Talk:Abortion and mental health/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Biased Article?

This page appears to be biased against the concept of abortion trauma syndrome. Virtually nothing in support of the view is given. Furthermore, within "Category" it is listed under "Quackery", which is highly inflammatory and implies that those who believe in abortion trauma syndrome are practicing false medicine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.147.240.6 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 29 August 2005

I agree with the opinion by 160.147.240.6. Not only is this article POV, entirely against the syndrome, but it also fails to even define the subject adequately--it consists entirely of criticism and attempt to discredit. What exactly is being opposed is not described in any detail. The article should first define the syndrome, then criticism can follow, as well as support, without bias.

Darrowby 12:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is it doesn't formally exist. So, it isn't formally defined. It doesn't meet the Bradford Hill criteria for causality (strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experiment and analogy). Any case, I made an effort to make it more informative; many proponents of the condition use the term abortion trauma syndrome which, as Stotland observes, is a reference to PTSD. Nephron 07:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This article should be deleted as it is obviously fake and an attack on women's pro-choice rights. Delete... Delete... Delete... Delete... It's just anti-choice proppaganda. (?) There's realy no proof that it's true or even has any reason to be posted here.

Ilikefood 14:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it almost unbelievable that many of the contributors here don't consider that some cases of abortion might result in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Its a pretty violent act, both physically and emotionally - whether elective or not. PTSD is more likely to occur when the person is already emotionally unsupported (e.g. boyfriend/husband disappeared) or has had previous trauma which is unresolved (rape e.g.). Really, this "syndrome" is just a specific case of what is a well recognised spectrum of coping mechanisms which become pathological in some circumstances and end up as dissociative conditions. Dictostelium 17:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Religioustolerance.org

This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscience?

If PAS can be legitimately categorized as pseudoscience, why was a Surgeon General's report inconclusive? Pseudoscience is stuff like astrology and ESP and whatnot. Do you think they'd be inconclusive a metareview of studies would come up inconclusive on those? The fact is they just don't know whetehr PAS is real or not. That doesn't make it pseudoscience. --Hyphen5 16:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It fits into this category as there is no scientific evidence that it exists and is only used as anti-abortion propoganda. This is not an illness observed by the medical profession which lacks a diagnosis or explanation - it is a political term. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 17:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Really? Then why was the Surgeon General's metareview inconclusive? If we accept your premise, he should have totally repudiated PAS. Your hypothesis makes no sense. Come on now. --Hyphen5 17:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

How can it make sense to define a syndrome when there is no proof it exists or is even reported as such? Things like post traumatic stress and shell shock were observed by medical staff even if they were not understood for quite a long time. The only motivation for this disorder is political - without the emotive need to make a point if it existed at all it would be seen as a form of depression. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 17:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

No proof of it exists, but evidence of it does exist, otherwise the surgeon general's metareview wouldn't have been inconclusive. Until there is a conclusive debunking, our encyclopedia article about it cannot label it pseudoscience. --Hyphen5 21:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough with the NPOV - if I'm in a minority that doesn't like to see political debates dressed up as science (even when there is none) then I won't revert your change. My only motivation is to be accurate and not to try to make point using unproven syndromes. I'm pro choice even though it would never be an option for me personally but I have friends who have felt nothing but relief after abortions which were the right decision for them. I'll wait to see what other comments are made. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 18:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly a political, religious issue. The lack of evidence clearly allows this to be categorized as pseudoscience. "Evidence" can be presented for anything. However, this evidence must be correlated with what it is meant to prove otherwise the evidence can be dismissed as mere coincidence, speculation or fabrication. Joelito 04:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is not an appropriate description and seems simply a POV pejorative, and that's an abuse of categories. See Wikipedia entry for pseudoscience to understand why this is not appropriate. The symptoms described with this condition have been the subject of studies and articles which should be scientifically verifiable. Pseudoscience would rely on nonstandard methods. Conclusions or labels being controversial is not the same thing. That some people have anxieties and stresses after abortion is well enough established, but interpretation and conclusions are controversial and subject to weaknesses in approach as well as to bias and political motivations for or against. So, besides whether the research is correct, the question is whether this qualifies as a condition in itself or not or whether it should be considered existing condition(s). That can be debated by the mental health community. PTSD itself was not added to DSM until 1980 according to Wikipedia. The DSM is not a one-time, complete entity, so current inclusion or not reflects current knowledge and consensus and is not necessarily damning evidence against a condition. Darrowby 11:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Alienus' talk page.

== In regard to [[Post-abortion syndrome]] == Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Hyphen5 14:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Quackery relates to purported health benefits but pseudoscience does seem to fit as it is phrased as a scientific debate without the science to back it up. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 15:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

A genuine content dispute is not vandalism, so Hyphen's overall charges are not merely false, but dishonest. As for whether quackery and pseudoscience fit, let's take them one at a time. I agree with Sophia and with Pro about PAS being pseudoscience, as it has no scientific basis or merit. It's essentially a political claim that's treated as if it were medically sound. As for quackery, I understand that Sophia sees the word in terms of purported health benefits, but it's also a bit broader than that. Quacks are masters of fake problems, not just fake solutions. In fact, the definition of quack is "a fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill", and anyone claiming PAS to be true is engaging in this.

Hyphen, for these reasons, I'll be reverting your attempt to whitewash this article. Let's not pretend for a moment that your support for PAS is in any way independent of your support for the pro-life stance. Essentially, PAS is the pseudo-medical excuse to attack reproductive rights, claiming that any regrets a woman might have about having gotten pregnant and needing an abortion somehow constitute a psychiatric illness. In a word, it's bullshit, but we don't have a category for that, so we'll have to use these other two. Any bad-faith attempts to censor these facts will be treated harshly. Alienus 20:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Your addition of the "Quackery" and "Pseudoscience" categories is vandalism, and I will continue to revert it and to cite you for adding them. Even if this article were merely about a vacuous political term, it still wouldn't fit under "quackery". The fact that the article quotes the SURGEON GENERAL taking PAS seriously -- albeit inconclusively -- means that this does not fit under "Pseudoscience" either. Again, Alienus, this is an encyclopedia, and you can't use it to push your opinions. --Hyphen5 21:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to exclude this article from the psuedoscience and quackery categories, you're going to need to come up with reliable sources to support your claims. Otherwise, I dismiss your original and unqualified research as utterly worthless. Alienus 05:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not my research, it's the surgeon general's. Read the article. --Hyphen5 10:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is pure pseudoscientific propaganda...

Proof: I've consulted many medical relatives of mind and medical friends of relatives all over Italy. They have never heard of such a phenomenon. Can such a medical condition exist only in the United States? If it follows abortions, one would think that it must be universal. But is not. QED. This page should be deleted. Thank you very much.--Lacatosias 09:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there are lots of medical things that occur in the USA only - see PBA. I'm inclined to agree even with the quackery category too when looked at in the way Alienus does. Deletion of the article would be better as even if it existed it's really a form of depression or post traumatic stress syndrome. However without a medical definition or recognition it should not be given the authority of it's own article. How do we go about getting it deleted? Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 10:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, after having reviewed the comments on the previous AFD, it doesn't look look there is much chance of convincing enough people to get it deleted.

The article will have to stay, but the answer to the question of wether it belongs in the category pseudoscience is rather obvious, as far as I'm concerned. BTW, the Surgeon General is a political appointee and hence subject to powerful political influences. An SG appointed by a Republican admin is obviously not going to rule out the possibility of such a disease for fear of being fired and then having his family annilitated in a suicide-bombing terrorist attack by Christian fundies. BTW, is there a separate artcile on the terrorism that women who attend abprtions clinics experience in the US: abortion-related terrorism would be a truly informative article.--Lacatosias 10:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You people are unbelievable. You're not trying to edit an encyclopedia; by your own admission you're trying to push your own POV. Go do that somewhere else. --Hyphen5 10:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You haven't responded to this:

Proof: I've consulted many medical relatives of mind and medical friends of relatives all over Italy. They have never heard of such a phenomenon. Can such a medical condition exist only in the United States? If it follows abortions, one would think that it must necessarily be universal. But is not. Therefore, it doesn't exist. QED.--Lacatosias 11:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research. Also, relying on your word that you spoke to some people in Italy is harly proof of anything. If a U.S. surgeon general took PAS seriously enough to do a metareview and came up inconclusive, this article is noteable enough for Wikipedia. We have enough warnings throughout the article that this is unproven. Why do we need Category:Quackery and Category:Pseudoscience? That's overkill, and highly suggestive of POV. --Hyphen5 11:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a notable reference that this is quackery and pseudoscience? --WikiCats 11:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Since this syndrome is not recognized/described by any medical/psycological/scientific organization it clearly qualifies as pseudoscience. That's all the proof needed. Joelito 12:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to twist this argument around. I've been dealing with you fundies for about thirty years and I an extremely familiar with your rhetorical sleights of hand. Do YOU have ANY single shred of evidence that it is a real medical condition? If there is NO such evidence, what distinguishes it from other falsely claimed phenomena, such as the predictions of astrology, the predictions of Nostradamus, withcraft, voodoo, homeopathy and other pseudoscentific claims? More importantly, let's use a commonly accepted variation on Popper's criterion as a extremely valuable heuristic for the demarcation of phenomena into scientific and pseudosceintific: is the hypothesis of the existence of this illness (reality of a certain phenoneomen) falsifiable even in principle? What would you accept as proof that such a phenenomen does not exist? The overwhelming consensus of the psychiatric and psychological community? Apparently not, or we wouldn't even be discussing this nonsense and this page would immediately be deleted. You admit that the consensus is overwhelmingly against and yet you continue to insist that it may exist. The hypothesis is therefore unfalsiable by consensus of the community of medical and scientific experts. Since I can think of no other criterion for the existence of a psychiatric phenomenon except the recognition and classification of the disease as a disease by the consensus of the relevant scientific community, I can only conlude that the hypothesis is fundamentally unfalsifiable. If it is unfalsifable, it is pseudoscience. --Lacatosias 12:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If this is not defined by the medical community as science and yet proponents of the syndrome insist on couching it in scientific terms it becomes pseudoscience. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 13:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's an historical analogy which may help to clarify things. L. Ron Hubbard once claimed that Dianetics (scientology nowadays) was the modern science of mental health. Many people agreed with him. The vast majority of mental health professionals, of course, did not. Well, old L.Ron was clever enough to eventually realize that he could do better off finanically and get tax-protection, etc.. by claiming religious status instead. But, the point is, during the period in which Ronnie was claining scientific status, it was an extremely controverisal question wthere Dianets should be classified as a psyhcological theory or not. You could always find a minority of people with a P.h.D in psych. or medicine who had been converted over to Ron's POV and defended his claim to scientificity. The majority of scientists either ignored the phenomeneon because they didn't want to call serious attention' to it or got into endless and useless discussion with dogmatsist who only benefisted by getting to sit alongsied Dr. So and So discussion wether this was a real psyhcology. The tactic that all pseudo-sceintists use is to claim that Dr. So and So discussed the issuse in the Jama, therefore it nust be legitimate. So, or the real scientist, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. If you ignore it..well, all of these unbeleibavle claims go without rebuttal and that's to the benefit of the phony. If you respond, then the

phony wins becasue he will claim that his position is being taken seriously. The only thing we can really rely on is the fact that this thing is not being recognized as proof that most real scientist don't want to lend it legitimacy by attacking it. SG Koop was forced to do address it and said "I don't want to be fired! I don't know anything about it". --Lacatosias 13:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is evidence that PAS is scientific. That's why the Surgeon General of the United States did a metareview of the data that was inconclusive. (You give more credit to Ms. Magazine than you do to the Surgeon General.) The matter is simply unclear as a scientific matter. We say that in the article. So what's the problem? Why do you need to add a pseudoscience tag? --Hyphen5 17:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a notable reference that this condition is pseudoscience? WP:VERIFY

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

--WikiCats 13:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Surely the question is - is there any evidence that this is science? Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 13:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Pseudosciences do not have to be verified, since by definition they are unsupported by scientific research. Sciences, on the other hand, must be verifiable. Anything that cannot be verified by scientific standards and is claimed as science is a pseudoscience. Joelito 13:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You have to provide a notable reference. "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." --WikiCats 14:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Here you go [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16109]. Read. That was a mistake. Joelito 14:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

::Oh my, he's down on the mat and the standing eigth count has begun. That was powerhouse left, ladies and geneltmen, he's disoriented and cannot ditinguidh his fingers from the ropes.--Lacatosias 14:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That article is about PAS - parental alienation syndrome not post-abortion syndrome. There is no mention of abortion or pseudoscience in the article. You may like to put it in Parental alienation syndrome. Try again. --WikiCats 14:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I say we change that one too and also homeopathy - anything that pretends to be science and then ignores scientific reviews that debunk it automatically become pseudoscience just by the definition of the word itself. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 14:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You are guilty of the very thing you accuse PAS of. You're ignoring scientific reviews (not just reviews, metareviews) that failed to conclude that PAS was not a real phenomenon. --Hyphen5 17:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I've got every faith that you guys are going to find something. Stick at it. --WikiCats 14:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'll find it, alright. If it takes me days' weeks, months or years. If I have to move bcak to the United Satets, I'll find the f**ing thing! And after I've found it, I'll stick it right up your -.......--Lacatosias 15:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC) WP:NPA--WikiCats 15:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you beleive that homeopathy is a science?--Lacatosias 14:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

To reconcile both sides I leave this article. Even though it has some bias I believe it's a good read for both sides of the argument. [1] Joelito 15:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Good read but not relevant --WikiCats 15:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me help you here. Try this [2] --WikiCats 15:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Articles [3] and American Psychological Association. "APA research review finds no evidence of 'post-abortion syndrome' but research studies on psychological effects of abortion inconclusive." Press release, January 18, 1989 and [4]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelr31 (talk • contribs)

You're citing material from the "Pro-Choice Forum" and the National Abortion Federation as if it were scientifically authoritative? While simultaneously dismissing a metareview of scientific studies by the Surgeon General of the United States? This is getting ridiculous. --Hyphen5 17:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am also citing the APA which is authoritative. Also the links I cited provide references to their claims. Joelito 17:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It might help if these people understood that "inconclusive" is a polite, scientific way to say "there is absolutely no reason to believe this". When it comes to a hypothesis, the burden of proof is on whoever claims it's true. Failure to support this claim makes the hypothesis worthless. Alienus 17:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You are employing the word "inconclusive" to mean "conclusively proven that PAS does not exist". But "inconclusive" means that there is no proof either way, and there is probably not a preponderance of evidence, either. But there is evidence on both sides; that's why you say inconclusive and not "wrong" or "case closed" or "QED" or "pseudoscience" or "quackery". --Hyphen5 19:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Inconclusive" means that the conclusion that PAS exists cannot be supported by the evidence. I'm sorry if you have no grasp of scientific terminology, but you're going to have to back down on this one because you are demonstrably wrong. Alienus 19:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If you could cite something to that effect, I would maybe believe you. But, again, you're claiming that "inconclusive" really means "conclusive". Which is absurd on its face. Our article quotes the SG as saying, "It was not possible, however, to reach any conclusions about the health effects of abortion." That doesn't sound like he concluded that were were no health effects; that sounds like he could not make a conclusion one way or another. --Hyphen5 20:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Now we need to prove that things do not exist? We only need to prove that something exists. There is no need to establish cause and effect for things that do not exist. Joelito 20:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Joel, that's not what I'm saying. The reason this article exists is because people claim that PAS exists. You cannot label PAS pseudoscience when the science is inconclusive about it. We cast enough doubt on the validity of PAS in the text of the article. Why are you not satisfied with that? --Hyphen5 20:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If PAS is a real condition recognised by the medical profession there will exist a list of symptoms and a treatment guide. Since these have not been quoted there is no proof this syndrome exists. People claim lots of things - alien abduction, UFOs etc but this doesn't make them science. Maybe we need a new category for "political terminology dressed up as science to further a particular POV" - I can think of a few articles I would class in that one. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 20:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Sophia: exactly. There is no proof; there is only evidence. So you can't claim that it's quackery (which is inherently POV) and pseudoscience, when scientific metareviews are inconclusive. The actual article is like 90% warning that this is not a recognized condition and only 10% explanation of what PAS supposedly is. What more could you want? --Hyphen5 22:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Quakery is simply not applicable here as a concept cannot be a "pretender". If the term is broader, perhaps; but OTOH this concept is a bit more debatable than Psychic surgery given it deals with psychological issues. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of compromise, let's put aside quackery for now and stick to pseudoscience. Alienus 01:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with pseudoscience. When people start asking you to prove something doesn't exist you know they are on a loser as this isn't how science work. To quote as evidence some self selecting samples is a complete misunderstanding of how the scientific process work. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 08:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus in favor of adding Category:Pseudoscience. As WikiCats notes below, you have failed to make a case based on Wikipedia policies that this category is necessary or justified. In fact, it is pure POV, and this article has a MASSIVE POV problem. NPOV is a nonnegotiable policy of this encyclopedia. --Hyphen5 15:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What is non-negotiable is if there is no competent scientific person and/or study that can verify the possible existance of this syndrome; then consideration of pseudoscience is entirely appropriate and non-negotiable. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 21:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Quackery and Pseudoscience (cont.)

I would consider I had won this debate if someone could come up with a notable reference that Post-abortion traumatic stress syndrome is quackery and pseudoscience. We might even write a section on it. Please try hard. --WikiCats 00:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It is 23 hours since the first request for a notable reference that post-abortion syndrome is quackery and pseudoscience. Numerous editors have searched but no relevant reference has been found.

The guidelines state that information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. This is an official policy of Wikipedia.

Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed by any editor.

The proposal to include this article in Category: Pseudoscience and Category: Quackery has been defeated by the guidelines. --WikiCats 12:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Something needs to be done about this article. --Hyphen5 15:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A search on the AMA website [5] returned absolutely no hits at all. Proponents of the syndrome will always find a factual article to be NPOV in their opinion as there is no science to back it up so it will be given no credibility. If it's not science (the AMA doesn't acknowledge it as such) and it's pretending to be science that makes it pseudoscience QED. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 22:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that those supporting the pseudoscience category are relying on a negative form of proof - lacking any evidence that it's science, let's call it pseudoscience. I don't think that flies. That last step in Sophia's "proof" above is a small piece of original research. The assertion that PAS is pseudoscience needs positive verification, it seems to me. That means some scientist actually calling it "pseudoscience" or something equivalent in print. Simply calling it "unverifiable" may be a euphemism for "hogwash" (since we all know that it's impossible to prove a negative - a study can't show that something doesn't exist, merely that we've failed to detect it with that study), but we aren't the ones to draw that conclusion. All IMHO, of course. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

GTB, I see your providing both sides of the case. I'm going to provide a case for calling is pseuoscience. I think it should be called quackery too, because it gets so heavily promoted as an actual illness, potentially allowing those lacking integrity to take money to "fix" it. Consider the following: A pregnancy consulting clinic tells someone they have HIV-C even though the tests some back negative for HIV. They say it's HIV-Contro, the controversial type of HIV. Which isn't HIV, but they call it HIV-C, because it makes it sound like a doctor actually recognizes it, even though no doctor actually does. So, should we add HIV-C to Wikipedia along with every other controversial, hypothetical illness that has been tested and proven to have no verifiable effect (i.e., inconlusive results)?--Pro-Lick 05:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a solid point; regarding it being promoted and people trying to fix it. As I understand negative feelings a woman has are often real; and it is a matter of shifting the cause of that to her abortion. The thing is its possible, even likely a part of those negative emotions do have to do with the abortion. I'd agree its quakery if how they go about treating her is a significant departure from treatment for those negative emotions. I'm trying to think out loud if shifting the blame is enough to call it quakery; or if their treatment has to be wrong too. I mean after treating any possible issues that surround the abortion; do they also try to; or end up fixing other longstanding issues. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The article has been reverted with this statement:- "This is settled. Move along now." Could you please explain how there has been agreement (or that we should ignore the guidelines)? --WikiCats 07:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Defining the syndrome; recognize too many recognized

You can't thoroughly debunk something prior to a good faith attempt at defining it. That is bad style; I was reverted by Nephron because "they mess-up the refs". Eh? Then fix the refs! Hopefully those more involved in the article can sort it out. Also three variants of "recognize" in the article is repetitive. I'd recommend merging the "Since the syndrome" and "The medical community" paragraphs into one; making the article shorter and with one fewer "not recognized" mentions. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the definition has to be at the beginning. Look at AIDS, Nutcracker syndrome and Irritable bowel syndrome -- the signs and symptoms are a little ways from the beginning in those. Any case, it isn't about debunking something per se-- 'cause PAS doesn't have a formal definition and the causality, in the medical sense[6], of mental health sequelae are not established to arise from a therapeutic abortion (NOTE -- association is not sufficient to est. causality). Also, as far as I know, unlike homosexuality (which was defined as pathological in a past DSM), PAS was never defined formally as a medical condition. Any case, as opposed to "debunking" some definition that doesn't really exist-- I think it would be more appropriate to write something about how causality is established. Nephron  T|C 03:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps debunking was an incorrect word; but your examples illustrate my point. They provide simple summary definitions of the concepts ASAP, for nutcracker: "is compression of the left renal vein between the abdominal aorta (AA) and superior mesenteric artery (SMA)". I am relatively unconcerned at this moment about the editorial direction the article will take, causality or whatever, but the notion the article subject should be defined prior to going into causality or the overview of the evidence is a no brainer. Causality of what? Overview of the evidence for what? Define it (as best you can, or how the advocates define it); then all else can follow... including the no doubt illuminating fact there is no medical definition. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

RoyBoy wrote:

They provide simple summary definitions of the concepts ASAP, for nutcracker: "is compression of the left renal vein between the abdominal aorta (AA) and superior mesenteric artery (SMA)".

The above is just a re-wording of the name --renal vein entrapment is a compression of the kidney's vein. It could be considered a summary definition. That said-- PAS has exactly that:

[PAS] is a controversial and unrecognized mental disorder that is alleged to afflict women following an elective abortion...

Nutcracker syndrome itself-- (a syndrome being a constellation of signs and symptoms) is described formally below that in a separate section. Nephron  T|C 22:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Granted, but I see "mental disorder" as conspicuously generic; the nutcracker is specific but still summarized. To put another way; I feel I understand what is being discussed after the first paragraph in your other examples. Here, not so much. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Now we have it called a condition, even more ambiguous. Not terribly informative. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and this article

This article has a huge and obvious NPOV problem. None of this article has been written in neutral prose.

The article have been written from one particular stand point. Points of view that are expressed in the references have not been included in the article.

An experienced editor knows that you can not write an article that only supports one point of view. So I really don’t understand how this article come to be written in this manner.

NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". WP:NPOV --WikiCats 13:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. So do me a favor and google: "post-abortion syndrome" pseudoscience

You'll find pages and pages of mention. Now, remember that "Categories are a guide to readers to assist them in finding information. They are not part of an article and need not reflect established fact."

Clearly, regardless of whether PAS is indeed pseudoscience (and there's absolutely no evidence that suggests otherwise), it is painfully obvious that a significant number of people consider it to be psuedoscience. Therefore, the category stays, and if you don't like it, you go. Alienus 02:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Great. Give us a reference of someone who says "post-abortion syndrome is pseudoscience". --WikiCats 11:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Alienus on the category. I also think the article is POV, bin in a different way. I think it's not clearly enough stated that we are talking about a pseudo-illness created by a political movement as a scare tactic and to support their campaign. If we really want to be NPOV, we should mention that and provide additional historical context. Another way to look at this, WikiCats, is to ask how any other general purpose encyclopedias treat it. Is it even mentioned? If so, how? Is it limited to being listed in a table of pseudosciences or fake illnesses? Is part of a discussion of politically motivated false alarms? I'd be interested in what you find along with the sources.--Pro-Lick 05:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to do that, you'll need some pretty strong citations, and even then we'd have to report it as the view of these reliable sources, without necessarily endorsing it as truth. Alienus 05:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

In my searches I did find some authoritative sources calling the Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis psuedoscience so I 'm going to go there now and change that category as we should be consistent. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 09:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

List the sources then:

• explain why they are authoritative
• explain how this means ABC doesn't have a specific scientific definition that more than a few scientists (most pro-life, some pro-choice) believe is valid
• explain how studies indicating a link evaporate or can be suddenly deemed "pseudoscience" themselves

Suffice it to say, I saw this coming a nautical mile away. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

The opposing side of the debate has quoted Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing with this decision "Categories are a guide to readers to assist them in finding information. They are not part of an article and need not reflect established fact." (Passed 6-2)

As a compromise for the sake of consensus this side proposes that Category:Pseudoscience be included in the article along with Category:Anxiety disorders as a fair solution for everyone. --WikiCats 11:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I would be ok with that. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 11:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. See what the others say. --WikiCats 11:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it's not an anxiety disorder. It's not a disaorder. It's not an illness. It's one thing not to reflect established fact, another to go completely contrary to it.--Pro-Lick 15:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with Pro-Lick I think having both categories will help users find the info and will warn them that this is not accepted science. It may also stabilise what is becoming an edit war. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 16:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Categories don't need to be literally true, they just have to fit what people use to search for things. Even though PAS isn't an anxiety order because it doesn't exist, if it did then it would be considered one, so people might search for it using this category. Having said this, it now becomes particularly important to spell out the fact that the category doesn't fit, lest someone skim past the details and be misled. Alienus 16:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

If somebody wants to add the anxiety disorder category to it, I won't undo it.--Pro-Lick 16:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

And it's important to state that nobody has said the that post-abortion trauma is pseudoscience. --WikiCats 05:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarification (POV)

The two main points of view seem to be that one group thinks that some women experience trauma after an abortion and others believe that the condition does not exist.

Is that the what the main POV's are? --WikiCats 05:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really.

Obviously, some women find abortion traumatic, and some do not. That's a given. The issue is whether there is such a thing as post-abortion syndrome, which is supposed to be a psychological illness caused by having an abortion, something along the lines of PTSD. At this time, no such syndrome has been clinically defined, nor has there been any evidedence of its existence. Rather, it's a bit of psuedoscience invented as propaganda by the anti-choicers to scare women and justify laws that deprive them of their reproductive rights. Alienus 08:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of people who believe that post-abortion trauma exists.e.g.[7] or this[8] Is OK to include their POV. --WikiCats 10:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Lots of people believe all sorts of crazy things, but that doesn't make them true. That's why we stick to reliable sources when reporting the facts. One fact we can report is that people hold certain beliefs regardless of the evidence, but that's not an endorsement of the beliefs. Do you see the distinction? Alienus 14:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you opposing the inclusion of a POV? --WikiCats 14:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

They way I read it he's saying to include the POV carefully attributed to the source of that view is ok - what's not ok is to give the impression this syndrome is acknowledged medically or recognised more generally in any way other than by pro-life groups. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 16:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Odd, Sophia seems to have no trouble understanding what I'm saying, WikiCats, so why do you? Our job is to report POV's, not endorse them. The only thing we can endorse is what is true beyond genuine controversy. Alienus 17:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"The only thing we can endorse is what is true beyond genuine controversy." but the guidelines say: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." and "The (NPOV) policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one." Something that would be helpful in this case is the NPOV tutorial.

Does it take recognition by the United States Government of post-abortion psychosis before you would allow that other POV? --WikiCats 04:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a medical claim, so it must meet medical criteria. It has failed to do so and shows no indication that it ever will. Alienus 04:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"All significant points of view are presented"

Blocking more than one point of view is a serious matter for Wikipedia. Is that what you are doing? --WikiCats 08:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to honestly reflect what the believers in PAS think. NPOV also has a section regarding WP:NPOV#Undue_weight that applies. This is from the actual policy page, not the tutorial. I'm willing to have a section that describes the pro-PAS position on this as long as it's clearly marked as a non-medical, religious/political view. If you want to write something (or already have and it has since been removed), provide it here so we can go over how to place it in the article so that it does not receive undue weight.--Pro-Lick 16:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone say why the tag is on this page? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The tag is on the page because it is being reverted every time anyone attempts to include any other point of view. There is even an attempt to block US Government recognition of post-abortion trauma. --WikiCats 08:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, we all agree that scare tags add character to the article. Uh, wait, I mean, there were some complaints but it's not clear that anyone is still complaining. I'd support removing the tags. Alienus 07:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete

This may be a contoversial subject but people will have heard of it and may want to check out the facts. As long as it's factual and NPOV then it should be kept - I don't think it qualifies as a speedy delete. --Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 15:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not a speedy. If the article is POV, that's a reason to fix it, not to delete it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, who exactly is saying the article is POV? Alienus 17:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think he misread my post - I'm happy with no flags.--Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 17:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Changing what sources say

I've reverted to my last version because someone had added citation templates that create more work, and more importantly someone had changed the intro to reflect their own POV. The source said this is "frequently obversed"; someone changed that to observed in a "small" number of women. Don't change or elaborate on what the sources say, please. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Glad the flags are gone. Although I accept the changes I made to the first sentence weren't good I was trying to limit the authority given to that statement. From the abstract quoted all that seems to be confirmed is that 10 women had PTSD like symptoms and some had miscelaneous other problems. There was no mention of their mental health history prior to the abortion so without further corroboration it's a bit sweeping to effectively define this as a known, observed syndrome. I know this is qualified later on but this first sentence reads as if the issue is decided and we know that isn't so. Also I may have missed something obvious but I can't get any info when I follow up abstract 2 [9] Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 10:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

PAS vs Postpartum depression

Some studies have shown that the rapid drop in estrogen levels that occurs when a woman is no longer pregnant can cause depression; this applies to the drop after both abortion and live birth. Thus, so-called "post-abortion syndrome" is no different from the "postpartum depression" in this regard. Does anyone have more information about this? I was surprised not to see mention of it in the article. I'm looking for some sources, because I can't remember exactly where I heard this (though it does seem like common sense to a certain extent) but I thought maybe some of you would have some leads. Thanks, romarin[talk to her ] 01:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Studies

Here's one study that could be fit in: [10]

Also, it seems like a lot of this discussion page is a recurring theme of "this is not pseudoscience"--"yes it is unless there is any evidence"--"is not!"--"is so!"

Well, here's some evidence/research on the subject. And there are several other studies which I saw mentioned but couldn't find full text online yet. Read about pseudoscience to understand why that's not the issue here. (That word has a meaning and it's not something you can just say if you disagree with a conclusion or label, or if there is controversy. It depends on what methods are used.) The above study seems to use standard survey methods. That doesn't end the debate over whether PAS should be considered a separate condition in itself and what is the extent of trauma from abortion, but it should end the debate in this discussion page about pseudoscience. Hopefully. This article is still limited and I think that's because the construction has been motivated more by POV rather than presenting the topic for what it is. But it's improved some since last time I saw it. Darrowby 12:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

One study is not conclusive. Especially not when at least one of its authors is a member of the pro-life movement. [11] -Severa (!!!) 23:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I still think you may not understand about studies and pseudoscience. Of course one study is not conclusive, but that was not my point. There have been fairly few studies pro or con. The point is that the study was a survey using standard methods, and that indicates (read pseudoscience) that this is not pseudoscience. Understand the difference. Your bias against the author of the survey is known as ad-hominem. It's only relevant if his research methods are biased. Darrowby 00:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) Actually, it isn't known as ad hominem: it's known as WP:RS. Or, for the unintiated, a central Wikipedia guideline. I quote, from the section, "Evaluating sources:"

Also ask yourself: Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident...

Bias-checking runs both ways: pro-life Wikipedians were no less unsparing in their criticism of a JAMA study on fetal pain due to the association of its authors with Planned Parenthood.

And, for good measure, here's a quote from the Pseudoscience page (emphasis mine):

Critics of pseudoscience such as Richard Dawkins, Mario Bunge and Carl Sagan, consider almost all forms of pseudoscience to be harmful, whether or not they result in immediate harm to their followers. These critics generally consider that advocacy of pseudoscience may occur for a number of reasons, ranging from simple naïveté about the nature of science and the scientific method, to deliberate deception for financial or political benefit.

-Severa (!!!) 00:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro and Background

I've added a Background which can be expanded.

In the intro it says there is no clear definition of what PAS is, but I assume surely it was defined when proposed? It has a lot to do with PTSD--I even saw writing by Rue calling it a "type of" PTSD. Darrowby 12:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The Pseudoscience category is not de facto. It is used to label theories which many claim are pseudoscientific. Both obsolete, long-discredited theories, like phrenology, and modern theories which are held as factual by some and strongly disputed by others, like astrology and Scientology, are sorted into this category. -Severa (!!!) 15:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not merely about claims or disputes; it's not just socially determined, there's some objective definition and consideration to be used. Have you read the article about pseudoscience? See my posts above in Pseudoscience and Studies for more discussion. (BTW, this discussion section was about Intro and Background, not Pseudoscience.) You need to read what pseudoscience is and understand what is needed for that categorization--it's not merely subjective or social. It's completely inappropriate to use it here. I've linked to a study above, take a look at the study after looking at the article about pseudoscience. It doesn't matter whether you agree with conclusions or labels, only if the methods used are scientific or not. This is blind POV, it's important to separate rational consideration from whatever bias pro/con that you may have. Again, read about pseudoscience and see how a determination is made. This category is inappropriate and shouldn't stand. Darrowby 22:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Then be sure to fight the good fight at astrology, Scientology, Indigo children, and palmistry. There is no reason other than blind POV to single out one article as unworthy of categorization under "Pseudoscience." I've read The Demon-Haunted World so I understand well enough what pseudoscience is or might be. Have you? -Severa (!!!) 23:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Do not feel free to delete the Background section because you feel upset about pseudoscience discussion or because you consider a source inappropriate. The source was merely one of many that held a press release containing non-controversial data, the fact that Rue proposed the condition in 1981, which I've seen no information to the contrary anywhere, I think even pro-choice sources are available for that. We can perhaps find another source if that is the issue, although it seems a very POV bias against the source considering the plain factual information it was used to reference--I'm not sure if the source would be inappropriate considering that, and I will look into that, but in the meantime I'm restoring the info minus the source. The background section is standard in articles and should grow. The info is not even in question anywhere as far as I've seen. Restrain emotions and consider the article calmly, please.

About pseudoscience (and again, this section was about Background and Info) I still don't think you understand. There are criteria. Astrology, Scientology, Palmistry--all excellent examples that contrast and suggest to me that you still haven't read about the criteria. To summarize, it's about approach and methods. Not merely whether there is any controversy. Darrowby 00:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please consult WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, WP:RS, and WP:NPA. Claims should be backed by reliable, appropriate, neutral sources before they are added to Wikipedia articles. Inserting unsupported claims is called original research. Reverting a change multiple times is called edit-warring and may lead to violations of the Three-Revert Rule. -Severa (!!!) 01:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The basic background info (that Rue proposed PAS in 1981) is neither pro/con and completely non-controversial. (Did you read the material before deleting it?) The article should have background and this is the beginning. Well, suit yourself. I'll use a citation from the KC Star. If you revert again it will be without valid reason, so take care. Darrowby 02:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If you find Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to be ridiculous then why edit here? -Severa (!!!) 03:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You are trying to abuse Wikipedia's policies by claiming that your biased or unreasonable actions have been in line with them. That tactic shouldn't work. It's your attempts to vandalize the article because of irrational bias that I find ridiculous. The info in question is 0% controversial, Background section is standard for articles, and I have a newspaper source now. It's crazy to be so biased that this much effort is needed to add something factual and non-controversial to the article. I don't see how you fail to understand that the fact of when and by whom this condition was proposed is not controversial, POV, etc. I think you are trying (unsuccessfully) to cover up your bias and POV by claiming to be on the side of Wikipedia guidelines. That won't work with me, and hopefully it won't work with other people. This is a simple fact we are talkinga about. Let's move on, shall we? Darrowby 03:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) An op-ed piece in the Kansas City Star, which isn't even about P.A.S, is hardly a reliable source.

The only mention of P.A.S is thus:

"Vincent Rue has helped prepare Kline’s witnesses for the case. In 1981 he reported that he’d identified “post-abortion syndrome,” a stress-related ailment in women who’d had abortions. Major groups in the mental health field have placed little credence in Rue’s finding. He testifies often in abortion-related lawsuits."

This is taking Vincent Rue's personal claims at face value. It is hardly independent confirmation. What we would want would be historical documentation along the lines of the name of the paper and journal in which he first proposed this theory. -Severa (!!!) 03:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My edit summary for restoring the section might be a bit confusing because I clicked on the wrong link but with a view at the proper source [12] I don't see why it shouldn't be included. Chooserr 04:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Chooserr.

Severa: That is indeed the mention. My previous reference was primarily about PAS but you claimed it was a biased source, even though this basic piece of info should be in no way controversial. Of course, there should be original journal publication of his work, but it's hardly reasonable to require the original 1981 source or else delete everything. The info being cited in press releases and newspaper pieces (such as this one by member of the editorial board of KC Star, no less!) should not be something to debate at length. The man is fairly famous for proposing this condition. You doubt that, or consider it his personal claim? Obviously he claims the condition exists, he's testified to Congress, published studies, been cited by the pro-life movement. That he proposes the condition can hardly be doubted by anyone. That he has done studies can't either--I've even posted one here. Your actions here, repeatedly reverting this Background section and this factual piece of info, are irrational. I think hardly anyone--whether pro-choice or pro-life--would consider this a matter of contention or debate, because it has no bearing pro or con; it's simply info about who first proposed this condition and when. I fail to understand your opposition and hostility to the effort to start adding some basic background info. You are the one who is edit-warring and reverting, without any truly valid reason although you try to find excuses, and if you continue it will be reported. You seem pretty familiar with Wikipedia procedures and you may feel that you have some standing here, but that's no excuse or license to try to behave in this fashion, and I trust that the case is straightforward enough that your claims would not be vindicated. Darrowby 04:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I checked your editcount, Darrowby: 14. So, obviously, you're new. I'll keep WP:Don't Bite The Newcomers in mind, but, nonetheless, I'm going to recommend that you read WP:CIVIL. It is entirely reasonable to insist that users do their homework and produce reliable sources to support their claims. At best, unsupported claims are original research, at worst, sheer and utter laziness. -Severa (!!!) 05:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Are you really saying that is original research or laziness? You surely can't believe that. From the very first I included a reference, and so it's intellectually dishonest to claim that this could be original research. You might claim a problem with the source, but then you can't logically claim original research, or laziness either for that matter. You saw what I cited, and despite your attacks on the sources, you know very well that the info was taken from sources and not myself. That means you are lying in the paragraph above when you suggest this is original research, unsupported claims, or laziness. And you know you are. Well, great. I hope you're happy. Perhaps you've violated the 3-reverts rule by now? Darrowby 06:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Calm down. The issue at hand appears to be that an editorial does not qualify as a reliable source. Let's address this and avoid the squabbling, please. Al 06:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Alienus did you happen to read my edit summary of how it came out as the first source on google out of literally millions of results? Chooserr 06:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Your continued belligerence will not win you any friends here. An inappropriate source is as good as no source; no source makes a claim unsupported; an unsupported claim is basically original research. Sometimes the research of new Wikipedians is patchy, but, generally, they learn. This is why I suggested to you the sort of source which would be appropriate to support your claims. An editiorial piece does not support a historical fact. It only could be used to verify an opinion, as in:

"Barbara Shelly, op-ed columnist of the Kansas City Star, compared Kline’s actions to "swatting a mosquito with a wrecking ball. [13]"

Your reticence toward finding an appropriate source is what I term "laziness." I quote:

"Of course, there should be original journal publication of his work, but it's hardly reasonable to require the original 1981 source or else delete everything."

WP:RS and WP:V disagree. -Severa (!!!) 07:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Just as it was dishonest to suggest this was anything like original research when you knew otherwise, it's also dishonest to claim that I am reticent to find a source; you simply delete away two and then say this is lazy if I don't find another within a few hours? Ludicrous. I see that you did not challenge the source and remove the Background section until after we had debated about Pseudoscience. Hmm. I think you may have also violated the 3-reverts rule, while you were mistaken when you said that I would have violated it by reverting again--you didn't count correctly.

Anyway, I'll overlook your behavior and focus on the issue as Alienus said. BTW, primary sources are not required according to the guidelines, only secondary. In Google Books for "1981 vincent rue" I get two relevant book results, Abortion, Motherhood, and Mental Health; and How Claims Spread. Will either of those work for you? If so, then we have liftoff. Darrowby 08:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

We also need a reliable source for the assertion that no formal definition exists. This sourcing effort must be consistent. Darrowby 08:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I am reminding you of WP:CIVIL and asking you to calm down. The issue isn't secondary vs. primary but reliable vs. unreliable. An editorial is much less reliable than a regular article, so it's not a good source. As for the lack of a formal definition, I don't see how we can prove a lack. The absence of any evidence for a formal definition suffices. Al 08:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Let Me Remind Everyone - 556,000,000 results with CentreDaily.com at the top. This is hardly a non-notable source. Chooserr 08:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

And let me remind you that you are entirely missing the point. The periodical may well be notable, but an editorial is not a reliable source. Al 08:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The only part I see uncivil in my most recent post was "dishonest" which I see is off limits, and perhaps "ludicrous" which is probably discouraged. Oops. This was in return to "lazy" you'll remember, which is probably also discouraged and certainly unfair. I think we can just lay off with the adjectives on both sides. Besides that, I only offered facts and rational arguments, and disagreement or counter-arguments are fine, but they do not constitute any offense. This discussion page indicates there has been and will be a lot of debate.

It may be hard to prove a lack, but it seems fairly unlikely that a condition would be proposed without being clearly defined. However, we'll see. I don't like assuming without making sure. It is an assertion that the article is making. We need to be sure it's an accurate one.

BTW, you stay calm too there, Al. We may be working on this article together for a long time by the looks of things! :) Here's to that future! Hope it's a calm one.

This article used to be extremely biased (attacking the concept without even describing it, and I was one of those who called for improvements) but it's come a long way since then. However, it still needs more content and the bias is still not completely gone yet. I plan to see it with some decent background info (not just that one sentence that we're currently jumping through hoops to document, but a whole paragraph or two), and more main content besides the current section about who's likely to be affected. This is going to be a fairly good article, I think, even if it takes a while. The Pseudoscience issue will also receive further attention. (Still no arguments in favor of that category based on criteria.)

I also suggest that people recommed or discuss changes rather than doing a series of reverts. The guidelines say:

"It's always appropriate to ask other editors to produce their sources. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question, and any unsourced material may be removed by any editor. However, some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to find a source, particularly when the material is not obviously wrong, absurd, or harmful. Instead of removing such material immediately, editors are encouraged to move it to the talk page, or to place the 'fact' template after the disputed word or sentence, or to tag the article by adding 'not verified' or 'unsourced' at the top of the page."

My material was not unsourced, and although the source was challenged, the method of doing so does not seem in step with the guidelines.

If people act civilized and reasonable about edits or requests, I bet it will go a long way toward encouraging this calm that you desire. But beyond that, there will certainly be debate and one side shouldn't expect the other to shrink from it. Civil, yes. But also insisting on logical reasoning and lack of bias. I plan for this to be a fairly complete and NPOV article. Darrowby 10:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

An edit with an unreliable source is no better than an edit with no source at all. Al 19:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It will be restored in due time, rest assured. Darrowby 22:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience Criteria

Any arguments in favor of Pseudoscience category based on criteria given in pseudoscience article? So far there have been none. (See some discussions above.) Darrowby 22:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like science, and yet it's not. That makes it pseudoscience. Al 00:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Is that a serious attempt? Darrowby 00:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Severa, in your edit summary you stated that I was the only one opposing this category. That flies in the face of evidence on this discussion page. Tsk, tsk. :) Darrowby 00:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the objections you have raised within the past few days. Previous discussion aside, no one has agreed with your recent objections to the "Pseudoscience" category, which leaves me to believe that this issue is resolved. I have tried to even out any asymmetry, or bias, in the categorizations, by adding an additional one. It would be appreciated if you would desist with the edit-warring behavior and instead concentrate on discussion. -Severa (!!!) 00:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You always try to justify yourself, but it was an inaccurate statement, period. You also like to try to frame the other person in a bad light by throwing around terms like "edit-warring" when in fact your revert was justified with an inaccurate statement and therefore was not justified. You also try to imply that I'm not discussing when I started this discussion and turned it toward a serious consideration of criteria. Better to focus on the issue rather than tactics. This discussion page clearly shows no consensus on the matter. There has been no actual justification for this category and without justification, it shouldn't be here. Darrowby 00:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) Please consult WP:CIVIL. "Edit-warring" is a standard term on Wikipedia and is hardly antagonistic. Much more can be accomplished through discussion and cooperation than can be through such counterproductive behavior. Wikipedia is a community project, and it is much better to work with, rather than against, your fellow editors. There are a lot of opinions which need to be accommodated, including the view that P.A.S. is a genuine psychiatric condition, and the view that it is not supported by science (after all, it is listed in neither the DSM-IV-TR nor the ICD-10). Thus, including it in both categories is a feasible solution, as in this manner it avoids taking sides on the matter of the condition's factual legitimacy. -Severa (!!!) 01:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I know very well what edit-warring is. Your revert was justified with an inaccurate statement, as was the following revert. The facts are a matter of record as evidenced by this discussion page.

Please know I'm also familiar with civility, and have not been uncivil; I'd rather not have an implication made that I am. Also, please do not use condescending tone or try to word things so as make it appear as if you are with the spirit of Wikipedia and I am not. Those are tactics which I could just as easily use with you, but I don't, because it isn't right.

Let's return to the issue. This category is unsupported and I believe, inaccurate. There has been no consensus, and much debate over it including several on each side. I have consistently continued discussion, while you have reverted first without discussion and only discussed after the point was pressed. Your view is that including two categories is appropriate if they reflect two sides. I disagree. I'd rather have just Abortion than Pseudoscience and another category. There is no consensus yet, and no support for the category. And of everyone here I am the one most consistently discussing the merits of this category. Darrowby 02:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There is certainly no support to remove the category. You have jumped the gun and removed it, unilaterally, three times within the last 24 hours (1, 2, 3). I am not the only user to have reverted this change. Edit-warring is counterproductive, it impedes discussion, and creates a hostile, uncooperative environment. In other words, it is uncivil. I know you're new here, so perhaps you're still gettting the hang of editing on Wikipedia, but this is not how you get things done around here. -Severa (!!!) 02:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Severa, I hate to point out another inaccuracy on your point, but you keep saying things like "you're new here." I first got involved in the discussion of this article five months ago, and likewise, that was months before making an edit. As far as I can tell, your involvement in discussion of this article is quite recent. Would you be so kind as to please stop saying things like that, and also not try to word things in a condescending tone or trying to imply that I am not acting in the interests or spirit of Wikipedia? Thank you very much. Darrowby 02:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You've made a total of 18 edits throughout Wikipedia, which, to me, suggests inexperience, so it is hardly inaccurate to claim that you are new, regardless of how long ago you signed up. Wikipedia policy encourages patience and understanding towards those who are new. Please explain how, precisely, this is being "condescending." I'll admit that some of my early posts here were snarky, but, only in response to such comments as:

• "This is blind POV."
• "This is ridiculous."
• "Well, suit yourself. I'll use a citation from the KC Star. If you revert again it will be without valid reason, so take care."
• "You are trying to abuse Wikipedia's policies by claiming that your biased or unreasonable actions have been in line with them. That tactic shouldn't work. It's your attempts to vandalize the article because of irrational bias that I find ridiculous."
• "I think you are trying (unsuccessfully) to cover up your bias and POV by claiming to be on the side of Wikipedia guidelines. That won't work with me, and hopefully it won't work with other people."
• "That means you are lying in the paragraph above when you suggest this is original research, unsupported claims, or laziness. And you know you are. Well, great. I hope you're happy. Perhaps you've violated the 3-reverts rule by now?"

-Severa (!!!) 03:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You are newer to this article than myself. Welcome, Severa, to the Wikipedia article on Post-abortion sydrome. Darrowby 05:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding claims that "the surgeon general says it's inconclusive so it's not psuedoscience"-- while I'm still in the midst of searching for the actual report, I found this on religioustolerance.org: " Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, a famous opponent of abortion, was asked by President Reagan to study the health effects of induced abortions. He responded in a 1989-JAN-8 letter that he could not form a conclusion from the available data. A year later, Dr. Koop told representatives of some pro-life groups that the risk of significant emotional problems after an abortion was "miniscule"." also " The American Psychological Association conducted an 8 year study involving almost 5,295 women, starting in 1979. The women were interviewed each year until 1987. The researchers found that the best predictor of of the women's well-being during the study was their well-being at the start of the study. Whether they had had an abortion or not during the interval covered by the study did not seem to affect their mental health. Neither did their income level, job status, educational attainment, marital status, etc. In other words, they were unable to detect the existence of PAS."

Personally I'm of the opinion it's a label. I mean, homosexuality was once considered a mental illness. Looking at the list of common factors, I'd say, of course these women are depressed. They had an abortion, and for some reason now consider that to be murder of their own flesh and blood. That would depress anyone! If I were to have an abortion and dozens of people insulted me and harassed me about it, I'd be depressed as well. Frankly, IMO, it's not an illness but a political lobby. But my opinion isn't good enough to be considered a source, so take that with a grain of salt. Kuronue 02:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Al 03:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

To me it becomes pseudoscience when controlled studies fail to show any link and yet POV websites have whole articles about it as if it's fact and offering to sell women "cures". We teetered very close to "Quackery" as a category as well and if we are going to open all this up again we need to look at the whole picture. Sophia 08:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

For someone to claim you have some disease just so that they can offer to help you is quackery. This PAS thing is an imaginary disease of just this sort, and those claiming it exists are eager to offer counseling for the purpose of converting you to their brand of fundamentalist Christianity. If that ain't quackery, nothing is. Al 14:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My arguments probably won't make much difference right now, but just so that it's in the record here that someone disagrees and for lucid reasons, I'll summarize, briefly. Pseudoscience: no, doesn't fit criteria; for example, PAS studies use standard methods and can be verified (or not) without relying on something outside normal methods. (Whether conclusions correct or not, and I'm not venturing either way as to that; simply oppose bias pro/con this disputed condition.) Perhaps there is something like a loophole in that categories aren't considered part of article, but in reality it still reflects on content to the viewer, and anything included should be accurate, fitting criteria. Quackery: more of the same.

DSM: Dynamic, not static. PTSD itself was only added in 1980's after symptoms noted for a long time. Impossible to draw conclusions. Use of PAS and related words: used loosely in promotional/non-research use. Rue proposed as type of PTSD with similar set of criteria and several researchers have worked with that def, possibly other def's might be different and have different criteria. (I suppose no def could be "right" unless adopted and accepted more generally.) Studies: Correlation of treatment for psych problems after abortion vs after birth or no pregnancy. Certain % of women match PTSD or PTSD-like symptoms after abortion. Etc. And yes, I see your other studies not supporting. Inconclusive. My goals: see a neutral and fairly complete article. Darrowby 22:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

the lines of demarcation are not clear between "pseudoscience" and "popular psychology." but popular psychology is not a pejorative term--and pseudoscience is pejorative. i think categorizing PAS as pseudoscience is not only unnecessarily pejorative in a POV-pushing way, but that the categorization does not reflect other wiki categories for a comparable phenomenon. for example, astrology, Bigfoot, fortune telling, the Flat Earth Society, numerology, and ghost-hunting are categorized on wikipedia as psuedoscience. but empty nest syndrome, commitment phobia, survivor guilt, emotional intelligence, i'm ok-you're ok etc. are categorized as popular psychology. i think that popular psychology is a more appropriate category for PAS. PAS does not pertain to the occult or paranormal, but more to "self-help" pop psych. i am going to adjust the categorization from pseudo to pop. Cindery 03:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Rewording

Since this probably won't fit into an edit summary, my rationale for rewording this: "There is no agreement within the medical community as to whether these characteristics constitute a separate nosological category.<ref>...</ref>" into this
"Some medical researchers contest whether the syndrome really exists and should be defined as a nosological category. For example, a 1992 JAMA article characterizes the syndrome as a myth".<ref>...</ref>" I think the sentence is confusing and cause a reader to stumble because:

• 'these characteristics' and 'separate' (from what?) lack referents
• 'there is no agreement' is a diplomatic way of saying 'there is a debate/controversy'. By scientific standards of proof, nearly any research finding is tentative. Since cite is anything but diplomatic, a more accurate wording better characterizes the debate.

APA briefing paper

I would like to propose re-adding the sentence "Shortly thereafter, the APA removed its favorable summary of research on abortion that had previously been posted on their web site, but which is still available through web.archive.org.". Antonrojo recently deleted this sentence, because he/she thought it seemed to imply that the motivation behind the website info would have been political rather than scientific. However, I think it is relevant to this issue to note that the APA has removed its favorable position paper to be updated after Fergusson's study was published. Simply stating it doesn't imply whether the motivation was scientific or political. If Antonrojo thinks the sentence somehow implies a political motivation, we could change the wording, but I still believe the information should be included. What do you think? Mkaksone 19:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is significant enough development in the history of the psychological study of abortion impact to add. (I would also like to see Fergusson's quote regarding how little the psychological impact of abortion on women has been been studied added, as an NPOV conclusion to both quotes from fergusson/russo, at end of section). Cindery 12:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Support sites and forums

Are the links listed under "Post-abortion support sites & organizations" in the "External links" section in keeping with WP:EL? If not, would we have to remove all of the links, or only those which constituted "social networking sites" or "discussion forums?" -Severa (!!!) 12:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed most of them, for being POV. Most had an anti-abortion stance in general and some were also faith-based at the same time. Other sites (Like Project Voice) were neutral, but they seemed more like social networking sites and/or had more stories than information about PAS. I'm not sure if hotline sites should stay either. mirageinred 18:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Rename

I believe that along with cleanup, this article needs to be moved to "Mental health effects of abortion," to better cover all facets of the issue. This change in nomenclature will automatically open a fair and neutral opportunity. This would cover the alleged negative and positive effects, allow alternate explanations like estrogen level drops to get a fair shake, and discuss research, rather than setting up the conflict as one of presumptions, assumptions, and politics. Abortion likely has some effect, and the field of issues ought to be addressed.

An alternative method might also be to fork the article into one about the academic discussion of mental health effects generally, and one that discusses the syndrome, its history, support, and criticisms against it. The general one would be more inclusive, as i described above, and the second would be more exclusive.

I get a sense that this issue will become more prominent in the near future, and Wikipedia should be able to provide a decent resource about this highly contentious issue. The structure of the articles on climate change and global warming are similar to my proposal, where one is broadly general and the other covers the specific political and contentious issues. The real life issues of those article have a similar division, despite being in the same genus of subjects. I think it should be similar.

Respectfully, Donbas 16:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience?

On the subject of why Post-Abortion Syndrome cannot be proved: It is a philosophical fact that nothing can be proven true; it can only be proven false. The same is true in this matter.Capt Anonymous 04:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Starting paragraph

Are there any ways to shorten this? The manual of style recommends that it be two to three paragraphs long. mirageinred 22:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)