological care for those who are suffering because of an abortion. Although most dioceses use the name Project Rachel, some programs are named differently. In addition to individualized counseling, some programs include support groups and retreats. Founded in 1984 by Victoria Thorn in Milwaukee, today Project Rachel programs can be found in 140 Catholic dioceses in the United States, as well as in dioceses in other countries..."

This article needs a section on Project Rachel (and perhaps other, similar ministries, sponsored by Protestants). NCdave (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The article should probably note the existence of "post-abortion counseling" provided by pro-life groups, though to do so we should use independent, reliable secondary sources. The New York Times Magazine article addresses this to some extent and could be cited in such a section. MastCell ^Talk 18:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a brief section, and used that article as one of the references. But note that primary sources, such as the web site of an organization, is an acceptable source for information about the organization, itself, so I've used the info from the Project Rachel web site. NCdave (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Project Rachel" is mentioned already on the Crisis Pregnancy Center page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It should also include references to a number of post-abortion counseling programs which are from a pro-choice perspective, and also online resources like that from www.afterabortion.com (not .org, which is Elliot Institute) Afterabortion.com is definitely not from a pro-life perspective.--Strider12 (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Remind me again why we should be lowering the bar and using multiple partisan sources rather than independent, reliable secondary sources? This is an encyclopedia, after all. MastCell ^Talk 16:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

1987-1990 APA Task Force Review

This section says,

In response to Surgeon General Koop's review of available data, the American Psychological Association Division on Population and Environmental Psychology prepared and presented their own summary of the literature and recommendations for Koop's report. After Koop refused to issue their findings, division members published a synthesis of their own findings in which they concluded that "The weight of the evidence does not pose a psychological hazard for most women."[8]

Note that the quote doesn't even make sense.

The reference given is Adler, et al. Unfortunately, the full text of that article does not seem to be available online without paying a fee. I googled for fragments of the garbled quote, and the closest thing I found was a quote on a Planned Parenthood site:

The American Psychological Association assembled an expert panel to review the evidence of psychological risks of abortion. This panel concluded "the weight of the evidence from scientific studies indicates that legal abortion of an unwanted pregnancy in the first trimester does not pose a psychological hazard for most women (Beckman, 1998).[2]

But that is a different paper, published two years too early. Or else PP cited the wrong source. (Note: the closing quote is missing on the PP web site.)

Can someone who has access to the 1990 Adler article please check what that quote is supposed to be, and fix it? NCdave (talk) 11:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

On p. 41 of the cited Science article, bottom left of the page, the full sentence being quoted reads: "Although there may be sensations of regret, sadness, or guilt, the weight of the evidence from scientific studies indicates that legal abortion of an unwanted pregnancy in the first trimester does not pose a psychological hazard for most women." Feel free to insert this, or I can do it. MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've inserted an abbreviated version: "the weight of the evidence... [is that abortion] in the first trimester does not pose a psychological hazard for most women." NCdave (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've inserted the entire sentence.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I preferred the shorter one, but if you like the whole thing I won't argue. That is one of your edits which I merged into the 04:45 20 March 2008 version, which is based mostly on Andrew's 14:18 19 March 2008 version. NCdave (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Somehow the APA's admission that some women have problems has gotten deleted. Specifically they state "Case studies have established that some women experience severe distress or psychopathology after abortion" but "severe negative reactions are infrequent in the immediate and short-term aftermath, particularly for first-trimester abortions. Women who are terminating pregnancies that are wanted and personally meaningful, who lack support from their partner or parents for the abortion, or who have more conflicting feelings or are less sure of their decision before hand may be a relatively higher risk for negative consequences." ^[6]

This is very important in that it shows that the APA is not denying that abortion EVER causes mental health problems, but rather that the problems appear to be relatively rare and most likely to occur in subgroups of women (which ironically, make up a very large percentage of women having abortions.)--Strider12 (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

I've just warned IronAngelAlice about her numerous reverts within the last 24 hours. Hopefully that will stop the current edit war.

In that hope, I am putting together what I hope will be a good starting point for constructive work on this article. It is based on Andrew's last version (14:18 19 March 2008), but also incorporates portions of 22:52 18 March 2008 (by MastCell), all of 19:50 19 March 2008 (by NCdave), all of 19:53 19 March 2008 (by IronAngelAlice), all of 21:38 19 March 2008 (by IronAngelAlice), portions of 22:03 19 March 2008 (by IronAngelAlice), and all of 22:32 19 March 2008 (by IronAngelAlice).

Some of those are minor edits, and some are substantial. Basically, I tried to incorporate all the NPOV edits which I could identify subsequent to Andrew's version, with a bias toward inclusion rather than deletion. To the result I added a bit of lost work which MastCell had done earlier.

The "bias toward inclusion" is intended so that we can have a reasonable starting point for discussion. If there are things which someone thinks should not be included, can we please discuss them here on the Talk page, rather than just unilaterally deleting them?

Also, there's one more probably-good edit by Alice that I've not yet incorporated, only because it got to be too hard to look at in my edit window: [3] 17:19 19 March 2008

Thanks in advance to everyone, for your cooperation. NCdave (talk) 06:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever NCdave. Whanever I do something that you disagree with, you accuse me of "edit warring" or 3R. I'm just getting in the habit of ignoring you.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be careful when deleting material

When deleting material, please check to see if there is a named reference (<ref name=xxx>) in the material. If there is, before you delete, please find any other references with that name and copy the ref data to the other ref(s). Right now there is a bad citation that needs fixing because the ref data was deleted. What I often do to avoid this problem is to repeat the data in all other refs with the same name. That is redundant but allows deleting any one ref without messing up other refs. Thanks. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops. The bad citation wasn't what I thought. It was a misspelling of the name. My request stands but it wasn't the problem this time. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the majority view?

I'm curious as to what editors now think is the majority view - not what you may want it to be but what you think it is?

1. The data is inconclusive and there should continue to be more research.
2. There is evidence of a harmful relationship between abortion and mental health.
3. There is no evidence of a harmful relationship.
4. There is a positive relationship.

Next question: which of these are a significant minority, which if any is a fringe view?

(If I am not clear, I mean the views of researchers as published in reliable sources, not what is the majority view of us editors.)

I won't answer myself because I haven't read the literature as most of you have. But it does seem to me that the answer to these questions should shape the coverage in the article. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wilmoth and Coleman's statements are good reflections of the majority view. Careful reading of ALL peer reviewed sources (ignoring the newspaper articles like those from Bazelong and Mooney which all involve selective reporting and spin), reveals that no one actually denies that some some women have serious mental health problems that are either caused, aggravated or triggered by abortion. (For example, statements like "most women do not suffer significant mental illness after an abortion" really admit that a minority of women do, and perhaps even the majority experience negative feelings, just not illness.) As noted in the APA 1990 review, individual case studides clearly demonstrate that abortion can cause mental illness where none was previously. But the data also shows that women with prior mental illness are more likely to have negative reactions post-aboriton. Can that explain most of the effects seen in statistical analyses? Even if it does, abortion is clearly a MARKER for higher rates of mental illness, but what proportion, if any, is attributable to abortion alone is unknown. Also, there is a striking lack of evidence of the expected benefits of abortion. Women who have abortions do not have as good of mental health as women who do not have abortions, whether compared to women who have not been pregnant or to women who have carried to term. There are over two dozen studies linking abortion to higher rates of substance abuse, many controlling for prior history of substance use, wantedness, etc. Probably ten or more linking abortion to higher rates of suicide. Four or five linking it to PTSD. Today there are a good number of record based studies (which are free of selection bias) which demonstrate the persistence of these links and of course Fergusson's prospective longitudinal study offers the most controlled study to date.Strider12 (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

There really is no serious dispute of the fact that some women suffer adverse (and sometimes devastating) psychological problems following abortion. Some in the abortion industry, and some abortion advocates, dispute that fact, but the anecdotal evidence is conclusive. The real dispute is over the prevalence of such problems. Are we talking about 1% of cases, or 50%? The problem is severe enough that there are hundreds (probably thousands) of counseling programs in the United States to help women who are struggling from the psychological aftereffects of abortion. (I can personally relate several examples that have touched my life.)

The universal perception of people involved in those programs is that the problem is very, very widespread. But that doesn't really say very much about the prevalence, from a public health standpoint. With more than 1 million elective abortions per year in the USA, if only 1% resulted in significant psychological problems later, that would mean 10,000 cases per year, which is enough to give the impression that the problem is very common. NCdave (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sbowers, this has been a topic of discussion several times. The best answers to your questions are found in the New York Times and Washington Monthly articles - as well as the APA and Surgeon General positions. Please also be aware that the Royal College of Psychiatrists did not conduct a study, and a minority of the people in that college are asking for more studies. The Royal College of Physicians maintains that abortion does not cause poor mental health.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The only way we'll ever cover this topic satisfactorily is if we attribute views to their sources accurately and with the least spin possible, though I'm currently a bit despairing of the feasability of this. Here's what I'm seeing:

• American Psychological Association - the major professional organization of psychologists in the U.S. - has a 1990 position statement/paper/panel finding that "distress is generally greatest before the abortion and that the incidence of severe negative responses is low." The APA is in the process of producing an updated position statement which should be released sometime this year.
• The American Psychiatric Association, the major professional organization of psychiatrists in the U.S., has not taken an official position so far as I am aware, beyond a refusal to recognize "post-abortion syndrome" as a real condition in the DSM.
• The Royal College of Psychiatrists, the major professional organization of psychiatrists in the U.K., has historically found that abortion is no riskier (and possibly safer) from a mental-health standpoint than carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. In response to recent controversy in the U.K., the RCP has issued an updated statement indicating that research on the issue is inconclusive, with some studies finding an association and others failing to find one. They are in the process (according to the statement) of undertaking a formal systematic review of the medical literature, similar to what the APA is currently working on.
• The former U.S. Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, issued his report in the late 1980's which we've beaten to death. The Surgeon General's office has not addressed the topic since.
• Review articles exist on both sides; the most prominent (in terms of impact/journal quality) probably being Grimes' review in Annals of Internal Medicine in 2004 or so. Other reviews include those by Coleman and Stotland.
• Primary journal studies are numerous and reach conflicting conclusions. Most notably, a letter to the BMJ by David Reardon et al. analyzed the NLSY database and found an association between abortion and mental health risks. The same database was analyzed by another group in the BMJ a few years later, using more detailed coding, and the association Reardon had reported disappeared with the more detailed and precise approach to data handling.
• Dedicated major press coverage of the issue includes the New York Times Magazine piece and the PBS piece.
• No reputable medical or scientific source that I am aware of has reported a causal relationship; the argument on the scientific side has been on the level of whether a real statistical association exists, or whether such associations can be explained by confounding factors such as pre-existing psychiatric disease and other risk factors.
• Predictably, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and Guttmacher, which advocate for abortion rights, have summaries suggesting that there is no link. Numerous pro-life organizations have summaries suggesting that a link does exist.

That would be my summary of the sources. I think the most accurate and brief summary of the state of knowledge on the topic is: This is a controversial issue which is not completely settled; there are studies both finding and failing to find any link between abortion and mental health problems. The controversy, medically speaking, revolves around associations rather than causation at this point. The major professional organizations which have analyzed the existing data have concluded that no link is present - however, these summaries are relatively dated, and updated systematic reviews incorporating newer data are underway by both the APA and RCP. The issue has been targeted by a segment of the pro-life community as a means of raising doubts about the safety of abortion and thus restricting access to abortion either legally or by means of raising concern in the public mind on the issue (I think this last item is sourceable to mainstream, pro-choice, and pro-life sources). That would be my summary of what the sources have to say. MastCell ^Talk 18:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I have to take issue with your use of the word "controversy" to explain the difference between proving causation and finding correlations. We need to be more careful what we label a "scientific controversy." Researchers are agreed that there is a correlation between abortion and poor mental health, but no one other than Reardon and Colemen et al are claiming a causal relationship. And the fact remains that the vast majority of women who have an abortion are perfectly fine. (It is the case that millions of women get abortions every year, and historically speaking we do not see a surge in poor mental health as a result). This is why APA and the Surgeon General do not see "controversy" associated with abortion. And I have yet to see any commentary that talks about the "scientific controversy"; however, discussion of "political controversy" with regards to abortion and mental health is quote common (e.g. Psychological implications of abortion — highly charged and rife with misleading research by Brenda Major).

Simply because there are questions left to be answered, we are not yet in the realm of "scientific controversy." I'm reminded here of the "evolution controversy" - wherein certain U.S. school boards have triedto require that science teachers "teach the controversy" regarding Intelligent Design vs. Evolution:

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/sep/01/schools.research
• http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_1_29/ai_n8579176

Evolution isn't 100% proved (it is a scientific theory), but we cannot therefore conclude there evolution is a "scientific controversy" refuted by Intelligent Design. Just like we have Reardon and Coleman making the claim that abortion causes poor mental health, there are biologists and physicists who claim ID exists. In both cases, these scientists (and engineer in Reardon's case) are on the fringe. In both cases, "teaching the scientific controversy" is inappropriate given the evidence.

The more appropriate way for us to handle the article is to talk about the political controversy, the questions that are still left to be unanswered about abortion and mental health, and then wait for the APA review which should come out soon. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

MastCell's list of sources is biased toward those sources (mostly very dated) which suggest that there is no abortion mental health link...but even all these sources, if carefully read, admit that there are at least some number of women (perhaps a very small percentage) who have significant post-abortion problems. See APA 1990 admission and identification of groups at risk. What I most object to is her continued listing of the David Grimes article as a "review" which it is not. See archives for a copy of the letter to the journal pointing this out and Grimes admission that it is not a review in nay meaningful sense. See Grime's article here. It does not review any of the studies on abortion and mental health, it only cites the APA 1990 review article, repeats and cites Stotland's 1992 COMMENTARY which asserts the "myth" statement and finallyy cites one other rarely cited article that compares women who abort via surgery to women who abort medically --- which means it gives no information about comparing women who have had abortions to other women. Very selective. A totally useless "review." Even Stotland's commentary has more merit. But then again, Stotland's commentary actually admits there is evidence of post-abortion problems, she just spins the argument away from specifically the abortion TRAUMA proposal.

I've previously listed many other views and consensus statements including those of Fogel, Coleman, Wilmoth, Fergusson, Rue, Reardon, and Soderberg that should be represented.

Sbower may be interested in my invitation to discuss Two kinds of evidence defining WEIGHT as I believe opinions and facts are two different things, and both bear on the issue of WEIGHT. Contrary to Iron Alice Angel's recommendations, I would put NO weight into the Baezlon and Mooney articles which are clearly advocacy journalism and do not represent in any way a systematic review of expert opinions. Two or three experts do no make a consensus. --Strider12 (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I find this line of argumentation completely unhelpful. Yes - we get it, you don't like certain sources, including Grimes' review, and you're willing to engage in misrepresentation of sources to push your viewpoint. I'm trying to draw a distinction between studies on the topic (of which there are dozens you could, and have, cherry-picked) and meta-sources which reflect analysis and synthesis of the evidence by reputable bodies. Do you want to help? MastCell ^Talk 16:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody know who the group is that stands in front of courthouses with red tape over their mouths. I remember they have a list of thousands of women who say having an abortion affected their mental stability. Saksjn (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Clean up OR and inferences

I removed the following:

Coleman was also criticized in an article titled "Is there a Post-Abortion Syndrome" in the New York Times. In the article, Nancy Russo, a psychology researcher at Arizona State University, and "veteran abortion researcher," says that Coleman's analysis typically has methodological flaws. Once these flaws are corrected, there are no higher rates of mental illness among women who have had abortions. Russo said, "Science eventually corrects itself, but it takes a while."^[7]

The fact that she has been cricized -- mostly by linking her to Reardon who has been criticized--is mostly irrelvent. But more importantly, Russo does not discuss Coleman's studies nor her review article (which is what we are citing) and Russo's statement (exaggerated) does not address any of the studies done by Coleman, only the one BMJ depression study done by Reardon and Cougle...and conceals that she put women who had abortions into both groups in order to dilute the effects! In any case, the source does not support the statement and this is a transparent attempt to undermine Coleman's review of the literarure with ad hominem attacks that don't even address her statement. I need to check the NOW transcript, but I'm pretty sure the same applies since the APA report was in 1990, BEFORE Reardon or Coleman even published any studies.--Strider12 (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you try to make a distinction between the argument that the source itself is not directly critical of Coleman (a fair point), and the fact that you do not agree with the source's criticisms (less relevant)? That would assist in addressing this. MastCell ^Talk 18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The source can be used in a general statement of opinion elsewhere in the article, and already has been. But to continually reuse the same source, stretching it out of its own context, to undermine each opinion crical of abortion is out of place and unwarrented.

Also, while I don't mind giving some context to each expert's political views on abortion, I'd prefer to see this be a minimal amount. The lengthy material added regarding Coleman linking her to pro-life groups and inserting edits asserting "the real experts all disagree with her" -- particularly when exaggerated and imprecise, is very problematic. We need to be even handed. See Opinion vs Opinions / Rebuttals / Affiliations & Guilt by Association above. For example, currently unmentioned in this article is the fact that Stotland is a pro-choice activist as both a member and board member of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health (PRCH).[4] Russo and Major are also involved in pro-choice advocacy, and as you know, Russo has even stated that pro-choice views come first and the "evidence doesn't matter."

If we are going to allow material indicating the biases of Coleman, we need to do the same for Stotland, Russo, Major, Schmiege and others too. Personally, I'd rather not go there. Such material would never be allowed in a peer reviewed review article. But if we allow such material which is essentially intended to accuse Coleman, Reardon and others of a pro-life bias, then we need to all agree that I and others should be allowed to insert the same kind of material regarding Stotland, Russo, Major etc. It makes "uglier" reading but at least it would underscore how the politicization of this issue extends on both sides.--Strider12 (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Where has Russo stated that "the evidence doesn't matter"? Source please? I can't speak to Coleman, because I know very little about her. David Reardon is clearly viewed by many reliable sources as an advocate first and a researcher second (or at least, equally prominent in these two roles). It's utterly misleading to compare Reardon, who runs a lobbying organization and puts legislation on the state ballot to restrict access to abortion on the basis of studies he himself has conducted, and someone like Stotland. That's false equivalence, and it's obvious from the differing treatment these people are given in reliable secondary sources. MastCell ^Talk 16:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Russo's statements, see here. That Reardon is viewed by PRO-CHOICE reporters and researchers as biased does not mean he is in fact biased. Contrary to the views of pro-choice leaning sources, post-abortion ministry leaders view him as one of the only unbiased researchers who is exposing the truth about what they have experienced.

Don't any of the scientists involved in global warming research lobby for laws and regulations to reduce global warming? The Elliot Institute is not a lobbying organization. It is a 501(c)3. That he is personally involved with a lobbying organization in Missouri is hardly different than the fact that Stotland has personally lobbied the US Congress and served as an expert witness against informed consent laws etc. And Russo's APA is an active pro-choice lobbying group, as she herself insists it should be. See here. The "differing treatment" you refer to from the "reliable secondary sources" you cite is entirely explainable by the fact that sources have a pro-choice bias that holds up Stotland and Russo as experts while dismissing Reardon. Secondary sources with a pro-life bias do exactly the opposite. You are bringing POV and OR to the article by segregating Reardon from other researchers simply because he is more politically active. I don't mind that you cite sources accusing him of putting politics ahead of science, provided you cite inline that this is the opinion of the reporter or researcher making the claim. But it is not a FACT that he puts politics before science. He would probably argue the opposite, that it is his science that informs his politics.--Strider12 (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Your links don't support your claims; in particular, the Russo link says absolutely nothing like your claim that "the evidence doesn't matter". The APA is not a "pro-choice lobbying organization". Stotland did not "lobby Congress"; she testified on behalf of the APA. I realize you make no distinction between the New York Times and Boston Globe on one hand and the Human Life Quarterly Review on the other, but Wikipedia actually does not see these as equivalent sources. MastCell ^Talk 18:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

She told the Toledo Blade: "As far as I'm concerned, whether or not an abortion creates psychological difficulties is not relevant..." [5] which is much like "the evidence doesn't matter." It is reported that she did originally tell Throckmorton "it doesn't matter what the evidence says" [6] but then requested to have the statement qualified to "to pro-choice advocates, mental health effects are not relevant to the legal context of arguments to restrict access to abortion." "Not relevant" is much akin to "doesn't matter." All that aside, Russo is not politically neutral and has repeatedly said she is pro-choice. There is no reason to believe she is any more politically neutral than Reardon. Ditto with Stotland, who is board of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, an abortion advocacy group. And the APA does have a political position on abortion and does lobby that position in legislatures and in amicus briefs. I'm just asking that we stop pretending that one side is neutral while the other side is always biased.--Strider12 (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

A reliable source for deleted statement

A statement was deleted with the summary, "deleted until better, more reliable source can be found". Well, here is a very RS: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article615150.ece. I'm not reinserting the statement myself because I don't think it matters one way or the other whether the statement is included.

Question: the Times article mentions a recent New Zealand study, which is not in our article. Can someone identify it and provided a citation so that we can read it and decide whether to include it? Sbowers3 (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You found it with the Times article cited. It is the Fergusson study. I replaced into the article material on the Fergusson study which was in the article for several months but got deleted in a major cut back of material.--Strider12 (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

One glitch: the material you added has a bad citation: the last reference has a ref named "APA08" but there is no such ref in the article. Could you please insert the missing ref data? Sbowers3 (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The Throckmorton piece in the Washington Times does not have a URL. Can you find it online? I was not able to find it via Google. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

APA08 referenced another article by Throckmorton: http://www.drthrockmorton.com/article.asp?id=204 [Abortion and American Psychology], it was published in various places but I don't think it was in the Washington Times. The other article was in the Washington Times but went into their paid archives five to six months ago. An identical copy is here [7]Strider12 (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

United States Surgeon General

I would like to delete the final paragraph of this section. It is entirely a political and not a scientific statement. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It is political; on the other hand, the issue is a largely political one. At the very least, it's an area where politics and science overlap quite heavily, so notable incidents or allegations of politicization of the science would seem to me to be appropriate for inclusion. Just my 2 cents. MastCell ^Talk 21:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The politicization issue is of course another difficult issue to balance. Was Koop playing politics with the issue or was Weiss? How much of this charge countercharge should be in the article is difficult to determine. I'm comfortable with cutting it because I think this subsection should be limited to Koop's opinions, not his critics opinions, which should be given in their own sections. The APA statement and Fogel's statements being two such counter opinions.--Strider12 (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Separating critical sources from the targets of their criticism results in a fractured and difficult-to-read article. Direct criticism should be handled directly. In the end, it's up to the reader to decide whether Koop, Weiss, or both were playing politics. It would be quite odd, not to mention misleading, to describe Koop's report but not a susbsequent Congressional inquiry which charged him with suppressing his actual findings in the name of political expediency. We're citing New Scientist here - it's not like we're quoting the NARAL website. Whether one believes Weiss' charges or not, they seem relevant to the issue of Koop's report. MastCell ^Talk 21:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ordering of subsections

Is there a deliberate order to the dozen sections? It's not in chronological or reverse chronological order. I think we might present the best narrative if we ordered them chronologically since often one paper refers to results of an earlier paper. I also considered reverse chronological to put the most recent first but that would often result in sections referring to sections lower down.

If nobody objects I will reorder them chronologically. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In connection with Andrew c's thoughts below I have created Talk:Abortion and mental health/Chronological mostly to help myself think about a possible rewrite. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Unwarranted Blanking of Material

I don't know who deleted the information on the Royal College of Psychiatrists' report and the Times summary of it, but this is clearly disruptive blanking relevant information. Similarly, deleting the views of Fogel -- who is certainly as qualified if not much more qualified as Stotland -- is also unwarranted. Instead of deleting material, editors should seek to find relevant material they can ADD.--Strider12 (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The material wasn't deleted. It was moved and the heading renamed. Now we have two identical sections. See Abortion and mental health#Calls for more research. We should discuss where this content should go, and how we should title it. But we shouldn't have the same content in the article twice. I believe the move was done in good faith, so there is no need to throw around accusations of disruptive editing. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, these things can be more productively addressed if we can refrain from labeling every edit with which we personally disagree as "clearly disruptive blanking". MastCell ^Talk 18:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

← Now to the content issues: I've tightened up the RCP section a bit. I can live with either title ("Royal College of Psychiatrists" vs. "Call for more research"), as both are accurate. We should either leave it as a separate section at the bottom, or completely re-order the subsections in chronological order with the RCP at the top. Also:

• The Fogel quote is taken from a 1989 piece in the Style section of the Washington Post. This is well below the threshold for other subsections, which generally deal with major position statements or literature reviews. Also, I am unable to verify the context of this source, and previous experience leads me to believe it would be wise to verify that this source is being presented accurately should we decide to incorporate it. The only online references to this article I can find come from partisan/pro-life websites, particularly David Reardon's, from which our text appears to have been largely lifted.
• The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons is not a particularly good source. Besides being a partisan political advocacy group, its track record on scientific matters is poor at best. Since we have better sources for the RCP section, I've removed the AAPS sourcing.
• Stotland's case report, again, falls well below the standard we're applying for other subsections in terms of notability. Additionally, it is being misrepresented as some sort of "epiphany" about the harms of abortion - a gloss fairly common in pro-life sources, oddly enough - when review of the full text of the article makes clear it is nothing of the sort. In any case, my preference would be not to include it, as case reports and anecdotal evidence are well below the threshold of other sources we're using - but if it is to be included, it needs to be accurately represented. MastCell ^Talk 18:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

These proposed standards of what is "notable" are awfully fluid and are regularly being used to blank material that supports the view that abortion is linked to mental health rpoblems.

Regarding Fogel, it is in the Washington Post--which is certainly as credible as the New York Times MAGAZINE. Who says it is the "Styles" section? In fact it was a syndicated column addressing the Koop letter and Fogel's views. Moreover, Fogel is certainly as qualified, indeed far more qualified, to have an expert opinion on the subject as Stotland. If you want to cut Fogel, then let's cut Stotland too. She has no studies published on the subject, only her own advocacy pieces..as she is an activist with pro-choice groups. Holding out Stotland while cutting Fogel is just another attempt to hide the FACT that even many (perhaps most) pro-choice experts don't agree with efforts to dismiss the real psychological significance of abortion.

In the same vein, cuting Stotland's subsequent commentary only serves to try to push her hard line comments from 1990 as if they represent the MAJORITY view which should determine the WEIGHT of this article. It is not Stotland's commentary alone that is signficant, it is Stotland herself. She is the one being presented as an expert. Her subsequent commentary on a case she dealt with is CLEARLY relevant in representing her opinions on the matter, and her evolution of opinion...unless the "standard" for inclusion is that the source must not undermine the view that "abortion trauma is a myth."

Also while I don't know anything about the AAPS source or material, I consider MastCell's pontificating description of the groups as a "partisan political advocacy group, its track record on scientific matters is poor at best" to be an opinion, not a fact. The same can and should be said regarding the APA which adopted a pro-choice political advocacy position in 1969 and has been charged by Fergusson, a pro-choice atheist, of misrepresenting the literature on abortion and mental health...but oh, I forgot, his longitudinal, prospective study...the best methodological study to date...has been purged from this article because it is not notable or reliable enough for some editors. In short, we should stop making up flimsy excuses for cutting relieable material just because we don't like what it says. So if we are going to cut AAPS statements, shouldn't we cut the APA's using the same standards. Or did I get confused again...is the standard to give preferential treatment to sources that don't undermine the view that abortion trauma is a myth?

Finally, I would note that repeatedly cutting verifiable material does not demonstrate a good faith effort to collaborate. Try ADDING material instead of cutting it as suggested in the ArbCom ruling on disruptive editing.--Strider12 (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Your post is marked by factual distortions and rhetorical excess, which makes it unproductive to respond in depth. If PubMed is to be believed, Fogel has published zero studies on anything relating to abortion. Stotland has been publishing on psychological aspects of women's reproductive health, including abortion, since 1982 and is the president of the American Psychological Association. This is a false equivalence, and you seem to want to "trade" me Fogel for Stotland, which is ridiculous on any number of levels, most importantly that this isn't a game of chess. I respectfully decline to be lectured on good faith collaboration by you. If you're really interested in why AAPS is a poor source of scientific opinion, take a look at their journal - don't look on PubMed, though, because it's not indexed by PubMed. I recommend starting with the recent articles denying that HIV causes AIDS ([8]), or that gay men are promiscuous disease carriers whose life expectancy is "20 years shorter" than straight men unless they can be "converted" to heterosexuality ([9]). Pretty mainstream stuff. MastCell ^Talk 07:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for or against AAPS just noting that your standards for inclusion and exclusion appear to be very flexibly applied to suit your editorial preferences.

Expert opinion does not depend on research alone. As mentioned, Stotland has published lots of advocacy papers in peer reviewed journals (commentaries for example) but no research. The only case study she has published on actually dealing with an abortion patient you have continued to delete. Fogel is a psychiatrist who has worked with and counseled women before and after abortions....that HE HIMSELF performed. His opinion was deemed notable by the Washington Post. Your efforts to blank his views from this article are unjustified. Just because Stotland plays politics, both in the abortion field and within the APA and has risen to the level of president, doesn't mean that her opinion is any more important than that of Fogel, who has personally done 20,000 abortions and spoken to at least 20,000 women regarding their abortions. Strider12 (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

20,000 abortions? That's quite a few, especially for a psychiatrist. Your opinion of Stotland, and of my editing, has been repeatedly expressed and is noted. How about focusing on content and sources, rather than minimizing them and focusing on me instead, as you do above? A short quote from a 1989 Washington Post article is simply not anywhere near the level of the other sources we've highlighted, and it does not make sense to give it a standalone section. In any case, your track record is such that I would like a bit more context and verification of this source - which I can find quoted briefly only on a handful of pro-life websites - before incorporating it. Exceptional claims require clear verification - and the claim that a psychiatrist has performed over 20,000 abortions, among other claims, is a bit exceptional. MastCell ^Talk 21:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If the Fogel quote is included in this article, a link should be provided. Such as this one.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's pause, take a few breaths, and figure out how to proceed from here

Today's editing must be very frustrating for everybody. As of this minute, the article is back where it was at the start of the day after a bunch of edits and a bunch of reverts. It's a waste of time for everybody, it's raising some tempers, it's heading in the direction of one or more editors leaving voluntarily or involuntarily, and it's not making the article any better. This article is going to get a major reorg - I don't know yet just how it will change but it is necessary so it's going to happen - so any changes made now before we figure out the reorg will have little bearing on the eventual article.

It would be far more productive to try to figure out the shape of the final article, than to edit war over this article. Does anyone think the article is anywhere near good? Does anyone think that throwing in a few more sections will make it better?

Making big changes quickly either by lots of editing or by reverting will do nothing except add fuel to the fire. We're going to have to move slowly and preferably by advance notice.

A few thoughts:

• There is no hurry. The tortoise is going to win the race and the rabbit may end up as stew. (How's that for a metaphor?)
• There are other editors. Whatever side you are on, there are other editors on your side. Let someone else share the load.
• It will be much more effective to propose a change here, wait, then perhaps go ahead.

I don't think this article needs to be edit-protected but it might be helpful to treat it that way. No change unless it is first proposed here, then make the edit only when there is some consensus.

One of today's edits actually has some consensus, I think, but was reverted because it was in the middle of other, more controversial edits. I proposed about a week ago to reorder the sections chronologically. Nobody objected so I plan to make that change. And when I do, I will do it one section at a time, to make it easy for other editors to see what changed. I hope that other editors will also make small changes instead of big changes so that the rest of us can easily understand the changes and so if it is necessary to revert, we can revert only the bad and not have to revert good changes along with the bad.

If we're going to work on this article - and it makes more sense to work on the structure of a replacement article - let's do it slowly and avoid doing things that we know from past experience will only irritate other editors.

(This is not one of my favorite posts. I don't want to sound like a know-it-all or sound hopelessly naive, or end with a feeling that it's all hopeless but someone had to say something and this is the best I could come up with.) Sbowers3 (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt to calm the waters and move forward productively. Reordering the sections chronologically would be fine. I have reached the conclusion, after 6 months, that the most productive use of my time as regards this article is to directly address specific behavioral issues. I'll be happy to comment on constructive proposals but I don't see editing it directly until those issues are definitively addressed. MastCell ^Talk 22:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are we reporting a statistically insignificant result?

The article currently says (rather prominently):

"Another study in 1992 found that having one abortion was positively associated with higher global self-esteem, particularly feelings of self-worth, capableness, and not feeling one is a failure, but that this positive association was not significant after controlling for childbearing and resource variables."

If the study found no statistically significant correlation, then it is obviously incorrect to state a conclusion based on that non-existent correlation.

Can we all agree that that sentence needs to go? NCdave (talk) 06:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've tried to correct it in the past.--Strider12 (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No, this should stay because the abstract clearly says:

The relationship of abortion to women's well-being in the context of childbearing experiences and coping resources is examined over a span of 8 yrs using a national sample of 5,295 US women. No evidence of widespread post-abortion trauma was found. Having 1 abortion was positively associated with higher global self-esteem, particularly feelings of self-worth, capableness, and not feeling one is a failure. When childbearing and resource variables were controlled, neither having 1 abortion nor having repeat abortions had an independent relationship to well-being, suggesting that the relationship of abortion to well-being reflects abortion's role in controlling fertility and its relationship to coping resources. When childbearing and abortion variables were controlled, women's well-being was separately and positively related to employment, income, and education, but negatively related to total number of children.

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

yes, but it then says "When childbearing and resource variables were controlled, neither having 1 abortion nor having repeat abortions had an independent relationship to well-being", which also needs to be reflected. Kuronue | Talk 03:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, definitely. MastCell ^Talk 18:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurone, and then the author goes on to say, "suggesting that the relationship of abortion to well-being reflects abortion's role in controlling fertility [(i.e. the number of children in a family)] and its relationship to coping resources"

Here are the main points that from the abstract that should be reflected:

• No evidence of wide-spread post-abortion trauma was found
• Having 1 abortion was associated with higher global self-esteem
• Women's well-being is positively related to employment, education, and income, but negatively related to the number of children she has

In short:

• Results showed that having more resources and fewer children, two entities are not separable, results in higher global self esteem
• Abortion plays a part in controlling the number of children in a family, and thus plays a part in a woman's global-self esteem

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fringe view?

Does this view qualify as a fringe view? In my brief involvement with the topic, I have not seen any other mention that abortion has a positive effect on mental health. And even this mention apparently is statistically insignificant.

I'm pretty sure that I already know what answer NCdave, Strider12, and IronAngelAlice will give. I'm more interested in hearing from other editors. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There is some data (e.g. PMID 2620716) that teenagers who have an abortion have better educational or socioeconomic outcomes that teens who carry a pregnancy to term. The other reference for positive effects of abortion actually says that abortion itself is not independently related to well-being, but is a marker for greater resources and coping skills, which are in turn associated with better psychological well-being. There is not much support for the idea of direct, significant positive effects of abortion, except perhaps in the setting of teenage pregnancy with regard to educational/socioeconomic outcomes, so we should probably retitle and refocus the section accordingly. MastCell ^Talk 21:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a "fringe view" but rather an abandoned view. It was widely thought in the 60's that abortion would have mental health benefits by reducing exposure to unwanted children. The data went the other way. MastCell is partially correct. While there is no evidence of socioeconomic benefits, it is true that teens who carry to term are less likely to finish high school than teens who have abortions. The latter have higher substance abuse and suicide rates and more depression, but they are significantly more likely to be better educated.--Strider12 (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)