This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Reproductive Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Women's Health Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health 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.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

The article is overall adequately complete. It includes relevant information surrounding D&E, its indications, descriptions, risks, alternatives and even the recent laws judicial changes surrounding abortion in the United States. There were no sections of the article that I found distracting or irrelevant to the topic.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular

The article appears to be neutral. It does a good job of pointing out the standard management of D&E with relevant sources. It also indicates instances where there is a no consensus or insufficient evidence.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The article doesn’t advocate for any certain viewpoints. It does mention the impact of abortion laws on the D&E procedure. However, discussing the varying viewpoints around abortion laws would not be appropriate for this article.

Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

All of the citations are functional. I was able to connect the information included in the article to the citations listed.

Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Each new piece of information is supported by a relevant and appropriate reference. A lot of the information is sourced from American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a very credible organization. Other information is sourced from reputable journals like Obstetrics and Gynecology. Those journal articles seem to be neutral in viewpoints.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?

A lot of the information originally included in the article was outdated. SDlren did a great a job of adding statistics from 2022-2023. Relevant information surrounding the new abortion laws was also included. A lot of the sources cited were recently published as well.

Tacobellbeanburrito (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edit to the article was reverted by @Avatar317 for what he describes as "repeated POV pushing by trying to hide POV language." The edit included additions of detail and statistics, including the prevalence of the procedure and the events that occur during a dilation & evacuation abortion. The reverter implies that the use of the terms "dismemberment" and "decapitation" in relation to the fetus are an attempt to "push a POV," yet that is precisely how the procedure is described in textbooks and training manuals relating to this procedure. As it stands, all the article states about the use of surgical tools in removing the fetus is, "uterine contents are removed using a cannula to apply aspiration, followed by forceps to remove fetal parts." This is a very vague, unspecific, and undetailed explanation of what occurs. My proposed adjustments to the Surgical procedure section would have adjusted the section to read:

A speculum is placed in the vagina to allow visualization of the cervix. If osmotic dilators were placed prior to the procedure, these are removed.^[1]

The cervix may be further dilated with rigid dilator instruments such as Hegar and Pratt dilators (as opposed to osmotic dilators).^[2] Sufficient cervical dilation decreases the risk of morbidity, including cervical injury and uterine perforation.^[3][2] Uterine contents (such as amniotic fluid) are removed using a suction cannula, followed by forceps to dismember and extract the body parts of the fetus.^[4][5] Crushing or decapitation of the fetal skull with forceps may be necessary to extract the head, especially later on in the second trimester.^[6]

Tissue inspection after the procedure ensures removal of the fetus in its entirety. The procedure may be performed under ultrasound guidance to aid in visualizing uterine anatomy and to assess if all tissue has been removed at the completion of the procedure.^[7] Operative ultrasonography is beneficial because it can reduce the risk of uterine perforation.^[8] The procedure usually takes less than half an hour.^[9]

This isn't "POV pushing." This is precisely how the procedure is performed, and it is described as such in a book written by Warren Hern, a widely referenced and notable provider in the abortion industry. DocZach (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting input from other editors regarding the level of detail in the description of the dilation and evacuation procedure in this article. My recent edits to expand this section, which included additional detail and references, were reverted. The current description in the article is as follows: "Uterine contents are removed using a cannula to apply aspiration, followed by forceps to remove fetal parts."

I proposed revising this section to provide more specific details, including the instruments used and the other procedural steps. You can review my proposed changes in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dilation_and_evacuation&oldid=1270115407

I ask editors the following:

1. Are terms such as "dismemberment" and "decapitation," which are referenced in medical literature, appropriate for inclusion?
2. Should the article include information about the crushing of the fetal skull, a common part of the procedure?
3. Should the article mention that dilation & evacuation is the most common abortion procedure in the second trimester?

I appreciate feedback from the community to help resolve this dispute. Thank you. DocZach (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No to 1 and 2 - based on your editing history: see the recent edits (and my reversions) on this article - you are cherry-picking sources to find what you want to say, rather than what a majority of the WP:BESTSOURCES say.
  I haven't seen a source for 3, IF there is a valid source, than yes we should state that; but not using a source from 40 years ago like you tried here [1].---Avatar317^(talk) 02:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]