This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Abortion鈥揵reast cancer hypothesis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources:聽 Source guidelines聽路 PubMed聽路 Cochrane聽路 DOAJ聽路 Gale聽路 OpenMD聽路 ScienceDirect聽路 Springer聽路 Trip聽路 Wiley聽路 TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 90聽days聽 |
Frequently asked questions 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. |
Abortion鈥揵reast cancer hypothesis has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
What does the "Criticism of Media Coverage" section contribute to the article? The fact that the issue is politicized and subject to misrepresentation in the media has already been covered in previous sections. The "CoMC" section merely highlights some not-very-notable comments on the subject.
I propose removing the "CoMC" section. Can anyone cite a good reason not to do so? Goblinshark17 ( talk) 02:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
UPDATE: It's been two days since I posted the above. I will give it until the end of the weekend, then, if there are no responses, I will delete the "CoMC" section. Goblinshark17 ( talk) 22:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
FURTHER UPDATE: It's Sunday night and no one has posted any good reason (or any reason at all) to keep the CoMC section. Accordingly, I have deleted it. It's gone! RIP. Goblinshark17 ( talk) 00:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
鈥 | Recall or response bias occurs when women intentionally "underreport" or deny their abortion history. Women in control groups are less likely to have serious illnesses, and for personal reasons have less motivation to be truthful than those trying to diagnose their problem.[7] If this occurs it artificially creates an ABC risk where none exists. The Lindefors-Harris (1991) study was the first major study to examine response bias.[29] Using data of two Swedish induced abortion studies it concluded there was a 1.5 (1.1 鈥 2.1) margin of error from recall bias. However, eight women in this error margin "overreported" their abortions, meaning they reported having an abortion that was not recorded, so the researchers concluded it did not happen.[29] The 1994 Daling study found it "reasonable to assume that virtually no women who truly did not have an abortion would claim to have had one."[28][30] With the overreporting removed the error margin went from 50% to 16%. Brind believes the remainder may be from the Swedish fertility registry[31] 鈥 where women were interviewed as new mothers 鈥 which could have increased underreporting.[32] | 鈥 |
User:HandsomeMrToad can you redo my edit to "is accounted for by recall bias", it's an opinion stated as fact from here, but even its referenced study considers it Fair evidence of no ABC association. - Roy Boy 16:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The "Epidemiological evidence" section is starting to read like a review of the scientific literature, not an encyclopedia article. Most of the studies described appear to be meta-analyses, so OK as sources (not "primary sources"), but, should a Wikipedia article be a list of meta-analyses? Shouldn't it be more of a big-picture summary as defined by the leading professional authorities? HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 05:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Abortion鈥揵reast cancer hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.鈥 InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Abortion鈥揵reast cancer hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.鈥 InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
This article should be moved to Abortion鈥揵reast cancer myth. It was never a hypothesis, in the scientific sense, it was a case of policy-based evidence making, a conjecture developed in service of a pre-existing agenda. Guy ( Help!) 21:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Abortion鈥揵reast cancer hypothesis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources:聽 Source guidelines聽路 PubMed聽路 Cochrane聽路 DOAJ聽路 Gale聽路 OpenMD聽路 ScienceDirect聽路 Springer聽路 Trip聽路 Wiley聽路 TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 90聽days聽 |
Frequently asked questions 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. |
Abortion鈥揵reast cancer hypothesis has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
What does the "Criticism of Media Coverage" section contribute to the article? The fact that the issue is politicized and subject to misrepresentation in the media has already been covered in previous sections. The "CoMC" section merely highlights some not-very-notable comments on the subject.
I propose removing the "CoMC" section. Can anyone cite a good reason not to do so? Goblinshark17 ( talk) 02:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
UPDATE: It's been two days since I posted the above. I will give it until the end of the weekend, then, if there are no responses, I will delete the "CoMC" section. Goblinshark17 ( talk) 22:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
FURTHER UPDATE: It's Sunday night and no one has posted any good reason (or any reason at all) to keep the CoMC section. Accordingly, I have deleted it. It's gone! RIP. Goblinshark17 ( talk) 00:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
鈥 | Recall or response bias occurs when women intentionally "underreport" or deny their abortion history. Women in control groups are less likely to have serious illnesses, and for personal reasons have less motivation to be truthful than those trying to diagnose their problem.[7] If this occurs it artificially creates an ABC risk where none exists. The Lindefors-Harris (1991) study was the first major study to examine response bias.[29] Using data of two Swedish induced abortion studies it concluded there was a 1.5 (1.1 鈥 2.1) margin of error from recall bias. However, eight women in this error margin "overreported" their abortions, meaning they reported having an abortion that was not recorded, so the researchers concluded it did not happen.[29] The 1994 Daling study found it "reasonable to assume that virtually no women who truly did not have an abortion would claim to have had one."[28][30] With the overreporting removed the error margin went from 50% to 16%. Brind believes the remainder may be from the Swedish fertility registry[31] 鈥 where women were interviewed as new mothers 鈥 which could have increased underreporting.[32] | 鈥 |
User:HandsomeMrToad can you redo my edit to "is accounted for by recall bias", it's an opinion stated as fact from here, but even its referenced study considers it Fair evidence of no ABC association. - Roy Boy 16:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The "Epidemiological evidence" section is starting to read like a review of the scientific literature, not an encyclopedia article. Most of the studies described appear to be meta-analyses, so OK as sources (not "primary sources"), but, should a Wikipedia article be a list of meta-analyses? Shouldn't it be more of a big-picture summary as defined by the leading professional authorities? HandsomeMrToad ( talk) 05:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Abortion鈥揵reast cancer hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.鈥 InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Abortion鈥揵reast cancer hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.鈥 InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
This article should be moved to Abortion鈥揵reast cancer myth. It was never a hypothesis, in the scientific sense, it was a case of policy-based evidence making, a conjecture developed in service of a pre-existing agenda. Guy ( Help!) 21:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)