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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
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.
Interviews with of 854 women one year after they had abortions at a hospital in Sweden, found that approximately 60 percent of the women had experienced some level of emotional distress from their abortions and in 30% of the cases the reactions were classified as "severe." [1]
The research also compared pre-operative data on the women who agreed to participate in the one year followup and data on women who refused to participate, who represented approximately one-third of all women who had abortions at the hospital. Based on socio-demographic factors, reproductive history and reasons given for the abortion, the researchers concluded that women who are most likely to experience negative post-abortion reactions are also least likely to participate in post-abortion research. [2] According to Söderberg, "for many of the women, the reason for non-participation seemed to be a sense of guilt and remorse that they did not wish to discuss. An answer very often given was: ‘I do not want to talk about it. I just want to forget'." [3]
- Sure - I'll do it here on the talk page for now. The conclusions are pretty much those spelled out in the abstract: the 1/3 of women who did not participate in follow-up intervals were disproportionately those who were young, unmarried, of low educational status, and unemployed. The pregnancy rate was 12.2% in the non-responders vs. 7.7% in the responders at 1 year. The authors conclude by focusing on why these women did not participate. They point to the "inability of the health care system to establish trustful relationships with these women", and note that "support from the women's surroundings and the adviser the women met at the public health care system clearly influenced the women's psychological reactions after the abortion. It is therefore important to ascertain to what extent the management of abortion applicants in fact fulfils their individual needs and expectations." That is, the focus is on how to improve the health-care delivery system for women undergoing abortion, not on the idea that abortion causes any sort of psychological or psychiatric syndrome. MastCell Talk 00:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
RESULTS: In the subgroup with emotional distress (duration ranging from 1 month to still present at 12-month follow-up), the following risk factors were identified: living alone, poor emotional support from family and friends, adverse postabortion change in relations with partner, underlying ambivalence or adverse attitude to abortion, and being actively religious. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
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. [4] 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. [4]
In 1989 Dr. Julius Fogel, who is both a psychiatrist and an obstetrician who had performed over 20,000 abortions, stated that in his expert opinion abortion is psychologically traumatic:
Every woman--whatever her age, background or sexuality--has a trauma at destroying a pregnancy. A level of humanness is touched. This is a part of her own life. When she destroys a pregnancy, she is destroying herself. There is no way it can be innocuous. One is dealing with the life force.... Often the trauma may sink into the unconscious and never surface in the woman's lifetime. But it is not as harmless and casual an event as many in the proabortion crowd insist. A psychological price is paid. It may be alienation; it may be a pushing away from human warmth, perhaps a hardening of the maternal instinct. Something happens on the deeper levels of a woman's consciousness when she destroys a pregnancy. I know that as a psychiatrist. [5]
-- Strider12 ( talk) 02:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
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:
In 2006, a team of researchers at the University of Otago Christchurch School of Medicine in New Zealand, published results relating to abortion reactions from a longitudinal study tracking approximately 500 women from birth to 25 years of age. Information was obtained on: a) the history of pregnancy/abortion for female participants over the interval from 15-25 years; b) measures of DSM-IV mental disorders and suicidal behaviour over the intervals 15-18, 18-21 and 21-25 years; and c) childhood, family and related confounding factors. The study concluded that compared to other women in the group those who had an abortion were subsequently more likely to have "mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders. This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors." The authors wrote, "The findings suggest that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems," and "on the basis of the current study, it is our view that the issue of whether or not abortion has harmful effects on mental health remains to be fully resolved." [7]
The team particularly objected to the 2005 position paper by the American Psychological Association which "concluded that ‘well designed studies of psychological responses following abortion have consistently shown that risk of psychological harm is low...the percentage of women who experience clinically relevant distress is small and appears to be no greater than in general samples of women of reproductive age'" According to the researchers, "This relatively strong conclusion about the absence of harm from abortion was based on a relatively small number of studies which had one or more of the following limitations: a) absence of comprehensive assessment of mental disorders; b) lack of comparison groups; and c) limited statistical controls. Furthermore, the statement appears to disregard the findings of a number of studies that had claimed to show negative effects for abortion." [7]
Strider12 ( talk) 23:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Other sources that use almost the exact same language we do for Koop's testimony - putting the testimony in context:
"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."
Koop reviewed the scientific and medical literature and consulted with a wide range of experts and advocacy groups on both sides of the issue. Yet, after 15 months, no report was forthcoming. Rather, on January 9, 1989, Koop wrote a letter to the president explaining that he would not be issuing a report at all because "the scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women." Koop apparently was referring to the effects of abortion on mental health, because his letter essentially dismissed any doubts about the physical safety of the procedure.
Prochoice members of Congress, surprised by Koop's careful and balanced analysis, sought to force his more detailed findings into the public domain. A hearing before the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations was called in March 1989 to give Koop an opportunity to testify about the content of his draft report, which had begun to leak out despite the administration's best efforts. At the hearing, Koop explained that he chose not to pursue an inquiry into the safety of the abortion procedure itself, because the "obstetricians and gynecologists had long since concluded that the physical sequelae of abortion were no different than those found in women who carried pregnancy to term or who had never been pregnant. I had nothing further to add to that subject in my letter to the president."
President Ronald Reagan appointed C. Everett Koop, M.D., as the Surgeon General of the United States and asked him to produce a report on the effects of abortion on women in America. Dr. Koop was known to be opposed to abortion, but he insisted upon hearing from experts on all sides of the issue. The American Psychiatric Association assigned me to present the psychiatric data to Dr. Koop. I reviewed the literature and gave my testimony. Later, I went on to publish two books and a number of articles based upon the scientific literature.
Dr. Koop, though personally opposed to abortion, testified that "the psychological effects of abortion are miniscule from a public health perspective." It is the public health perspective which with we are concerned in this hearing, and Dr. Koop's conclusion still holds true today.
Despite the challenges inherent in studying a medical procedure about which randomized clinical trials cannot be performed, and despite the powerful and varying effects of the social milieu on psychological state, the data from the most rigorous, objective studies are clear: abortions are not a significant cause of mental illness.
In spite of these difficulties, the majority of women do seem to 'cope' with abortion, to the point where even a US Surgeon General, who did not support liberal legislation, nevertheless testified to Congress that the problem was 'miniscule from the public health perspective' (Koop 1989:211, cited in Adler et al)"
"Koop reviewed more than 250 published research articles, but his conclusion came as a shock. Far from bolstering the president's anti-abortion prejudices, Koop declined to issue a report at all, saying that "the scientific studies do not provide conclusive data on the effects of abortion on woman." Eventually in 1989, a congressional committee compelled Koop to release his report and ordered him to testify. Koop told the committee that the problem of adverse psychological effects on women was "miniscule from the public health perspective."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by IronAngelAlice ( talk • contribs)
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)
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.
Coleman, P. K., Rue, V., Spence, M., & Coyle, C. (in press). Abortion and the sexual lives of men and women: Is casual sexual behavior more appealing and more common after abortion? International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology.
Coleman, P. K., Rue, V., Coyle, C., *Maxey, D. C.. (2007). Induced abortion and child-directed aggressive behaviors among mothers of children who have been maltreated. Internet Journal of Pediatric Neonatology.
Coleman, P. K. (2006). Resolution of unwanted pregnancy during adolescence through abortion versus childbirth: Individual and family predictors and psychological consequences. The Journal of Youth and Adolescence.
Coleman, P. K., Reardon, D. C., & Lee, M. B. (2006). Women’s preferences for information and ratings of the seriousness of complications related to elective medical procedures. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32. 435-438.
Reardon, D.C., & Coleman, P. K. (2006). Sleep disorders associated with abortion and childbirth: A prospective record-based study Sleep, 29, 105-106.
Colman, P. K. 2005. Induced Abortion and increased risk of substance use: A review of the evidence. Current Women's Health Reviews 1, 21-34. Invite paper for inaugural issue.
Colman, P.K., Maxey, D.C., Coyle, C., & Rue, V. 2005. Associations between voluntary and involentary forms of perinatal loss and child maltreatment among low income, single mothes. Acta Paediatrica, 94.
Coleman, P. K.., Reardon, D.C., & Lee, M.B. (in Press). Women's preferences for information and ratings of the seriousness of complications reltaed to elective medial procedures. Journel of Medical Ethics.
Coleman, P.K. (in press). Resolution of unwated pregnancy during adolescence: Predictors and consequences. Journel of Youth and Adolescence.
Coleman, P. K., Reardon, D. C., & Cougle, J. (2005). Substance use among pregnant women in the context of previous reproductive loss and desire for current pregnancy. British Journal of Health Psycholog, 10, 255-268.
Cougle, J., Reardon, D. C., & Coleman, P. K. (2005). Generalized anxiety associated with unintended pregnancy: A cohort study of the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 19, 137-142.
Coleman, P. K., Reardon, D. C., Strahan, T., & Cougle, J. (2005). The psychology of abortion: A review and suggestions for future research. Psychology and Health, 20, 237-271.
Reardon, D. C., & Coleman, P. K. (2004). Letter to the editor pertaining to a study published in AJOG by Gissler, Berg, Bouvier-Colle, and Buekens entitled "Pregnancy-associated mortality after birth, spontaneous abortion or induced abortion in Finland, 1987-2000." American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 191, 1506-1507.
Rue, V. M., Coleman, P. K., & Reardon, D. C. (2004). The context of elective abortion and traumatic stress: A comparison of U. S. and Russian Women. Medical Science Monitor, 10, SR5-16.
Reardon, D. C., Coleman, P. K., & Cougle, J. (2004). Substance use associated with prior history of abortion and unintended birth: A national cross sectional cohort study. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 26, 369-383.
Coleman, P.K. and Karraker, K.H. (2005). Parents’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Relation to Children’s Social Adjustment and Academic Success. In O.N. Saracho and B Spodek (Eds.) Contemporary Perspectives on Families Communities in Early Childhood Education and schhols for young children. Greenwich. CT: Information Age Publishing.
Karraker, K.H. and Coleman, P.K. Forthcoming. Child Effects on Parenting Dynamics. In T. Luster and L. Okagaki (Eds.) Parenting: An Ecological Perspective (2nd Ed.).
Neilsen, A., Coleman, P. K., Guinn, M., and Robb, C. (2004) Length of Institutionalization, Contact with Relatives, and Previous Hospitalizations as Predictors of Social and Emotional Behavior in Young Ugandan Orphans. Childhood: A Global Journal of Child Research.
Coleman, P. K. (2003). Perceptions of parent-child attachment, social self-efficacy, and peer relationships in middle childhood. Infant and Child Development, 12, 351-368.
Coleman, P.K. (2003). Reactive Attachment Disorder in the context of the Family: A review and call for further research. Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties, 8, 223-234
(unsigned...above is IronAlice Angel's contributrion??)
"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:
--
IronAngelAlice (
talk) 20:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Just as a reminder, here is what was in the NY Times article:
But, David Reardon continues to research the psychological effects of abortion, and he no longer makes beginner’s mistakes. He is said to have a doctorate in biomedical ethics from Pacific Western University, an unaccredited correspondence school, according to Chris Mooney, the author of “The Republican War on Science.” (Reardon did not respond to several requests to be interviewed.) According to his Web site, in 1988, Reardon founded the Elliot Institute, a research center in Springfield, Ill., which in 2005 had a $120,000 budget. He has recently teamed up with Priscilla Coleman, a professor of family and consumer studies at Bowling Green State University in Ohio, and published more than a dozen papers in peer-reviewed journals. Reardon and Coleman cull data from national surveys and state records in which unplanned pregnancy is not the focus of the data collection. Using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, Reardon found a higher risk of clinical depression in a group of married women who had abortions, and published the results in a 2002 article in The British Medical Journal; using California Medicaid records, he and Coleman found a higher risk of psychiatric hospital and clinic admissions among poor post-abortive women, which they reported in 2003 in The Canadian Medical Association Journal; two years later, using the National Survey of Family Growth, they found a higher risk of generalized anxiety disorder post-abortion and published their results in The Journal of Anxiety Disorders.
Nancy Russo, a psychology professor at Arizona State University and a veteran abortion researcher, spends much of her professional time refuting Reardon and Coleman’s results by retracing their steps through the vast data sets. Russo examined the analysis in the 2002 and 2005 articles and turned up methodological flaws in both. When she corrected for the errors, the higher rates of mental illness among women who had abortions disappeared. Russo published her findings on depression in The British Medical Journal last year; her article on anxiety disorders is under review. “Science eventually corrects itself, but it takes a while,” she says. “And you can feel people’s eyes glaze over when you talk about coding errors and omitted data sets.” Priscilla Coleman, for her part, says that research that concludes that abortion has negative effects is more scrutinized because it’s “so politically incorrect.” When researchers attack his findings, Reardon writes to the journals’ letters pages. “Even if pro-abortionists got five paragraphs explaining that abortion is safe and we got only one line saying it’s dangerous, the seed of doubt is planted,” he wrote in his book.
The A.P.A. has convened a new task force to review the more recent scientific literature about the effects of abortion; the panel will issue findings in 2008. Assuming the A.P.A. affirms the prevailing social-science research, the belief that abortion harms women may be hard to dislodge. Even if no solid evidence provides a causal link to increased rates of depression or other emotional problems, abortion is often a grim event. And for a minority of women, it is linked to lasting pain. You don’t have to be an anti-abortion advocate to feel sorrow over an abortion, or to be haunted about whether you did the right thing.
-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 21:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an interview with her on NOW (with David Brancaccio) at http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/329.html:
HINOJOSA: David Reardon has not responded to our many emails and phone calls requesting an interview...however one of his frequent co-authors, Priscilla Coleman, a human development and family studies professor at Ohio's Bowling Green State University came to New York to talk about her research.
HINOJOSA: So you don't have a problem with the fact that David Reardon has a Ph.D. from an unaccredited university?
COLEMAN: It's—I don't have a problem with anything about David really, except for if, when we're working together, there's anything in the writing or the analysis that—that I don't agree with. I mean, I—all we do—we don't have discussions about pro-life issues. All we do is work on a paper together.
HINOJOSA: And you don't feel that your information—
COLEMAN: I know it—
HINOJOSA: —because you're so tied to David Reardon—
COLEMAN: I'm—
HINOJOSA: —is—is—
COLEMAN: —I'm not really tied to David Reardon. I've met him—
HINOJOSA: But you've published more than a dozen—
COLEMAN: Not that many—
HINOJOSA: —articles—
COLEMAN: —with him.
HINOJOSA: Well, actually, let's see. We have them right here.
COLEMAN: I don't think it's that many.
HINOJOSA: —the number of articles—that you have co-authored, and studies. One, two, three—we have 12 right here.
So when you have this level of collaboration with David Reardon—and—and people say, "Look, Priscilla Coleman is tied to the anti-abortion movement, we can't look at her science as being unbiased," you say?
COLEMAN: I handled the data, I analyzed it in a scrupulous way. We encouraged people to reanalyze our data.
And we've used—nationally representative samples, data that's been collected by other people—for other purposes that just happened to have the right variable repro—reproductive history and—various mental health outcomes.
And we're finding that—you know, approximately ten to 20 percent of women suffer severely from abortion.
HINOJOSA: Coleman and Reardon's articles have indeed appeared in peer reviewed journals, but that doesn't impress Nada Stotland.
DR. STOTLAND: This is another part of a deliberate effort. One of the—one of the parts of that effort is to accumulate as though you have more evidence if the stack of papers is higher rather than where are these people—people's papers being published? And, how good and how rigorous was the peer review?
HINOJOSA: This study by Coleman, Reardon and associates for instance appeared in the Canadian Medical Association Journal and concludes that low income women who abort are more likely to need psychiatric care later...and even through the Journal's editors defended the decision to publish the paper - they said it generated a barrage of letters.
Several came from scientists, claiming the study's poor methodology rendered the results less than credible.
So when you, Priscilla Coleman, read the kinds of criticisms that say that your methodology is flawed—
COLEMAN: Actually, they don't usually talk about my methodology. They usually talk about—my co-authors who have been involved in—some of them have been involved in the pro-life movement. And so it's—it's usually not specifics about our studies that they're criticizing.
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."
DR. STOTLAND: You might have an abortion 'cause you already have a substance abuse problem. Because you're already feeling suicidal about what's going on in your life. Because you have so many responsibilities and not nearly enough money, or time, or energy to fulfill those responsibilities.
You were raped or pressured or pushed. You were abandoned. All these things, okay? You can't compare someone in those circumstances with someone who says, "Oh, I can handle a baby." You know, "I can support a baby. I can love a baby. I can bring a baby into a safe home," et cetera. And then, say, "Oh, well. Let's follow the ones who had the abortions and let's follow the ones who had the babies and see who does better." Who's gonna do better?
All this talk about the good of women is in the service of trying to restrict access to abortion as a medical procedure. And, that's tragic.
-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 21:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Typing in all caps doesn't make your argument more factual ;) -- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 21:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
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, 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)
Does "disputed text" mean:
(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)
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)
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)
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)
There are two measures of a 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:
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)
Studies that may be of interest that are not presently included:
Article in popular media:
I'm going through all the sources, trying to verify that they support the article text. Many of them are difficult to verify.
Sbowers3 ( talk) 00:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)--
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.
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]
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:
-- Strider12 ( talk) 04:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
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:
Another paragraph of interest to this article
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)
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."
The first three sentences of the current intro bias the article from the get go.
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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:
This article needs a section on Project Rachel (and perhaps other, similar ministries, sponsored by Protestants). NCdave ( talk) 10:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
"Project Rachel" is mentioned already on the Crisis Pregnancy Center page.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 20:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
This section says,
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:
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)
I've inserted the entire sentence.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 20:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
I removed the following:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
← 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:
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:
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)
The article currently says (rather prominently):
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)
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.
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:
In short:
-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 23:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
RCP1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
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.
Interviews with of 854 women one year after they had abortions at a hospital in Sweden, found that approximately 60 percent of the women had experienced some level of emotional distress from their abortions and in 30% of the cases the reactions were classified as "severe." [1]
The research also compared pre-operative data on the women who agreed to participate in the one year followup and data on women who refused to participate, who represented approximately one-third of all women who had abortions at the hospital. Based on socio-demographic factors, reproductive history and reasons given for the abortion, the researchers concluded that women who are most likely to experience negative post-abortion reactions are also least likely to participate in post-abortion research. [2] According to Söderberg, "for many of the women, the reason for non-participation seemed to be a sense of guilt and remorse that they did not wish to discuss. An answer very often given was: ‘I do not want to talk about it. I just want to forget'." [3]
- Sure - I'll do it here on the talk page for now. The conclusions are pretty much those spelled out in the abstract: the 1/3 of women who did not participate in follow-up intervals were disproportionately those who were young, unmarried, of low educational status, and unemployed. The pregnancy rate was 12.2% in the non-responders vs. 7.7% in the responders at 1 year. The authors conclude by focusing on why these women did not participate. They point to the "inability of the health care system to establish trustful relationships with these women", and note that "support from the women's surroundings and the adviser the women met at the public health care system clearly influenced the women's psychological reactions after the abortion. It is therefore important to ascertain to what extent the management of abortion applicants in fact fulfils their individual needs and expectations." That is, the focus is on how to improve the health-care delivery system for women undergoing abortion, not on the idea that abortion causes any sort of psychological or psychiatric syndrome. MastCell Talk 00:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
RESULTS: In the subgroup with emotional distress (duration ranging from 1 month to still present at 12-month follow-up), the following risk factors were identified: living alone, poor emotional support from family and friends, adverse postabortion change in relations with partner, underlying ambivalence or adverse attitude to abortion, and being actively religious. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
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. [4] 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. [4]
In 1989 Dr. Julius Fogel, who is both a psychiatrist and an obstetrician who had performed over 20,000 abortions, stated that in his expert opinion abortion is psychologically traumatic:
Every woman--whatever her age, background or sexuality--has a trauma at destroying a pregnancy. A level of humanness is touched. This is a part of her own life. When she destroys a pregnancy, she is destroying herself. There is no way it can be innocuous. One is dealing with the life force.... Often the trauma may sink into the unconscious and never surface in the woman's lifetime. But it is not as harmless and casual an event as many in the proabortion crowd insist. A psychological price is paid. It may be alienation; it may be a pushing away from human warmth, perhaps a hardening of the maternal instinct. Something happens on the deeper levels of a woman's consciousness when she destroys a pregnancy. I know that as a psychiatrist. [5]
-- Strider12 ( talk) 02:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
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:
In 2006, a team of researchers at the University of Otago Christchurch School of Medicine in New Zealand, published results relating to abortion reactions from a longitudinal study tracking approximately 500 women from birth to 25 years of age. Information was obtained on: a) the history of pregnancy/abortion for female participants over the interval from 15-25 years; b) measures of DSM-IV mental disorders and suicidal behaviour over the intervals 15-18, 18-21 and 21-25 years; and c) childhood, family and related confounding factors. The study concluded that compared to other women in the group those who had an abortion were subsequently more likely to have "mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders. This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors." The authors wrote, "The findings suggest that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems," and "on the basis of the current study, it is our view that the issue of whether or not abortion has harmful effects on mental health remains to be fully resolved." [7]
The team particularly objected to the 2005 position paper by the American Psychological Association which "concluded that ‘well designed studies of psychological responses following abortion have consistently shown that risk of psychological harm is low...the percentage of women who experience clinically relevant distress is small and appears to be no greater than in general samples of women of reproductive age'" According to the researchers, "This relatively strong conclusion about the absence of harm from abortion was based on a relatively small number of studies which had one or more of the following limitations: a) absence of comprehensive assessment of mental disorders; b) lack of comparison groups; and c) limited statistical controls. Furthermore, the statement appears to disregard the findings of a number of studies that had claimed to show negative effects for abortion." [7]
Strider12 ( talk) 23:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Other sources that use almost the exact same language we do for Koop's testimony - putting the testimony in context:
"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."
Koop reviewed the scientific and medical literature and consulted with a wide range of experts and advocacy groups on both sides of the issue. Yet, after 15 months, no report was forthcoming. Rather, on January 9, 1989, Koop wrote a letter to the president explaining that he would not be issuing a report at all because "the scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women." Koop apparently was referring to the effects of abortion on mental health, because his letter essentially dismissed any doubts about the physical safety of the procedure.
Prochoice members of Congress, surprised by Koop's careful and balanced analysis, sought to force his more detailed findings into the public domain. A hearing before the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations was called in March 1989 to give Koop an opportunity to testify about the content of his draft report, which had begun to leak out despite the administration's best efforts. At the hearing, Koop explained that he chose not to pursue an inquiry into the safety of the abortion procedure itself, because the "obstetricians and gynecologists had long since concluded that the physical sequelae of abortion were no different than those found in women who carried pregnancy to term or who had never been pregnant. I had nothing further to add to that subject in my letter to the president."
President Ronald Reagan appointed C. Everett Koop, M.D., as the Surgeon General of the United States and asked him to produce a report on the effects of abortion on women in America. Dr. Koop was known to be opposed to abortion, but he insisted upon hearing from experts on all sides of the issue. The American Psychiatric Association assigned me to present the psychiatric data to Dr. Koop. I reviewed the literature and gave my testimony. Later, I went on to publish two books and a number of articles based upon the scientific literature.
Dr. Koop, though personally opposed to abortion, testified that "the psychological effects of abortion are miniscule from a public health perspective." It is the public health perspective which with we are concerned in this hearing, and Dr. Koop's conclusion still holds true today.
Despite the challenges inherent in studying a medical procedure about which randomized clinical trials cannot be performed, and despite the powerful and varying effects of the social milieu on psychological state, the data from the most rigorous, objective studies are clear: abortions are not a significant cause of mental illness.
In spite of these difficulties, the majority of women do seem to 'cope' with abortion, to the point where even a US Surgeon General, who did not support liberal legislation, nevertheless testified to Congress that the problem was 'miniscule from the public health perspective' (Koop 1989:211, cited in Adler et al)"
"Koop reviewed more than 250 published research articles, but his conclusion came as a shock. Far from bolstering the president's anti-abortion prejudices, Koop declined to issue a report at all, saying that "the scientific studies do not provide conclusive data on the effects of abortion on woman." Eventually in 1989, a congressional committee compelled Koop to release his report and ordered him to testify. Koop told the committee that the problem of adverse psychological effects on women was "miniscule from the public health perspective."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by IronAngelAlice ( talk • contribs)
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)
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.
Coleman, P. K., Rue, V., Spence, M., & Coyle, C. (in press). Abortion and the sexual lives of men and women: Is casual sexual behavior more appealing and more common after abortion? International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology.
Coleman, P. K., Rue, V., Coyle, C., *Maxey, D. C.. (2007). Induced abortion and child-directed aggressive behaviors among mothers of children who have been maltreated. Internet Journal of Pediatric Neonatology.
Coleman, P. K. (2006). Resolution of unwanted pregnancy during adolescence through abortion versus childbirth: Individual and family predictors and psychological consequences. The Journal of Youth and Adolescence.
Coleman, P. K., Reardon, D. C., & Lee, M. B. (2006). Women’s preferences for information and ratings of the seriousness of complications related to elective medical procedures. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32. 435-438.
Reardon, D.C., & Coleman, P. K. (2006). Sleep disorders associated with abortion and childbirth: A prospective record-based study Sleep, 29, 105-106.
Colman, P. K. 2005. Induced Abortion and increased risk of substance use: A review of the evidence. Current Women's Health Reviews 1, 21-34. Invite paper for inaugural issue.
Colman, P.K., Maxey, D.C., Coyle, C., & Rue, V. 2005. Associations between voluntary and involentary forms of perinatal loss and child maltreatment among low income, single mothes. Acta Paediatrica, 94.
Coleman, P. K.., Reardon, D.C., & Lee, M.B. (in Press). Women's preferences for information and ratings of the seriousness of complications reltaed to elective medial procedures. Journel of Medical Ethics.
Coleman, P.K. (in press). Resolution of unwated pregnancy during adolescence: Predictors and consequences. Journel of Youth and Adolescence.
Coleman, P. K., Reardon, D. C., & Cougle, J. (2005). Substance use among pregnant women in the context of previous reproductive loss and desire for current pregnancy. British Journal of Health Psycholog, 10, 255-268.
Cougle, J., Reardon, D. C., & Coleman, P. K. (2005). Generalized anxiety associated with unintended pregnancy: A cohort study of the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 19, 137-142.
Coleman, P. K., Reardon, D. C., Strahan, T., & Cougle, J. (2005). The psychology of abortion: A review and suggestions for future research. Psychology and Health, 20, 237-271.
Reardon, D. C., & Coleman, P. K. (2004). Letter to the editor pertaining to a study published in AJOG by Gissler, Berg, Bouvier-Colle, and Buekens entitled "Pregnancy-associated mortality after birth, spontaneous abortion or induced abortion in Finland, 1987-2000." American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 191, 1506-1507.
Rue, V. M., Coleman, P. K., & Reardon, D. C. (2004). The context of elective abortion and traumatic stress: A comparison of U. S. and Russian Women. Medical Science Monitor, 10, SR5-16.
Reardon, D. C., Coleman, P. K., & Cougle, J. (2004). Substance use associated with prior history of abortion and unintended birth: A national cross sectional cohort study. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 26, 369-383.
Coleman, P.K. and Karraker, K.H. (2005). Parents’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Relation to Children’s Social Adjustment and Academic Success. In O.N. Saracho and B Spodek (Eds.) Contemporary Perspectives on Families Communities in Early Childhood Education and schhols for young children. Greenwich. CT: Information Age Publishing.
Karraker, K.H. and Coleman, P.K. Forthcoming. Child Effects on Parenting Dynamics. In T. Luster and L. Okagaki (Eds.) Parenting: An Ecological Perspective (2nd Ed.).
Neilsen, A., Coleman, P. K., Guinn, M., and Robb, C. (2004) Length of Institutionalization, Contact with Relatives, and Previous Hospitalizations as Predictors of Social and Emotional Behavior in Young Ugandan Orphans. Childhood: A Global Journal of Child Research.
Coleman, P. K. (2003). Perceptions of parent-child attachment, social self-efficacy, and peer relationships in middle childhood. Infant and Child Development, 12, 351-368.
Coleman, P.K. (2003). Reactive Attachment Disorder in the context of the Family: A review and call for further research. Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties, 8, 223-234
(unsigned...above is IronAlice Angel's contributrion??)
"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:
--
IronAngelAlice (
talk) 20:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Just as a reminder, here is what was in the NY Times article:
But, David Reardon continues to research the psychological effects of abortion, and he no longer makes beginner’s mistakes. He is said to have a doctorate in biomedical ethics from Pacific Western University, an unaccredited correspondence school, according to Chris Mooney, the author of “The Republican War on Science.” (Reardon did not respond to several requests to be interviewed.) According to his Web site, in 1988, Reardon founded the Elliot Institute, a research center in Springfield, Ill., which in 2005 had a $120,000 budget. He has recently teamed up with Priscilla Coleman, a professor of family and consumer studies at Bowling Green State University in Ohio, and published more than a dozen papers in peer-reviewed journals. Reardon and Coleman cull data from national surveys and state records in which unplanned pregnancy is not the focus of the data collection. Using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, Reardon found a higher risk of clinical depression in a group of married women who had abortions, and published the results in a 2002 article in The British Medical Journal; using California Medicaid records, he and Coleman found a higher risk of psychiatric hospital and clinic admissions among poor post-abortive women, which they reported in 2003 in The Canadian Medical Association Journal; two years later, using the National Survey of Family Growth, they found a higher risk of generalized anxiety disorder post-abortion and published their results in The Journal of Anxiety Disorders.
Nancy Russo, a psychology professor at Arizona State University and a veteran abortion researcher, spends much of her professional time refuting Reardon and Coleman’s results by retracing their steps through the vast data sets. Russo examined the analysis in the 2002 and 2005 articles and turned up methodological flaws in both. When she corrected for the errors, the higher rates of mental illness among women who had abortions disappeared. Russo published her findings on depression in The British Medical Journal last year; her article on anxiety disorders is under review. “Science eventually corrects itself, but it takes a while,” she says. “And you can feel people’s eyes glaze over when you talk about coding errors and omitted data sets.” Priscilla Coleman, for her part, says that research that concludes that abortion has negative effects is more scrutinized because it’s “so politically incorrect.” When researchers attack his findings, Reardon writes to the journals’ letters pages. “Even if pro-abortionists got five paragraphs explaining that abortion is safe and we got only one line saying it’s dangerous, the seed of doubt is planted,” he wrote in his book.
The A.P.A. has convened a new task force to review the more recent scientific literature about the effects of abortion; the panel will issue findings in 2008. Assuming the A.P.A. affirms the prevailing social-science research, the belief that abortion harms women may be hard to dislodge. Even if no solid evidence provides a causal link to increased rates of depression or other emotional problems, abortion is often a grim event. And for a minority of women, it is linked to lasting pain. You don’t have to be an anti-abortion advocate to feel sorrow over an abortion, or to be haunted about whether you did the right thing.
-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 21:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
This is an interview with her on NOW (with David Brancaccio) at http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/329.html:
HINOJOSA: David Reardon has not responded to our many emails and phone calls requesting an interview...however one of his frequent co-authors, Priscilla Coleman, a human development and family studies professor at Ohio's Bowling Green State University came to New York to talk about her research.
HINOJOSA: So you don't have a problem with the fact that David Reardon has a Ph.D. from an unaccredited university?
COLEMAN: It's—I don't have a problem with anything about David really, except for if, when we're working together, there's anything in the writing or the analysis that—that I don't agree with. I mean, I—all we do—we don't have discussions about pro-life issues. All we do is work on a paper together.
HINOJOSA: And you don't feel that your information—
COLEMAN: I know it—
HINOJOSA: —because you're so tied to David Reardon—
COLEMAN: I'm—
HINOJOSA: —is—is—
COLEMAN: —I'm not really tied to David Reardon. I've met him—
HINOJOSA: But you've published more than a dozen—
COLEMAN: Not that many—
HINOJOSA: —articles—
COLEMAN: —with him.
HINOJOSA: Well, actually, let's see. We have them right here.
COLEMAN: I don't think it's that many.
HINOJOSA: —the number of articles—that you have co-authored, and studies. One, two, three—we have 12 right here.
So when you have this level of collaboration with David Reardon—and—and people say, "Look, Priscilla Coleman is tied to the anti-abortion movement, we can't look at her science as being unbiased," you say?
COLEMAN: I handled the data, I analyzed it in a scrupulous way. We encouraged people to reanalyze our data.
And we've used—nationally representative samples, data that's been collected by other people—for other purposes that just happened to have the right variable repro—reproductive history and—various mental health outcomes.
And we're finding that—you know, approximately ten to 20 percent of women suffer severely from abortion.
HINOJOSA: Coleman and Reardon's articles have indeed appeared in peer reviewed journals, but that doesn't impress Nada Stotland.
DR. STOTLAND: This is another part of a deliberate effort. One of the—one of the parts of that effort is to accumulate as though you have more evidence if the stack of papers is higher rather than where are these people—people's papers being published? And, how good and how rigorous was the peer review?
HINOJOSA: This study by Coleman, Reardon and associates for instance appeared in the Canadian Medical Association Journal and concludes that low income women who abort are more likely to need psychiatric care later...and even through the Journal's editors defended the decision to publish the paper - they said it generated a barrage of letters.
Several came from scientists, claiming the study's poor methodology rendered the results less than credible.
So when you, Priscilla Coleman, read the kinds of criticisms that say that your methodology is flawed—
COLEMAN: Actually, they don't usually talk about my methodology. They usually talk about—my co-authors who have been involved in—some of them have been involved in the pro-life movement. And so it's—it's usually not specifics about our studies that they're criticizing.
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."
DR. STOTLAND: You might have an abortion 'cause you already have a substance abuse problem. Because you're already feeling suicidal about what's going on in your life. Because you have so many responsibilities and not nearly enough money, or time, or energy to fulfill those responsibilities.
You were raped or pressured or pushed. You were abandoned. All these things, okay? You can't compare someone in those circumstances with someone who says, "Oh, I can handle a baby." You know, "I can support a baby. I can love a baby. I can bring a baby into a safe home," et cetera. And then, say, "Oh, well. Let's follow the ones who had the abortions and let's follow the ones who had the babies and see who does better." Who's gonna do better?
All this talk about the good of women is in the service of trying to restrict access to abortion as a medical procedure. And, that's tragic.
-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 21:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Typing in all caps doesn't make your argument more factual ;) -- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 21:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
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, 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)
Does "disputed text" mean:
(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)
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)
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)
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)
There are two measures of a 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:
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)
Studies that may be of interest that are not presently included:
Article in popular media:
I'm going through all the sources, trying to verify that they support the article text. Many of them are difficult to verify.
Sbowers3 ( talk) 00:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)--
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.
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]
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:
-- Strider12 ( talk) 04:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
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:
Another paragraph of interest to this article
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)
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."
The first three sentences of the current intro bias the article from the get go.
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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:
This article needs a section on Project Rachel (and perhaps other, similar ministries, sponsored by Protestants). NCdave ( talk) 10:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
"Project Rachel" is mentioned already on the Crisis Pregnancy Center page.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 20:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
This section says,
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:
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)
I've inserted the entire sentence.-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 20:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
I removed the following:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
← 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:
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:
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)
The article currently says (rather prominently):
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)
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.
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:
In short:
-- IronAngelAlice ( talk) 23:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
RCP1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).