Jump to content

Talk:Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis/FAQ

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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.