Talk:Abortion/Lead image

Picture in the lead

We should have a picture in the lead. The one I placed there is as good as any that we have. If someone prefers another I am sure I would have not great qualms. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, at least two editors have objected to placement of that picture at that location, but you edit-warred it back after it was moved. I don't know why you started a new section here, when there's already a section above titled "Top pic".Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The demon picture is clearly inappropriate. It is neither an accurate illustration of abortion nor especially neutral. I suggest that the article remain without a lead picture until consensus can be shown for putting a particular image there. Otherwise, it will just be the subject of endless edit warring. There is after all, no requirement that an article have a lead image. It's fine without one in the meantime. Kaldari (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Abortion has a long history and historical picture are appropriate in the lead. An accurate depiction of an abortion is not required. I think the fact that it is a stone carving will inform people that this comes from a different time period. We could have an image of a bottle of methotrexate. But I do not think that would look as nice.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No lead image until consensus can be built for one

Throughout most of this article's tumultuous history it has existed perfectly well without any lead image. Recent attempts to add a lead image have not achieved consensus and have only lead to dispute. I would like to propose that the current image be removed (as it is neither an accurate illustration, nor NPOV) and that no other images replace it until consensus is shown for one. This should keep debate on the talk page (where it belongs) rather than turning the article itself into a battleground. Kaldari (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. I'm not sure we'll find an image that will meet everybody's definition of NPOV, but until we do, I agree with Kaldari's suggestion. As I hate to lose images from an article, I would have suggested moving it back to the History section, but that is already full of images, so perhaps the Angkor Wat image is best left on the sidelines for the moment. --RexxS (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sign me up for the "not going to edit war about this" list. It's pretty hard to think of an image that would be widely agreed upon to be a good neutral lead image. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I though this image was good. It is historical so I hoped it would avoid some of the recent controversies. Does anyone have anything better to suggest? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It may be historical, but it's also religious. Using religious imagery to introduce an article on a medical procedure doesn't seem very NPOV to me (especially considering it is a demon performing the abortion). My only suggestion for something better is no image at all. Kaldari (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The demon pic needs to go, and ought not be replaced by a dead fetus or other shock graphic. Agreed that the current top pic is inappropriately religious and POV. Besides that, it's anachronistic to a point of silliness (unless one wants to suggest that opposition to abortion is somehow "timeless" or pan-cultural). Better to have no top pic. Maybe worth an edit war, maybe not. DigitalHoodoo (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Abortion could reasonably be considered "timeless" and pan-cultural, but I don't really want to get caught up in that digression. I'm personally not about to edit-war over the pic; I have a weak preference for no pic over the demonic abortion, but realistically I think it will be very hard to find a pic that satisfies everyone, so the most sensible approach might be to go picture-less. Which is unfortunate, since high-quality images are a key part of a great article, but such is life. MastCell ^Talk 21:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

POV images are NEVER part of a great article, and I cannot imagine one that would not be POV. No picture please. HiLo48 (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• While we're talking about pictures, we need to clarify the caption of File:Human fetus 10 weeks - therapeutic abortion.jpg. Right now, our caption says that it shows "The uterus (womb), included the fetus" [sic]. That picture does not show a uterus. The uterus is not transparent; as you might expect, its walls are muscular, vascularized, and not see-through. The picture appears to show the amniotic sac and fetus. They appear to be detached from the placenta, which makes me skeptical that the fetus is alive at the time of the picture (as our caption asserts). Of course, since the image comes from Flickr, I'm not sure how to address the latter questions. MastCell ^Talk 23:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I know it was stated in the past that the procedure that produced that image is very rare, so presenting it in this article may give the wrong impression (or WP:WEIGHT). The source as flickr is also a bit shakey. I'd propose restoring the miscarriage image to illustrate the miscarriage section, and forgo using the uncommon, intact sac image. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

From what MastCell has said, it seems like it'd be impossible to write a caption for that image without engaging in some form of original research. Best not to include it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the Cambodian picture. It's really old and kind of obscure; just the kind of thing you would see in a proper encyclopaedia. (Huey45 (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC))

That pic may be appropriate in the History section. Any illustration in the lead would seem likely to be expressing a POV. HiLo48 (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mastcells suggestion of switching the fetus image. WRT the image in the lead I am not sure what POV the historical picture represents. I though it was well just historical. Before the current POVs existed. BTW I think the term would be mystical rather than religious. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• The Cambodian stone carving is a lot more neutral than anything you would get from today. It seems a lot of you are just trying to push your own agenda to make this page an advertisement for your political position rather than a serious encyclopaedia article. Unprofessional editors like User:Objectivist have already made this quite clear. Some of you say the stone picture expresses an obvious POV; what is it? The demonic abortion carving would have been made to tell a story and to show that demons are capable of killing unborn babies. It would not have been suggesting that anyone who wants an abortion is evil, since people in antiquity didn't have the means to do that anyway, so you can stop panicking; your political agenda is not threatened by the stone carving.(Huey45 (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC))

Well, I don't believe in demons. Do you? It may not be a strong, current POV, but it is still a POV. It says demons exist. And they do nasty things. I am willing to accept it as part of the History section, but it really has little to do with the lead. We don't include pictures just because they are interesting. They need to be relevant. The bulk of the article isn't about historical views on abortion. That's only a tiny part of it. The picture also touches on that tricky area for abortion discussions of spontaneous abortions. That aspect always complicates things. I'm not trying to be difficult here, nor push a particular agenda. I would just rather see the words tell the story. The picture simply doesn't fit in the lead. Stick it in the history section. It WILL add value there. HiLo48 (talk) 12:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does suggest demons exist, but that shouldn't really matter. It's not as if anyone's going to suddenly take up ancient paganism after seeing a fragment of a wall, is it? Abortion is not a new issue, so the ancient stone picture is essentially no less relevant than a modern photograph. Having the Cambodian demon story as the lead image will immediately show people that abortion was a concept understood by people thousands of years ago and they can get a vague idea of what that ancient civilisation thought about it. I for one think that the stone picture is very fascinating. An encyclopaedia doesn't have to be boring.(Huey45 (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC))

The lead picture

Kaldari has a point; a picture of a demon performing an abortion is hardly a fair representation. According to statistics, 0% of all abortions are performed by demons. Could we please replace the demon with a doctor? I'm willing to do the Photoshopping, if necessary. Or we could just drop the image, which might be simpler. Dylan Flaherty 07:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a historical image. I do not see anything wrong with it. Historical and culture images can be in the lead for articles about procedures. If you have something better to replace it with I would be happy to consider it. Would this one be better?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No that image also fails to be neutral. (The claim in the caption that it is "promoting hospital abortions" is false, BTW.) Historical does not equal NPOV. For example we don't begin the Jews article with an historical anti-semetic caricature, or the African American article with an historical photo of a lynching. Showing that abortions are performed by demons (no matter how historical) does not seem to be a neutral reflection on either abortions or abortion doctors. What's wrong with having no image in the lead anyway? Kaldari (talk) 08:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

May I recommend Image:Abortionmethods.png?

Better? Dylan Flaherty 08:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely neutral, but I don't think it would work very well in an infobox. Kaldari (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right.

How about the third one(Vacuum-aspiration_(single).svg)? Dylan Flaherty 08:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I really just don't understand why this article has to have a lead image. There are so many different types of abortions and aspects to it (historical, legal, medical, political, etc.) that I don't think it makes sense to choose a single image to represent the subject. We have plenty of broad medical articles that lack lead images for this very reason. For example illness, disease, healing, health care, mental health, preventive medicine, etc. Kaldari (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So, does that mean this one is out of the question?

Seriously, I'm fine with having no image, if the alternative is worse. Demonic abortions are not just non-neutral, they're rather bizarre. Dylan Flaherty 08:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The previous discussion on this issue seemed to favor having no image, but I'm not sure if it was enough to be considered consensus. Regardless, I've never seen where the consensus for the current image was established. Kaldari (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest giving it a day or two so that editors can respond. If there seems to be a consensus in favor of dropping the image, we should do that. Dylan Flaherty 08:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

For aesthetic reasons, I prefer an artistic image to a diagram or a graph - may I suggest this medieval image? Although the contrast should probably be touched up.

13th-century drawing of a midwife preparing an abortifacient herb for a pregnant woman

Roscelese (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I would be fine with that as well. Dylan Flaherty 01:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that image, although my first choice is still no image at all. Kaldari (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I boosted the contrast and cropped the new image. Does that look better? Kaldari (talk) 01:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Roscelese (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I would be fine with this medieval one aswell. What would the caption be?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Same here. How about something along the lines of "Drawing of an herb-induced medieval abortion". Dylan Flaherty 01:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(this is a paraphrase of the description at Commons) "13th-century drawing depicting a midwife preparing a concoction for a pregnant woman from the abortifacient herb pennyroyal"? Too long? Roscelese (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe something in between: "Medieval drawing of a midwife preparing a concoction from the abortifacient herb pennyroyal." Kaldari (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually I like the caption someone added to the image at right. It seems to be about the right length. If it's too long, you could chop off the "for a pregnant woman" as that is easily understood. Kaldari (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm easy. Dylan Flaherty 02:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, how does that caption look? I took out the mention of pennyroyal since I don't want to be responsible for a surge in deaths by pennyroyal poisoning. Kaldari (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It fits, both in content and size. I'm happy with it. Dylan Flaherty 01:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

<Undent>I'd prefer no image at the top and simply moving the present image down. But, I could live with the status quo as a second choice, although it would probably be more NPOV to not have a demonic image at the top (unless a demonic image is more representative of ancient attitudes than a non-judgmental image). Regarding the 13th century image of two women, even if it shows preparation for an abortion, I don't see that it adds much to the article; for one thing it's not apparent from the image itself what's going on. The woman is not discernibly pregnant, and the Pennyroyal held by the attendant was traditionally used for increasing menstrual flow (i.e. for an emmenagogue instead of an abortion). The image summary does not mention abortion: "Drawing from a 13th-century manuscript of Pseudo-Apuleius's Herbarium, depicting a pregnant woman in repose, while another holds some pennyroyal in one hand and prepares a concotion [sic] using a mortar and pestle with the other." The book from which this image was scanned says it was an abortion, but it's unclear what that conclusion is based on. In any event, nothing in the image itself looks like an abortion, whereas the present image at the top seems more suggestive of an abortion (the woman's protruding stomach is being pressed).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suspect that abortions look more like the medieval picture than the demonic one. For example, 0% of all abortions in America are performed by demons, and the majority are in the first trimester, where you wouldn't expect a particularly conspicuous swelling. Dylan Flaherty 05:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

In the 13th century, a woman would likely not have known she was pregnant until well after the first trimester, i.e. not until "quickening". If one were a wiseguy, one might also mention that pennyroyal is now used for abortion about as often as demons are now used for that purpose. Anyway, it looks to me like Kaldari may have cropped out the only thing in this 13th century image indicative of an abortion: the original caption at the upper-right portion of the original scanned image.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence that women in the 13th century were all mentally retarded, so we can't just assume they would have somehow failed to notice a missed period, much less three of them in a row. As for pennyroyal, it has been replaced by RU-486, for reasons of safety and effectiveness. The value of this drawing is that it shows that abortion has been around for some time, as an action that women have voluntarily taken. The demon with the hammer doesn't convey this information. Dylan Flaherty 06:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Periods can be missed for a variety of reasons, and quickening was the confirmation of pregnancy. The 13th century image makes me curious; what's the meaning of the stack of stones (?) beneath the pregnant (?) woman? Do we have a translation of the cropped-out inscription? Anyway, like I said, my preference would be to have no image at the top. As I recall, this demonic image was put at the top in a rather unilateral way. Regarding interpretation of the demonic image, it presumably would have been interpreted as feticide rather than abortion, if the woman was not in cahoots with the demon. I've given my opinion about this, and don't expect to have much more (if anything) to say about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

How about we have no image for now, as that seems to be the most popular opinion (judging by this discussion and the last one). And if any picture gains reasonable consensus after that, it is welcome to fill the spot. Does anyone object to that course of action? Kaldari (talk) 06:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important to have an image in the lead. It does not matter to me which of the two. If someone wishes to put this new one in and move the engraving to the body of the article feel free. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kaldari, but would not object to the status quo. The new proposed image is something of a euphemism; the woman is not apparently pregnant, there is no contact with her, no pain, no blood, no suggestion that something is aborted, and no visible indication of an abortion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

<Undent>I don't think there is any solution that is going to make everyone happy unless someone is willing to compromise a bit. @Doc James: Why do you feel that having a lead image is so important? @Anythingyouwant: Do you really want the lead image to feature pain and blood? Are there any other encyclopedias that lead their abortion articles with such graphic images? Kaldari (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As I've said, my preference would be for there not to be a lead image at this point. But if we are to have one, it should not be a complete euphemism. The present image suggests some actual characteristics of many real abortions (physical contact, pain, pregnancy, etc), whereas the suggested image does not even discernibly show an abortion (for all we know it may be a very old advertisement for abortion, no one has provided a translation of the cropped-out inscription, and the facial expressions of both women indicate that they are happily and serenely enjoying whatever it is that they're doing). Kaldari, there is common ground between myself and Doc James, and that is the status quo. If you want to go look at other Wikipedia articles about surgical procedures, I think you'll find that some do show blood (e.g. Coronary artery bypass surgery). But I'm not suggesting we have to show blood at the top of this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Before we get opinions, we get facts. The medieval drawing does not, in fact, show anyone smiling or happy. The woman on the left is conspicuously pregnant, which is clear not only from the "bump" but from her classic "hand-over-bump" pose. The only "encyclopedia" that leads with a graphic picture for abortion is Conservapedia. Dylan Flaherty 13:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dylan here. The woman on the left is clearly pregnant and seems to be grimacing. Kaldari (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is the original caption from the book it was scanned from: "Pennyroyal being used as an abortificient. This drawing accompanying a 13th-Century manuscript of Pseudo-Apuleius' herbal shows a person holding a sprig of pennyroyal and preparing the drug with a mortar and pestle, while the patient waits with her legs demurely crossed. (Vienna, Nationalbibliothek, MS let. 93, fol. 93)" Kaldari (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The uncropped image has somewhat better resolution, so you can see the facial expressions better. I'm still curious what the text in the uncropped image translates to in English.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember much Latin, but the last few words say something about having a baby ("produce/make a child/infant"). Kaldari (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a translation would indicate whether it's therapeutic or elective, whether it's an advertisement, et cetera. Between an ancient image that shows an abortion, versus an ancient image that shows preparation for an abortion, I'd go with the former.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And would you say that the demon image is more likely a therapeutic or an elective abortion? :P Kaldari (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It is more likely elective, according to the source. It illustrates a method of abortion (i.e. massage abortion) identical to that used today, except that it's been transposed to the after-life. According to the source, it's likely a punishment for what the woman did during her life. The earliest medical text (the Susruta Samhita) said abortion was okay to save a woman's life, so the woman in this image would have been punished for an abortion that was not needed to save her life, which suggests that she got an elective massage abortion during her life. Or so it appears.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I certainly don't see how an image suggesting that women who get elective abortions are going to be punished by demons in the afterlife is NPOV! That's about as POV as it gets. Kaldari (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

History is what it is. Anyway, I'm on record preferring no image at the top, and opposing the unilateral way that the present image was put at the top.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

<Undent>OK, so far we have the following 8 users expressing support for removing the lead image and are OK having no lead image for the time being: Me, RexxS, SHEFFIELDSTEEL, DigitalHoodoo, MastCell, HiLo48, Anythingyouwant, and Dylan Flaherty. We have 2 editors who's opinion on removing the lead image is unclear: Andrew c and Roscelese. Finally, we have 2 users who oppose removing the lead image: Doc James and Huey45. Huey45 is indefinitely blocked, so that leaves only Doc James. Unless Doc James can offer some compelling reasons why we should retain the image, I'm inclined to go ahead and remove it per the reasonable consensus of opinions expressed. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The current top image has been somewhere in this article for eons, and it would be best to move it down rather than completely delete.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone would agree with that. It's a useful image for the article, just not good as the lead image, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer for there to be an image, because I like images, but if we can't agree on what the image should be, I'm okay with removing it. (I'm still in favor of the medieval image - which, Anythingyouwant, is a medical abortion rather than surgical, hence the lack of physical contact - not so much out of POV issues as because it's easier to see what's going on - but maybe someone can find another PD historical image that isn't already on Commons?) Roscelese (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think most of us would prefer for there to be a lead image of some sort. Since there seems to be a lot of disagreement though, I think it would be best to remove the current image first and then concentrate on building consensus for a lead image that everyone (or almost everyone) can agree on. Kaldari (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Where is all these peoples support for no image (MastCell etc.)? They have not commented in this discussion. Can you link to where they have.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned, I would not object to keeping the current image at the top. On reflection, it seems silly to object to an image merely because of the caption underneath the image. The bas relief accurately shows what a massage abortion looks like. If you all want to be patient, I could try to get a photo of a massage abortion instead of a bas relief of a massage abortion. The advantage of using a massage abortion is that there's no blood and guts (which the pro-choicers dislike) but also it's not people just hanging around stirring potions before the abortion occurs. By the way, it looks like Dylan Flaherty has been blocked indefinitely.[1]Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Wow, this article seems to have a high percentage of participants who get blocked indefinitely! I would love to see other photos to choose from, but considering how many people oppose the current image, I don't think it makes sense to keep it there in the meantime. Kaldari (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

@Doc James: The previous discussion is here, from a few months ago. Kaldari (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes Kaldari, we both better watch our step. Me more than you, I suspect. Anyway, regarding the picture now at the top, am I correct to infer that you would have no problem with it being there if we merely say in the caption that it accurately depicts a massage abortion, without mentioning our friend the demon?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I am am strong supporter of images in the lead. I think they add to the article. Yes this is a historical relic. Why this generates so much controversy I have no idea. But it does explain that abortions have been going on a lot longer then Wade verses Roe. And thus in a ways put the topic into perspective. Some people are under the mistaken beleif that before abortion was legal no one had it and the making it illegal is the solution to the "problem" I however would be okay with other historical images not being set on this one. I guess we could take this to RfC.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Can the lede image, and move it back to the historical section where it was however many moons ago. Regardless of bias problems, it doesn't set the right tone for the article, the image is historical, the article has a broader focus, including (primarily) medical focus, as well abortion as a social phenomena (including historical, philosophical/ethical, legal perspectives) and so on. Even if we focused on the medical aspect, no diagram or other depiction of a particular method is adequate, because no procedure dominates the field, now or then. I'm not sure there is an image that can capture it, as there is no collective mental image or symbol that is representative. (Don't do what I just did and do a google image search to see if I was wrong. You'll regret it if you do, its pretty gruesome.) Also, watch the U.S. centric-bias thats easy to slip into. Its terribly easy to start thinking of abortion primarily through the eyes of the pro-life/pro-choice debate, but its an unbelievably huge topic.--Tznkai (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, a significant portion of the English speaking world is spending time with family because of breaks from work and/or school, and a smaller portion, but still very large is celebrating Christmas, and generally, getting into debates about this difficult topic is not on the top of the to do list in those circumstances. Just something to keep in mind when worrying about the response rate.--Tznkai (talk) 06:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

@Tznkai: Agreed. I would love to take a break from this debate as well. Let's just leave the discussion open for now. Kaldari (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: It might help with the NPOV issue somewhat, but I'm sure someone would change it back to accurately describe the image at some point. I also share Tznkai's opinion that it doesn't really set the correct tone for the article. For a topic that touches so many areas, choosing one image to represent it doesn't seem appropriate. Even the childbirth article, which is arguably more narrow in scope, doesn't have a lead image. Kaldari (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

@Doc James: Your argument is a perfect argument for why that image should be featured in the history section, not in the lead. It is great for conveying the historical breadth of abortion, but it doesn't given any sense of abortion's current importance in the world or what what an abortion actually means in current medical practice. Kaldari (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

<Undent>Since it appears that discussion of the lead image has died off, I would like to try summarizing the results. It appears that a sizable majority (70%-88% depending on how I count it) support removing the current lead image. Objections that have been raised include: fails to be NPOV, does not set the right tone for the article, and too specific to convey the breadth of the topic. There is one strong supporter of the current image, Doc James, who believes that it is important for the article to have a lead image and that this image is neutral due to its historical quality. While several editors have expressed support for the article having a lead image, it does not appear that there is consensus for the "demon image" to be the one used. It appears that the best course of action, per this and the previous discussion, would be to remove the current image and then start a new discussion on what image (if any) could work as a new lead image. Given the contentious nature of the topic and the wide range of opinions, it would seem to be prudent to establish consensus on any new lead images before inserting them into the article. Kaldari (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sticking with my preference for no image in the lead. But that's not the same as urging immediate removal. First off, this image was put in the lead by edit-warring that simultaneously overhauled the lead's text. In my opinion, the image in the lead counterbalanced the POV problems in the lead's text. They should not be considered separately. If a change must be made immediately to the current image, it would be far preferable to merely remove the demon from the caption. I also dislike the idea of waiting until later to decide whether another image should go in the lead, but removing the present image now; the present image is the most suitable image available, and if it is removed then it ought to be removed with the understanding that no other currently available image will take its place.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. You state several different preferences in the above paragraph, some of which are mutually exclusive (or seem to be). I'm proposing that the "demon image" be removed for now, and no other image take it's place until such time as one is found that can reach consensus. Would that be acceptable to you? If your preference is for "no image in the lead" it seems like a solution that you would agree with, correct? Apologies if I'm misconstruing your statements. Kaldari (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Also I'm not sure I can buy into the arguments that 2 conflicting POVs = NPOV. If there are other POV problems in the lead, those can be dealt with separately. Trying to tie several issues together will only result in confusion and conflict, not consensus building. Kaldari (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize, this is a frustrating and complicated article for everyone to work on, and it's been in an especially difficult pickle the last few months. I don't think my previous comment above contains any contradictions. There's no urgent need to remove the top image, given that we could merely tweak the caption to emphasize what is most relevant about the image instead of mentioning the demon (though perhaps the demon could or should later be restored in a more palatable way). Removing the top image now would pave the way for replacing it with another image that's currently available at Wikipedia or Wikimedia, and I don't want to pave the way for one of those other images because I think this is the best one currently available. Of course, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that another fantastic image might become available in the future, but Tznkai laid out some very good reasons why the currently available images all suck (so to speak). I'd be okay with removing the top image immediately with the understanding that no other currently available image will replace it. As for tying the image to the lead's text, yes that does complicate things further, but looking at things holistically is not necessarily bad; please be involved with both. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any realistic chance that another image will be able to gain consensus for appearing in the lead any time soon. All the images suggested so far have had significant issues raised and do not appear close to achieving consensus. I don't think removing the current image "paves the way" for a replacement. The only thing it does is allow all images to start from equal footing in being evaluated for the lead. I also support having no lead image and will probably oppose any replacement unless it is a really compelling suggestion about some totally new image I haven't seen yet. I also don't think there's much point in dragging this issue out further by tying it with other issues as the discussion on the lead image has been going on since June (albeit with a significant gap). I think everyone who is going to express an opinion on this has already spoken and are unlikely to change their opinions significantly based on a tangential issue. Kaldari (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then, as far as I'm concerned you can go ahead and move the image down. Good luck not getting reverted by another editor. I tried to move it down in June but was reverted. And please look at the lead holistically. Moving the image down will exacerbate certain POV problems with the overall lead, while lessening other POV problems.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Top picture is not neutral

Why is there a picture of a fetus right at the top of the article? That isn't neutral at all. It looks like the Conservapedia. Sparky2010 (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That change was made against consensus and I am reverting it. Thanks for bringing it to my notice. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

No, conservapedia has this. Lets calm down with the rhetoric people.--Tznkai (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia has an interesting image of Hitler labeled just that near the bottom. Really not unexpected I guess.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Separately, as much as I love that picture, it was from, as I recall, a hysterectomy that also was an abortion, which would put it in a tiny minority of actual abortions performed. So, I once again return to the idea of "no image" for the lead.

That having been said, what in the world strikes you as "non-neutral?" about it? That it shows an intact embryo in gloved hand? That it is purportedly similar to the image that a non-neutral website would use? That its an accurate picture of the results of an actual medical procedure? Seriously, what? There is no sentimentality invoked or encouraged, no signage, no apparent endorsement of a position. If an image of a fetus is inherently non-neutral than we might as well close up shop, because at that point, we will have consigned all information to the partisans.--Tznkai (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Since an abortion is a procedure performed on a woman, one might expect there to be a woman in the picture. The framing of the "abortion debate" to obscure the women that the embryos are inside of is a POV trap that we don't need to fall into. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Abortion is also a (sometimes-)medical procedure that destroys a fetus, so one might also logically expect to find an image of a fetus in the infobox, no? NW (Talk) 06:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, we could debate that too. Maybe it's worth having a composite image. (ie. random example, if you look at any of the "[nationality/ethnicity] people" articles, like Italian people or Jews, the lead image is of several notable people. Maybe the lead image could be a composite of several abortion-related images. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I still have no idea what is wrong with the current image. No one is going to mistake a stone carving for what it is. Other pages use historical images in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm perfectly fine with the current image (I like historical images) except for the fact that it's difficult to tell what's happening. I'm not sure if that's something that could be solved through brightening/contrast though, just because it's a carving rather than 2d art. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I (and other users) have made our cases in the above section, but my issue with it is not neutrality, it is topical applicability. A lead image should be able to sum up the topic at a glance, but the top level abortion article covers a series of abortion methods, the social (legal, philosophical, political) aspects of abortion, the historical aspects of it, etc. We have a number of good images for individual subsections as well as the lower level articles, but not one for the top level article. The image we have up top should correspond to whatever image that the median reader would see if they closed their eyes and thought "abortion" - and there is no such image.--Tznkai (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, an induced abortion involves at a minimum, a (formerly, except in cases of selective reduction) pregnant woman, the death of a fetus and some sort of procedure, whether medical or unsafe, and possibly one or more doctors/practitioners. If we're really trying to encapsulate everything that is "involved" we have in addition, a male that was involved in the conception, a series of judges and lawmakers that have controlled the legal environment, and frequently family members that have influenced the decision whether or not to induce in whatever way. What I'm getting at here, is that if you try to understand neutrality in the lens of "whether or not the image includes an actor I think is important" you run the risk of absurdity. Images by their nature are susceptible to wide interpretation because, despite their press, they do not have a thousand words, but none at all.--Tznkai (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As discussed previously, it appears that an overwhelming majority of editors support having no image in the lead unless it achieves consensus here first. In that regard, the current image is just as problematic as the recently-removed fetus image. Both were added without building consensus first and neither are supported by a majority of the editors here. Since the previous discussion seems to have died out and it seems that everyone has expressed their opinions on it, I'm going to go ahead and move the "demon" image to the history section of the article and leave the lead space empty. I invite Doc James (or anyone else) to nominate any images they would like to appear in the lead for discussion here on the talk page. Once an image has achieved consensus here, and not before, it should be added to the lead of the article. This would seem to be the most diplomatic and non-disruptive solution to the issue. Kaldari (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone besides Anythingyouwant object to the medieval image? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a RFC is in order? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Alternately - this has been a bit disorganized - maybe someone can start a new thread with a sub-thread for each picture, so that editors can vote on each picture whether they strongly support it, whether they accept it, no opinion, oppose, etc. (See Talk:Crisis_pregnancy_center#Reference_by_reference_discussion for an example of the sort of thing I'm talking about.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(undent) with reasons of course... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

While I think the old stone picture was interesting it is strange, dated, confusing and unrepresentative of the majority of abortions. I would very much favor a modern picture of a fetus/embryo/whathaveyou in some stage of the abortion process. I think the appearance of more than one image could be made to look decent. - Schrandit (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I did object, I've not yet seen or even heard of a proposal for an adequate lead image. I can discuss my objections again to each in turn if needed--Tznkai (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I would support having further discussions/voting on the medieval image (or any image). Kaldari (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi All, As I mentioned earlier, we had a strikingly similar RfC on this topic nearly 2 years ago (see FAQ#5 above). Most of the participants were arguing for or against inclusion or exclusion of particular lead images back then based on very similar POV/neutrality arguments you all are using now. Several of us, myself included, contended that its pointless arguing for or against an image based on POV or neutrility because everyone has an opinion about abortion one way or the other, and either way there's a heavy emotional load on those opinions. For me, its really a question of censorship first and foremost and followed by what constitutes good taste and applicability in image selection. The lovely picture of the intact fetus within an amniotic sac being held is far, far more sanitary than what the end product of surgical abortion actually looks like. This unfortunate little person was obviously carefully disected intact from a hysterectomy specimen, and presents itself as a very good specimen of an intact fetus. That said, it is a human fetus, and some people will find the image disturbing. For that reason, the use of an illustration or diagram was suggested as a reasonable approach in the last RfC, & I think that's what we went with before the fetus image arrived. Maybe it is time for another RfC, but in suggesting this I'd like to support Doc James' idea that we !vote to support/oppose all the current candidates for lead image and try to form consensus that way. History tells me the long winded discussion method will most likely end up with another "no concensus" result. Happy new year! Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 03:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead Image Voting/Discussion

Here are all the candidates suggested for the lead image in the recent discussion. (Except the coathangers, that clearly was not serious.) Please vote on whether you enthusiastically advocate the image, would accept it but don't feel strongly about it, would support if X change were made, weakly oppose, strongly oppose, etc. Feel free to suggest other images. You are encouraged to provide your reasoning.

Angkor Wat

• Would accept, but reluctantly. I have no policy argument against it, but it's difficult to see what's happening in the image and for that reason I would prefer something that was originally two-dimensional. That said, I'm still cool with keeping it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Using the image of a demon performing an abortion as our lead does not reflect neutrally on either the procedure or those who practice it, regardless of the historical nature of the artwork. Although it isn't as problematic as some of the alternatives, I would rather wait for something better. Kaldari (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Would imply that the best way to understand abortion is through a historical lens, which is not neutral, although not in the sense that we normally argue about it. Probably better just to think about it is as inaccurate: abortion can be well understood on a number of levels, whether as a moral issue, a public health issue, a legal issue, and so on and in combination.--Tznkai (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support. Its an interesting image, but its busy and kind of hard to figure out what's going on. I'd be happy to have this because of the historical perspective, but it doesn't reflect current medical practice, and had a kind of chaotic, calamatous feel to it. Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 20:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - strange, confusing and not particularly representative of abortion. - Haymaker (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Cannot be taken out of context. Interesting historical image.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - again historical is not the only framework for understanding of abortion, and if a lead image is needed it seems rather an obscure one to use for it.DMSBel (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. This image provides zero information relevant to the person who comes to the page seeking basic encyclopedic info about abortion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.19.82 (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Medieval midwife

• Enthusiastically advocate. The figures are clear, it's morally neutral, it's historical. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think this article, ostensibly neutral, needs to play into a political framing that completely excludes the fetus from the discussion. Also, this does not show an abortion, but rather merely shows preparation for an abortion. Also, I would like to have a translation of the material cropped out of the image.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose (exactly what I said previous image) Would imply that the best way to understand abortion is through a historical lens, which is not neutral, although not in the sense that we normally argue about it. Probably better just to think about it is as inaccurate: abortion can be well understood on a number of levels, whether as a moral issue, a public health issue, a legal issue, and so on and in combination.--Tznkai (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Support'. Same as the angkor wat image, minus the chaos and calamity. A historical piece not necessarily relevant to current practice, unless RU486 is derived from a pennyroyal alkaloid. Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 20:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - dated and hard to identify. - Haymaker (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Cannot be taken out of context. Interesting historical image.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - would be POV as a lead image as it gives the impression that an historical lens is the way to understand the subject, when it needs to be understood on multiple levels as per Tznkai comment above. It also is hardly clear in the picture what is going on. DMSBel (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - this is clearly a neutral image that shows an abortion from a non-emotional, non-political perspective. The historicity of it is a plus as well. WikiManOne (talk) 07:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. This image provides zero information relevant to the person who comes to the page seeking basic encyclopedic info about abortion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.19.82 (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I prefer no image for the lead as abortion is a very broad subject that cannot be adequately conveyed in a single image. Plus this image isn't a particularly good illustration of anything. It's more decorative than informative. Kaldari (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Abortion methods

• Strongly oppose. As I state below, I favor artistic or historical images over diagrams, and this isn't even a diagram - it is not illustrative in the way I feel a lead image should be. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. It tells the reader what current methods are available to induce abortion, and when they can be used. I imagine if one is in the situation of considering a termination, this could be some helpful information. There's no demons, no "how-to", no historical inaccuracies, and no emotional loading I can discern. The only thing it needs is a legend to explain the acronyms, which is no big deal. (Forgot to sign this post! Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 08:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC))
• Oppose. I hate to oppose my own image, but I just don't think it would make a good lead picture. It has to be displayed at fairly high resolution to be readable. Kaldari (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral Not an image but a diagram. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral : While reminding people that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not for providing advice.DMSBel (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. This image would be good for an article titled "abortion data", but is not that relevant to the person who comes to the page seeking basic encyclopedic info about abortion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.19.82 (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Russian poster

• Would accept. NPOV has been brought up, but this picture isn't anti-abortion - abortion was free and legal at the time, and the poster advocates against having midwives perform it, not against the procedure. (Which is another POV issue, but not the POV issue.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think this article, ostensibly neutral, needs to play into a political framing that completely excludes the fetus from the discussion. Also, this does not show an abortion, but rather merely shows preparation for an abortion. Also, this image doesn't look so great, and is getting ample attention further down in the article. Also, all the Russian language stuff is not good for an English language Wikipedia, even though we have a translation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Along with other issues (topical focus), this is the English Wikipedia, and accessibility to an English speaking audience is also a major goal of good writing.--Tznkai (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Without being able to red Russian, I infer from the pictures that if I have an abortion I will die. Too heavy handed. All medical procedures have risks, but death from a medical abortion these days must be vanishingly rare. Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 20:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose While the poster may have a valid message and be important, it may not be the best one to use if a lead image is really needed here. DMSBel (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. It seems hard to tell that it is about abortion in the first place. Also, the comic seems slightly biased based on the pictures, but I can't read Russian, so it may not be. Wikiagoo(talk) 18:11 30 January 2011
• Oppose. This image provides zero information relevant to the person who comes to the page seeking basic encyclopedic info about abortion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.19.82 (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Vacuum aspiration

• Weak oppose. I have no policy argument against it, but I think it looks nicer to have an artistic/historical image. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Looks too much like a manual.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with AYW that there is a "how-to" element going on here, but it is an accurate and sanitary depiction of suction curettage. Perhaps the image would be better without the tags as a lead image and have a duplicate with the tags in the article to explain the workings of a D&C. For the record, I supported use of this image in the 2009 RfC. Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 20:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose As per Roscelese Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose - it is far too specific to a particular abortive procedure for a lead image. And per Anythingyouwant it does make the page look like a manual WP:NOTMANUAL DMSBel (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Weakly Suppport. It is a good diagram showing one patiular type of abortion, but a simplier one may do better. Wikiagoo (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support, but it would be better to show an objective photo image of the most common abortion procedure (such as a fetus with the surgical instrument poised to begin or part way through the physical degradation of the fetus). DEATH is ALWAYS part of an abortion, and usage of the word abortion most often refers to a human surgical abortion. An objective article would use an image that conveys this most basic and typical reality of abortion. One's views for or against abortion don't alter the fact that an abortion (as we most commonly use the term) is a surgical procedure done in the latter first trimester of human pregnancy. The image should be of that surgical procedure. Not a gory image, but a cold scientific one that may be unpleasant to those who don't like to think about what happens in any surgery. Just as a gory image is propaganda, no image of the basic surgery is also propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.19.82 (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Therapeutic fetus

• Strongly oppose. I don't think this article, ostensibly neutral, needs to play into a political framing that completely excludes women from the discussion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the image's author deliberately excluded the woman because of political framing, or that having this image (as the lead or at all?) would support/enact such political framing?--Tznkai (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The latter. I've no problem with using the image later in the article; I just oppose its use for the lead. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't think this article, ostensibly neutral, needs to play into a political framing that completely excludes the mother from the discussion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Its a fetus! But for the existence of this little being, there would be no article! I understand some people may find the image distressing, but we're not here to provide counselling and emotional support, we're here to provide information. And it's a great picture. Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 20:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - In your support for this image, you detailed clearly why this would be an inappropriate image. It would clearly advance a political agenda. WikiManOne (talk) 07:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - We could do better, but this is the best, most relevant and informative picture I have seen so far. - Haymaker (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose While it is a great image it does not speak of abortion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - the image is very untypical of an aborted fetus. It is also misleadingly titled here, 10 week-old aborted fetus might be better for the discussion. I also recall reading that the baby here was still alive. The photo's current position in the article (beside spontaneous abortion) is confusing. Any image should be beside the relevant text. While we should exercise due caution here about what image if any is used for the lead I have considerable doubt that this would be the one to use. I support no lead image. I am neutral leaning towards oppose about this one being kept in the article. DMSBel (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose its use in any way in the article. This is clearly advancing a WP:POV and is inappropriate in the article. WikiManOne (talk) 07:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. It does not relate to abortion as close as it should. Wikiagoo (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support, but it would be better to show an objective real image of the most common abortion procedure (such as a fetus with the surgical instrument poised to begin or part way through the physical degradation of the fetus). DEATH is ALWAYS part of an abortion, and usage of the word abortion most often refers to a human surgical abortion. An objective article would use an image that conveys this most basic and typical reality of abortion. On's views for or against abortion don't alter the fact that an abortion (as we most commonly use the term) is a surgical procedure done in the latter first trimester of human pregnancy. The image should be of that surgical procedure. Not a gory image, but a cold scientific one that may be unpleasant to those who don't like to think about what happens in any surgery. Just as a gory image is propaganda, no image of the basic surgery is also propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.19.82 (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see how no lead image is strictly propaganda. I am still tending towards no lead image, but not towards no image at all. If you mean that ending the life (death) of the foetus/unborn baby is always the intent of abortion I agree, however it is not the case that every attempted abortion results in death - there have been survivors of abortion. I apologise if this has already been discussed. (Note: I am using foetus instead of fetus (on this talk page) from now on as I am from the UK and that is how we spell it. I agree with consensus on spelling in the article). User:DMSBel 62.254.133.139 (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Support. It's one of the most amazing and intriguing photographs I have ever seen in my life and I think it demonstrates the subject very well. Though I do understand it could potentially be something to upset women who have had abortions for instance or equally someone who has suffered a miscarriage... Pastel kitten (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think the image is fine for use in the article, but I don't really think it is well suited to be the lead image as it does not reflect a typical abortion. Regardless, I think the topic is probably too broad to be covered by a single image anyway. Kaldari (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No image

• Weak oppose. I like images, and I think that as abortion has been a recurring topic throughout history, we ought to have some relevant image. On the other hand, this may be the only way we can reach compromise. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I don't see why a lead image is really necessary. Similar articles, such as Childbirth, Miscarriage, Medical abortion, Abortifacient, Self-induced abortion, Unsafe abortion, etc. don't have lead images, and considering the large breadth of this subject - medical, political, historical - I don't know how a single image would be able to represent it well. Kaldari (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(tangent) Is there consensus at Medical abortion against a lead image? Because then if the medieval image isn't selected here, I'll float the idea there. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Not that I know of, although it might be better suited for Abortifacient. Kaldari (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

True. Thanks. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support The abortion article is the top level article, trying cover a wide range of topics, including: significantly different methodologies across nine months of rapid fetal development, legal perspectives, philosophical, historical, cultural, societal and probably a few more that I'm forgetting. Any image would have to adequately introduce, cover and represent the topic as a whole, which I don't think any conceivable image is capable of doing. There is no shared mental image in our collective minds as to what an abortion is so I don't imagine there is an image we could make that would cover it. --Tznkai (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Kaldari and Tznkai. Plus, there was an old and stable version of this article until recently that had no image in the lead, and I think that longstanding consensus counts for something.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support as above, in the situation a consensus can't be reached, no image at all would be better than one a bunch of us don't like. Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 20:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - An article of this magnitude deserves a picture. We're smart people, we can work it out. - Haymaker (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Should have an image Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Seems the article was fine for a long period without a lead image, and a lead image is not strictly necessary as per many other important articles, also better none than a default image that most people don't agree with. Many of us do have mental images as to what an aborted fetus looks like. I am not against people seeing some of the photos, but not sure that wikipedia is the place for that, certainly not as a lead image. DMSBel (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I think every article should have a good image that imparts, at a glance, the topic well. None of the proposed images do that. So, I am not supportive of "No image", but not supportive of any of the proposed images. Atom (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you're welcome to suggest more. Make sure it's public domain or under some other free license though, as we're not going to be able to plead fair use here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - Why pretend that an image here is any different than an image anywhere else? The same trade-offs regarding the use of an image exist here as in any other article. It is the ultimate in PC to pretend that an image here would not be helpful and utterly appropriate. Images inform - which is the goal of wikipedia. As one said above: "We're smart people, we can work it out." I say this as one who spent hours editing this article over the course of years while stationed overseas in Europe and in Afghanistan and persisted in advocating (successfully) for the inclusion of the word "death" in the opening sentence. A scientific image that demonstrates this medical procedure will not be controversial; it is the refusal to let the reality of the image be seen that is controversial. Just as abortion ALWAYS involves a biological death, so too every objective image of an abortion (and abortion is overwhelmingly discussed and debated and thought of by humans primarily as a human surgical procedure) ALWAYS portrays that death. The image will be controversail only to the extent death is controversial. And death may be unsettling, but it is not controversial (unless one thinks the fetus is a person, but that moral view should not be factored into the main paragraph and image for an encyclopedic article about a factual medical/biological event). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.19.82 (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia, because it is the "free" encyclopedia, has strict rules regarding where it's content comes from and how it is licensed. The reason why we are fairly limited to these images is because they are currently the only "free" images we have gathered. While it may be all well and good to propose hypothetical images, the reality is we can only use images which have been licensed freely. Do you have a specific image in mind? Do you know the licensing status? It is sometimes hard to obtain specific medical images because they may be protected for textbook or corporate use. It is easier to go and take a picture of the statue of liberty than it is to take a picture of an abortion in a medical setting, so a user created image may be out of the question. You may be able to contact a doctor who could be able to create and donate an image, but it may be a long shot. Anyway, not to burst your bubble, but we should focus on specific free images available to us, or work to obtain a better image (if we could all agree on that). Just something to consider. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply to 67.233.19.82. It's better to take people's comments at face value (while disagreeing) and ask questions without infering pretense, as per WP:AGF. People here have given reasons why they support no lead image. User:Tznkai is correct, this not a narrow topic - it stretches from medicine to law to philosophy with a whole lot in-between. I have based my own view on others comments with consideration of the options. User:DMSBel 62.254.133.139 (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Composite image (composition presumably to be discussed if this option is agreed upon)

• Would accept. Who knows, this too may be the only way we can reach a compromise. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - These sort of composites work OK for images of people, but I can't imagine many abortion-related images being usable at such low resolutions. Most of the images in the list above, for example, would be difficult to interpret at that size. Kaldari (talk) 05:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral leaning to oppose. I can imagine the endless debate about which images and their relative sizes and position within the composite going round and round and round. I'd prefer no image if we can't make a decision on a particular one. Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 21:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support - This is what a lot of the historical articles I have worked on do. We could make this happen. - Haymaker (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• Undecided Would need to see said image... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Undecided leaning toward Oppose Would need to see it first, but tend to agree with Kaldari that any such image might be unusable. DMSBel (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)