Talk:The Silent Scream

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Silent Scream article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 12 months

Abortion

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film: Documentary / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Documentary films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Catergories

Could someone take the liberty of catergorizing this article? Obviously, some choices would be abortion, etc.

Counter Strike Clan

It turns out that someone by the name of Iced Liquid is advertising his counter strike clan here. If you all see it again, please edit it out. Thanks.

"Anti-abortion propaganda film"

The first sentence of the lead paragraph describes the subject as an ''"anti-abortion propaganda film"'' based on an article by now retired political science professor Rosalind P. Petchesky, an academic advocate of legal abortion. Petchesky's source article itself could reasonably be described as propaganda, as it early-on describes certain images in the film as "voyeuristic-necrophillic photographs of [fetal] remains". I think we can agree this is not the source we want for the first description of the subject. I further suggest that we drop "propandanda" from "anti-abortion film" for reasons I described in my edit to the article a day or two ago. Here's a good source that describes The Silent Scream more simply as an "an anti-abortion film". [https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/silent-scream-1984-bernard-nathanson-crusade-life-and-american-portrait-films] Goodtablemanners (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section of any article is never based on one source. Rather, the lead section must always be a summary of all sources.

Many sources describe the film as propaganda. Binksternet (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And many sources describe it simply as anti-abortion. What you've said addresses little of what I've raised here or in my edit comments. Specifically, which sources that are now used in the article describe Silent Scream as a "propaganda film" or as just plain "propaganda"? Again, editorials, op-eds, and references to what clear pro-choice partisans have said don't really count. Also the description "anti-abortion film" seems to have been accepted for a long time here, so you should have a lot more ammunition than you've yet shown to change that. Goodtablemanners (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have misrepresented Wikipedia a couple of ways. WP:V does not require that supporting sources are "now used in the article", just that they exist and that they are able to verify the facts. Second, Wikipedia does not require sources be unbiased.

You are creating an unnecessary barrier by asking for sources saying it is a propaganda film rather than propaganda in general. Propaganda in film form is a propaganda film, full stop.

Long-term policy violations don't cement the violations in place just because they existed uncorrected for some time. Binksternet (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument here seems to be that long term policy violations are wordings you dislike. Some sources out there call the film propaganda and some merely call the film anti-abortion. What's the specific policy rule that requires us to call it propaganda? Incidentally, are there any pro-abortion rights films with article here that are explicitly labelled as propaganda? Goodtablemanners (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A false equivalence is not required for this article to be labeled appropriately, following the sources. Binksternet (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully my recent edit fixed/resolved this. If not, we can continue to discuss.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 21:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a "false equivalence" because ...? Actually, films on both sides of the abortion debate are commonly called propaganda, particularly by those on the other side of the issue. The description is so common that on Wikipedia it seems to be one of those truisms that we don't bother mentioning, so I really don't think we should make a special attempt to mention it here. Goodtablemanners (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over Wikipedia's articles on all the films listed under "Films about abortion" or "Documentary films about abortion" none of the more than 160 are directly described as either "propaganda" or as "propaganda films" and only three or so are indirectly described that way by using a named source. Goodtablemanners (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles don't have a bearing on this one. This film is older and has a lot more literature discussing it.

I listed a bunch of sources calling it propaganda but there are many more. The propaganda label must be represented. This is not a battle worth dying for. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen from my edit, I support describing this film as RS's do. My quick perusal of some of those film articles shows that many tell the story of the conflicts which happen around the abortion issue, and thereby aren't trying to generate converts for either side, so would never be labelled propaganda. Additionally, as Binksternet said: "Other articles don't have a bearing on this one." - and my addition to that is that there may be many articles which are either incomplete or not up to Wikipedia's policy standards, so other articles are not to be used as models. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 21:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be sure, many of the films present the abortion element in a non-judgmental way as part of a wider story. However quite a few, particularly among the documentary entries, are largely abortion war films and they are found on both sides of the issue. Goodtablemanners (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i find it funny none of the 'refuters'ever acknowledged dr.nathanson mentioning the elevation in the fetus' heartrate during the proceedure thats medical 101 those idiots that is your primary finding the fetus is certainly responding with reflex as well!! see how they over look that very simple but powerful detail never mentioning it once...massive deceptors. for the almighty green dollar. dr. nathanson is my hero. JodiMacP (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nathanson is a doctor of religion, not medicine. Binksternet (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, Nathanson was a doctor of medicine. Was the above comment supposed to be sarcastic? Goodtablemanners (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]