Talk:Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis

message: 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)
replies: text: That's pretty bold. Undone. Clarify to me how "misrepresentation in the media" is covered elsewhere? Just to expedite the conversation a bit, how liberal media treats the ABC issue and Brind. - RoyBoy 21:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Per talk? Yeah, I know, I wrote a reply. Don't see anything from you here... The ABC issue is repeatedly misrepresented in the media, John Carroll points it out. There is plenty in this article about pro-life propaganda, inaccuracies, etc, as well there should be. On the flip side, it is crucial to understand bias in presenting the ABC issue runs both ways. Removing the section removes this aspect, and IMO whitewashes the article. - RoyBoy 01:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Undone again, section explicitly demonstrates bias in the treatment of the subject with basic journalistic principles being violated. - RoyBoy 23:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

text: Unclear how it is "not-very-notable comments" for a well respected Editor to point out poor journalism on the ABC topic. I guess small picture, that individual item isn't large, but its a blatant example of wider (and less obvious) misrepresentation of the ABC topic. - RoyBoy 23:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Is tangential trivia, of no value to us. Alexbrn (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please clarify tangential; it is on topic and unfair media treatment shows how this subject is kinda interesting. Moreover it speaks to political biases, which has value. - RoyBoy 23:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's too far off topic, and it's trivial. Adding it gives too much weight and so there's a NPOV problem. Alexbrn (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Alexbrn and with Goblinshark17.  This "Criticism of Media Coverage" section is extraneous and distracting.  It's not our job to track media bias, only to report mainstream consensus on the issue.  The mainstream professional medical organizations all say the same thing, and that's enough for a Wikipedia article to report in an article about the hypothesis itself.  HandsomeMrToad (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: "Criticism of Media Coverage" section

message: 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)
replies: text: The authoritative narrative of Cancer.org etc is easier reading; but not an easy subject. Besides, aren't they one and the same anyway? Said authorities pick the elements of the meta-analyzes (and some studies) they deem relevant / want to critique. For clarity I think pulling findings from meta-analyzes directly and response from authorities is best, as is currently the case. To do otherwise, we may end up over relying on one source? - RoyBoy 16:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Epidemiological evidence" section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Abortion–breast 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013034110/http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html to http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110102030744/http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr07-31-03-2.cfm to http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr07-31-03-2.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Abortion–breast 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071020054209/http://www.goldenboob.org/ to http://www.goldenboob.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927232722/http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/105/26/ to http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/105/26/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061130074932/http://www.crlp.org/pr_02_0328ND.html to http://crlp.org/pr_02_0328ND.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified