Talk:Gianna Jessen/Archive 1

2007-02-28 page rework

I (User:Drostie) made a major edit to this page on February 28th, 2007. This article was a bit afoul of WP:BLP, and way beneath any encyclopedic standards, with horrible citations and more total focus on Ted Harvey than on Gianna Jessen. I also removed a bit of material and a bunch of sources, because, as WP:BLP notes, biographical articles of living persons need to be held to high-quality reference and citation standards.

Text removed:

• Claim that Jessen testified before the US Congress in 1996 and 2000. A search of the Congressional Record did not yield her name in either of those two years; none of the sources that I could track down mentioned it; the only publications I could find that described the testimony on Google were poor reference sources (AFA, Spero News, etc.). In particular, the article contained an alarmingly specific quote that did not show up anywhere on Google. If this could be cited with a better source, feel free to put it back in.
• Claim that doctors told her mother she probably wouldn't be able to walk. It didn't fit well into the flow of the article, is all, and wasn't a particularly vital detail -- but it's confirmed in the Telegraph source.
• A bunch of the Planned Parenthood story. A lot of this section was about Ted Harvey, not Gianna -- including two fancrufty links to tedharvey.com and a transcription of a speech he supposedly made. (The speech is not Googlable in its present form -- no source cited, no real reason to keep it, so I don't plan on it.)

Sources removed:

• The Daily Mirror -- It's a frickin' tabloid. What next, alien reportings from the US tabloids, too?
• "The Pilot, Boston, May 2005." -- If Google serves, this is a local church newsletter? Poor source.
• A Roanoke Times article -- was apparently an editorial, not a news source, written against partial-birth abortion? Gianna was not partial-birth aborted, and editorials are not held to the same factual rigor as main articles.
• "Article by Elizabeth Day" link -- was a copy of the Telegraph.co.uk article, link now since defunct (but still viewable on archive.org, if you don't believe me). Removed because it was redundant.
• SaltShakers.org.au; Spero News -- If a news source is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article on it, then I'm hesitant to rely on it for biographical details. Let's stick with mainstream stuff.
• Long Beach Press-Telegram -- This source was a little advertising snippet for an upcoming talk Gianna was doing -- not a useful source for the article.

I hope nobody has a problem with my edits; if you do, feel free to leave me a message on my user talk page. If you're going to post here, then please put comments beneath this one; some people like to do line-by-line commentaries on everything someone else has said, and that will just make it really hard to read the discussion.

-- Drostie 09:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Forgiveness

"She has forgiven her birth mother for aborting her, despite that forgiveness being unwanted."

The second part of this statement is irrellevant. Forgiveness, as a concept, doesn't require the consent or invitation of the person being forgiven. If I "forgive" someone, it is a self-benefiting act, unless, of course, forgiveness is asked for. In that case, it is mutually beneficial. But forgiveness is not an act that requires mutuality.

It can be done as a self benefitting act, which is the idea behind the concept of forgiveness in some forms of Christianity - witness the Amish forgiving the school shooter last year in PA - it helped them to "heal". It can also be a self benefitting act from the other side. Someone who percieves him or herself responsible for an act that damaged another may seek forgiveness of the damaged person in order to alleviate guilt or depression over the act. But neither is required for the other to be legitimately present.

By using a logically unnecessary caveat to spitefully qualify a piece of legitimate fact, the article loses credibility and approaches non-neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.224.202 (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Forgiveness self-benifiting? Not primarily, no. But then again, it's the sort of thing (like Christianity) you wouldn't understand from the outside. Too bad for you, really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.43 (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

is there a citation for the birthmother (who has had contact, though minimal with Jessen)saying that she didn't desire her daughter's forgiveness? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.182.202 (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks this isn't an abortion, but rather an attempt at best?--207.191.211.248 (talk) 04:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Problems with Ms. Jessen's Story

There are two problems with Ms. Jessen's story. Except where the mother's life or health is in danger or in cases of grave fetal deformity, third trimester abortions are illegal in California. Please consult Section 123468 of the California Health and Safety Code and see for yourself. Here is a copy of the code.

123468. The performance of an abortion is unauthorized if either of the following is true:

(a) The person performing or assisting in performing the abortion is not a health care provider authorized to perform or assist in performing an abortion pursuant to Section 2253 of the Business and Professions Code.

(b) The abortion is performed on a viable fetus, and both of the following are established:

(1) In the good faith medical judgment of the physician, the fetus was viable.

(2) In the good faith medical judgment of the physician, continuation of the pregnancy posed no risk to life or health of thepregnant woman.

Second, according to WebMD's Article on Induction Abortion, doctors perform saline abortions in hospitals, NOT freestanding Planned Parenthood clinics. This is to protect the health of the mother because she needs to be monitored through labor and delivery.

Eileen H. Kramer ehkuhall7@tacheiru.every1.net

Eileen, thanks for your concern, and you raise some very interesting points. I'm not a lawyer, but I could see how "viable" isn't the most unambiguous of terms. From the code section, viability means that "in the good faith medical judgment of a physician, on the particular facts of the case before that physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus' sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures." According to this article, Jessen was more than a month premature, and while I don't know the technology in 1977, I have no idea if someone at that stage would have been considered viable -- much less what a doctor planning to perform an abortion would judge to be viable.

On your second point, the WebMD article is more about "what to expect" in today's world. While I'm too young to have been there, the political and social climate of 1977 leads me to think that getting an abortion then might have been a very different situation.

Now, don't take this to be dismissive of your points; I'm glad you brought them up, and my counterarguments, if you can even call them that, were simply to remind you and other editors that the situation isn't as cut-and-dried as it may sound. That's why I think we (the Wikipedia community) certainly need to investigate this further and confirm or refute her claims as much as we can. At the very least, we could add phrases like "According to Jessen,..." or "she asserts that..." to indicate that we can't verify anything beyond that.

She's got one hell of a story, no doubt -- now, can she back it up? I'm interested to find out more. Thanks again for raising the issue. --SuperNova |T|C| 06:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you have to say, SuperNova. I also know that I just hit the tip of the iceberg as far as research is concerned. Unfortunately, a lot of what we need to know to judge Ms. Jensen's claims is not going to be available on the net. There are two reasons for this. First, there are privacy issues. Ms. Jessen's birth mother is protected by doctor-patient confidentiality. By the way, I think that her side of the story might change things considerably. It is a lot easier to prove a threat to a mother's health then fetal viability. If she received a late term abortion because she was severely mentally or physically ill, then this was an abortion for health reasons, something that most people feel is justified.

Second, the 1970's and early 1980's is early enough to be preinternet and late enough for material to be copyrighted. That means it won't be getting on the net any time soon. Fortunately, there are still old medical and nursing textbooks available in libraries. These can give a snapshot of what the definition for viability from the late 1970's. They can also give a snapshot of what the protocols for a saline abortion were in 1977/78.

I thought I could find such books this morning, but unfortunately the library where I work has weeded its medical stacks. I have reciporical borrowing priviledges with other libraries in this city. Let me see what I can dig up.

By the way, there is one other loosely dangling point in Ms. Jessen's story. If her mother relinquished her at birth, why was she not adopted until four years of age, and how if the adoption was a closed one (common back in those days) did she obtain her medical records?

Eileen H. Kramer

It is not difficult for an adoptee to get their medical records, esecially if there are health issues. 98.199.212.25 (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Gianna Jessen Story -- Research

This is not a 1970's/early 1980's medical text but it does have references to material published back then. Here is the book from which I am quoting:

Knight, JW and Callahan JC 1989. Preventing birth: Contemporary methods and related moral controversies. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.

The following excerpt is reprinted in accordance with the Fair Use exemption of the US Copyright Law.

Intra-amniotic Infusion: The most widely employed second trimester technique (and th only abortion technique usable in the latter half of the second trimester) involves the direct infusion of some product into the amniotic cavity. Recall that the fetus develops in a fluid-filled environment -- the amniotic cavity (i.e., the space between the fetus and its surrounding placentla memberane, the amnion), which is filled with amniotic fluid. Intra-amniotic infuion cannot be readily utilized until about the sixteenth week of gestation since insufficient amniotic fluid is prent prior o that time. Like several other abortion procedures, a variety of terms can be found in the literature referring to this technique, including intra-amniotic instillation, amnionfusion, amnioninstillation, adn intra-amniotic injection. References is also often made to the particular product being infused, instilled, or injected (e.g. saline infusion. We shall first examine the general technique and then consider the solutions which can be successfully used for infusion.

From a medical perspective, the technique is extremely simple. After urinating to assure an empty bladder, the woman assumes a supine position and her abdomen is disinfected. Under local anesthetic, a large-gague needle is inserted through teh abdominal wall and the uterus and into the amniotic cavity. Up to this point, the procedure is identical to the comonlh performed diagnostic procedure of amniocentisis, which is often utilized to screen for various possible fetal chromosomal abnormalities and hereditary metabolic defects and to determine the sex of the fetus. In the abortion prcoedure, some of the amniotic fluid is aspirated with a syringe. The amount of amniotic fluid withdrawn depends uon the solution to be infused, as we shall see shortly. Many clinicians insert a Laminaria tent into the cervix at the time of amniocentisis to facilitate cervical dilation and to aid in the subsequent "delivery" of the fetus and placenta. Following infusion, the woman is simply returned ot her hospital bed to await the onset of labor inducd by the infusion. The extent of this wit is highly variable, usually ranging from twelve to forty-eight hours (Grimes et. al. 1980; Solane 1980) Also variable among women is the degree of pain which will accompany the expulsion of the fetus and other conceptus products. Since the delivery is toally analogous to childbirth, the ease with which it may be accomplished also vries among individuals. As in natural childbirth, the cervix diales and effaces, the uterus contracts, and the fetus and placenta are expelled. Appropriate drugs are sometimes given to aid in dilation of the cervix and the contraction of the uterus. In almost all cases, the fetus is dead at the time of delivery, death being caused by the product infused. p192

Here is more...

Hypertonic saline (in essence a very concentrated salt solution, usally 20 percent) is a h ighly toxic solution which must be used carefully since accidental placement into a blod vessel would seriously disrupt the woman's elecctrolyte balance and could cause cardiovascular collapse, killing her. This is just one reason why illegal abortions are so verydangerous. However, when used properly, hypertonic saline has been proven to be a rapid and reliable abortative. If it is to be used for infusion, 150-250ml of amniotic fluid is withdrawn following the placement of the needle into the amniotic cavity. Aspiration of the amniotic fluid also ensures that the needle has been properly placed (currect placement must be ascertained with one hundred percent accurancy before infusing the hypertonic saline) A volume of the saline solution equivalent to the volume of the amniotic fluid removed is then infused. Following saline inductin, fetal death (monitored by following the fetal heartbeat) usually occurs within one to three hours (Kovacs et al. 1970) Death or damage to the placenta also begins quite quickly, and decreased placental production of progesterone can be seen during the interval between infusion and onset of labor (Caspo, Sanvage, and Weist 1970) This is quite important, since the placental is the primary source of progresterone at this stage of gestation and a decline in progresterone production heops lead to the onset of parturition p192-193

And here is yet more...

In November of 1973, the FDA approved the use of prostaglandin F2α for second for second-trimester abortions. Since that time, prostaglandins have replaced hypertonic saline as the primary product utilized in the United States. The routine method of usage is to inject a single 40mb low volume (8ml) invusion into the amniotic cavity. Unliek saline infusion, only a small volume of amniotic fluid is asirated (,ainly to assure correct placement of needle) prior to introduction of the prostaglandin inufsion. Use of prostaglandin F2α in this manner was shown by Cates et. al. (1977) to be assocated with considerably lower mternal mortality rate than hypertonic saline infusion. Grimes et. al. (1980) conclude, however, that hypertonic saline infusion results in lower rates of hemorrrhage, infiection, and retained placental tissue than does prostglandin infusoin. An advantage of porstaglandin F2α is the shorter interval vbetween infusion and delivery. Disadvantages are that sometimes a single infusion is not sufficient to induce abortion i some women and a second infusion is required. Also, immediate short-term side effects (e.g. vomiting and diarrhea) are more common. because of the more powerful contractions directly induced by prostaglandin F2α the uterus tends to be more quickly and comletely emptied, but cerfical trauma is more likely. Of even grater concern to many are reports, such as that of Stroh and Hinman (1976) that the fetus is more likley to be delivered still showing some fleeting sings of life, since prostaglandins are consierably less feticidal than either hypertonic saline or hypertonic urea.

p194.

EHK ehkuhall7@tacheiru.every1.net

I am in *extreme agreement* that this article needs some fair criticism of how this woman has been used as a "poster child" for all abortion restrictions. I'm glad the link to the BBC article is there because it does enlighten the situation a bit. Most information out on the web that I have found has a very biased point of view about this woman's story, and do not point out that abortions of this type are extremely rare and are illegal in most states -- and that these state restrictions are in full conformance with the spirit and letter of *Roe*. Without any specific mention of these facts, this article does not present NPOV. IRing2s 03:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure if you were around when her mother was wanting to kill her unborn child you'd have made sure it was done correctly so Jessen wouldn't be around today to point out what abortion really is - the killing of an innocent human being. Thanks for clearing that up. Dwain 14:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Abortion's bad, mmm Kay? Abortion for birth control in week 34 is not the same as abortion to save the mother's life in week 1. Get over it. IRing2s 06:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

False dichotomy. An abortion to save the mother's life or for any other reason is not likely to happen in Week 1, since some time will pass before the woman even realizes she is pregnant.

In rare cases, abortion might be necessary to save a mother's physical health. In that case, the kid's rights might have to be weighed against those of the mother. That doesn't appear to have been the case here, however.76.21.8.213 (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I deleted this from "Early Life": "However, it's important to note that instillation abortions are only done from 16 to 24 weeks, and not electively past 24 weeks (Spencer 32-30) . Late term pregnancies are not legally done selectively, but only due to the health of the mother or fetus viability issues("Guttmacher Institute") . This means that the abortion obtained by Gianna's mother was an illegal procedure that was against doctor protocol. Spencer, Hope. "Abortion Clinics: an evaluation ." New York Magazine. July 24, 1972: 32-30. Print. "State Policies in Brief." Guttmacher Institute. Guttmacher institute, December 1,2010. Web. 1 Dec 2010. <http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PLTA.pdf>."

a) The abortion on her was performed in Southern California and the Spencer article only talks about NY. Roe v. Wade in 1977 did not specify any specific gestation time limits on elective abortion leaving the states to decide for themselves. California's limits were likely different from NY's at that time. Moreover, the Guttmacher page deals with abortion limits today... not 30+ years ago when there was less knowledge about viability, etc and different limits. b) What do abortion limits and the legality/illegality of the abortionists actions have to do with her early life? Nothing. Dkaplan73 (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Needs Sourcing

Claim of surviving abortion needs to be sourced. Current sourcing is not adequate (someone's personal tripod site and an interview by the BBC). She personally claims that there were witnesses and "It says on my records that I was born after a saline abortion..." but unless this can be verified by a reputable 3rd party source, this tag should stay up.--Isotope23 18:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

She testified under oath to Congress are you suggesting she's a liar because her medical records aren't being posted on the internet for your perusal? I guess that's exactly what you are suggesting. Dwain 23:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Jump to conclusions much Dwain? No, I'm saying that personal accounts of events that happened before a person was old enough to remember them are not really a good basis for a factual encyclopedic article... even when that person has testified under oath to Congress. For the record, I don't think she is a liar. That still doesn't change the fact though that there is no corroborating evidence of her claims. If someone can find an article about her that included accounts of the events by someone else who was there (she has mentioned witnesses) that would suffice. I've noticed that there are some additional sources posted right now. I'm going to look through them... perhaps there is some additional info in them that would constitute external corroboration of her account.--Isotope23 14:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is the story Gianna Jessen tells about herself being presented as factual here? It's an "origin story" which is highly improbable, and which has no verification. I'm aware that criticizing pro-life myths on Wikipedia always starts an edit war as pro-lifers don't like to have their lies documented as such... but is that sufficient reason to have this woman's story here as if it were factual, rather than (more accurately) her own self-story to "explain" her disabilities and her adoption at birth? 92.235.213.39 (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• I added some refs and removed the verify tag. Newsbank has 234 stories on Ms. Jessen so I could certainly add more. -- JJay 18:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not to star an edit war, but I'd like to look at the sources before I agree to have this tag removed. I will get to it this evening.--Isotope23 22:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
• Fine, take a look at those sources. However, you are close to starting an edit war. It is not our role to dispute what is taken as fact by every serious media outlet I looked at. If you do not agree, reread WP:V, particularly the section entitled Verifiability, not truth. If you have a source that provides an alternate version of Ms. Jessen's life story then add it to the article and revise the text accordingly. Until such time, your tag should be immediately removed. My opinion and your opinion on this does not matter. What does matter is the BBC and the other news sources cited here.-- JJay 22:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • After looking at the sources, I don't have any further objection... there are an adequate number of them to meet WP:V. I will say that it is rather a WP:DICK move to remove a tag without at least making an attempt to contact me and discussing it.--Isotope23 00:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• Sorry you feel that way, but my message above was posted two minutes after I removed the tag. I also didn't revert it when you put the tag back on the article. I also somewhat understand your objections. but if the whole world is taking Ms. Jessen seriously then we have to take her seriously and at her word, until we have a valid source that contradicts the article. That source may be out there, but I haven't found it. -- JJay 01:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

I would like to know what religious denomination Jessen belongs to... does anyone know? Could we have that posted on front page too. -Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.86.183 (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Birth Certificate

Her medical records are posted as a source, but the source is tagged as [Full citation needed][non-primary source needed]. What is the problem with the file? What else is needed to accept she is a survivor of saline abortion? A video of her birth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.46.146 (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

4.14.2012 Major Edit. This article is way below encyclopedic standards and meets the criteria for speedy deletion for G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. WP:NOTPROMOTION

I've edited this to at least provide information that this bio is based on unverifiable, nonencyclopedic information. I believe it meets the criteria for speedy deletion, as the subject, her claims, and he notoriety are based on unverified claims. Even the verifiable source articles are editorial or position pieces. This page simple promotes the Pro=Life View and is not relevant in any historical context yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmanoconnor (talk • contribs) 22:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... she is well known person that has been on several news channels, and is a well known activist throughout the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.210.213 (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --69.14.1.146 (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I was interested in reading about this person's story. She is a public figure, and just because she promotes a controversial viewpoint does not mean that she is not as relevant as a similiar public figure on the opposite side of the debate, some of whom undoubtedly have a wikipedia page devoted to them that does not have a big red box hinting that the person's life and work is illegitimate.

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... it's encyclopedic and includes comments causing the subject to be viewed from a negatively skewed viewpoint and in a negative light thus thoroughly nonpromotional --64.17.92.40 (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because...

I did not write this article or have anything to do with it before hand, but this deletion tag appears to be completely unwarranted and patently incorrect in its assertions.

• This article is factual and has four verifiable references to back up those points. It apparently had more prior to Drostie's removal of them.
• The article itself does not appear to be biased towards pro-life or pro-choice.
• It does give what appears to be an accurate account of someone who is pro-life
• It acknowledges that Gianna Jessen's story has no references, but that remains an accurate fact.
• Clearly, based on the talk page, there is ample content around the subject, and it deserves to continue to exist as a reference point for those seeking more about Ms. Jessen's story.

I get the sense that whoever tagged this for deletion, disagrees with Gianna's viewpoint and is attempting to censor information about her. I personally also disagree with Gianna's viewpoint, but I firmly believe in her right to have that differing viewpoint. And as long as this article meets the requirements for a Wikipedia biography entry then I believe it deserves to remain unmolested.

Also I think Drostie was heavy handed in removing references to existing links on the web. I think the rest of us are quite capable of coming to the same conclusions regarding the reliability of the sources, and can therefore read using appropriate grains of salt. We do not need Drostie as a pedantic filter on our behalf.

I move for the speedy deletion of the speedy deletion tag. Symbology101 (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Moving to AfD

So apparently the way I proposed deletion is incorrect, I acknowledge that and will add it to AfD today.

Also, I have to grant that the reason for speedy deletion was the most fitting of what could be chosen, again, probably not the best course of action.

However, I stand by the fact, that this article only meets notability without verifiable evidence. WP:NVRE She would never make it into any encyclopedia other than Wiki. I did not edit the page, because I disagree with her position, if she were simply listed as an abortion activist, then my argument for deletion would be significantly weakened. As the page currently exists, with the requests for citation that prove verifiability, and the statements about her abortion survivor story being an unsupported claim, I would still argue that those issues being present themselves would call for deletion an not Encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmanoconnor (talk • contribs) 14:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding POV,Too few opinions,BLP Sourcing issues tags

This still suffers from POV and Primary source issues. There are as many people on this talk page and in the two AfD's that have commented as such. If we are going to continue to present this story as fact, because she has only been the subject of mainstream media coverage about her story, without investigation,questioning,what many would call in-depth coverage. I think these issues still need to be tagged until they can be resolved.

WP:BLP issues:

WP:BLPSOURCES "Material Should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism" While some of the sources you added are from reputable news organizations, the actual source cited is a tabloid piece. The sources are "Primary sources" see WP:Primary. "Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on the context. A book by a military historian about the second world war MIGHT be a secondary source about the war,but if it includes details of the authors own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences.

WP:V issues: WP:SOURCES Again, simply being an online article or print article in the New York Times does not on it's own the criteria for reliable sources. We have to take into account the Creator of the work, the Publisher of the work, and the document/article/paper/book itself. In this case the articles themselves account for the majority of reliability issues, but there are a few which have issues with the Creator, or the Publisher as well. There is not a single academic,peer reviewed journal,textbook,or other top tier source for this article. THi also brings up issues with WP:QS. Also,an article about an abortion survivor, BECAUSE they are an abortion survivor is an exceptional claim. As stated in WP:EXCEPTIONAL, Exceptional claims require multiple high-qualityItalic text sources.

Newmanoconnor (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else agree with these assertions? If so, in view of the recent discussions (at AfD, User talk and BLP Noticeboard), please articulate your concerns clearly.  —SMALLJIM  10:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with both tags. Also, the statement above by Newman does not support the tags. It's mostly a vague reference to what others said and a generalized statement about policy. First, primary sources. There are 10 in the article, two are the NYT, one is the BBC, two are The Telegraph, one is a book, one is the Denver Post, one is the Age, one is The Daily Beast, one is The Blaze, and one is the text of an Australia act of Parliament. Only the last is a primary source. If Newman wishes, he can tag that specific cite. Newman has not identified any of the sources in this article as primary or explained why - again just vague allusions and an abstract example.

Second, the neutrality tag. Newman has said nothing to support this tag.

Although I don't want to, I'll leave the tag in place to permit a little more discussion, but unless there's more, I will remove it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the bit about the publication of the biography is primary too, since it's sourced to the book itself: citing a book review that confirms that it's about this person would, in theory, be better. But the primary source that you mention (that verifies extracts being read out in parliament) satisfies WP:PSTS since the article text is a "straightforward, descriptive statement of the facts" and the source is reliable.

Agree with you regarding the tagging. There are obviously plenty of people who keep an eye on this article, so unless some really strong arguments are advanced within a few days, the tags should go.  —SMALLJIM  16:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the refinements. I don't know about "a few days"; I'll reluctantly wait at least a day.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If no strong support materialises it would be good if Newmanoconnor removed the tags himself, as it would show that he's happy to accept consensus.  —SMALLJIM  17:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh, "happy" is probably not the right word. However, I understand your point. If after a day or so, nothing happens, before removing the tags, I'll put a TB on his Talk page and wait to see what he does. My assumption is he's watching this page, but perhaps not.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Gents, I'm watching. I also will remove the tags voluntarily or not object if one of you does, if you will give it a month or so. You may think that's too long , but considering how few editors and admins are here now, I certainly don't think a day is remotely sufficient, an AfD is 7, you know? I added the two current tags because the sourcing is obviously primary and unless someone does academic research, publishes a paper, an investigative report, something other than tabloid pieces and basically autobiographies, I think that tag should stand, perios. Though I'm still willing to stand by my tag removal stated previously.

I think the article has neutrality because as it stands , it makes no mention of the fact this claim is unverified, I've tried adding only that to the first intro and it gets deleted eventually without rationale. as SmallJim stated in the AfD, it doesn't matter if what she said was true, it's that she claims it that makes her notable, then compared it to a list of messianic claimants. Well no articles on messianic claimants describe such incidents as if they were unquestioned truth, at least not that I've found. Honestly I'd prefer that the disputed tag be the only tag, but left up until there is some sort of in depth coverage/research/investigation cited that confirms what she claims.

Obviously I think the article should be deleted, and I'm not the only one looking at the history of this article, jut like you are not alone in wanting it to stay. If it is going to stay,I think it needs to be tagged, until the issues, including ones you raised in your keep rationale are resolved. Otherwise it damages the credibility of Wikipedia. Most people expect truth when they come here. I would hope you would want that as well, above and beyond any personal beliefs you might have.Newmanoconnor (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you're watching, but nothing you've said justifies the retention of the tags. You seem to believe, just as you've always believed, her allegedly worthless claims (uninformed beliefs?) means the article is not neutral or not well-sourced. You've been told repeatedly you're wrong, but you persist. I'm in favor of removing the tags now, and it's only out of courtesy to you and to Smalljim's possibly softer remarks that I haven't done so. I'll wait at least one more day.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I can see you simply don't want to discuss this, the only conclusion I can come to is that you feel this strongly about immediately removing maintenance tags, because you are not being neutralwith regards to this article.

The way the article is currently written it makes no mention, other than 'according to Jessen' that the two UK articles are based on her story and nothing else, not to mention the biography. Maybe you are fine with Wikipedia propagating claims which cannot be verified without even stating that this is all based on a first person account, this at least in spirit makes them primary sources, and while we don' t decide notability based on truth, but verifiability, I certainly dispute the truth of the claims because there is no evidence to back them up. No academic research, no major news source other than a minor BBC website piece in a small subsection of their website and the same story , exactly, in the telegraph. yYou seriously have zero concerns about those sources, considering her extraordinary claim? doesn't that require high quality sources according to wikipedias guidelines?

If you want to simply remove the tags, do it, I'll add them back, we can play "avoid 3RR" until we are blue in the face. I'm not making the same argument over and over, I take to heart that the AfD closed as keep. I certainly won't be nominating it again.

I have not been repeatedly told I was wrong about anything other than NOTABILITY, and you two certainly aren't a overwhelming consensus on every opinion or assertion of your interpretation of policy. I've stated I would remove the tags myself, but they should remain up long enough to be seen by a wider audience than you two. Jim has provided links to the other discussions, what is your hurry?Newmanoconnor (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I don't want to discuss this, at least not anymore. There's no basis for the tags, and the discussion, thus far, has been pointless. Your conclusions about my motives are as ill-founded as the tags themselves. I'm not going to get into an edit war with you over tags, and it is unseemly of you to suggest it. Frankly, you're a very inexperienced editor. Maybe one day you'll be better at editing Wikipedia - I certainly hope so - but at the moment, you might want to defer to those who are significantly more experienced than you. At AfD, it was much more than a notability issue - you made the same kinds of irrelevant comments you've made here, and others attempted to explain it to you. I haven't changed my mind on this. Smalljim may chime in again, but unless something changes, the tags will be removed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I've gone back and re-read the sources - always a good thing to do in this type of discussion. I see that the BBC, The Age, and to some extent the Telegraph include significant quotes from Jessen herself about her birth, with The Age going so far as to put "abortion survivor" in quotes and stating "On her website she says she was aborted...". This does appear to indicate the expression of an element of doubt by these sources.

To reflect this in our article, it may be reasonable to clarify that the "According to Jessen" qualifier at the start of the "Birth and early life" section covers the second sentence too. Joining the sentences and citing The Age would seem to achieve this:

According to Jessen, when her biological mother was 17 years old she underwent a saline abortion at the 30th week (7½ months) of pregnancy, but the abortion failed and she was born alive, with cerebral palsy caused by the abortion procedure.[BBC ref][The Age ref]

Thoughts?  —SMALLJIM  23:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The article already has the qualifier "according to Jessen", I reread those two sources as well and I'd agree with joining them and citing both inline. Jim , what do you think about a timeline for removing tags? I was thinking with that modification maybe a week? I thought we would have had more people comment, at least to disagree with me....I'll defer to your opinion. You obviously weren't made an admin for nothing.Newmanoconnor (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have read the BBC, Telegraph, and Age sources. I have also looked at the NYT (#3) and the Daily Beast (#9) sources. I don't interpret the BBC and Telegraph sources the way you appear to, nor do I think, based on all of the sources, that we should say "According to Jessen". The BBC source is categorical in the initial part of the article as to what happened. It doesn't start with Jessen quotes until it has already stated what it believes to be the facts. The Telegraph has a different approach, but it still states the facts of the failed abortion clearly and without quotes from Jessen. The Age has the phrase "abortion survivor" only because it is probably a slogan Jessen uses, not because it is unclear whether there was an attempted abortion, the facts of the abortion, or the aftermath of the attempted abortion. Notably, the NYT states that Jessen's adoptive mother "will not identify Gianna's birth mother, the doctor who performed the abortion, the clinic or the nurse who, she said, rescued Gianna by transferring her to a hospital nursery. But to support her story she released some of the medical records from the adoption, including a section called 'Complications of Birth,' which has the notation, 'Born during saline abortion.'" (emphasis added by me) In addition, Jessen's biographer, in a book published by Tyndale House, i.e., not self-published, apparently repeats the same facts. Finally, the fact that Jessen repeats the story in support of her cause and puts the story on her website does not mean it is only according to Jessen. Enough fact-checking went in to reporting these stories by reliable sources that Wikipedia must accept the material as verifiable. Not only does it not need a qualifier - to do so would be wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I seriously think you should ask yourself why even discussing this or having tags bothers you so much. your interpretation of the BBC article, and inclusion in your reasoning of horrible quality jpegs released to an unreliable source, that wouldn't carry weight in any rational discuss about encyclopedic content and sources, gives me pause. Tyndale house is a Christian publishing house, consider the source much? Not to mention these articles appear in non NEWS sections of the sites. They are the editorial, bio, lifestyle, etc parallels of print media.You are also really passive agressive to me and I don't appreciate it. I may have recently registered, but i have a PHD in Research and Evaluation, and am entitled to my interpretation of policy as anyone at Wikipedia is, if there is anything I am confident in it is my ability to have civil reasoned discourse, about quality of information, interpretation of policy. I completely under stand Jim's views on this, and any exchange we've had, he actually changed my mind about my interpretation of WP:N. I might disagree about something, but so far I can see how his opinions have evolved and the reason they are based in.Newmanoconnor (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You know I don't want this to just be an argument and only a little discussion. I also don't want to seem like I'm not willing to accept consensus and compromise. I thought about this last night as I was drifting off to sleep, maybe I am being short sighted about this. I make the change that Small Jim and I agree about, and take the tags off today, as BB feels is necesary, this talk page is still here with all our comments and everything is archived, so if new developments come up I can watch to see if there is anymore support for tags later, or if any additional sources come up.Newmanoconnor (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting a compromise on this issue, Newmanoconnor - I think that was a good thing to do, even though it is rather a "splitting the difference" compromise. It remains to see what Bbb23 thinks. The overriding consideration, of course, is to find a form of words that wouldn't offend anyone and would therefore stick in the long term. Following Bbb23's comments, I wondered about replacing the simplistic "According to Jessen..." with something along the lines of "According to Jessen and documentation released by her step-mother..." or "Reliable sources have reported that..." Other ideas welcome!  —SMALLJIM  21:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Well,I just see it as some improvement, directing the induvuduals to both sources, I think that at least will help people get similar information. I'm not fooling myself, people decidedly one way are going to view it that way. My concern is for people using wikipedia to learn about new things and I think the article as it stand is supported by consensus of the debates over tha page over it's history. I do think I should point out I am certainly more in favor of leaving the article as it was before the three of us were involved than changing the qualifier that has been there for quite some time. I think the additions you mention in your last comment are definitely a little POV. According to Jensen and the sentences from the sourced articles afterwards are about as neutral as you can get basing the whole article only on reliable sources. The only source for the images the step-mother released are from an unreliable source, it's why there is no mainstream coverage of this. That said, it is not an out come I'm happy with, I think it lowers the quality of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, but then Wikipedia isn't just an encyclopedia is it. I just accept that things are this way until sources or a larger consensus dictate otherwise either way. I do appreciate your attitude,advice,and discourse with me, I can see why you were made an admin.Newmanoconnor (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm against the qualifier "according to Jessen" for the reasons I've already stated. I also don't like any of the other wordings suggested by Smalljim, although I appreciate that he's trying to find a wording that would be acceptable to all. Honestly, I don't think we should even be having this discussion. The circumstances of her birth have been reported by reliable sources - we're done. However, if there's only the three of us and Smalljim is willing to accept the revised wording, I will abide by it, happy or no.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23 please do not revert sourced edits, if you have a problem with removed material at least revert and add back the added material, I have no issue with his edits and support his removal as well as his addition.Newmanoconnor (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

We worked long and hard to find a wording that was palatable to at least two of us. The wording before the latest changes wasn't even palatable to me, just apparently to you and to Smalljim, but I went along with it. Now an IP comes along and alters the wording without discussion, and you support it. That isn't enough. If we're going to alter it at this point, more discussion needs to take place - it's not a function of sources, but of interpretation of those sources and editorial judgment. I don't know who the IP is, but that's the only contribution they've made to Wikipedia, and I refuse to accept a change to something as apparently dicey as the wording in this article coming out of nowhere. I have to eat dinner now, so I leave it to your good faith and Smalljim if he's around and watching.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

WE don't need to agree to add properly sourced material, we do need to agree on the interpretations and language that were there before. All you need to do if you have an issue with it, is add his sourced material back into the page as it was before he removed what you were ok with. You can take his addition and add it under that whole paragraph. It is properly sourced to the NYT. Just a friendly FYI, because evne though this is contentios, I do 100% believe you are acting within good faith, if you revert my last change, you will have reverted this page 3 times in a 24hr period.Newmanoconnor (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I'm still here. In the little time I've had available recently, I've been doing some further research into the online sources (mainly newspapers). To help with this I've been waiting for a free Highbeam Research account, which came through this morning. I've changed my view somewhat in the light of what I've now read, and I'll post some more on this soon.  —SMALLJIM  10:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I was the IP that changed the wording of the article. It failed to note the many questions of Jessen's account that have been raised by numerous reliable sources. To acchieve Wikipidia's NPOV policy requires "presenting fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" according to Wikipedia:NPOV dispute#What_is_NPOV. My edits achieve this balance. The article also included too many details regarding struggles that are not uncommon to those who suffer from cerebral palsy, a disability associated with premature birth. So I trimmed the purple prose and struck an encyclopedic tone while teaching the controversy. Why would anyone take issue with that?Joshuaism (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm already working on a comment that will, incidentally, directly address your last point. Apologies, but I write slowly when it's complex and there are external interruptions! While you're waiting, could you let me know where these "many questions of Jessen's account that have been raised by numerous reliable sources" are? Serious question - I have found only a few and if there are any I've missed, I'd like to know about them.  —SMALLJIM  13:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The NYT is enough for what was added, there aren't that many sources that meet WP:RS to support the rest of the article. It seems disingenuous to have issue with points I raised, but had not found the source for and compromised at the time, to now question editing the article to be MORE encyclopedic and balanced.Newmanoconnor (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you're there. Can you explain what you meant by "Tyndale house is a Christian publishing house insider the source much?"[1] please? I've puzzled over that since I first saw it.  —SMALLJIM  15:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I probably meant independent or reliable or bothIt should have read consider the source much?, my point it WP:RS/IRS isn't just about whether it's a major publication that can be counted on to generally to good reporting, we have to consider the specific article and author. I think simply stating she's the subject of a biography isn't sufficient. We have to consider the source, all of it.

That said, let me be extremely clear, I have no issue with a constructive edit of the article as it is today with Joshuaism additions, adding back some of what was removed.

I was quite unhappy with the removal of the POV tag, honestly, I think it should stay on any controversial article, if there is a hint of POV. I also know I need to coexist with other users and editors and that was not probable at the time so I dropped the tag and stopped discussing POV when you and I came to consensus. I think it's fairly clear from my earlier arguments.

One thing that has dramatically changed is that I would not put up for AfD this article as it stands. Whether Jessen in notable enough for an encyclopedia is not going to be easily settled like other cases, it is a contentious issue. Compromise has to be made. I am willing to forgo any further discussion of notability at this point.

However, with proper sourcing, I am certainly willing to argue NPOV and a balanced article.Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

In your penultimate paragraph are you really saying that you still think this article should be deleted and the only reason you're not pursuing that course at present is because you're compromising?  —SMALLJIM  19:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, I'm only saying that in it's present state, or in it's previous state, with the NYT sourcing/Statement about the opposite POV of every other source in the article, I wouldn't put it up for AfD. But I do still have questions about notability,in the interest of compromise and consensus, I have put them aside. The AfD was closed as keep, in other words.

Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a problem. You say "not at all", yet your first sentence implies that if someone took out that opposite POV source, you'd be inclined to AfD the article again. And the second sentence seems to say that you do still think we shouldn't have the article ("I do still have questions about notability"), but you've put them aside "in the interest of compromise and consensus". Can you see the problem with what you've written?  —SMALLJIM  19:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the issue Jim, having questions about notability, implies just that, questions.Questions about encyclopedic content and value, questions about level of notability required for inclusion,questions about at least one of the other sources,questions about continuing coverage, as notability is not temporary. However Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, it is an open user edited Encyclopedia. In that Context, ater the AfD, after our discussions, in the interest of not having a misleading article,that shows both opinions about the subject which have made her notable. I think the article as it stands could use work. The bottom line is people question the legitimacy or truthfulness of her claim. The claim she is supposed to be notable for. It is properly referenced and it should not be removed because someone that believes her claim doesn't care for it. I certainly think you of all people involved could craft another intro that includes this information, I would probably find acceptable.To be honest, I think the whole page should be rewritten to better reflect her claim,support,and the facts behind the skepticism around her claim,and lack of evidence. Unfortunately, being an abortion issue, I think that is unlikely, so I will settle for making sure the article doesn't mislead anyone, and if it has to preach, preach to the choir and the critics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmanoconnor (talk • contribs) 20:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to say this, Newmanoconnor, but until you can show that you understand Wikipedia's concept of notability; and you are prepared to review and rewrite your comments before posting so that they are easily comprehensible; and generally assume good faith; and (minor points) indent your comments and remember to sign them to conform with our norms; I see no point in continuing discussion with you. It would be good idea for you to read WP:DE.  —SMALLJIM  20:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I can understand wanting the appropriate indentions, I got in a hurry there, easily solved,I'm not going to bother signing the comment I forgot to sign, because well, it's kind of ridiculous reasoning to decide not to discuss something. To describe my comments as incomprehensible,accuse me of assuming bad faith because I state that for anyone involved an abortion issue is contentious as poses challenges, well, maybe you should read WP:BITE WP:CIVILITY. Honestly I'm surprised that an admin would take this particular tack.

I've clearly stated that though I have questions of whether this met/meets all notability requirements as I interpret them, Which is why I put it up for AfD,I'm certainly not going to argue about that now. The AfD is over, I repect the keep. What I should have stated after that, is after the experience with this article as a whole, I would not nominate it again for AfD again the way I had. Nothing further implied. I would look harder at provided sources and try and get more that are more in depth coverage. I have had a typo or two but nothing incomprehensible. I can see how I might have been confusing after you asked about my "penultimate' reply. As for Wikipedia's concept of notability is neither a hardline nor as malleable as clay. If you don't want to discuss it further, I can understand that. but could you try not to insult my intelligence?or accuse me of WP:DS for having an opinion and stating policy regarding properly referenced edits made by another user?Newmanoconnor (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Article's current revision

OK, let me start over by briefly visiting the comments on SmallJim's talk page. I appreciate the notification,and both editors tone. I want to assure BBb23 that I am acting in good faith, as I believe both of you are.

I also feel the need to clarify, the current revision of the page is not MY revision, I simply reverted back toJoshuaism's edit.

Let me try and state clearly my only issue at this point. Joshuaism added text and inline citation has a place in the article,it should not be removed, even if you think the article is unbalanced or it swings POV the opposite direction.

I am fine with editing that fleshes out the article,moves the statement about questions about her story to another section,etc.Possibly brings back text Joshuaism removed( I honestly haven't gone over what he removed that thoroughly.)

That's it in a nutshell. I just don't want properly sourced material removed.Newmanoconnor (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Back to policy

The main area of disagreement here is the section about the circumstances of Jessen's birth. Following WP:YESPOV, there are two possible ways we could introduce the section. If the details of Jessen's birth are uncontested, we can assert without attribution, i.e. write "Jessen is...". But if the assertion is seriously contested we must attribute using something like "Jessen says that...". YESPOV goes on to say that if we have a contested assertion we must include something about the opposing points of view, the prominence of which must reflect the levels of support for those views.

It's important to note that good primary sources for Jessen's statements are lacking. This is important because if such evidence was available, it would downgrade the value of dissenting opinions to being fringe theories, probably not worthy of mention.

I've looked now at a wide range of online sources to see how they report Jessen's birth. They are mostly newspapers. The great majority of them do take Jessen's statements at face value, but a small number take care to attribute the statements to her, and a very few actually point out that the evidence is missing. In date order:

• The New York Times 1991 article that we're familiar with doesn't itself indicate any doubt about the story's veracity, but it does mention the opposing view: "Abortion-rights advocates, for their part, stress that it is impossible for them to verify that Gianna was aborted because her birth certificate and other records are confidential."
• The Sun - Baltimore, Md 1992-06-14: "Gianna is often interviewed by mainstream media. Frequently, journalists demand proof of her story. All that Ms. Diana DePaul can offer is a copy of her adopted daughter's records from a California social services agency. Because the adoption is closed, the records carry neither her birth mother's name nor Gianna's true surname ('Jessen' is a stage name)." This report from the same paper is similar.
• The Pantagraph, (I've mislaid the ref for now, sorry) 1992-11-13: "Miss Jessen is a survivor of an unsuccessful abortion, according to promotion literature. She was aborted in the third trimester and weighed only two pounds. She was in the hospital for several months before being placed in a foster home."
• The Roanoke Times (subscription required), 2001-02-18: "they listened raptly to the songs and message of Gianna Jessen, a popular youth speaker. The 23-year-old says her cerebral palsy was brought on by a botched saline abortion..."
• AP Online (subscription required), 2002-08-05: "...National Right to Life Committee activists are among those invited to be in the audience and were bringing with them Gianna Jessen, whom they said was born in 1977 after her mother attempted a saline abortion."
• Sunday News Lancaster, PA (subscription required), 2003-04-13: "Speaker and vocalist for the evening will be Gianna Jessen, the survivor of an unsuccessful third-trimester saline abortion, according to a press release."
• Vcstar, 2012-04-12: "The film's directors ... were inspired to make 'October Baby' after hearing national speaker Gianna Jessen, a woman who identifies herself as an 'abortion survivor and champion for the unborn.'"
• International Herald Tribune (subscription required), 2012-04-07 "[October Baby] was inspired by the story of Gianna Jessen, who says she was delivered alive at a California clinic after a late-term saline- injection abortion. As a paid speaker at anti-abortion events, she tells of her struggles and medical conditions." Several other recent reports, including in the NYT, substantially duplicate this.
• In this Article, from the highly-rated Columbia Law Review at footnote 452 on page 826 (it's only a 277kB download), Jessen is described as a "self-identified born-alive abortion survivor."
• Of low reliability, but worth a look: a blog entry on Terry Mattingly's website, 2012-04-05, about The New York Times article of 2012-04-04.

Although this might look like a lot of opposition, it isn't, compared to the majority view. The Highbeam search for "Gianna Jessen" threw up 56 hits, of which just 4 offered some form of dissenting view. A Google News Archive search shows a similar low rate (I haven't analysed it). I have ignored some reports that are obvious near-in-time copies of others. I'm not, of course, claiming that I've found them all, which is why I asked Joshuaism if he knew of any more.

So I submit that there's sufficient opposition to the majority view that we must attribute, but not enough to warrant providing any great detail in the text. What remains is the wording. I'd suggest something like "Jessen says that...etc", followed by "Most commentators have accepted her statements as true (or "at face value"?),[list some in a footnote] though a few have indicated that good evidence is lacking.[list some, maybe with short quotes, in a footnote]"

I think this provides a good basis for rewriting the relevant section in a neutral fashion, in accordance with policy.  —SMALLJIM  15:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Your finds seem about representative of the opposition I have found. I would say that US national news outlets are more consistent in attributing claims to Jessen, although about half of all news stories present the story as uncontested fact. Some give a quote from pro-abortion activists claiming cases of abortion survivors are rare to unknown, but that is kind of weak sauce as far as contesting Jessen's personal claims. Here are some you missed:

• Fact Check, September 24, 2008: "A anti-abortion group is running an ad featuring a woman who says she survived a failed abortion... A new ad by... BornAliveTruth.org features Gianna Jessen, who says that she was 'born 31 years ago after a failed abortion.'"
• CBS News, September 16, 2008:"There are two new attack spots from third party groups out today. The first... features Gianna Jessen, who says in the spot that she survived a failed abortion attempt 31 years ago.

I'm weary of including information about news commentators because I don't think you will find many willing to directly challenge Jessen's take on events, it's akin to trying to destroy Jessen's entire identity. I'll come back to comment later this evening on this aspect.Joshuaism (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

WHOLE-HEARTEDLY ENDORSE - Man I wish I had a highbeam acct. I have zero issue with this. It follows policy and provides sources. I for one pledge not to change anything, and if I do see a new source pop up that I think lends more weight to the view questioning the authenticity of her claim, I will bring it to Jim's attention. I can't tell you how impressed I ma with your skill.Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Newman (don't fall out of your chair ). As a reward for all of his research, I think we should let Jim edit the article to get the right wording, etc. No good deed goes unpunished.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all. I'm glad that we agree on the principle. As for the re-writing, I'm pressed for time again this weekend, and I'd appreciate a bit of help first. One way of expanding the suggested formulation above would be:

Jessen says that when her biological mother was 17 years old she underwent a saline abortion at the 30th week (7½ months) of pregnancy, but the abortion failed and she was born alive, with cerebral palsy caused by the abortion procedure.[refs] Most commentators have accepted her statements at face value, though a few have indicated that good evidence is lacking.[refs with short quotes]

1. Does "Jessen says that..." read better than "According to Jessen..."?
2. I'm not sure about the word "commentators", most of these sources aren't commenting, just reporting - though using "reports" instead doesn't sound right to me.
3. Should we use "at face value" or "as true", or something else?
4. Which refs should we actually use? For the second set, I'd use the 1991 NYT with quote, I like Joshuaism's factcheck.org because it seems to be accepted as a good unbiased source, and maybe one of the recent ones to confirm there is continuing interest. Which would be the best source(es) to use to verify Jessen's statements?

If you can agree on the above, well, anyone can make the changes. Must dash...  —SMALLJIM  09:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

1. I prefer "Jessen says that" as it is simpler.
2. How about journalists?
3. I would keep it shorter: "Most journalists have accepted her statements, though ..."
4. Don't have a strong opinion.

--Bbb23 (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Except the statement that the cerebral palsy was caused by the abortion procedure is contested. Denver Post 'But Kate Horle, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, said "There's no statistical evidence that cerebral palsy has been caused by failed abortions.'"

I believe that using a narrative style as suggested above skirts dangerously close to adopting a personal tone aligned with Jessen's account. Wikipedia "should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate" in tone.

I'd prefer the following wording:

According to Jessen, she was born in the 30th week of pregnancy to a 17 year old girl during a failed saline abortion attempt.[refs] Some abortion-rights activists have contested Jessen's claims, citing a lack of evidence supporting her account[refs] and stating such events are highly improbable or unlikely.[refs]

I'd worry about commenting on how the story has been reported because it suggests a certain amount of original research. The number of refs supporting each claim should show the balance of reporting, although I would limit the inline cites to about 3 or 4 per claim and then add additional citations at bottom if necessary.Joshuaism (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

With a topic like this the only chance of ever maintaining a stable article is by demonstrably getting the NPOV balance right. My bit of online research indicated that a very large excess of the sources uncritically accept Jessen's story, so WP:YESPOV tells us that the article must give that impression to its readers (WP's job is to describe). I'd say that your draft, by emphasising the minority reported position, doesn't give that impression at all, so it's not "proportionate" - try reading it as if you were a person who knew nothing about the subject. I suppose that to maintain balance we could say a lot more about Jessen's position, but I'm not sure there's all that much more that could be added without it appearing artificially stuffed. Another aid might be the addition of appropriate wikilinks and See also items to relevant articles that cover the wider issue (I'm sure there are a few!).

No problem with rewording what "Jessen says", to avoid any narrative style, as long as it does cover all her main points - she does claim the CP was caused by the abortion, so we have to include it. Regarding the Denver Post article, that's another one to add to the list of dissenters, certainly, but nothing more. I must admit though that I don't see the relevance of anyone saying that abortion survival like this is highly improbable - isn't that self-evident, so not worth stating? The bottom line is that although Jessen represents a controversial position, her statements about her birth haven't actually created very much reported controversy, so we can't add in material to suggest otherwise.  —SMALLJIM  00:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe you need to include every aspect of Jessen's account in the wiki. Would you include her assertion that she was not blinded and burned inside and out by the saline due to divine intervention (part of her congressional testimony you've posted below)? CP is regularly attributed to premature birth. Occam's razor would suggest that being born premature is a definite cause of her disability. Whether her premature birth is attributable to a failed abortion is debatable. In her congressional testimony, Jessen is asked why she was being aborted to which she could not answer. She may have already been diagnosed with the disability in the womb. Or perhaps she wasn't even aborted which could account for the lack of burns. On the balance, the less material that is presented, the less there is to contest.

As I have stated previously, I don't think you will find many people willing to contest Jessen's personal story as it would appear petty to attempt to destroy the identity of a person that is a marginal actor in the abortion wars. But some commentators have endeavored to attack the general "Born Alive Myth" or have commented on how broadly the term "Abortion Survivor" can be interpreted in pro-life circles. Perhaps because most national news agencies in America (as opposed to local news and overseas news agencies) have been fairly consistent in attributing Jessen's story to herself, her mother, or pro-life organizations and literature, few feel it is necessary to contest the given story.

That said, perhaps it is worthwhile to present the "born alive" aspects as wikiality and either excise the excess narrative or attribute it to Jessen. So long as the contested viewpoint is presented and the unverified nature of the account is noted I don't see a problem with this. Just keep in mind that the more of Jessen's account that is included, the more likely it is to be contested.Joshuaism (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Going back to Bbb23's last post: thanks for your replies and for the good idea of numbering them. To respond to one of my own questions: 4 - for the source we use to verify Jessen's statements, what would be better than her own words, as verified by the U.S. Govt.? Yes, it's a primary source, but it's of impeccable reliability and we're making no interpretations from it, so it meets WP:PSTS. In fact it's probably better than any secondary source because we know it's not been filtered through anyone else's point of view. If we use this, we'd need to tweak the first sentence so it's a closer match, and we should also add, in the appropriate place, example refs for the sources that unquestioningly accept her statements (which was always my intention, but I forgot to add it in yesterday's posting). Comments welcome, of course.  —SMALLJIM  10:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with using the committee transcript, although primary sources generally make me cringe, but I would add at least one secondary source to back it up, one that comes closest to her own wording. I realize we don't need the secondary source if we believe the primary source is not open to interpretation, but it means then that someone else can't come along and quibble with our application of the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the changes made are roughly inline with what we were discussing,I still need to read through and compare with Jim's notes. I apologize, I forgot I had posted on the noticeboard for advice/help befor the {Back to Policy] section even started. I should have deleted it. Sorry Bbb23 and SMALLJIMNewmanoconnor (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Going forward

I restructured the article[2] per the recent Admin noticeboard request.[3] I don't think the article needs tags. I'd be interested in reading more about the events that put her in the national spot light. To help avoid POV issues, keep the events of her life chronological rather than making separate sub-sections. Best wishes. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That was before we had come to a resolution together, but I think this still fits,I have only quickly glanced at the restructuring.Newmanoconnor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC).

I tried to include everything in the restructured the article prior to my edit. Feel free to modify. I also added MiszaBot archiver to this talk page and set it to archive posts that are 200 days or older. Feel free to change that as well. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice work, Uzma Gamal. A fresh pair of eyes often breaks a deadlock. Although it's quite different from how I imagined it and it could do with some tidying up and expansion, your reformulation does appear to attribute the relative POVs proportionately, which was my remaining concern. Unless a major edit war breaks out, I won't hang around here any longer.  —SMALLJIM  21:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional biographical information + debunking?

This person wrote two posts on Tumblr (with sources, first one here and second one here) detailing more information about Gianna Jessen's biography that aren't present in the current article. They seem to be of the opinion that Gianna Jessen is lying about her story. Of course this is a biased source, but the information is interesting so what would you do with it? Wykked Wytch (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read the Tumblr blogs, but I do know Jessen's story has been used in high stakes political campaigns, so would be subject to fact checking. She's been featured in national tv ads criticizing President Obama's stance on "born alive" legislation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anieuWFWe8s. Clearly, there's been political motivation to discredit her story, so if it's fake, I would think political opponents would have outed her in reliable sources. I've seen no reliable sources discredit her story. Tumblr is not a reliable source. If you find reliable sources discrediting her story, then that info belongs in the article, but we definitely cannot update a wiki article based on Tumblr posts because doing so would violate WP:BLP --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

A well-sourced Daily Kos diary came out contesting Jessan's implication that Planned Parenthood was involved in her abortion, pointing out factual errors in the 1999 biography's account of the abortion - the book claims the bio mom heard "You Light Up My Life" on the radio on April 5, 1977, when the song didn't come out until August or hit Billboard until October. Link is here, and it's relevant to the current events surrounding the subject of the article. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/12/1420577/-Gianna-Jessen-Planned-Parenthood-Wasn-t-the-Problem Litrepint (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Reportedly, Jessen's biological mother has talked to reporters anonymously, but nothing from these interviews is included in Jessen's BLP, so refuting these claims in BLP doesn't seem necessary. Apparently, Jessen has claimed that her biological mother was referred to the abortionist who performed her late term abortion by Planned Parenthood, but this claim is also not included in the BLP, so pointing out this is not verified does not seem necessary. The only text regarding Planned Parenthood in the bio reflects Jessen's ideological opposition to Planned Parenthood as an abortion provider/pro-choice organization.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

===="claimed"=======

why the statement that she has 'claimed' to have survived a late term abortion? Since she is repeating what she has been told, shouldn't any qualification should be on her mother's statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whitelaughter (talk • contribs) 04:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gianna Jessen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419213049/http://www.theabortionsurvivors.com/public-survivors-their-stories/ to http://www.theabortionsurvivors.com/public-survivors-their-stories/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The statement that her birth certificate was signed by the abortionist is not supported by the sources.

Two citations, currently marked [1] and [3] are listed for the assertion that her abortionist signed her birth certificate. Source 1 does not mention the birth certificate at all, and source 3 says the abortionist was not present at the time of the birth. This statement should be struck from the story.

Statement about her weight a birth are not attributed, and should likewise be struck.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.170.140.80 (talk • contribs)

The supervising physician signs the birth certificate, even if not physically present at birth. It seems pretty well documented that the abortionist signed Jessen's b.c. Even this source critical of Jessen and supportive of Planned Parenthood says her birth certificate is signed by Dr. Edward C. Allred, the former owner of Family Planning Associates in California. [4] Add- looking over the sources, they both say Jessen weighed two pounds at birth. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The article you cite links to a "birth certificate" that is illegible Given that the same source that you have cited mentions the generous speaking fees that Jessen makes from her story, it is reasonable to wonder why she can't afford to have her birth certificate reissued or to take her certificate to a print shop to be scanned. The names of the parents on the certificate (the only words which are legible) refer to her adoptive parents who did not come into her life until several years after her birth, according to her story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:E007:B84F:1:987D:57C0:E00A:C211 (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

This is the writer of the Kos article. The birth certificate was clearly an adoptees certificate -- notice the name Diane, and how no Giana or Gianna at all shows in California's's birth index (common for adoption certs). There is a "Baby Girl Moore", however, on the same birthdate, with mother's last name holder and maternal mom's maiden name unusual enough to identify, with the name Tina D Holder, when Tina herself was born in CA -- late 1959. There's also records she married a Lewis in 1984. A Twitter account claiming to be Tina D Lewis and Gianna's mom was active as @TinaDeets until September 3, 2015. Tina Doris Holder Lewis died on September 7, 2015. Despite Shaver's biography giving her maiden name and birth year, I didn't feel it was appropriate to reveal her identity. Now, we know she is dead, and why Gianna is able to tell Glenn Beck that her bio mom screamed that she was an embarrassment. The woman, if it was her, can't contradict it now, or PP's role in her decision to seek Allred. Truthorconsequences22 (talk) 04:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Additional information from sleuthing Tina Holder Lewis, maternal maiden name Schrom, who gave birth to "Baby Girl Holder/Moore" in Los Angeles on April 6, 1977, confirm her birth date wasn't until late in 1959. A Tweet on the TinaDeets account says she was actually 16 at the time of the attempted abortion, which lines up. The book just used the known birth year to "preserve" her anonymity, which failed. She said birth weight was 2 lbs 12 oz, Truthorconsequences22 (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Further confirmation in Shaver biography that Gianna was told she weighed 1260 grams at birth, or just under 2 lbs 12 oz. At another point in the grams chapter of the Shaver biography, they reference "2.12 lbs", again pointing to 2 lbs 12 oz. The medical data image provided in Gianna's Tweet also shows birth weight of 1260 grams, which would be 2.8 lbs.

Will leave to others to decide if they feel the fairly consistent set of data pointed to 2.8 lbs, or 2 lbs 12. oz, or to 1.2 kg, but I support totality of evidence. Truthorconsequences22 (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)