Talk:Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis/FAQ: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
replies |
new version from talk |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{warning|The accuracy and neutrality of this FAQ is disputed. It may represent one editor's personal viewpoint as opposed to a proper explanation of Wikipedia policy and practices. These "answers" should not be interpreted as anything other than one editor's beliefs about the related article's content.}} |
|||
<noinclude> |
<noinclude> |
||
{{FAQ page}} |
{{FAQ page}} |
||
{{bots|deny=all}} |
{{bots|deny=all}} |
||
</noinclude> |
</noinclude> |
||
#'''Isn't abortion-breast cancer hypothesis false, disproved and [[WP:Fringe]]?''' |
|||
#:A causal link pushed by pro-life groups is false, disproved and fringe. |
|||
#'''Why doesn't the lead say there is no abortion-breast cancer risk?''' |
|||
#:That's a good question. It really should say that, because Wikipedia's [[WP:NPOV]] policy emphasizes the scientific point of view on scientific topics. |
|||
#::Sure if the view proven / uniform, it is not (Daling, WHO). Pretending it is violates NPOV. |
|||
#'''Haven't studies showing an increased abortion-breast cancer risk been found to be flawed (ie. response bias)?''' |
|||
#:Yes. Response bias is the main factor for positive results in case-control studies. |
|||
#::Could be (a) factor, but expert opinions does not science make; and many factors are involved with these studies. |
|||
#:::Expert opinion is supposed to be ''the basis'' for our coverage on Wikipedia. That's fundamental, non-negotiable [[WP:NPOV|policy]]. You don't get to "out-vote" actual experts in the field just because you have Internet access, a Wikipedia account, and an incredible degree of stubbornness. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 20:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
#::::Well sticking to what's proven isn't stubbornness, just science. While I concur with the thrust of this statement, we shouldn't confuse opinions with science. The science on ABC response bias is terrible, pretending otherwise isn't NPOV, nor is assuming bias statistically significant in interview studies. That's what the experts are doing, and its wrong to do (even assuming they are right). Isn't it? - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] 23:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
{{FAQ row |
|||
#'''Brind is a self-professed pro-life advocate; why is he used as an expert?''' |
|||
|q=Q1: Why does the article state unequivocally that the hypothesis is not supported? Science can never definitively prove a negative. What about the neutrality policy? |
|||
#:Because while his position has attracted no scientific support, he has been quoted in newspapers on the subject. Because Brind's view is an extreme minority viewpoint, it should not be given [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]]. While one could conceivably argue that he is an "expert" on reproductive endocrinology, there are hundreds if not thousands of other experts who disagree with him; his individual viewpoint should not be given undue weight over theirs, as a matter of [[WP:NPOV|fundamental Wikipedia policy]]. |
|||
|a='''A1:''' The policy that articles be presented from a [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|neutral point of view]] requires that the article text adhere most closely to the most reliable sources. In this case, major medical organizations state that the evidence does not support a connection, so the article must do so as well. It is true that science cannot [[argumentum ad ignorantiam|prove a negative]], but the article must follow the sources in portraying the possibility that the current evidence will be overthrown as unlikely. |
|||
#::This is gratuitous, he is an expert (no caveats) and even published research on this very topic. And logically just having many experts saying "I agree" makes for a boring and incomplete article. |
|||
}} |
|||
#:::Let's put aside the question of whether he's an "expert", which is subjective on some level. Objectively, Brind has had zero scientific impact in terms of convincing his peers. Zero. None. The National Cancer Institute studied this question - about 100 experts agreed there was no causal link, and Brind was the ''only'' one who disagreed. But his view is given equal weight to the 100 or so experts who disagree with him. Doesn't that strike you as just a little bit wrong? Giving prominence to his view is a gross violation of [[WP:WEIGHT]]. Your final statement, indicating that you're not interested in proportionately representing expert opinion because doing so would make the article "boring", is mind-blowing. But I thank you for your honesty. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 20:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
#::::The operative word there was "many", meaning listing everyone and saying it repeatedly would be boring. No fire, no need for fireworks. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] 23:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
{{FAQ row |
|||
#'''Why is the article so long?''' |
|||
|q=Q2: What about paper 'X'? Why was my referenced text deleted? |
|||
#:See [[WP:CGTW|rule #19]]. |
|||
|a='''A2:''' Individual sources are accorded [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight|weight]] according to how they are treated by other [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|reliable sources]]. In particular, an individual study should not be used to [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)|rebut a large review]]. |
|||
#::So there is no conflicting evidence then? Is it your intent to insult, implying I'm not regarding the subject rationally? Tell me how you're being rational concluding: "Response bias is the main factor for positive results in case-control studies." Because consensus of expert opinion... oh wait, Daling explicitly looked for it and didn't find it, and says as much. But you are too busy being "right" to notice. Disappointing Mastcell. - [[User:RoyBoy|Roy]][[User talk:RoyBoy|'''Boy''']] 18:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
|||
{{FAQ row |
|||
|q=Q3: What about this expert? Why are their views not described in detail or given any weight? |
|||
|a='''A3:''' Individual experts can have a large impact on the political and cultural controversies, but scientifically we must defer to the major medical organizations that have commented on the hypothesis. |
|||
}} |
|||
{{FAQ row |
|||
|q=Q4: The major medical organizations are in the thrall of the abortion industry! |
|||
|a='''A4:''' Wikipedia relies on [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources|independent reliable sources]] and is not an appropriate venue for promoting various conspiracy theories. |
|||
}} |
|||
{{FAQ row |
|||
|q=Q5: Why not just describe all the relevant papers and let the reader decide? |
|||
|a='''A5:''' Wikipedia is an [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia|encyclopedia]], not a historical literature review. The doctors and scientists who study such things have already done the work of [[Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material|synthesizing]] the primary literature. As an encyclopedia, we summarize this analysis. |
|||
}} |
|||
{{FAQ row |
|||
|q=Q6: Why does the article use the term "anti-abortion" rather than "pro-life"? |
|||
|a='''A6:''' The [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]] policy requires that we avoid biased and loaded terms. This stylistic choice follows that of major newspapers. |
|||
}} |
|||
{{FAQ row |
|||
|q=Q7: Why are partisan sources being cited? |
|||
|a='''A7:''' Partisan sources are [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources|reliable]] for their own opinions and may be important for explaining the cultural and political controversy. Use should be minimized or avoided in other contexts. |
|||
}} |
|||
{{FAQ row |
|||
|q=Q8: Why is this idea described as a "hypothesis" instead of a "theory" or "myth" or as the "ABC link"? |
|||
|a='''A8:''' "Theory" or "link" would imply a degree of acceptance by the medical community that is not evident. "Myth" would imply that there was never any reason to pose the question. |
|||
}} |
|||
Latest revision as of 15:55, 11 November 2014
 | Below are answers to frequently asked questions about the corresponding page Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis. They address concerns, questions, and misconceptions which have repeatedly arisen on the talk page. Please feel free to change this material in light of new discussion. |
Q1: Why does the article state unequivocally that the hypothesis is not supported? Science can never definitively prove a negative. What about the neutrality policy?
A1: The policy that articles be presented from a neutral point of view requires that the article text adhere most closely to the most reliable sources. In this case, major medical organizations state that the evidence does not support a connection, so the article must do so as well. It is true that science cannot prove a negative, but the article must follow the sources in portraying the possibility that the current evidence will be overthrown as unlikely.
Q2: What about paper 'X'? Why was my referenced text deleted?
A2: Individual sources are accorded weight according to how they are treated by other reliable sources. In particular, an individual study should not be used to rebut a large review.
Q3: What about this expert? Why are their views not described in detail or given any weight?
A3: Individual experts can have a large impact on the political and cultural controversies, but scientifically we must defer to the major medical organizations that have commented on the hypothesis.
Q4: The major medical organizations are in the thrall of the abortion industry!
A4: Wikipedia relies on independent reliable sources and is not an appropriate venue for promoting various conspiracy theories.
Q5: Why not just describe all the relevant papers and let the reader decide?
A5: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a historical literature review. The doctors and scientists who study such things have already done the work of synthesizing the primary literature. As an encyclopedia, we summarize this analysis.
Q6: Why does the article use the term "anti-abortion" rather than "pro-life"?
A6: The Neutral point of view policy requires that we avoid biased and loaded terms. This stylistic choice follows that of major newspapers.
Q7: Why are partisan sources being cited?
A7: Partisan sources are reliable for their own opinions and may be important for explaining the cultural and political controversy. Use should be minimized or avoided in other contexts.
Q8: Why is this idea described as a "hypothesis" instead of a "theory" or "myth" or as the "ABC link"?
A8: "Theory" or "link" would imply a degree of acceptance by the medical community that is not evident. "Myth" would imply that there was never any reason to pose the question.