Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis 2

Formal mediation case
Formal mediation case
Article	Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis (talk)
Opened	30 Apr 2010
Mediator	The Wordsmith (talk)
Status	Closed
Notes	None
	view; talk; edit; delete; watch;

Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.

To report a problem with the outcome of this case, contact the Mediation Committee.
If additional mediation proceedings are required, a new mediation request should be filed.
These case pages should not be edited, even to correct article content problems. Case pages are not indexed by search engines.

Resolved:

For an explanation of why the case was closed, refer to the talk page or contact the Mediation Committee

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis

Dispute specifics

Involved users

RoyBoy (talk · contribs), filing party
MastCell (talk · contribs)

Articles concerned in this dispute

Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

Extensive discussion on talk, including third parties that have raised initial good points in support of MastCell. However, this is the latest detailed salvo in an ongoing good faith dispute on weight of the consensus of secondary sources using unverified criticism of primary sources, versus the primary sources themselves. In fact, this is a continuation of the first mediation.

Issues to be mediated

Primary issues

Per WP:RS secondary sources are indeed preferred (such as the NCI workshop), however if one has a primary source (Dolle 2009) co-authored by Brinton and Daling who were also involved with the NCI workshop:
- Is that notable enough to include at the end of Abortion–breast_cancer_hypothesis#National_Cancer_Institute, as it was previously, minus the WorldNetDaily Stanek ref?
- Does it have sufficient weigh to mention in the Lead? (ie. disprove "largely settled as a scientific question" and contrast with NCI 2003 findings of "no association") The NCI workshop consensus has had a deleterious effect on some RS, such as the ACS recent unfortunate change. This admittedly alters the context of this discussion, but I argue does not change the primary evidence, especially with Dolle 2009 now available.
- As the NCI workshop does not reference its primary sources, and is not transparent on the vote of the experts in attendance, does it even meet the requirements of a secondary scientific systematic review?
- Is Brind's review/editorial of Dolle appropriate for inclusion?
Improve lead prose where "concluded that abortion does not cause breast cancer" is repeated twice in a lead paragraph, which appears to be an accurate overcompensation by MastCell.
Is Daling's quote sufficient to rebuke MastCell's "largely settled as a scientific question" in the lead?
- If not do any reference(s) provided permit Wikipedia to declare ABC "largely settled as a scientific question"?

Additional issues (added by other parties)

Additional issue 1.
Additional issue 2.

Parties' agreement to mediate

All parties should sign below, indicating that they agree to mediate the issue. If any party fails to sign within seven days, or if a party indicates they do not agree, then the mediation will be rejected. Only "Agree" or "Disagree" and signatures should appear here; any comments will be removed, but can be made at the talk page.

Agree, but going to the arbitration committee may be better, makes weight/policy decisions binding for the present, this will maintain the stability of the ABC article as it approaches FA quality. - Roy Boy 03:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to the presence of a mediator on the article talk page, to work with both of us together with other interested editors on finding consensus. MastCell ^Talk 20:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee

A member of the Mediation Committee will indicate acceptance/rejection/other relevant notes in this section. Non-Committee members should not edit this section; all comments should go on the talk page, unless a party is specifically requested to reply here by a Committee member.

Accept request. For the committee, AGK 22:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Wordsmith (talk · contribs) has agreed to mediate this case. AGK 01:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that this issue is stale; neither this page, the associated talkpage, nor the article talkpage have been edited in a while. the article itself appears stable. Unless both parties renew their request for mediation, I will close the case soon. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is stale from mediatiator not moving to the ABC talk page as agreed to above, we have reached an impasse on talk and require help there. The lead was modified by a third party removing issue 3, and I just removed issue 2 just now. But issue 1 still requires resolution and intepretation of Wikipolicy, preferably on ABC talk.

"Primary sources should rarely if ever be used to rebut secondary sources. When WHO, ACOG, &c. all take the same stance on an issue, we should not be in the position of providing a pulpit to the other side out of proportion to the consideration they receive by the wider medical community" from this thread.

Assistance would be appreciated. - Roy Boy 21:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.