Talk:Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis/Archive 1

message: Well here is the article. I apologize for all the references, but I felt it necessary given the subject matter to have the first draft contain them. Then as time passes I, or others can remove them. I hope it isn't a total disaster. --RoyBoy 18:36, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

message: The quote from When Smoke Ran Like Water is talking about pollution, not abortion.  The context of this quote makes it sound like Davis is critical of abortion, and I have no information to suggest that she is.  There is certainly no moral equivalency between polluting the environment and elective abortion. NTK 13:49, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That is indeed true, however it was not my intention to imply she is critical of abortion; or even is supporting the ABC link. That is why I put "feminist" and "ABC skeptic", but I am confident it is an appropriate quote on the validity of rat-human comparisons. Whether she is talking about environmental pollution or something else entirely I believe the quote stands on its own. I can certainly attempt to clarify that since I do not want to provide a false impression. BTW, is there such a thing as a feminists against abortion? I put in "pro-choice" prior to feminist, but that seems redundant. --RoyBoy 18:08, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes it is. It is labeled as the Beral study, which I think is more appropriate. I should throw in a reference to it being in Lancet since that is how it is being described by the media. --RoyBoy 00:37, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context of the Devra Davis quote 

message: Sometimes it happens that a maverick champions a particular idea.  Sometimes he's right, sometimes wrong.  An article about an issue shouldn't give him the special rights to the issue that he might want.  There are points in which statements are characterised as refutations of Brind's position (if he was the only person who held them, they wouldn't be worth of refutation) and others where critiques of a given study are represented as Doctor Brind's.  Is he the only person with opinions on these studies?  If not, why are his opinions considered so important?  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:03, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: For the most part there is another Dr. Chinchilli, who I assume is anti-choice, and is also attached to the letters. The reason it is important is two fold. For many of the references it is correspondence in peer reviewed journals, so I think that makes it as least presentable. :'p As to why his opinions are important at all... well without them there would be very little public criticism of studies (and their presentation) and in essence there wouldn't be a public debate (there still would have been a scientific one... I hope). As I (attempted) to show in the Dr. Brind section, people attempt to marginalize him even further than he actually is. Without that context (and no I do not think it belongs in a Dr. Brind article, it belongs here since it is misrepresenting his postion on the ABC link)... anyway without the context people would write him off immediately as an anti-abortion nutter. Well sorry, he might be an anti-abortion nutter... but to marginalize and misrepresent his informed opinions is not right, it isn't true... and it sure as heck ain't NPOV! It's all too easy to cast doubt on someone by pointing out they're pro-life, there needs to be some balancing for that by noting pro-choicers aren't exactly angels... nor are they more informed than Dr. Brind on the ABC issue. --RoyBoy 01:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Brind

message: I agree the quote is innapropriate. If you want to put in an explanation of when and how she said it it could be appropriate. Otherwise you are going to need to find another quote (there are lots of differences between pro choice feminists in the first place or just plain feminist without the quoting of people getting messed up. Perhaps a quote by a feminist on the topic in discussion or vaguely related to it would be more appropriate--[[User:
This is one example of non-equal weighting being part of the NPOV article and the reason i was concerned with it. If 75% of the world thinks one way 25% the other way and we don't know for sure which is which there should be clear evidence of the 75% going into the talk then a discussion of why others think differently--Marcie 22:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context of the Devra Davis quote 

message: Someone changed the headings so that Interviews, Meta Analysis and Cohorts no longer fall under Scientific Studies. Why was that done, and does it make any sense? Because now looking at the article... it's difficult to tell where discussion of scientific studies stops, just makes it harder IMO to easily see the scientific study sections. --RoyBoy 07:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific Study Headings 

message: You have more than enough links elsewhere in your page that taking out the NCI link shows bias. If there were no other links i might feel differently. As it is i have put it back to try and lessen the bias that is on this page.--Marcie 11:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but as I noted in my edit it is a redundant link. Probably one of several, but it was an obvious one because of the NCI workshop section. --RoyBoy 20:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NCI link added back in

message: Saying he has "very little support" isn't accurate given Drs. Russo & Russo, Dr. Daling and the RCOG... all mainstream scientists (and organizations) support directly or indirectly Dr. Brind's theory and findings. Furthermore, Melbye acknowledge some of their research is in agreement with the Russo and Russo hypothesis. Hence Dr. Brind's interpretation of mainstream science is not baseless. And Tony if you do read this, please reiterate/clarify what is disputed for NPOV. I think that having the article renamed "hypothesis" allows for Brind to put forward his ideas, criticisms without a NPOV flag being pulled at a moments notice. 
(PS: I know I'm unlikely to win this, and even if I did with you given your unconventional reading ;' P, someone else would just come along and find something else "wrong" with the article... but at least I want to go through the motions. Because the NPOV notice seems to put a lot of good work and research in doubt unnecessarily. Thanks.) - RoyBoy [∞] 07:01, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re Brind: "very" little support 

message: I've removed the following text: "Furthermore how Dr. Brind is mischaracterized by pro-choice advocates  and publications 
 illustrates the lack of scientific rigor on both sides of the public ABC debate." This has been done because a) it's someone's POV (hardly neutral) and b) it is unsubstantiated exactly how Dr. Brind is mischaracterized and how this illustrates the lack of scientific rigour on both sides of the debate! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed text 

message: There are many areas of this article that are unclear because of poor grammar and writing style (no offense to the original author). I can see that the original author has made a valiant attempt at being neutral, however this has made the article worse. As such I've added the Template:cleanup-copyedit tag to it. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'd be hard pressed to find a greater compliment! Since my grammar is indeed lackluster on anything over a paragraph long no offense taken. - RoyBoy 800 07:50, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I did a massive copy edit. This article still needs a lot of work though. It has some POV problems, but more importantly it goes into too much detail. I don't think it's necessary to list every study and its criticisms. A couple paragraphs on each side of the debate would be sufficient. At any rate, I think I've fixed enough of the grammatical errors to remove the copy edit tag. Anyone concur? DaveTheRed 07:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You did a great job, and I concur. If you need to discuss any of my reverts, POV issues, and such I'm more than willing. As to the level of detail; I selected every study if it met a series of criteria... it was referred to by both sides of the debate, illustrated a necessary point of understanding, and ultimately is deemed important in the debate. My goal was to create an article where the current state of the discussion on the best research could be referenced. I would advise against removing studies; I agree the article could use some shortening (for Melbye and Daling especially)... but at the same time I did my best to keep a complex (and very wordy) subject to the essentials to begin with. - RoyBoy 800 07:50, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I must commend you for being thorough in your research. I don't think we should eliminate the studies completely, but I think we could get away with briefly summarizing their impact on the debate. Covering the current state of discussion on the debate is all well and good, but I think that the level of detail here is too large. Unfortunately, I'm not really familiar with the ABC debate, so I would not be a good person to do this. DaveTheRed 20:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Much thanks, well I reduced the article by 2k mainly by paraphrasing Melbye study debate, Daling repetition, nip and tucks here and there. Do you want more? If so what should be my goal? - RoyBoy 800 03:29, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better. I'm much happier with the article as it is (which isn't to say it can't be improved, of course). DaveTheRed 03:44, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit needed 

message: Here is the section, lets rework it; i've done a little already.
Pro-choice advocates have routinely stated that spontaneous abortions (miscarriage) consistently show no ABC correlation.
 They argue that this is compelling evidence of no ABC link because miscarriages should increase breast cancer risk since they are not caused by low hormone levels, while this is true it neglects the fact that miscarriages are characterized by low hormone levels. The difference being that low hormones levels predominantly do not initiate the abortion; they are lower as a result of a miscarriage in progress.
One of the first studies on hormone levels and spontaneous abortion by Kunz & Keller (1976)
 showed that when progesterone is abnormally low a miscarriage occurs 89% percent of the time. This is also reflected in studies published by Hertz et al. (1979)
 and in more detail by Stewart et al. (1993)
 conducted at a fertility clinic, which focuses the ABC debate on induced abortion.
:Great, I'd be happy to try to contribute.
The proposed mechanism of the ABC Hypothesis rests on the hormonal effects of a terminated early pregnancy on breast tissue development.  Investigators have sought to establish whether such an effect exists in women who have had spontaneous abortions (ie miscarriages) as opposed to elective abortions.  Several research studies have showed no link between miscarriage and breast cancer risk:  Brewster et al. in 2005 found no elevated risk in a series of over 20,000 patients , Robertson et al. in 2001 observed no increased risk of breast cancer after spontaneous abortion (although there was a statistically insignificant increased risk after elective abortion under certain conditions), and Paoletti and Clavel-Chappelon in 2003 observed no increased risk associated with a low number of miscarriages, but noted a "suggestion of increased risk" after 3 or more pregnancy losses, (an odds ratio of 1.2 and a confidence interval of 0.92 to 1.56).
Pro-choice advocates have argued that this evidence shows early pregnancy loss, including abortion, is not a risk factor for breast cancer, but there is debate over whether it is appropriate to extrapolate conclusions about elective abortion from evidence about miscarriage, given the association of most miscarriages with hormonal abnormalities that might result in a different effect on breast tissue, and the fact that most abortions are performed on healthy pregnancies.  One of the first studies on hormone levels and spontaneous abortion by Kunz & Keller (1976)
 showed that when progesterone is abnormally low a miscarriage occurs 89% percent of the time. This is also reflected in studies published by Hertz et al. (1979)
 and in more detail by Stewart et al. (1993)
.  If the hormonal impact of miscarriage is different from the hormonal impact of a terminated healthy pregnancy, then the risk of breast cancer in each situation would not necessarily be comparable, and a conclusion about abortion risk based on conclusions from miscarriage risk would be unwarranted.
Let me know what you think.  Kaisershatner 17:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly an improvement in many ways; but reduces the sections impact IMO. For example, its great you got detailed research on miscarriage and breast cancer; but its a well established fact there is little connection. We can concede that point in a short sentence or three (making sure to include the exceptions you ably site). What I think the section should focus on, and state unequivocally, is that miscarriages in fact (not "If") are mostly "characterized" by low hormones; and are different than induced abortions; despite pro-choice claims to the contrary focusing on "cause". - RoyBoy 800 18:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

text: But I do like your version better; so I'll try and insert the important aspects (language) I'd like to see; and to make it shorter to increase impact; be more encyclopedic and definitive (this aspect is not a debate, miscarriages typically have lower hormones, your softer language is nice... and I'll try to incorporate that tone; but its simply misleading to call miscarriage hormones levels equivalent to normal pregnancies; or imply it by focusing on "cause"). - RoyBoy 800 22:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Roy, first of all, thanks for finding a way for us to work together on this, it's much nicer than the revert wars and acrimony that are typical of most controversial subjects around here.  Second, I think your changes are overall very good.  See what you think of mine; one of the major points of language we're debating is how definitively to conclude that miscarriage and abortion are not comparable.  I favor softer terms, as below - the italics are for convenience, not intended for the final text.  Also, I'd rather not attribute all of the arguments to "advocates" of one side or the other - some of the people doing this research are just scientists looking for answers and phenomena, and might not be making advocacy arguments, just reporting their findings.  See below:
Studies of spontaneous abortions (miscarriages) have generally shown no increase in breast cancer risk,  although a study by Paolilli et al. concluded there is a "suggestion of increased risk" 1.2 (0.92 to 1.56) after 3 or more pregnancy losses.   Some argue that this apparent lack of effect of miscarriages on breast cancer risk, is evidence against the ABC hypothesis, and some pro-choice advocates have claimed it is proof that neither early pregnancy loss nor abortion are risk factors for breast cancer. 
One of the problems with comparing miscarriage to abortion is the issue of hormone levels in early pregnancy, a key point because the ABC hypothesis rests on hormonal influence over breast tissue development. Given the association of most miscarriages with abnormally low hormone levels it is not analogous to an induced abortion of a healthy pregnancy, and a definitive conclusion about ABC risk based on miscarriage data alone is probably unsupported.  While it is true most miscarriages are not caused by low hormones, most miscarriages are characterized by low hormone levels.  One of the first studies on hormone levels and spontaneous abortion by Kunz & Keller (1976)
 showed that when progesterone is abnormally low a miscarriage occurs 89% percent of the time. This is also reflected in studies published by Hertz et al. (1979)
 and in more detail by Stewart et al. (1993). 
A distinction should also be made for second trimester miscarriages as their hormonal characteristics are different from first trimester miscarriages.
Kaisershatner 14:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Your changes are marvelous! I've put in the link, removed the italics and would be delighted to have you do the honors of putting it into the article; since this was your initiative. :'D - RoyBoy 800 01:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Although I would add; its softer than necessary; I decided to change "may not be analogous" to "not analogous" because I added "healthy pregnancy". While its true 89% leaves 11% in the normal hormone levels range; even then... a miscarriage is defacto not a healthy pregnancy. Also in the next line I'd like to either remove "definitive" or "probably" from the sentence. It's just very weasily... because it allows someone to say, oh so having a conclusion (so long as its not definitive) based on miscarriage might be okay. Hopefully that's coo with u? - RoyBoy 800 05:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spontaneous editing 

message: There seems to be a reference lost. The endnote attached to "statistically significant" in the first paragraph doesn't point anywhere and there isn't a reference section. Antonrojo 13:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Broken redirect or something like that.  Statistical significance is the article now.--Pro-Lick 04:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Fixed reference. - RoyBoy 800 15:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lost Reference

message: I added a request for sources to the claim of methodological weaknesses with Brind's meta-analysis. The way I see it either the authors of the study knew about the weaknesses (in which case 'acknowledged weaknesses' seems best) or someone with some scientific knowledge made the accusation. Adjectives are sneaky that way. Technically it is correct to call you (the reader) an 'alleged killer' if some conspiracy theorist thinks you're responsible for a murder...but I don't think you'd be happy about it. The solution is to uncover the source of the claim by adding a subject to the sentence (making you 'alleged to be a killer by the crazy guy who yells at people on the street and wears his underwear outside his pants') and appropriate references. Antonrojo 14:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed tag. The current setup is correct since the Planned Parenthood study lists several of these reasons. These same reasons apply for the Beral study. If studies are not reliable enough to prove a hypothesis, they are not reliable enough to disprove it either. Antonrojo 14:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be more specific, reliablity errors can lead to both  false positives and  false negatives so meta-analyses of truly unreliable studies that find either a relationship OR no relationship are both flawed. Antonrojo 14:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Brind Study Weakness Claim

message: (edit conflict) I should add I do see an excellent opportunity for compromise with your non-status suggestion. Currently the lead says:
*Many in the medical community are skeptical of the ABC hypothesis;
How could this be changed, given improved weight in your view to remove pseudoscience. Be aware saying is has no standing the medical community is simply wrong.  I know those medical associations are pro-life; but that undercuts your assertion; as I could just as easily mention associations which reject the link are predominantly pro-choice.
Both points are irrelevant; it is their positions which are relevant. I think I struck the appropriate balance with "skeptical". Perhaps that could be improve by you, maybe "highly skeptical" is better... or how about "reject" the hypothesis. "Reject" is strong language and, as such, we would need really solid cite(s) to back it up, but it has the potential to be entirely accurate and verifiable.
I genuinely hope we can work together on this. - RoyBoy 800 20:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're at the point where we're going to have to agree to disagree. Alienus 02:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) But I wouldn't allow "reject" unless we could be sure its accurate; because, now that I think about it, most associations would likely adopt the NCI/Beral (The Lancet) findings. If that is the case, then reject wouldn't work as its POV, but perhaps something with more finesse... like, ummmmmmm... "Most medical associations professionals agree with the findings of recent research that concludes no ABC association." That seems reasonable and quite verifiable... with the existing link no less. How bout that Alienus? - RoyBoy 800 02:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Tweaked association to professional; I'll take the liberty of adding it to the lead for now as its an improvement over what is there. - RoyBoy 800 03:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Tweaked back to community. - RoyBoy 800 03:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sophia suggestion for compromise 

message: Tweaked the lead for better narrative flow; move Pro-Lick's excellent "not verified" sentence to the end of a merged definition paragraph. For some reason I really want to keep the lead to 3 paragraphs; call it personal style if you will. Moved Brind up in the third paragraph to bridge the NCI meme now ahead of it; and transition smoothly to interview studies. Got rid of propoganda in the lead as it seems to be overreaching, and upon reading the link, doesn't really fit even that advocates more reasonable position about the pro-life strategy. And that happens to fit in with the "women centered" tweak we wanted in the lead anyway. - RoyBoy 800 17:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tweaked it back to Pro-Lick's version, with a little rewrite of the 2nd pagagraph it's now acceptable to me... but I would still prefer 3 paragraphs for some reason. - RoyBoy 800 19:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABC lead 

message: I do remember reading somewhere that an actual cancer institute, not an independant researcher, ruled that a small, but insignificant link does exist. They said it increases over time and never actually peaks over five percent. Perhaps I am merely imagining it but I will attempt to find it again. If anyone else knows of such a citation, please help me out. --Talv 14:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be quite interested to read that. It sounds accurate insofar as early abortions go, but later abortions (with no intervening pregnancies) do appear to illicit higher increases over time. As a 5% increase would be shrugged off, epidemiologically speaking. - RoyBoy 800 15:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A small but relevant link. 

message: This is my first time to look over this article, and I am deeply impressed. Good research, good NPOV overall. Wow.
Just one problem with the conclusion. Regarding the ABC link, the second sentence reads that "The scientific consensus is that the evidence is inconclusive." The external link is to Jasen's 2005 article in the journal Medical History. The last paragraph before this article's conclusion reads, in part:
In the early years of the twenty-first century, however, the weight of medical evidence, some of which has emerged from countries where abortion is extremely common, continues to shift away from an association between abortion and breast cancer. . . . Both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and its counterpart in the United Kingdom have responded to the ongoing campaign to link abortion and breast cancer by declaring publicly that, although the search for better methodological approaches to the question continues, there is no evidence at present to justify further anxiety over the issue. Even though proponents of the abortion-breast cancer link have lost credibility in the international research community, their campaign continues to gain willing converts,
and so on. I would say that the second sentence of the conclusion either needs a rewrite or a different link. The link currently there does NOT support the assertion that "the scientific consensus is that the evidence is inconclusive." Dicksonlaprade 16:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I read the conclusion before adding the link; hadn't read that. Removed link. - RoyBoy 800 23:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Since the rest of the article, including the rest of the conclusion, does not jibe with the assertion that "the scientific consensus is that the evidence is inconclusive," I suggest rewriting this phrase to better reflect the actual scientific consensus--which is, as per the Melbye and the Lancet studies (among others), that the ABC link is a figment of response bias. Unless there if further discussion, I can change this myself on or about Thursday, Aug. 24. Dicksonlaprade 20:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's the actual consensus, but it certainly does accurately reflect the opinions of the studies you cite. I'll add it. - RoyBoy 800 07:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A small quibble with the conclusion 

message: This is a well-written and exhaustive article. There are probably a few minor changes of wording and emphasis I'd suggest - see what you think. If I make changes, I'll small incremental changes with appropriate edit summaries. Again, the article is overall well-constructed and takes pains to be reasonable - as others have noted, not the same as giving both sides equal time or validity, because the weight of evidence suggests one side is factually correct. MastCell 22:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, but I would tweak that sentiment to read; the interpretation of the evidence suggests one side is correct. I say this to emphasize the impact a researcher has on their data, which is usually underestimated. - RoyBoy 800 01:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100%. My own feeling is that people like Brind are quick to accuse others of cover-ups, biased science, etc etc, but tend to have a huge blind spot when it comes to their own preconceptions. I agree with your basic point that in cases like this, where the question is tough to study, there is conflicting evidence of varying qualities, and the statistical issues are complex, it's easy to "spin" things. MastCell 05:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well-written and exhaustive 

message: *However, some political foes of abortion refuse to concede that scientists have established "plausible evidence of report bias."
Certainly better than the previous version, however, this sentence infers there is plausible evidence of report bias. Where is it, the fact is it doesn't exist... keep in mind within the context of the sentence in the Malec article, she is referring to plausible evidence for those interview based studies. This is an important point, and will have implications for the conclusion and/or the introduction on how response bias is framed as validated (true) or hypothesized (likely) objection.
People who diligently go through the research end up at this point. ABC is likely a response bias correlation and move on with their lives. However, they allow their own wishful thinking fill in the evidence of establishing statistically significant response bias. - RoyBoy 800 20:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the use of the word "unanimous". Just because no one else filed a dissenting opinion; does not make the conclusion unanimous. - RoyBoy 800 01:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if no one else filed a dissenting opinion, and the panel participants signed off on the conclusions (which they did), then it is, in fact, unanimous. If you don't care for the wording and would like to change it, that's totally fine. Still, at the risk of beating a dead horse, the paragraph attached undue weight to the opinion of 1 out of >100 people on the panel. MastCell 02:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right, it (was?) undue weight, which you have helped balance... but I would hassen to add we did not get the opinions of those 100+ people. We indeed get the sign off, of 100+ people called in by pro-choice organizers and partially beholden to the NCI. - RoyBoy 800 02:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Report bias 

message: I'm aware of their nature, but other advocacy groups are noted in the article such as Planned Parenthood and I don't see a need to overemphasize their reliability (or lack thereof) in quoting scientific literature. Don't get me wrong I like your edit, but I would add Accuracy in Media seems to be a reliable source on that matter. After all, why would a New York study be published by a British journal? - RoyBoy 800 02:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These aren't quite equivalent situations... everyone knows that Planned Parenthood is pro-choice; I don't think AIM's bias is as widely known (I wasn't aware of it until I did some reading just now). I have absolutely no problem if you'd like to explicitly state that Planned Parenthood supports access to abortion; that may be preferable to avoid any confusion about their agenda. In general, as this is a scientific debate, we need to be EXTREMELY careful about using citations from partisan political groups with no scientific standing. One could include CatholicCitizens, AIM, and Planned Parenthood in this category. Finally, American studies are published in British journals all the time (Lancet, Brit J Hemat, etc), and European studies are published in American Journals (almost any issue of NEJM). This should not be taken as de facto evidence of a conspiracy. MastCell 02:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You got me there. I hadn't realized AIM wasn't widely known, but I guess I thought it was fine since I had wikilinked them in the article to cover that contigency. - RoyBoy 800 02:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy in Media 

message: ... but the Accuracy in Media article is repeatedly cited in the context of a reliable source. In fact, AIM is a partisan advocacy group with no scientific standing. In an article about a scientific debate, if we start quoting AIM (or CatholicCitizens), then as per WP:RS, it needs to be made clear that a) these are not scientific groups, b) these are advocacy articles and not peer-reviewed science, and c) these organizations have a pronounced political preconception with which they approach this issue. If the article is going to repeatedly imply bias on the part of the NCI, Melbye, Lindefors-Harris, Beral etc, then we need to be honest and clear about organizations that are biased beyond any shadow of a doubt. Until I just changed it, AIM's assertions were presented essentially as fact, and no indication of their partisan or ideological bias existed. MastCell 02:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. - RoyBoy 800 02:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No problem... In quotes and attributed it's fine. MastCell 02:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not to beat a dead horse...